The Right Wing's Woke-a-Dope Strategy

I am so tired of talking about woke culture.

This guy again? Okay. Well, obviously, he's not tired of talking about woke culture. That's his whole career. I mean, I don't know who else is talking about woke culture except for the people who hate it.

What would he do if he can't talk about woke culture? What is it, by the way, with all of these right wing, pundits, you know, who were allegedly comedians before, but no one ever heard of them until they became right wing pundits? I mean, there's this guy, there's Steven Crowder, Dave Rubin, even Joe Rogan. I mean, who was a fan of of Joe Rogan's comedy before he had a podcast? Anyway, no, obviously, this guy is not even slightly tired, of talking about wokeism or woke culture.

His whole career depends on his audience also never getting tired of it.

No. Free speech is not some right wing reframing of whatever. It's the foundation of western civilization.

Free speech. Okay. We should clarify. What they mean by free speech isn't free speech. It's number one, being platformed by privately owned media outlets.

In other words, they don't think it means the right of people to say whatever they want. They think it means the right of people or the entitlement of people to be given a microphone, be given a camera, and be given an audience to listen to whatever they wanna say. And number two, it means that they want freedom from the backlash of saying whatever they wanna say. They think that it's contradictory or it's counter to free speech for people to disagree with them and to voice their disagreement, you know, and mostly, for people to not listen to them. They wanna be listened to.

They think that free speech means, the entitlement to a microphone, to a camera, to a platform, to an audience that will agree with them or any way if they don't agree with them, they'll shut up. And in fact, the real issue, if you combine these things, all of these things together, what they actually are objecting to, is not being able to successfully monetize their speech and make a profit. So what they actually mean by the right to free speech, is the right to profitable speech no matter what they wanna say. I don't think that's particularly reasonable.

I don't have to make the point that has been made by far better people in the past that the only way to deal with the problem of racism is to treat people on the content of their character and nothing else. And the fact that woke culture seeks to overturn that is a new form of racism that we must all oppose.

Okay. This is a particularly disingenuous manipulation. It's actually quite interesting to see how the phrase of Martin Luther King has been diabolically inverted in recent years. The right wing has appropriated this as an argument against affirmative action policies and other programs and so forth that specifically benefit or are intended to specifically benefit the African American community or, you know, other so called minority groups in the West. They say that if you have a program based on so called, race or skin, skin color, you know, giving them opportunities and so forth, to people based on skin color or ethnicity, then this contradicts Martin Luther King's statement and his dream because you're not basing these things, on the content of people's character.

But obviously, in order for you to even complain about this, you must already believe that your society has already achieved King's vision and his dream. That racism no longer exists. And these programs therefore are the the things that are perpetuating racism and undermining Martin Luther King's dream. In other words, we are all already only going by the content of people's character. But you people insist on this emphasis, you know, on race and color.

So you're actually the enemies of Martin Luther King's dream. There's a lot of trickery going on here. First of all, let me just point out that they're taking it as a given that the content of character, which is always being judged here, is the character of so called black and brown people, members of the global majority who are called minorities in the West. Whereas the character of the one doing the judging is never questioned. The idea is you have to prove to me that you have good character, but my good character, has to just be assumed.

And if I don't give you a job, or if I don't give you opportunities, then it's based on your bad character, not on my bad character. I'm discriminating on the basis of your character, not on the basis of your so called race. So, by adopting King's principle with a kind of alchemy, I'm able to transform my racism into your bad character. Meanwhile, the color of my skin, already excludes me, from having my character questioned at all. So you see what they did there.

It's very tricky. This lays the blame for any and all deprivation or disadvantage or, you know, impoverishment, marginalization, lack of opportunity, lack of access, denial of privilege and so on. It lays the blame for all of that, on so called minorities being people of low character. In other words, that this is what they deserve. The the situation is what they earned.

This is me acting according to Martin Luther King's vision, you know. You're in the state that you're in. Well, because you're a bad person. Not because I'm a bad person. Not because I'm being racist to you.

I'm obviously objective and fair and just and reasonable. And for you to suggest otherwise would be you opposing Martin Luther King's principles. See, they're completely denying the fact that affirmative action programs and these sorts of things were created and implemented because the reality is that the content of their character is what made them necessary. The content of their character has been judged on the basis of a very consistent and very ugly history which abundantly illustrates that they are incapable of judging men on the basis of the content of their character and not on the color of their skin. So this is our character judgment of you.

And this false argument that he's making and this manipulation that they're trying to get away with now, this just proves the accuracy of that judgment. I mean, you're literally saying the same things that racists have always said, just rephrasing it. You're saying black and brown people are discriminated against, because they deserve to be discriminated against, because they have bad character, or because they have a bad culture. Basically, you're saying that they are inferior and you are superior, and you're always affirming that you're the one who gets to decide, that you're the one who gets to judge, and you're discriminating purely on the basis of rational objective criteria. I mean, the self delusion is just breathtaking.

This country is responsible for 2% of global carbon emissions, which means that if Britain was to sink into the sea right now, it would make absolutely no difference to the issue of climate change. You know why? Because the future of the climate is going to be decided in Asia and in Latin America by poor people. You're not gonna get them to stay poor.

Okay. Climate change. Well, I think that The UK is actually, lower than 2% of global carbon emissions and the reason for that, is the same reason that the global South, Asia, Latin America and so on have a higher percentage because The UK, like Europe and The US have outsourced so much of their carbon emissions to the global South while still living a lifestyle that gives them the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world. So they want manufacturing pollution to be blamed on the countries whose cheap labor they're exploiting so that they can pretend to be innocent in causing any damage to the environment. While they're exploiting that cheap labor outsourcing manufacturing to the global South in order to maintain their incredibly detrimental lifestyle of gluttonous consumption.

