June 6, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – Is America Finally on the Right Track?
Seg 2 – The Slow Death of Political Analysis
Seg 3 - DC Terror and the Rise of Antisemitism
Seg 4 - The Fauxgressive Movement on American Campuses
Seg 2 – The Slow Death of Political Analysis
Seg 3 - DC Terror and the Rise of Antisemitism
Seg 4 - The Fauxgressive Movement on American Campuses
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No that it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation Radio, head coast coast on
the radio American epic Com. Your host Mark Angeleaves. On
today's special edition. We are talking politics and faux progressivism.
It's going to be quite the show. Please remember a
Liberty Nation Radio sponsor by libt nation dot com. You
can access podcast, breaking news analysis and a range of
biting and brenant shows to whetry apitype for freedom and
your fondness for the Great American Constitution. And you're on
(00:56):
Liberty Nation Radio with Marc Angelidis. And we're very forgued
to have with this limbity Nation's senior political analyst and
longtime host of this here radio show, mister Tim donnod
Thanks for coming back in Tim.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Hello, Mark, good to be here as always.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
So I couldn't resist getting you in because you've highlighted
something in a recent article on Limited nation dot com
that is so encapsulating of the mood of the nation
that you read it and it's almost you have to
whether you approve of what Donald Trump is doing or not,
(01:30):
you almost have to. You're forcibly admitted to You're forcibly
you're forced to admit that. Here's the point, and here's
the important point. And this piece, it was called Tracking
forty seven. It's really about how approval poles don't really
mean as much as right direction wrong track poles, because
(01:52):
that gives the mood the nation. Would you like to
sort of expand on what you found, what the theme was, Well.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
I think the point of the article, more than anything else,
was to say that, you know, presidential popularity or presidential
approval tends to be a combination of personal popularity and
job performance, and it comes and goes as carafs are added, subtracted,
added back, as peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, or
(02:26):
between the US and Guys, or the US and Iran.
You know, they wax and they wane, and so the
personal popularity poles are of or even job performance polls
have a very limited usage, especially since you know, we
(02:48):
have a president who has so many you know, balls
in the airso me very few of which have yet
to land on solid ground. Oh, there's so much up
in the air. And you can talk about inflation, you
can talk about foreign policy, talk about the economy, you
can talk about the border, and generally has favorabilities very
(03:12):
high on these things relatively speaking. But the way to
really gauge how people feel about life under the forty
seventh president, the best indicator of that is the right
track wrong track numbers, which get reported but are often
(03:33):
understated in terms of their importance because it shows beyond
just the popularity of a given politician. We have to
remember that there are millions upon millions, untold millions of
Americans who don't care about politics, who don't like politics,
(03:53):
who don't follow politics and are pretty much agnostic, or
think both parties are corrupt, or they just don't pay
attention for what any reason. But those people have an
opinion about what life is like. Yeah, and now that
we're six months past the election and more than four
months passed when Trump took the oath of office, seemed
(04:15):
a good time to take stock. And what the right
track wrong track numbers show is that the right track
right now is at its highest level since two thousand
and nine. That sixteen years, and that one in two
thousand and nine was when Barack Obama had just taken office,
(04:39):
and hope and change were the themes of the country,
and so everybody sort of felt on an up swing.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Other than concern, I should point I should point something
out here. So it's two thousand being two thousand and
nine when it was at the same point that it
is now, but that was the last high point, so
everybody had in their hearts hope and change, people having
the heart time change, and then we're clearly sorely disappointed.
Otherwise that number would have stayed the same or gone
up right.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
Yes, no, that's true, and it only went down from there,
especially during his second term. But an important caveat in
the right track wrong track numbers is to understand that
the wrong track has always outweighed the right track for
the entirety of the century. Because I think, for example,
today some Democratic voters who voted for Harris might still
(05:34):
believe that their lives are better under Trump than they
were before, or at least better than they expected it
to be, but they're not going to tell They're not
going to tell a poster, oh yeah, I think we're
under the we're on the right track. So you're almost
guaranteed to have fifty percent of people to say we're
on the wrong track for starters. But all of that said,
(05:58):
the difference between now and the election of twenty twenty
four and the day that Trump took office is stark.
During the last ten polls, right track wrong track polls
taken by various organizations twenty twenty four range from right
(06:22):
track as low as seventeen percent to a high of
thirty four percent to a twenty seven percent average. So
you take that twenty seven percent when Biden was still
in office in Kamala Harris was the candidate for president,
and you compare it to now, Americans are on the
(06:45):
whole sixty three percent more believing we're on the right
track than they were before the election, and the difference
is almost as dark since January twentyeth so. On any
given issue, Let's say people are still very anxious about
the tariffs, because it's a high risk, high reward strategy
(07:07):
that's far from having landed where it's going to eventually
wind up. And whether Trump says he can end the
Russia Ukraine War and that he can't, or what you
feel about the economy or the tax cut bills or
the DOGE program, those are just components. But the composite
(07:31):
of all of those things can be discovered most perfectly,
not perfectly, but most perfectly with the right track wrong
track numbers. And those numbers reveal that Americans, maybe you
might say, they're relieved compared to where they were before
(07:53):
the election in the last couple of years, but they're
also more happy with the trajectory of their life in
any time since the early hope and change days of
Barack Obama. And I think that speaks volumes about the
fact that, whether you agree with them on any individual
decision or not, the highest number of people in sixteen
(08:17):
years believe we're on the right track in this country.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
I wonder once, as you mentioned these juggling balls that
have yet to hit the ground, I wonder if any
of them land positively, then that there might be a
near record. We're certainly beating two thousand and nine, because
if we're at two thousand and nine numbers now, which
was the previous high point for this century, I wonder
(08:43):
if any of these land correctly or in the right spots,
that we might see that increase. Now we're going to
be back with Tymdonna after this shotbreak. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
For your free and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelidis.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain your host,
Mark Angeladi's and we're continuing our conversation with longtime host
of this year radio show, Tim Donna. Now, Tim, thanks
for sticking around during the break. We were discussing political
analysis and the purpose that the ways, the means and
the weirding magic of it and how it tends to go.
(09:26):
But I think that this is quite an important talk
to cover because a couple of data points on this.
Jen Psaki, former White House Press secretary, let's let's get
her chronological resume in order, former left leaning CNN pundit
White House Press secretary to left leaning pundit on MSNBC.
(09:48):
It's they're the same job, right, They're the same job
to bolsteron. But she in her new slot, I think
it's being reported that four twenty seven percent drop in viewership.
And you told me earlier about well, we're talking earlier
about Jake Tapper, now that he's decided to do a
(10:09):
tell all book trying to find the culprits of who
was covering up for Joe Biden. And if I may
just give mister Tapper some advice, walk into your bathroom,
turn the lights on, look in the mirror, and you'll
find out the people who were covering for Joe Biden.
