Connecting the Dots with Dr Wilmer Leon (audio)

Countdown to Decision: Dr. Wilmer Leon on the Stakes of the 2024 U.S. Election

((Pre-recorded live on FB)) As America prepared for one of the most pivotal elections in recent history, I went live to break down the stakes, the key players, and the issues that could shape the future of the nation. Join me as we explore what’s at risk in the 2024 election, from the candidates’ platforms to the critical choices facing voters. Whether you tuned in live or are catching the replay, don’t miss this deep dive into the upcoming election and what it means for all of us!
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook,and YouTube!
Please donate to your Patreon Page @ Patreon.com/WilmerLeon .
Hello everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Announcer (00:00:07):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:00:15):
Good morning. Good morning. And as most of you know by now, this coming Tuesday, November 5th will be as the Constitution states, the Tuesday next, after the first Monday in November is election day. What are you all going to do? Are you going to vote? Are you going to abstain? If you decide to vote, who are you going to cast your ballot for? Let's talk and let's talk live. We're live today. I want to welcome you all to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me. I am Dr. Wilmer Leon. And here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic contexts in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live.
(00:01:26):
On today's episode, it's just me, it's me, no guests. I'm live today. And I know this is very, very short notice, but here we are. So the issues or the issue before us is or are this Tuesday, as I said in the tease, November 5th will be as the Constitution states, the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November is election day. Folks, what are you all going to do? Are you going to vote or are you going to abstain? If you decide to vote, who are you going to cast your ballots for? And for me, here's the real important salient question, why vote or abstain? I strongly suggest voting. I don't think that you can abdicate your duty as a citizen and sit this one out. And I firmly believe that the primary responsibility of a citizen is to participate in the electoral process to determine who you select to represent your interests in government.
(00:02:48):
Folks, I believe America is recklessly muddling its way through these incredibly, incredibly perilous times, very, very recklessly. As America muddles its way through these perilous times, there are too many Americans that appear to be more confused than ever. Many of us have traded our interests in for electability or anybody. But Trump, former NAACP board chairman Julian Bond, told us that in the African-American community, we have no permanent friends. We have no permanent enemies, we have just permanent interests. Malcolm called them permanent agendas. And as we look at this whole issue of America muddling its way through these perilous times, I think it's very, very important for us to understand what this really means and who is responsible for the peril that we find ourselves in. Many of you all may take exception to what I'm about to say, but I think the data supports disposition. The American empire is on the wane. It is failing. Some will say it has already failed, and what we are experiencing are the last kicks of a dying mule. I think the African proverb says the last kicks of a dying mule are or can be the most dangerous.
(00:04:26):
The United States started this war in Ukraine. The United States is backing the genocide that we see playing itself out right before our very eyes in the Zionist colony known as Israel. The United States is trying to provoke a fight with Venezuela by not recognizing the democratically elected president Nicholas Maduro as the president of Venezuela. The United States is trying to start a fight with China over Taiwan. So that's why I say that we are in incredibly, incredibly perilous times and most of this peril is at our own doing. And I see sister Sandra Muhammad, thank you so much for tuning in greatly, greatly appreciated. So again, incredibly reckless. Too many of us are confused more than ever again. Many of us have traded in our interests for this concept of electability and anybody but Trump. Well, we have to ask ourselves, what are our politics really all about?
(00:05:53):
And this question not only applies to those of us in the African-American community, but it applies to the country overall. Candidates right now are out on the campaign trail asking us for our vote. But what are they offering us? Even more important than that, even more important than what are they offering? What are we as citizens demanding from them? For the most part, I'm hearing racist diatribes of I'm hearing, I'm hearing racist diatribes. I'm hearing offers of higher taxes that are really masking themselves as tariffs on imported goods. I'm hearing anti-immigrant rhetoric, and I'm hearing a lot of ideas being floated as policy. They sound great, but they'll meet stiff opposition if they make their way to Congress. Let me just quickly jump back to the anti-immigrant rhetoric because both sides from the Trump campaign as well as from the Harris campaign, there's a whole lot of clamoring. There's a whole lot of chatter that we're hearing regarding the border immigration.