And they want our countries to not industrialize the way that they did. Because then we won't be slaves for them to do their manufacturing for them. And our standard of living will rise which will increase the cost of our labor to them. And that would make their lifestyle too expensive, and then they would have to change their lifestyle. I mean, he's right, of course, you can't keep us poor, but the part that he's not saying is that your prosperity has always been achieved by means of keeping us poor, and you have lower carbon emissions.

Your lower carbon emissions have only been possible because of shipping manufacturing to us to exploit that poverty that you made. And now you wanna discourage us from industrializing to keep us poor and to keep us as cheap labor. And you also toy with your own numbers by the way by buying carbon credits from us, which from our side is a way of bribing us to not industrialize, and for you it's just a way to improve your image so that you can keep polluting. But anyway, most of this is grossly exaggerated in the first place. I think probably he and I would more or less agree with regards to climate change, he said that I think that the obvious solution is nuclear energy.

I think most people who are involved in the in the in the energy sector understand this. But whenever we try to develop nuclear energy, you lose your minds because you think that we're gonna make weapons and immediately try to blow you up because you think everyone is as barbaric as you are, and you know what you've done to us. So you know that, if anyone had done to you what you have done to us, then you would blow them up as soon as you had a chance because enlightenment values. But fortunately for you, we're not enlightened like that.

And the only thing that wokeness has to offer in exchange is to brainwash bright young minds like you to believe that you are victims, to believe that you have no agency, to believe that what you must do to improve the world is to complain, is to protest, is to throw soup on paintings. And we on this side of the house are not on this side of the house because we do not wish to improve the world. We sit on this side of the house because we know that the way to improve the world is to work, is to create, it is to build.

You know, it's funny when he talks about, people like him believing in hard work, creating, innovation, building and so on. This guy's a comedian. What did he build? And he's ridiculing people for complaining about climate change. Well, it was those complaints that's the only reason that there even is a renewable clean energy sector in the first place.

But, you know, there's something else to say here, not about this guy, but about the comment that I was tagged in. I have to say, I really don't understand. I've said this before. I don't understand this obsession with debates. You know?

As soon as someone gives their opinion about something or a perspective or an analysis or what have you, one of the first re reflexes that people have is to say, oh, you should debate so and so. He has the polar opposite opinion as you. What's the point? What is the point of that? Let's put one person from, this end of the spectrum in a debate with this person at the other complete opposite end of the spectrum.

You know? No one watches these kind of things to learn something. No one watches to understand anything. They watch for the collision of two opposites. It's like WWE for nerds.

You know? Look how the West is. They they turn even intellectual discourse into a combat sport. It's trivializing. Everything has to be a fight with these people.

Man, it's never about making actually sound arguments, just clever arguments, sound bites, mic drops, you know? Who can be more witty? Who can be more obnoxious? Who can be more charismatic than the other one? This is not what intellectual discussion is supposed to be about in my opinion.

I mean, if neither side is open to change their mind, they're not open to listen, they're not open to reevaluate or to learn from the other side, there's just no point in engaging with each other. Why would you do that? And the way it's set up now is that you won't even be invited to a debate if you have not already proven to be completely intractable in your position because the whole point is the clash. And if a person does become convinced by the other person that they're debating, they they they become convinced that that person is closer to the truth and then he changes his position, well, he'll be regarded as having lost the debate when in actuality, he would be the one to win in my view. Because he's proven that he genuinely cared about having the right understanding, not about defending his own understanding whether it's right or wrong.

The whole thing is pointless, and I think it's degrading, to actual intellect and to thought and to actual discourse. And, of course, it's just the usual western approach, clash, collide, conflict, and try to obliterate your opponent. This is the opposite of productive in my opinion. But people have this strange and, unhealthy habit, of deliberately watching people, whose views make them angry. And they want and, you know, then they get angry and then they wanna see that person humiliated or punished or embarrassed or what have you.

I mean, why are you watching this person to begin with? I mean, it's one thing to listen to views that you disagree with so that you can maybe reevaluate your own views. But people are literally watching these people just to make themselves angry. It makes no sense to me. You know?

You understand that these people only have a platform and they're only getting platformed because people do this kind of thing. I mean, this guy in this clip is shameless right wing western supremacist dishonest hack. I mean, if you like what he says, okay. But the person commenting here is saying that Shahid should debate him. It means that you hate what he's saying and you wanna see me smash him.

All you have to do is ignore him, honestly. Have mercy on your own brain. For goodness sakes. Okay. You wanna hear what I'll say?

You wanna hear what my arguments would be so that you could maybe use those types of arguments if you meet people who happen to agree with this guy? Look, this is just part of the the talking point poker game. This guy was dealt a hand, from the deck of right wing cards. He didn't think of anything that he said, none of that's from his own mind. He was just reciting from the deck, from the cards that they gave him, except maybe for the bad jokes.

And then someone else might be reciting from cards that were dealt from the, left wing deck, you know, where they might take, whatever points that I might say. But none of this constitutes thought, none of this is discourse. It's just one side showing, the cards from their deck and another side showing the cards from their deck. It's pointless. And, you know, this complete lack of real discussion, lack of real discourse, lack of real communication, this is what you all call free speech.

So I guess it's no wonder that your great advocates of so called western civilization are all comedians.