But you mentioned that he had he'd always annoyed the
(10:30):
political right because he was such a fanboy of Democrats
no matter what. And now he's also going to annoy
the political left because he's exposed them all as corrupt
and willing to have somebody who is clearly cognitively impaired
in the White House as long as they retain power. Tim,
what's happened to political analysis in this country?
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Well, the reason that political analysis is so interesting, Rid
Laurd because politics. What makes politics fascinating is that it's
a study of human behavior. It's a study of human
behavior under pressure and how people respond to pressure, which
(11:15):
is not something you necessarily see in your everyday life.
But if you are the leader of the free world,
you're always under pressure to make decisions about things, and
how you make those decisions is maybe even less fascinating
than why you make decisions. And that's the point of
(11:36):
political analysts like myself, to get down to the motives
behind what somebody's doing. Now, if you know F. Jd
Vance is asked, do you approve of the Trump presidency?
He's going to say yes.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
And we learn nothing from it?
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Right, we learned nothing?
Speaker 3 (11:56):
We know that answer.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
But I think, for example, with political behavior now and
trying to analyze where the Democrats in particular are headed,
which seems to be into the ditch, but they haven't
gotten themselves out of it yet. It's interesting, for example,
that one relatively obscure senator from Arizona, Rubenchego, is now
(12:19):
speaking like a Bill Clinton Democrat. Why is he doing it? Well,
you look at the motivation, you can say he knows
his party has to get back to something other than
insane progressive policies which got them kicked out of office
to begin with. He understands that they need to get
back to the center, or at least to present being
(12:43):
in the center. But he also has personal ambition involved
in it. So there's many layers of causation, shall we say,
in politics and getting to the heart of it. Getting
to the heart of political behavior is a fascinating field
when I've sort of engaged in the informally informally over
(13:07):
many years.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
So I think there's something happening with analysis right now,
and it's it's fascinating from an answer like an anthropological
I feel like Jane Goodall sometimes watching what's happening, because
we used to have people who could, you know, take
(13:28):
information and they could you know, they could, yeah, dispassionate, dispassion.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
And there's a few people like that.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
They're they're rarer than they used to be.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
I think one guy that's good at that is Mark Halprint. Yeah,
he's pretty much straight down the middle and pret you
will call a spade a spade too. He will say
Trump had a terrible debate. Now, part of that is
because he's at an advanced enough of it, advanced age
that he doesn't really care what people think.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
He's not looking for his next job.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
He's not looking for his next job, so it can
be particularly honest. But I mean, for example, as an analyst,
I may or may not like Joe Biden, but I
can look and see that the biggest mistake he ever
made was not to pull out of running for reelection
or not simply not run for reelection at all after
(14:27):
the twenty twenty two mid terms, where he would have
been considered a heroic figure because he beat Trump and
he led the Democrats to a better than expected performance
in the twenty twenty two mid terms. But I can
also then say later on, when he didn't do it,
that that was the biggest mistake of his career. Right,
(14:50):
So that is and that's a good position for an analyst,
Mark because it means I'm not supposed to take sides.
I'm supposed to why things happen for better or for worse,
whether someone's on the left or the right.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
There's something there, something very freeing about treating your examination
of something through an analytical lens. Because sure, we all
in our hearts, we're all polemicists, right, we're polemicist poets
in our hearts. And you know, if we're with friends
having dinner and politics comes up and they're like minded friends,
(15:29):
or even if they're not, you know, we can wax
lyrical about the state of politics and the particular foibles
of various politicians or policies. But when you're looking at
something through an analytical lens, it frees you up. It's
what's the right way to say this. It's an unshackling
of what you're doing and allows you to just go
(15:50):
straight for the key points. And somebody who was who
I think was superb at that, I'm sure you'd agree,
was George Orwell in his essay says, and yes, so
one of our one of our editors that we had
this conversation with this morning. Finally he said, as as
a fictional author, George Orwell, so so as an essayist,
(16:14):
just unbelievable. And I'm inclined to agree with that, because
he put he never took a position that was so
extreme that he couldn't just go straight to the center
again and say, this is why I might be right,
this is why I might be wrong. But here's what
you should be looking at.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Right, So you're saying, as an analyst, don't look at
what happened. You presumably already know what happened because you're
because you're analyzing things that are in the news that
are breaking, that are headlines that sort of thing. An
analyst job is to break it down into its component
(16:52):
parts as to why it happened, what it represents, what
it might mean going forward.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Right. So isn't that why podcasts are becoming so much
more popular than news shows.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
Yes, because they drill deeper into subjects that are of
interest to that particular podcast viewer or listener. I mean
there's podcasts for everything these days. There's a podcast just
for people who are interested in how to clean their
pots and pants.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
You know, I've seen loads of those. As a pan enthusiast,
I've seen a lot.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
Yes, I know you've liked and subscribed to several channels
like that. But the point is that, you know, this
is what people demand these days, is to know a
little bit deeper than what they're reading in the headlines.
And that's a good thing because too many Americans, especially
those disinterested in politics and current affairs, tend to read
(17:59):
the headline and maybe the first sentence of stories and
get a skewed view of what's really going on.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
Yeah, very true. The podcast I keep thinking about. I've
been a long time watcher of mister Joe Rogan and
when he had Donald Trump on right before the election.
What I loved about it was it was not a
question like a Q and A session, what's your position
on this? What are you going to do about this?
It was so wide ranging that we even discovered that
(18:31):
Donald Trump, if you had the chance, would become a
whale psychologist. You are not going to get that in
the is it the John Brady briefing room? You're not
that kind of analysis, Tim Donner, I appreciate your analysis. Listeners,
please go check out his writing over atlutination dot com.
Thanks ever so much for being here, Tim, My pleasure.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Mark no I thought was free freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio American Network. I remain your host,
Mark Hensley's We're very fortunate to have with us today, actor, filmmaker, author, journalist,
political commentator, a renaissance man for the ages. Mister, You've
all David thanks for joining us. Youvell well.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
You know, to be a renaissance man recognized by a
renaissance man is delightful. If only I had the curls
on top of my head as you do, I would
definitely be much more successful. But I do have curls
in my mind. My mind is twisted by the insanity
that we're seeing across society, So I wish that the
(20:03):
curls were only in my hair and not in my
thought process.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
One can be fixed and the other can't, unfortunately. So
let's talk about those particular detriments that were witnessing recently. Now,
you and I got brought together initially over the shooting
that happened in Washington, D C. This month, a tragic
situation that for some reason appears to have at the
(20:28):
time of recording, largely disappeared from the headlines. Now, you
were in Washington, D C. When that happened. Could you
give us your take on the feelings that came out
then and the initial aftermath.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
The feelings that came out were horrendous and still are horrendous,
feelings that can be defined as shocked but not surprised.