(00:07:21):
Oh, our country's being overrun by immigrants. I Trump tells you they're eating our pets. And Vice President Harris talks about building the wall funding for more border agents. All of this stuff about keeping people out. What I don't hear anybody talking about, I don't hear anybody asking the question, why are these people trying to come in the first place? Why are Mexicans trying to cross the border? Why are people from Honduras? Why are people from Guatemala risking life in limb, spending thousands of dollars that they've spent years saving, trying to come across this border? I don't hear anybody asking that question. Donald Trump and JD Vance made this horrifically racist, unsupportable false accusation that Haitian immigrants, who by the way, are in Springfield, Ohio legally, who by the way, salvage the economy of Springfield, Ohio. Nobody's asking the question, why are Haitians there in the first place and nobody talks about American foreign policy?
(00:09:00):
Do you think Mexicans just want to come to the United States because they woke up last week and said, you know what? I think I'm going to risk life and limb and go to the United States. Do you think Guatemalans, do you think Hondurans? Do you think El Salvadorians are saying to themselves, you know what, I ain't got nothing else better to do. I'm going to pay some Mule $3,000 that it took me five years to save to risk life and limb to try to sneak into the United States only to run the risk of being deported and wasting all that money. Do you think that maybe they're making these decisions because their economies have been decimated by American foreign policy and they're coming. So you don't hear the immigration czar as Donald Trump loves to call Vice President Harris. You don't hear her talking about that. You don't hear Donald Trump talking about that. They talk about failed solutions such as building the wall and all that other foolishness. They don't talk about the real crux of the problem, which is American foreign policy in their countries. What happened with Mexican corn? Well, it got decimated because of nafta importing American yellow corn into Mexico. And that brown multicolored Mexican indigenous corn got decimated through cross pollenization by the American yellow corn that was imported because of nafta, decimating agriculture in Mexico. So what are those farmers to do? Nobody's offered them any assistance. What are those farmers to do?
(00:11:09):
Chiquita brands, about a month ago was convicted in federal court in Florida for funding death squads in Columbia. Chiquita brands now has to pay millions of dollars, millions of dollars to families in Columbia because they were backing death squads in Columbia. So if you are a Colombian, what are you to do? Stay in your native country, running the risk of being murdered by death squads funded by Chiquita brands or do everything in your power to get out of Columbia and go someplace else. And where is that someplace else? The United States as Donald Trump is using these, I see Steve, I'm getting to Haiti right now. Steve, stay out of my head, man. Stay out of my head. Steve. I'm getting to Haiti right now.
(00:12:22):
As Donald Trump and JD Vance are extolling these racist diatribes about Haitians eating dogs and cats. Steve, here we go. Nobody's asking why are the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio in the first place? Nobody's asking why'd they leave Haiti and come to the United States? They should be sitting on the island drinking barbering court five star rum in Eaton Grill. No, they've left their lovely country come to the United States. Why? Here's the answer. As during the debate, you saw Vice President Harris wring her hands and twist contorting her face and showing the utter disgust for that racist diatribe that she should have shown. But nobody asked her Vice President Harris, why did you go to Racom last year and try to convince the leaders of Racom, the organization of Caribbean states to be the tip of the United States spear as the United States is trying to rein, invade Haiti, recolonize Haiti? Nobody asked her that question. And I think that's a very, very important question to ask. I call that minstrel diplomacy, black faces on Euro-American foreign policy, menstrual diplomacy. Nobody asked Hakeem Jeffries, Congressman Jeffries, why did you go as a black man? Why did you go to Caron with Vice President Harris, a black woman to convince black countries to invade another black country?
(00:14:41):
Nobody's asking that question. So it's not simply building a wall. It's not simply enforcing the border. It's not simply funding for more border agents. It's not simply building internment camps to house these individuals and their children. It's not simply deporting people. And by the way, I think former President Barack Obama deported more people than anybody in the last 50 years. It's about American foreign policy decimating the economies of Mexican, central American and South American countries. That's why these individuals are doing everything in their power to come to this country. Now, really quickly, I really quickly, it's also a matter of going back to Haiti. Why such a focus on Haiti?
(00:16:03):
A couple of reasons. One is geographic the United States is trying to do, has been trying, I think for about a hundred or so years to build a naval base in Haiti, and it has met incredible resistance by Haitians. Why does the United States want to build that naval base in anticipation of China gaining a greater foothold in the region? China right now is talking about building a canal. I believe it's through Honduras, building a canal through Honduras, which would make it easier for Chinese ships to circumnavigate the globe. And that would also be a direct challenge to the Panama Canal.
(00:17:10):
So you have a number of geopolitical aspects to this as the United States further alienates China, the United States is anticipating the need to replace that cheap Chinese labor with another cheap labor source, and where are they thinking of getting that labor? Haiti. So those are just two very current examples of why the United States is so focused on recolonizing Haiti. Of course, we can go back to the overarching issue of the Haitian Revolution, the successful Haitian revolution, the United States, I'm sorry, Haiti throwing out France as a result of the Haitian Revolution and the belief that no European country, we'll consider you the United States because it's founded by Europeans, would ever allow the successful revolution of a black country. So that's also part of this calculus as well. Those are just a couple of examples of what I'm talking about in terms of these politics and permanent friends, permanent enemies and permanent interests. Again, candidates they're asking us for are vote, but what in fact are they offering us? And again, more important than that is what are we demanding from 'em?
(00:19:00):
Where are the substantive policies that are focused on making the lives of each American better? Where's the plan to fund them and to get these ideas turned into legislation submitted, brought before Congress, passed by Congress and signed by the president. There are a lot of ideas being floated out there, but one of the things I'm not hearing, particularly from the Harris campaign is how are you going to get this stuff funded? Where's the money going to come from anyway? By failing to develop, understand and articulate our permanent interests, our agendas, we then fall victim to the problem of what I call binary politics. The simplistic either or scenario. Yes, this is a two party system, but being stuck in the mindset of binary politics, the simplistic either or scenario, continues to leave us with simplistic and deadly choices of the status quo. Do you want lead in your drinking water or mercury?
(00:20:21):
Do you want arsenic on your grits or baby? Do you want mama to sprinkle a little bit of strict nine on them? Grits for you, the dangers of binary politics, this rant of anybody. But Trump is a perfect example of the dangers of binary politics, especially for the African-American community. And please, please, please, baby. Please baby, baby. Please don't get this twisted. Yes, Trump is disgustingly ignorant. He's vile, he's gosh, he's racist. He's an admitted sexual predator and a convicted felon. However, following the simplistic narrative of anybody but Trump as the basis of your analysis will not ipso facto lead you to a better alternative as sporting life said in Porgy and best, it ain't necessarily. So folks, I unapologetically see the world through. We're doing live radio, so I got to every now and then check my messages here to be sure that I'm staying on course, staying on track. Okay? So anyway, folks, I unapologetically see the world through the lens of an African-American man, and I focus on the interests of the African-American community. But my analysis I applies to every demographic across the board.
(00:22:09):
Let me pause here and just say, Steve, you're right. We're talking about Haiti. Sandra, you said you don't know. It looks as though folks would rather remain in Lala ignorant about many issues, the Western individualism value. Oh, you're absolutely right, Sandra. You're absolutely right about that. And that really gets to the crux of my point. And as I talked about the decline of the empire, this is all part of that western individualist value. And by the way, which is a conservative construct, and Sandra, help me out here if I'm on track with this, is that too many of us in the African-American community have bought into this whole idea of I've got mine. Now you have to get yours. We have lost track of the power of the collective. We have lost track of how we as a community, as we as African-Americans with a distinct history, with a distinct culture, have been able to make it through the challenges that have been imposed upon us by the dominant culture.
(00:23:41):
Look, I say this all the time. Du Bois wrote The Souls of black folk, not the soul of some guy. Mrs. Hamer dedicated her life championing the right for us to vote. She did not dedicate her life simply so that she could vote. And now what too many of us are looking at, what too many of us are confused about and confused by is the progress of some at the expense of the many. I got mine. You got to get yours. That has never worked for us. It will never work for us. And then there are too many of us like Richardson down in North Carolina, and who's the brother that from Florida that appeared at that Trump race Fest 2024 in New York. He comes on stage after the dude, before him played, Dixie played, what's his name?