We've been listening to the language of these horrible groups
chanting out in their riots and their protests, in their demonstrations,
(21:04):
violent hateful speech that calls for intifada, that calls for jihad,
that masks the calls for violence with rhyming couplets and
placard strategy that might sound like a nursery rhyme, but
what's beneath it are calls for violence. So how surprised
(21:27):
can we really be when horrendous terrorist attacks happen here
in the United States. We're seeing these terrorist attacks happening
across the world by people who are telling us what
they're going to do, and then they do it. The
problem is security, The problem is safety for all of us.
(21:47):
And the other problem is we're not condemning these hate
groups for what they are.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
That's a very important point you raise. I think about
they're telling what they're going to do, and we see
this and and in my country in Britain, we've seen
the march is supporting nominally supporting Gaza, many people openly
supporting Hamas, and they're chanting the free, free Palestine, same
(22:16):
as the the killer did in Washington, d C. And
the It seems to me that the legacy media they
seem to have this idea that when they're chanting intafada
or from the River to the sea, they're giving them
the most generous interpretation of what that what they mean
(22:38):
by those phrases, and it's it's it's it's an interpretation
that wouldn't be afforded to any other group. And that
strikes me as strange that you have this, these people
who say they're marching for something, but there's something is
very clearly a direct call for violence against the Jewish community.
(23:00):
And so why do you think the why do you
think it gets down played so much because these these
terror attacks, as you say, and it was a terror attack.
So what you find is that you've got this whole
large movement and then it's pushing the idea of into
vada and violence, and they seem surprised when it happens.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
Well, this is one of the things that the Islamicization
of the West has done so strategically and so brilliantly
in terms of taking violent movements, focusing on the rhetoric
and using the rhetoric to manipulate people who might not
(23:42):
otherwise be violent until they can possibly become violent themselves.
They the Islamist movements understood that they cannot only present
the violence of the Islamist into fada jihad agendas of
bullying tactics to murder anybody who's not just like them,
(24:05):
which includes Jews, Christians, Israelis, Druzbahai, Buddhists, Hindus, secular Muslims.
You know, all of those people are infidels according to them,
and deserve to die. So within their own countries and
within the regions that they dominate and control, they're able
to openly engage in violence and slaughter people. Now when
(24:31):
they focus on the West, they're not able to present
the violence as a way to manipulate all of these peoples.
So they use the language. They use the Placard strategy.
They use these nursery rhymes that if they rhyme, they
must be true. And for the useful idiots across the UK,
across the United States, across Canada, across all of these
(24:54):
countries in Europe that we're seeing, there are people on
the far left who are being manipulated by these these
nursery rhymes because they're presented in the most simplistic ways,
and that's what they're doing.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
It's very much from the Saul Olynsky rule for radical's
playbook in terms of creating a simple message, repeating it
often and trying to create that earworm situation. So it's
in fact and this is a slighter side. It reminds
me of I think it was Fahrenheit four fift one
(25:29):
by Ray Bradbury where he said, all you need to
do is give them, give them a slogan that they
can chant and they don't have to think for themselves.
And this sloganeering here, it comes with a whole host
of baggage behind it, and yet they can be presented
at a very, very surface level. And this is really
a thin veneer of It's about justice, it's about fairness
(25:51):
for people who are oppressed, and it's all it seems
to me. It's all part of a larger and I
don't want to target all socialists with this, but of
a larger socialist push towards destruction of cultural values, things
that have essentially made the Western world the success that
(26:13):
it is, and they want to drag that back. And
as you rightly point out, Islamists are climbing on the
back of the socialist movements, and in some ways I
think the socialist movements climbing the back of Islamism too. Oh, absolutely,
because they use each other for a seed of destruction.
Speaker 5 (26:30):
Well, you know, it's the Some people call it the
Red Green Alliance to describe the alliance between far left
activists and Islamist movements. It's one of the strangest and
most dangerous coalitions in modern history. Where we see leftists
who believe in gender equality, LGBT rights, secularism, free speech,
(26:50):
civil liberties, and Islamists who believe in Shahria law, gender segregation,
religious supremacy, and death to apostates and gaze. The only
thing that they seem to agree upon is this virulent
hatred of Israel and by extension, Jews, this virulent hatred
of anybody who is deemed successful. Right, So we've seen
(27:14):
all of these old ancient anti Semitic tropes rise up
where they're condemning Jews because they think Jews are successful.
Well throughout history for a thousand years more, Jews were
condemned because they were different. Jews were condemned because they
weren't Christian. Jews were condemned because they weren't Muslim. Jews
(27:36):
were condemned and criticized for being capitalists. Jews were condemned
and criticized for being socialist and for being communists. Jews
were condemned for being separate than society, and then Jews
were criticized for being part of society. Jews keep being
blamed again and again anytime there are social ills that
are rising up and bubbling up to the surface. So
(27:58):
within this Red Green alliance, they're focusing on Jews in
this overly simplistic oppressor versus oppressed narrative, and we're hearing
more and more people speaking about it as we recognize
the hypocrisy and the idiocy that is prevailing throughout the
progressive movement. Capital P progressive because I'm a lowercase P progressive.
(28:22):
I do believe in progress. But the progressive movement has
gone awry.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
Let's continue talking about that after this short break. Don't
go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio on the Right
America Network. Our remin your host Mark Anerley, and we're
continuing our conversation with filmmaker, actor journalist David Now. You
mentioned at the end of the last segment about how
the we talked about progressivism and and you identify yourself
as a small p progressive, which I think is an
(29:04):
interesting distinction. But I want to delve into what's happening
across American society in terms of how anti anti SEMITTERMS
has almost become as an acceptable ill in college campuses.
And we've seen this for the I guess for the
(29:24):
last year and a half or so, where people are
allowed to protest, well since October seventh, really, and they're
allowed to protest against Israel, and they're allowed to keep
Israeli students or Jewish American students out of campus and
make them fear for being at their place of education.
And this gets essentially brushed under the carpet or classed
(29:49):
as it's an expression of free speech by people who
would not accept the reverse situation.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
Well, it's important to also speak about this clearly. I'm
a free speech activist. Of course I believe in the
importance of free speech. Yet free speech must also come
with limitations. What is happening is there's more free speech,
and I'm saying that in air quotes that's allowed when
it's targeting Jews, when it's masked with terms of anti zionist,
(30:20):
anti Israel, and yet targeting Jewish synagogues, targeting Jewish student groups,
targeting Jews who try to walk on campus. How dare
they be openly Jewish? The free speech when it's very
violent and calling for violence and intimidation is allowed when
it's about Jews.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
But if it was about.