(00:25:07):
I'm drawing blank on a guy that sang it, but what kind of cery was that? A black man going to come on stage, Elvis Presley after a white cat before him, his bumper music was Dixie. And instead of coming to the mic saying, oh hell, to the na Bobby, hell to the na, I'm not going to stand here and follow that racist foolishness. He just goes along, buck dancing, cooning shining, and you know, any of you all that have spent any time listening to me, rarely will I use those types of references when I'm talking about Buck dancing coons. But that just shows you the depths and the utter depravity that our community has fallen into global insight perspectives. You ask, what do I say to African American voters who say, if you vote third party, you'll enable Trump to, ah, okay, global insight perspective. Great question. I was going to get to that a little later, but let me do that right now.
(00:26:37):
That gets back to my point of the dangers of binary thinking because right now we're stuck in this duopoly Republican and Democrat thinking that there are truly substantive differences between the parties when in fact it's a duopoly. They are two wings on the same bird. They are two sides of the same coin. The Democrats to a great degree, they will couch their racism, they'll couch their militarism in slightly softer language. They'll bring black faces to the forefront to sell you that bs. Linda Thomas Greenfield at the UN championing genocide, right? Kamala Harris going to Kom as I mentioned earlier, Hakeem Jeffries go to Racom, who's the head of africom. It's a black general. Lloyd Austin goes to Kenya to convince William Ruto the president of Kenya. They show him given the check to Ruto, to invade Haiti on behalf of the United States. So the Democrats, they'll roll out black faces to Barack Obama, they'll roll out black faces to sell you basically the same policies that the Republicans, they just Bogart. They go hard in the paint. They go hard in the paint. No, easy layups, hard fouls. They don't care. Democrats try to be, they try to give you a kinder, a kinder, softer militarism.
(00:28:50):
And Daniel dvi Du Bois said, race is not biological. It's cultural. Oh, that's very, very true. That's why you don't hear me usually speaking in the context of race. I speak in the context of ethnicity and I speak in the context of culture because there is absolutely no biological proof, scientific, empirical data to support the construct of race. Race is a eugenic construct, and I was just in London lecturing on this at Oxford and at Westminster Universities just got back Saturday. Thank you to Dr. Chantel Sherman for putting on that conference. Yeah, race doesn't exist. It just doesn't. It exists only in the warped mind of those that have been convinced that race is real. Race is an artificial construct that was created to a great degree by Christians in order to rationalize the dehumanization of enslaved Africans because they had to figure out if we can consider ourselves to be Christian, then how can we rationalize and justify enslaving other human beings?
(00:30:26):
Oh, here's an idea. We create this construct of race. Therefore, we can say they are an inferior group of people. And Calvinism played a very, very key part in this because one of the elements of Calvinism is predestination, predetermination. So they then were able to say, oh, these people were predetermined by God to be inferior and subservient to us, the white European. So that's where the whole construct of race comes from. Daniel, thank you so much for that. Byron Donalds. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Rell. I think that's, if I pronounced that correctly, yeah, Byron Donalds is who I was trying to think of again, folks, you have never even heard me call Clarence Thomas a coon, but Byron, Donald Coons coon, anybody that comes on stage on a stage at an event where Dixie was played. I don't care what time in the lineup, you are supposed to come on stage and shut that rascal down.
(00:31:47):
You're supposed to come on stage and quote that brilliant African-American, that late African-American philosopher Whitney Houston, and say, oh hell, to the Nall Bobby held to the Nall. We ain't going for this. But anyway, oh well, Daniel, excellent, excellent. Thank you. I appreciate your critique of that analysis. Okay, so let me try to move a little further here. Again, as I said, I see the world in unapologetically so through the lens of an African-American man. And please understand this my saying that my being pro me do not ever, and this is something that people do all the time. Black Lives Matter was an example of this. Never equate my being pro me with my being anti you, my being pro me is me being pro me.
(00:32:50):
The retort to Black Lives matter was, well, all lives matter. Yeah, that's true. But if that were a reality in the United States, if all lives in the United States actually mattered, then we wouldn't have to highlight the fact that Black Lives Matter. The reason that Black Lives mattered was developed was because we saw on our phones, on our television screens, on our computer monitors, black people being slaughtered in the street, and I'm not even going to say shot down in the street like dogs, because if I went out into the street and shot a dog in the street, I would be immediately arrested.
(00:33:41):
That's why I don't say shot down in the street like dogs, because in many communities, they seem to hold the lives of dogs in higher regard than they do African Americans. So anyway, I see the world through the lens of an African-American man and as a political scientist, I go back to the piece by Mac Jones, a message to a black political scientist where he says, as such, it's my obligation to develop a different wean Chung, a different worldview that I view the world through the prism of my experience, historical, current and personal as an African-American human being, and that I can never allow my analysis to deviate from that because that's what is the most relevant to my community. So vote or abstain, back to that point, I strongly suggest voting. I don't think that you can abdicate your duty as a citizen and sit this one out. We as American citizens, we can no longer afford to leave the management and governance of this country and system to those that we have elected to represent our interests. And I think that little element, that little kernel right there, is what unfortunately is being overlooked, and I'll say particularly in the African-American community, we keep hearing vote for Kamala vote, and I'm not saying vote or don't vote for him or her.
(00:35:45):
I'm not going to do that. If you want me to, I will tell you who I think is going to win this. I'll get to that in a minute, but I'm not saying vote for him or vote for her, vote for them or not them. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying though is that too many of us have been bludgeoned with you have to vote for her because she's a black woman. If you don't vote for her, you hate black women. You have to vote for her because Donald Trump is the reincarnation of the devil, which by the way, he is.
(00:36:21):
No, no, no. I need to know. I need her to tell me what she's going to do for me and how she's going to do it. That's all I've been demanding. Kamala, vice President Harris, tell me very, I need you to come on up to stage and say, Wilmer, look. This is what I'm going to do. This is how I'm going to do it, and this is how we're going to pay for it. I need her to do that. Folks, you can't abdicate your duty as a citizen. You can't sit this one out at a campaign event. This past Thursday evening in Arizona, former President Trump said to Tucker Carlson, she, Liz Cheney, she's a radical warhawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Okay, let's see how she feels about it. When the guns are trained on her face, they're all warhawks. When they're sitting in Washington with a nice building, Trump continued.
(00:37:35):
What he might think that casting that in the light of put a rifle in her hand and train nine at her face is some kind of military construct. No, Donald, you're not really that smart. We understand that's the context of a firing squad, and no matter how you try to spin that one, that's just disgusting. That's just disgusting. Torito, we did a show last talking about my SiriusXM show. Yes, there was a show it was a best of because I was in London at the time. I will be live tomorrow, tomorrow on SiriusXM 1 26 from 11 to two Eastern. Hopefully that answers your question. Where am I here?
(00:38:46):
So Kamala had an interview on Fox. She was asked about her platform and she didn't know it. She said, go to my website and read it. Well, yeah, that one speaks for itself, and that's what I've been saying during the whole campaign is folks, politics is not about phenotype. Politics is not about skin color. Politics is about policy, policy initiatives, policy output, policy results. I'm a political scientist. Public policy is my primary area, public policy and black politics, or it was supposed to be a political economy, but that's a whole nother conversation. That's why I'm so stuck on policy. That's what I do. That's what I do. Meg, yo from Baltimore, thank you for joining us. Get me a crab cake if you wouldn't mind. How do I feel about Dick Cheney supporting Kamala Harris? Carl, how do I feel about Dick Cheney supporting Kamala Harris? Let's understand. Now, this is my opinion. I don't have any data to support this point, but this is my opinion, and I think this is fairly accurate. I don't think that Dick Cheney in the middle of the night opened his eyes as a light was shining upon him in a voice of power and majesty filled the room and said,
Announcer (00:40:35):
Dick Cheney, purveyor of evil war criminal, you must repent and endorse Vice President Harris. And then Dick Cheney pushed back the covers
Wilmer Leon (00:40:53):
And sat up in the bed and said, oh my God, I have been saved. No, didn't happen. I think the Republican elite have come to the realization that the Frankenstein monster that they have created, Donald Trump is now ravaging and pillaging their village, and they see Kamala Harris as the last ditched attempt to salvage their party as they've known it to exist. Look, you can go back and find the language from, what's it? The Senator from South Carolina. What's the dude's name? I'm drawing a blank on that. Anyway, who told us that Donald Trump was a racist, narcissistic, xenophobic, bigot.