Speaker 5 (30:41):
LGBT people, if it was about black people, if it
was about Muslim people, if it was about indigenous people,
if it was about immigrants, it wouldn't be allowed. So
why is there this double standard? What we're seeing are
campus caliphates. We're seeing these Western campuses that were once
followed grounds of critical thought that have become these breeding
(31:03):
grounds for regressive, not progressive, but regressive ideologies cloaked in
the garb of progress. So that's why I call them
faue aggressive. They're fakely progressive. The Council for American Islamic
Relations CARE Students for Justice in Palestine as JP, the
(31:24):
misleading named JVP Jewish Voices for Peace, which by the way,
is neither It's neither a Jewish organization nor is it
for peace. Other organizations like Not in Our Name and
all of these pro Palestinian student groups that have actively
spread jihadist propaganda across these campuses that we're seeing in
(31:45):
the United States, in Canada, in the UK, across Europe.
And what we need to focus on is they do
this with funding and ideological support from groups that are
linked to terrorist organizations. So academic freedom now includes these
horrendous calls to globalize the Intofada. Professors defend chance of
(32:10):
Intifada and resistance by any means necessary as protected free speech.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Well, what about the.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
Jewish students who are being harassed, physically threatened, silenced in classrooms.
It's insane, and they're labeling themselves as anti Zionist. They're
reframing what Zionism is about. So it's important to say
Zionism is the movement about the self and community actualization
(32:41):
of the Jewish people, making sure that Jews are connected
to their history and their indigenous homeland. If you read
Jewish texts, the Bible, the Missionah, the Talmud, the Goumrah,
if you look at Jewish prayer books, if you read
about every Jewish holiday, we always have a connection to
(33:03):
a specific land. The Jewish people have been occupied, have
been colonized for thousands of years, and we have always
prayed about our homeland, understanding that our peoplehood is directly
connected to a specific region. So Zionism is a successful
decolonization movement. Zionism is a successful indigenous rights movement that
(33:29):
was a movement that started during the Roman era when
Jews said, someday we will be able to govern ourselves. Well,
you know what, we now govern ourselves.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
Yeah. I think it's quite fascinating that the use of
Zionist has really become. It's so pervasive. And you and
I talked briefly about different lgb T LGBT movement that
almost embrace an anti Zionist gender within their frameworks. Could
(34:02):
you expand on that a little bit.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
Sually, we see LGBT or as many refer to themselves,
LGBTQIA plus organizations creating safe spaces, which is a wonderful
concept of a safe space, and creating spaces including events
and conferences and gathering community events to empower and nourish
(34:25):
the nationalist movements of the Mena region of the Middle
East and North Africa. Now, what they also have done
is said that these are Zionist free zones, which means
they're supporting and nourishing and creating a safe space for
nationalist movements of people across the Middle East and North Africa,
other than for Jews, Zionism is a nationalist movement. For Jews,
(34:48):
there is nothing wrong with nationalism. We should be able
to connect to our nations. What does a nation mean?
A group of people who are connected with a common characteristic.
It's not only being a citizen of the UK, or
citizen of the United States, or citizen of Israel or
citizen of Germany. It could also being be It can
(35:09):
also be about being Catholic, being Orthodox, Jewish, being Muslim,
being a person who loves to ski.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Right.
Speaker 5 (35:18):
A nation is a group of people that wants to
connect and help themselves. Sorry, I mentioned the skiing.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
How do I get a passport to this skiing nation? Oh?
Speaker 5 (35:28):
Talk to me because it's my favorite sport. So you're
you're in.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
You're already in.
Speaker 5 (35:32):
I mean I already like you.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
I can get a visa, You get a visa. It's great,
all right, it's just the tariffs that I'm worried about.
Speaker 5 (35:39):
That's true. So we've seen these LGBTQ organizations creating spaces
for Arab African Muslim, LGBT people, but not for Jews.
That is racism. Anti Zionism is racism. Anti Zionism is hateful, bigotry,
(36:00):
it's against the Jewish people. So in meetings that I
had with the FBI and ADL and all of these
major organizations in the United States, part of what I
do within my social and political advocacy is making sure
that languages used correctly. When the FBI came out with
statistics saying that the Jews are one of them, are
(36:21):
the most targeted religious group in the United States, I
raised my hand and said, well, wait a second, I've
been physically assaulted. I've been targeted because I'm Jewish. I
don't walk around with a kipa head covering. I don't
walk around with sidelocks of long hair by my ears.
I don't have a beard, I shave. So when I'm targeted,
(36:44):
am I being targeted because I'm Jewish as a religion
or am I being targeted because I'm Jewish as my ethnicity,
as my nationality. And they were aware of this, and
they were getting a lot more information coming in and
the FBI cantinue to do even more studies and looking
at all the data that they had gathered, and it
(37:06):
turns out that the Jewish people in the United States
are also the most targeted ethnic group in hate crimes.
In ethnic based hate crimes, we're two percent of the
US population and we're seventy percent of the victims of
religious and ethnic based hate crimes. That's a pretty terrible statistic.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
It's a mind blowing statistic. You' Val David, We've just
about run out of time on this. Could you let
our listeners and viewers know where they can follow your work?
Speaker 5 (37:38):
Well, I would love for your listeners and viewers to
follow my work because I definitely get targeted by hate groups.
So help me shift the algorithm to just spread fact
based information instead of have.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
You met the Internet?
Speaker 5 (37:54):
But you know what we are the algorithm for all
of your listeners. They should engage with your show, should
share your show, they should comment on your posts, and
you know, do the same with me. So it's easy
to find me. There aren't that many Val David's yuva
l David on all social media, although on Instagram it's
Val Underscore David Underscore. I couldn't get the Uval David,
(38:16):
So follow me on every platform and I'd be glad
to engage with you on social media.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
You well, thanks ever so much for being here. Thank you, Mark.
And that's about all we have time for on this
week's edition of libt to Nation Radio Head Coast to
Coast on the Radio America Network from our flagship station
in the Nation's Capital, WWRC in Washington, d C. I've
been your host, Mark Angelidi's I'd like to take a
moment to thank our special guests for the day, mister
Tim donnough, the longtime host of this here show, and
(38:44):
you Val David, activist, author and filmmaker. Thank you both
for being here. You are appreciated, and of course I'd
like to extend my gratitude to you the listeners out
there in radio land who take the time each week
to tune in and join the show. Final thought for
this week, Winston Churchill once said, quote all the greatest
things are simple, and many can be expressed in a
single word. Freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope end quote.