(00:42:10):
The record is replete with the examples of Ted Cruz. Lindsey Graham, what's her name from South Carolina, Nikki Haley, all of these Republicans, traditional members of the traditional Republican elite telling us that Donald Trump is everything but a child of God. They created this monster. You can go back to the Tea Party and one of the founders, Tom Tan credo. Remember Tom Tancredo back in 2020 or 2016 talking about we want our country back. Tom, who had your country? Tom Tancredo. I don't have your country. I don't know anybody that does Remember that. I also believe that Sarah Palin being on the ticket with what's his name from Arizona, was the precursor to Donald Trump and Carl, this is a very long way. I'm getting to your question because she made you comfortable with stupidity. She made you comfortable with ignorance.
(00:43:48):
She made you comfortable, and the you is a generic general. You as the country, she made the country comfortable with an ignorant person being a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world. She tilled the soil, she laid the groundwork for Donald Trump, and then he came in and just bogarted the whole damn game. So Carl, getting back to your point, your question. So again, Dick Cheney didn't find Jesus. What Dick Cheney realized is looking at the policies of the Biden Harris administration, particularly foreign policy, particularly militarism, because remember where he came from. Lemme see if I got the book. Remember where he came? I got over here somewhere. Oh, wait a minute. Here it is.
(00:44:58):
Sorry. The shadow world inside the global Arms trade. See if I can quickly, after Cheney left the defense department in 1992, his appointment as CEO of Halliburton in 1995 led us to a remarkable improvement in the company's fortunes, especially with regard to federal contracts. In the five years prior to his arrival, Halliburton received the poultry 100 million, paltry 100 million in government credit guarantees under Cheney. Halliburton received 15 times that amount, 1.5 billion. Cheney was paid well for her services for 48 months. He received $45 million from Halliburton, the shadow world inside the global arms trade, Andrew Feinstein. Okay, so Dick Cheney, again, it wasn't divine intervention. The hand of God didn't touch Cheney on his shoulder. No, he realized backing her, he, Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney and all those other Republicans that are now on the Harris bandwagon, they're not on that bandwagon because they're coming closer to her. They're on the bandwagon because she has come closer to them. That's my opinion. Hopefully, Carl, that answers your question. Now is that a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on who your candidate is, but I think that's the reality because when you look at Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris on stage, that's not a good vibe. I don't think I've ever seen them embrace. They may have.
(00:47:06):
I haven't seen it. It there's a distance between them because I don't think personally they really like each other beyond politics. Again, that's my opinion. I could be as wrong as the day is long. Yes, Ramel sense. They are all war mongers and war criminals based upon the international criminal court standards. They are all, not only are they war mongers, they are also war criminals. Carl, please listen tomorrow. I think I got a hell of a show for y'all tomorrow, but anyway. Oh, okay. Who do I think will win the election and why? You know what, Fred? Hold that. I'm going to get to that in a minute. I, because I have an answer for you. So lemme go back to Trump's what I call the racist hate fest. 2024 in Madison Square Garden. This was a six hour eugenic, racist hate-filled rant, and there was one in particular, which I'm sure most of you now are familiar with this.
(00:48:29):
So-called comedian, I'm not even going to mention this guy's name called Puerto Rico, a floating island of garbage. He said there's a lot going on. I don't know if you know this, but there's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it's called Puerto Rico. Now, there is actually a floating island of garbage in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Hawaii. Why not talk about that? Why not talk about the impact that there is truly a floating island of garbage off the Pacific, not the Atlantic coast, and it's full of plastics that are decimating the ecology. Fish are now being found to have microparticles of plastics in them. Sea turtles are getting caught up in all kinds. You could have talked about that in terms of a floating island of garbage, but no, you have to take that ecological disaster called a floating island of garbage off the Pacific Coast, and you have to turn that into this racist eugenic diatribe targeted at Puerto Ricans. Well, lemme tell you this, homie, Pennsylvania is a swing state.