(39:11):
A range of beautiful concepts expressed in single words. And
he's right, because the plainest truths do not need to
be explained or expanded upon. They just are. When people
obfuscate language to usurp the meaning. They know that they're
treading on the edge of a dishonest abyss. So let's
speak plain, let's all speak truth, and who knows what
(39:33):
kind of world we can create from that. Thanks for listening,
and please remember Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No that it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation Radio, head coast coast on
the radio American epic Com. Your host Mark Angeleaves. On
today's special edition. We are talking politics and faux progressivism.
It's going to be quite the show. Please remember a
Liberty Nation Radio sponsor by libt nation dot com. You
can access podcast, breaking news analysis and a range of
biting and brenant shows to whetry apitype for freedom and
your fondness for the Great American Constitution. And you're on
(00:56):
Liberty Nation Radio with Marc Angelidis. And we're very forgued
to have with this limbity Nation's senior political analyst and
longtime host of this here radio show, mister Tim donnod
Thanks for coming back in Tim.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Hello, Mark, good to be here as always.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
So I couldn't resist getting you in because you've highlighted
something in a recent article on Limited nation dot com
that is so encapsulating of the mood of the nation
that you read it and it's almost you have to
whether you approve of what Donald Trump is doing or not,
(01:30):
you almost have to. You're forcibly admitted to You're forcibly
you're forced to admit that. Here's the point, and here's
the important point. And this piece, it was called Tracking
forty seven. It's really about how approval poles don't really
mean as much as right direction wrong track poles, because
(01:52):
that gives the mood the nation. Would you like to
sort of expand on what you found, what the theme was, Well.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
I think the point of the article, more than anything else,
was to say that, you know, presidential popularity or presidential
approval tends to be a combination of personal popularity and
job performance, and it comes and goes as carafs are added, subtracted,
added back, as peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, or
(02:26):
between the US and Guys, or the US and Iran.
You know, they wax and they wane, and so the
personal popularity poles are of or even job performance polls
have a very limited usage, especially since you know, we
(02:48):
have a president who has so many you know, balls
in the airso me very few of which have yet
to land on solid ground. Oh, there's so much up
in the air. And you can talk about inflation, you
can talk about foreign policy, talk about the economy, you
can talk about the border, and generally has favorabilities very
(03:12):
high on these things relatively speaking. But the way to
really gauge how people feel about life under the forty
seventh president, the best indicator of that is the right
track wrong track numbers, which get reported but are often
(03:33):
understated in terms of their importance because it shows beyond
just the popularity of a given politician. We have to
remember that there are millions upon millions, untold millions of
Americans who don't care about politics, who don't like politics,
(03:53):
who don't follow politics and are pretty much agnostic, or
think both parties are corrupt, or they just don't pay
attention for what any reason. But those people have an
opinion about what life is like. Yeah, and now that
we're six months past the election and more than four
months passed when Trump took the oath of office, seemed
(04:15):
a good time to take stock. And what the right
track wrong track numbers show is that the right track
right now is at its highest level since two thousand
and nine. That sixteen years, and that one in two
thousand and nine was when Barack Obama had just taken office,
(04:39):
and hope and change were the themes of the country,
and so everybody sort of felt on an up swing.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Other than concern, I should point I should point something
out here. So it's two thousand being two thousand and
nine when it was at the same point that it
is now, but that was the last high point, so
everybody had in their hearts hope and change, people having
the heart time change, and then we're clearly sorely disappointed.
Otherwise that number would have stayed the same or gone
up right.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
Yes, no, that's true, and it only went down from there,
especially during his second term. But an important caveat in
the right track wrong track numbers is to understand that
the wrong track has always outweighed the right track for
the entirety of the century. Because I think, for example,
today some Democratic voters who voted for Harris might still
(05:34):
believe that their lives are better under Trump than they
were before, or at least better than they expected it
to be, but they're not going to tell They're not
going to tell a poster, oh yeah, I think we're
under the we're on the right track. So you're almost
guaranteed to have fifty percent of people to say we're
on the wrong track for starters. But all of that said,
(05:58):
the difference between now and the election of twenty twenty
four and the day that Trump took office is stark.
During the last ten polls, right track wrong track polls
taken by various organizations twenty twenty four range from right
(06:22):
track as low as seventeen percent to a high of
thirty four percent to a twenty seven percent average. So
you take that twenty seven percent when Biden was still
in office in Kamala Harris was the candidate for president,
and you compare it to now, Americans are on the
(06:45):
whole sixty three percent more believing we're on the right
track than they were before the election, and the difference
is almost as dark since January twentyeth so. On any
given issue, Let's say people are still very anxious about
the tariffs, because it's a high risk, high reward strategy
(07:07):
that's far from having landed where it's going to eventually
wind up. And whether Trump says he can end the
Russia Ukraine War and that he can't, or what you
feel about the economy or the tax cut bills or
the DOGE program, those are just components. But the composite
(07:31):
of all of those things can be discovered most perfectly,
not perfectly, but most perfectly with the right track wrong
track numbers. And those numbers reveal that Americans, maybe you
might say, they're relieved compared to where they were before
(07:53):
the election in the last couple of years, but they're
also more happy with the trajectory of their life in
any time since the early hope and change days of
Barack Obama. And I think that speaks volumes about the
fact that, whether you agree with them on any individual
decision or not, the highest number of people in sixteen
(08:17):
years believe we're on the right track in this country.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
I wonder once, as you mentioned these juggling balls that
have yet to hit the ground, I wonder if any
of them land positively, then that there might be a
near record. We're certainly beating two thousand and nine, because
if we're at two thousand and nine numbers now, which
was the previous high point for this century, I wonder
(08:43):
if any of these land correctly or in the right spots,
that we might see that increase. Now we're going to
be back with Tymdonna after this shotbreak. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
For your free and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelidis.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain your host,
Mark Angeladi's and we're continuing our conversation with longtime host
of this year radio show, Tim Donna. Now, Tim, thanks
for sticking around during the break. We were discussing political
analysis and the purpose that the ways, the means and
the weirding magic of it and how it tends to go.
(09:26):
But I think that this is quite an important talk
to cover because a couple of data points on this.
Jen Psaki, former White House Press secretary, let's let's get
her chronological resume in order, former left leaning CNN pundit
White House Press secretary to left leaning pundit on MSNBC.
(09:48):
It's they're the same job, right, They're the same job
to bolsteron. But she in her new slot, I think
it's being reported that four twenty seven percent drop in viewership.
And you told me earlier about well, we're talking earlier
about Jake Tapper, now that he's decided to do a
(10:09):
tell all book trying to find the culprits of who
was covering up for Joe Biden. And if I may
just give mister Tapper some advice, walk into your bathroom,
turn the lights on, look in the mirror, and you'll
find out the people who were covering for Joe Biden.
But you mentioned that he had he'd always annoyed the
(10:30):
political right because he was such a fanboy of Democrats
no matter what. And now he's also going to annoy
the political left because he's exposed them all as corrupt
and willing to have somebody who is clearly cognitively impaired
in the White House as long as they retain power. Tim,
what's happened to political analysis in this country?
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Well, the reason that political analysis is so interesting, Rid
Laurd because politics. What makes politics fascinating is that it's
a study of human behavior. It's a study of human
behavior under pressure and how people respond to pressure, which
(11:15):
is not something you necessarily see in your everyday life.
But if you are the leader of the free world,
you're always under pressure to make decisions about things, and
how you make those decisions is maybe even less fascinating
than why you make decisions. And that's the point of
(11:36):
political analysts like myself, to get down to the motives
behind what somebody's doing. Now, if you know F. Jd
Vance is asked, do you approve of the Trump presidency?
He's going to say yes.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
And we learn nothing from it?
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Right, we learned nothing?
Speaker 3 (11:56):
We know that answer.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
But I think, for example, with political behavior now and
trying to analyze where the Democrats in particular are headed,
which seems to be into the ditch, but they haven't
gotten themselves out of it yet. It's interesting, for example,
that one relatively obscure senator from Arizona, Rubenchego, is now
(12:19):
speaking like a Bill Clinton Democrat. Why is he doing it? Well,
you look at the motivation, you can say he knows
his party has to get back to something other than
insane progressive policies which got them kicked out of office
to begin with. He understands that they need to get
back to the center, or at least to present being
(12:43):
in the center. But he also has personal ambition involved
in it. So there's many layers of causation, shall we say,
in politics and getting to the heart of it. Getting
to the heart of political behavior is a fascinating field
when I've sort of engaged in the informally informally over
(13:07):
many years.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
So I think there's something happening with analysis right now,
and it's it's fascinating from an answer like an anthropological
I feel like Jane Goodall sometimes watching what's happening, because
we used to have people who could, you know, take
(13:28):
information and they could you know, they could, yeah, dispassionate, dispassion.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
And there's a few people like that.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
They're they're rarer than they used to be.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
I think one guy that's good at that is Mark Halprint. Yeah,
he's pretty much straight down the middle and pret you
will call a spade a spade too. He will say
Trump had a terrible debate. Now, part of that is
because he's at an advanced enough of it, advanced age
that he doesn't really care what people think.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
He's not looking for his next job.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
He's not looking for his next job, so it can
be particularly honest. But I mean, for example, as an analyst,
I may or may not like Joe Biden, but I
can look and see that the biggest mistake he ever
made was not to pull out of running for reelection
or not simply not run for reelection at all after
(14:27):
the twenty twenty two mid terms, where he would have
been considered a heroic figure because he beat Trump and
he led the Democrats to a better than expected performance
in the twenty twenty two mid terms. But I can
also then say later on, when he didn't do it,
that that was the biggest mistake of his career. Right,
(14:50):
So that is and that's a good position for an analyst,
Mark because it means I'm not supposed to take sides.
I'm supposed to why things happen for better or for worse,
whether someone's on the left or the right.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
There's something there, something very freeing about treating your examination
of something through an analytical lens. Because sure, we all
in our hearts, we're all polemicists, right, we're polemicist poets
in our hearts. And you know, if we're with friends
having dinner and politics comes up and they're like minded friends,
(15:29):
or even if they're not, you know, we can wax
lyrical about the state of politics and the particular foibles
of various politicians or policies. But when you're looking at
something through an analytical lens, it frees you up. It's
what's the right way to say this. It's an unshackling
of what you're doing and allows you to just go
(15:50):
straight for the key points. And somebody who was who
I think was superb at that, I'm sure you'd agree,
was George Orwell in his essay says, and yes, so
one of our one of our editors that we had
this conversation with this morning. Finally he said, as as
a fictional author, George Orwell, so so as an essayist,
(16:14):
just unbelievable. And I'm inclined to agree with that, because
he put he never took a position that was so
extreme that he couldn't just go straight to the center
again and say, this is why I might be right,
this is why I might be wrong. But here's what
you should be looking at.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Right, So you're saying, as an analyst, don't look at
what happened. You presumably already know what happened because you're
because you're analyzing things that are in the news that
are breaking, that are headlines that sort of thing. An
analyst job is to break it down into its component
(16:52):
parts as to why it happened, what it represents, what
it might mean going forward.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Right. So isn't that why podcasts are becoming so much
more popular than news shows.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
Yes, because they drill deeper into subjects that are of
interest to that particular podcast viewer or listener. I mean
there's podcasts for everything these days. There's a podcast just
for people who are interested in how to clean their
pots and pants.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
You know, I've seen loads of those. As a pan enthusiast,
I've seen a lot.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
Yes, I know you've liked and subscribed to several channels
like that. But the point is that, you know, this
is what people demand these days, is to know a
little bit deeper than what they're reading in the headlines.
And that's a good thing because too many Americans, especially
those disinterested in politics and current affairs, tend to read
(17:59):
the headline and maybe the first sentence of stories and
get a skewed view of what's really going on.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
Yeah, very true. The podcast I keep thinking about. I've
been a long time watcher of mister Joe Rogan and
when he had Donald Trump on right before the election.
What I loved about it was it was not a
question like a Q and A session, what's your position
on this? What are you going to do about this?
It was so wide ranging that we even discovered that
(18:31):
Donald Trump, if you had the chance, would become a
whale psychologist. You are not going to get that in
the is it the John Brady briefing room? You're not
that kind of analysis, Tim Donner, I appreciate your analysis. Listeners,
please go check out his writing over atlutination dot com.
Thanks ever so much for being here, Tim, My pleasure.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Mark no I thought was free freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio American Network. I remain your host,
Mark Hensley's We're very fortunate to have with us today, actor, filmmaker, author, journalist,
political commentator, a renaissance man for the ages. Mister, You've
all David thanks for joining us. Youvell well.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
You know, to be a renaissance man recognized by a
renaissance man is delightful. If only I had the curls
on top of my head as you do, I would
definitely be much more successful. But I do have curls
in my mind. My mind is twisted by the insanity
that we're seeing across society, So I wish that the
(20:03):
curls were only in my hair and not in my
thought process.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
One can be fixed and the other can't, unfortunately. So
let's talk about those particular detriments that were witnessing recently. Now,
you and I got brought together initially over the shooting
that happened in Washington, D C. This month, a tragic
situation that for some reason appears to have at the
(20:28):
time of recording, largely disappeared from the headlines. Now, you
were in Washington, D C. When that happened. Could you
give us your take on the feelings that came out
then and the initial aftermath.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
The feelings that came out were horrendous and still are horrendous,
feelings that can be defined as shocked but not surprised.
We've been listening to the language of these horrible groups
chanting out in their riots and their protests, in their demonstrations,
(21:04):
violent hateful speech that calls for intifada, that calls for jihad,
that masks the calls for violence with rhyming couplets and
placard strategy that might sound like a nursery rhyme, but
what's beneath it are calls for violence. So how surprised
(21:27):
can we really be when horrendous terrorist attacks happen here
in the United States. We're seeing these terrorist attacks happening
across the world by people who are telling us what
they're going to do, and then they do it. The
problem is security, The problem is safety for all of us.
(21:47):
And the other problem is we're not condemning these hate
groups for what they are.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
That's a very important point you raise. I think about
they're telling what they're going to do, and we see
this and and in my country in Britain, we've seen
the march is supporting nominally supporting Gaza, many people openly
supporting Hamas, and they're chanting the free, free Palestine, same
(22:16):
as the the killer did in Washington, d C. And
the It seems to me that the legacy media they
seem to have this idea that when they're chanting intafada
or from the River to the sea, they're giving them
the most generous interpretation of what that what they mean
(22:38):
by those phrases, and it's it's it's it's an interpretation
that wouldn't be afforded to any other group. And that
strikes me as strange that you have this, these people
who say they're marching for something, but there's something is
very clearly a direct call for violence against the Jewish community.
(23:00):
And so why do you think the why do you
think it gets down played so much because these these
terror attacks, as you say, and it was a terror attack.
So what you find is that you've got this whole
large movement and then it's pushing the idea of into
vada and violence, and they seem surprised when it happens.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
Well, this is one of the things that the Islamicization
of the West has done so strategically and so brilliantly
in terms of taking violent movements, focusing on the rhetoric
and using the rhetoric to manipulate people who might not
(23:42):
otherwise be violent until they can possibly become violent themselves.
They the Islamist movements understood that they cannot only present
the violence of the Islamist into fada jihad agendas of
bullying tactics to murder anybody who's not just like them,
(24:05):
which includes Jews, Christians, Israelis, Druzbahai, Buddhists, Hindus, secular Muslims.
You know, all of those people are infidels according to them,
and deserve to die. So within their own countries and
within the regions that they dominate and control, they're able
to openly engage in violence and slaughter people. Now when
(24:31):
they focus on the West, they're not able to present
the violence as a way to manipulate all of these peoples.
So they use the language. They use the Placard strategy.
They use these nursery rhymes that if they rhyme, they
must be true. And for the useful idiots across the UK,
across the United States, across Canada, across all of these
(24:54):
countries in Europe that we're seeing, there are people on
the far left who are being manipulated by these these
nursery rhymes because they're presented in the most simplistic ways,
and that's what they're doing.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
It's very much from the Saul Olynsky rule for radical's
playbook in terms of creating a simple message, repeating it
often and trying to create that earworm situation. So it's
in fact and this is a slighter side. It reminds
me of I think it was Fahrenheit four fift one
(25:29):
by Ray Bradbury where he said, all you need to
do is give them, give them a slogan that they
can chant and they don't have to think for themselves.
And this sloganeering here, it comes with a whole host
of baggage behind it, and yet they can be presented
at a very, very surface level. And this is really
a thin veneer of It's about justice, it's about fairness
(25:51):
for people who are oppressed, and it's all it seems
to me. It's all part of a larger and I
don't want to target all socialists with this, but of
a larger socialist push towards destruction of cultural values, things
that have essentially made the Western world the success that
(26:13):
it is, and they want to drag that back. And
as you rightly point out, Islamists are climbing on the
back of the socialist movements, and in some ways I
think the socialist movements climbing the back of Islamism too. Oh, absolutely,
because they use each other for a seed of destruction.
Speaker 5 (26:30):
Well, you know, it's the Some people call it the
Red Green Alliance to describe the alliance between far left
activists and Islamist movements. It's one of the strangest and
most dangerous coalitions in modern history. Where we see leftists
who believe in gender equality, LGBT rights, secularism, free speech,
(26:50):
civil liberties, and Islamists who believe in Shahria law, gender segregation,
religious supremacy, and death to apostates and gaze. The only
thing that they seem to agree upon is this virulent
hatred of Israel and by extension, Jews, this virulent hatred
of anybody who is deemed successful. Right, So we've seen
(27:14):
all of these old ancient anti Semitic tropes rise up
where they're condemning Jews because they think Jews are successful.
Well throughout history for a thousand years more, Jews were
condemned because they were different. Jews were condemned because they
weren't Christian. Jews were condemned because they weren't Muslim. Jews
(27:36):
were condemned and criticized for being capitalists. Jews were condemned
and criticized for being socialist and for being communists. Jews
were condemned for being separate than society, and then Jews
were criticized for being part of society. Jews keep being
blamed again and again anytime there are social ills that
are rising up and bubbling up to the surface. So
(27:58):
within this Red Green alliance, they're focusing on Jews in
this overly simplistic oppressor versus oppressed narrative, and we're hearing
more and more people speaking about it as we recognize
the hypocrisy and the idiocy that is prevailing throughout the
progressive movement. Capital P progressive because I'm a lowercase P progressive.
(28:22):
I do believe in progress. But the progressive movement has
gone awry.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
Let's continue talking about that after this short break. Don't
go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio on the Right
America Network. Our remin your host Mark Anerley, and we're
continuing our conversation with filmmaker, actor journalist David Now. You
mentioned at the end of the last segment about how
the we talked about progressivism and and you identify yourself
as a small p progressive, which I think is an
(29:04):
interesting distinction. But I want to delve into what's happening
across American society in terms of how anti anti SEMITTERMS
has almost become as an acceptable ill in college campuses.
And we've seen this for the I guess for the
(29:24):
last year and a half or so, where people are
allowed to protest, well since October seventh, really, and they're
allowed to protest against Israel, and they're allowed to keep
Israeli students or Jewish American students out of campus and
make them fear for being at their place of education.
And this gets essentially brushed under the carpet or classed
(29:49):
as it's an expression of free speech by people who
would not accept the reverse situation.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
Well, it's important to also speak about this clearly. I'm
a free speech activist. Of course I believe in the
importance of free speech. Yet free speech must also come
with limitations. What is happening is there's more free speech,
and I'm saying that in air quotes that's allowed when
it's targeting Jews, when it's masked with terms of anti zionist,
(30:20):
anti Israel, and yet targeting Jewish synagogues, targeting Jewish student groups,
targeting Jews who try to walk on campus. How dare
they be openly Jewish? The free speech when it's very
violent and calling for violence and intimidation is allowed when
it's about Jews.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
But if it was about.
Speaker 5 (30:41):
LGBT people, if it was about black people, if it
was about Muslim people, if it was about indigenous people,
if it was about immigrants, it wouldn't be allowed. So
why is there this double standard? What we're seeing are
campus caliphates. We're seeing these Western campuses that were once
followed grounds of critical thought that have become these breeding
(31:03):
grounds for regressive, not progressive, but regressive ideologies cloaked in
the garb of progress. So that's why I call them
faue aggressive. They're fakely progressive. The Council for American Islamic
Relations CARE Students for Justice in Palestine as JP, the
(31:24):
misleading named JVP Jewish Voices for Peace, which by the way,
is neither It's neither a Jewish organization nor is it
for peace. Other organizations like Not in Our Name and
all of these pro Palestinian student groups that have actively
spread jihadist propaganda across these campuses that we're seeing in
(31:45):
the United States, in Canada, in the UK, across Europe.
And what we need to focus on is they do
this with funding and ideological support from groups that are
linked to terrorist organizations. So academic freedom now includes these
horrendous calls to globalize the Intofada. Professors defend chance of
(32:10):
Intifada and resistance by any means necessary as protected free speech.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Well, what about the.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
Jewish students who are being harassed, physically threatened, silenced in classrooms.
It's insane, and they're labeling themselves as anti Zionist. They're
reframing what Zionism is about. So it's important to say
Zionism is the movement about the self and community actualization
(32:41):
of the Jewish people, making sure that Jews are connected
to their history and their indigenous homeland. If you read
Jewish texts, the Bible, the Missionah, the Talmud, the Goumrah,
if you look at Jewish prayer books, if you read
about every Jewish holiday, we always have a connection to
(33:03):
a specific land. The Jewish people have been occupied, have
been colonized for thousands of years, and we have always
prayed about our homeland, understanding that our peoplehood is directly
connected to a specific region. So Zionism is a successful
decolonization movement. Zionism is a successful indigenous rights movement that
(33:29):
was a movement that started during the Roman era when
Jews said, someday we will be able to govern ourselves. Well,
you know what, we now govern ourselves.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
Yeah. I think it's quite fascinating that the use of
Zionist has really become. It's so pervasive. And you and
I talked briefly about different lgb T LGBT movement that
almost embrace an anti Zionist gender within their frameworks. Could
(34:02):
you expand on that a little bit.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
Sually, we see LGBT or as many refer to themselves,
LGBTQIA plus organizations creating safe spaces, which is a wonderful
concept of a safe space, and creating spaces including events
and conferences and gathering community events to empower and nourish
(34:25):
the nationalist movements of the Mena region of the Middle
East and North Africa. Now, what they also have done
is said that these are Zionist free zones, which means
they're supporting and nourishing and creating a safe space for
nationalist movements of people across the Middle East and North Africa,
other than for Jews, Zionism is a nationalist movement. For Jews,
(34:48):
there is nothing wrong with nationalism. We should be able
to connect to our nations. What does a nation mean?
A group of people who are connected with a common characteristic.
It's not only being a citizen of the UK, or
citizen of the United States, or citizen of Israel or
citizen of Germany. It could also being be It can
(35:09):
also be about being Catholic, being Orthodox, Jewish, being Muslim,
being a person who loves to ski.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Right.
Speaker 5 (35:18):
A nation is a group of people that wants to
connect and help themselves. Sorry, I mentioned the skiing.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
How do I get a passport to this skiing nation? Oh?
Speaker 5 (35:28):
Talk to me because it's my favorite sport. So you're
you're in.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
You're already in.
Speaker 5 (35:32):
I mean I already like you.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
I can get a visa, You get a visa. It's great,
all right, it's just the tariffs that I'm worried about.
Speaker 5 (35:39):
That's true. So we've seen these LGBTQ organizations creating spaces
for Arab African Muslim, LGBT people, but not for Jews.
That is racism. Anti Zionism is racism. Anti Zionism is hateful, bigotry,
(36:00):
it's against the Jewish people. So in meetings that I
had with the FBI and ADL and all of these
major organizations in the United States, part of what I
do within my social and political advocacy is making sure
that languages used correctly. When the FBI came out with
statistics saying that the Jews are one of them, are
(36:21):
the most targeted religious group in the United States, I
raised my hand and said, well, wait a second, I've
been physically assaulted. I've been targeted because I'm Jewish. I
don't walk around with a kipa head covering. I don't
walk around with sidelocks of long hair by my ears.
I don't have a beard, I shave. So when I'm targeted,
(36:44):
am I being targeted because I'm Jewish as a religion
or am I being targeted because I'm Jewish as my ethnicity,
as my nationality. And they were aware of this, and
they were getting a lot more information coming in and
the FBI cantinue to do even more studies and looking
at all the data that they had gathered, and it
(37:06):
turns out that the Jewish people in the United States
are also the most targeted ethnic group in hate crimes.
In ethnic based hate crimes, we're two percent of the
US population and we're seventy percent of the victims of
religious and ethnic based hate crimes. That's a pretty terrible statistic.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
It's a mind blowing statistic. You' Val David, We've just
about run out of time on this. Could you let
our listeners and viewers know where they can follow your work?
Speaker 5 (37:38):
Well, I would love for your listeners and viewers to
follow my work because I definitely get targeted by hate groups.
So help me shift the algorithm to just spread fact
based information instead of have.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
You met the Internet?
Speaker 5 (37:54):
But you know what we are the algorithm for all
of your listeners. They should engage with your show, should
share your show, they should comment on your posts, and
you know, do the same with me. So it's easy
to find me. There aren't that many Val David's yuva
l David on all social media, although on Instagram it's
Val Underscore David Underscore. I couldn't get the Uval David,
(38:16):
So follow me on every platform and I'd be glad
to engage with you on social media.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
You well, thanks ever so much for being here. Thank you, Mark.
And that's about all we have time for on this
week's edition of libt to Nation Radio Head Coast to
Coast on the Radio America Network from our flagship station
in the Nation's Capital, WWRC in Washington, d C. I've
been your host, Mark Angelidi's I'd like to take a
moment to thank our special guests for the day, mister
Tim donnough, the longtime host of this here show, and
(38:44):
you Val David, activist, author and filmmaker. Thank you both
for being here. You are appreciated, and of course I'd
like to extend my gratitude to you the listeners out
there in radio land who take the time each week
to tune in and join the show. Final thought for
this week, Winston Churchill once said, quote all the greatest
things are simple, and many can be expressed in a
single word. Freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope end quote.
(39:11):
A range of beautiful concepts expressed in single words. And
he's right, because the plainest truths do not need to
be explained or expanded upon. They just are. When people
obfuscate language to usurp the meaning. They know that they're
treading on the edge of a dishonest abyss. So let's
speak plain, let's all speak truth, and who knows what
(39:33):
kind of world we can create from that. Thanks for listening,
and please remember Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.