(00:50:03):
Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes in the electoral college. Trump won the state in 2016 by a narrow margin of 0.72%. Biden was able to reclaim the state in 2020, winning it by a similarly narrow 1.17% margin or about 80,500 votes. See folks, I use data. When I take a position, when I tell you something, if it's my opinion, I'm going to tell you very clearly I don't have the data for it. Here's my opinion. When I have the data, I'm going to give you the data. So Biden was able to reclaim Pennsylvania and he won it with a 1.17% margin or about 80,500 votes.
(00:51:12):
Pennsylvania's Latino eligible voter population has more than doubled since 2000 from 206,000 to 620,000 in 2023. Now, Biden won with a margin of 80,500 votes in 2020. Now in 2016, there are 620,000 Latinos, and this is according to Census Bureau figures, and more than half of those voters, about 310,000 are eligible voters who are Puerto Rican, and they are pissed. They are pissed to the highest of Tivity. They are pissed. That's not good, Mr. So-called funny man, racist, funny man. That's not good. You didn't do your boy, you didn't do Trump any favors by going down that alleyway as Richard Pryor would say, because it may not be the voice of God.
(00:52:34):
Here's what's overlooked by a number of people. Too many of us believe that once you've cast your vote or once you've cast your ballot that your job is done. But folks, casting your ballot is just the beginning of the process. Once you've cast your ballot, your job isn't done. It's only just begun. You have to stay engaged. You have to hold those you voted for or didn't vote for accountable. You have to stay engaged. You can't abdicate your duty as a citizen and sit this one out and if you vote, you have to stay engaged. You've got to, folks, there are many, getting back to the Puerto Rican issue. There are many who will tell you, Dr. Anthony Montero, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant brother out of Philly, who will tell you that the disenchanted African-American, particularly black male community in Philly, that many of them are going to sit this out, and as a result of that, it's going to cost vice president heresy election.
(00:53:50):
I wonder if those disenchanted African-American males and females who are going to sit this out will now be offset by these angry Latinos, specifically Puerto Ricans. Again, this so-called Mr. Funny Man, I don't think at the end of the day this is going to prove to be, prove to be too funny. Harrison Wall said, claim that they're charting a new way forward to a future where everyone has the opportunity to get by, not just get by, but get ahead. I'm sorry. Her articulation of the opportunity economy is so that you don't just get by, you get ahead. They're proposing, for example, $25,000 as a down payment assistance for first time home buyers, small business entrepreneur assistance, tax cuts for the middle and working class. That's all great, that's all great and it's damn sure need it.
(00:55:05):
My question is, how's it going to be paid for? Again, I'm a policy guy. How's it going to be paid for? Has anyone publicly asked that question? How much is it going to cost? What's it going to do to the budget? What's it going to do to the deficit and how are you going to pay for it? Because with billions of dollars going to Ukraine, 8 billion about 10 days ago, 8.7 billion, about 10 days ago, going to Israel, 600 million going to Taiwan, that's 17 billion in one day last week or 10 days ago to the settler, 8.7, going to the settler colonial Zionist, settler colonial state called Israel, trying to pick a war with China. Where's this money going to come from? She's made the promise, the campaign promise. My question is, if she wins, will you hold her accountable to deliver on that promise to those who are so offended by the genocide being committed against the Palestinians and rightfully so, many of those of you believe that the answer to that atrocity is a protest vote for Trump. This gets back to the third party question. I believe my opinion that by failing to develop, understand and articulate our permanent interests and agendas, we are falling victim to the problem of binary politics. The simplest either or scenario. You're angry with Biden Harris, the Biden Harris administration for backing funding, participating in the genocide and Gaza.
(00:57:15):
So you believe that the answer to that is a vote for Trump to our Muslim brothers and Arab brothers and sisters who are rightfully appalled by these genocidal policies, I don't think your viable option is a protest vote for Trump, because remember his son-in-law, Jared Kushner is articulating plans to turn Gaza into beachfront Mediterranean condos, and Jared Kushner is a key advisor to his father-in-law. So if by chance you vote for Trump thinking, you're voting for Trump as a protest against the Biden Harris administration, I personally believe you're making a big mistake because yes, this is a two party system, but there's also third party candidates out there as well.
(00:58:25):
You've got Dr. Cornell West and Dr. Molina Abdullah. You've got Dr. Jill Stein and Dr. Butch Ware. Two examples from the Green Party. So if you're going to make a protest vote, then in my opinion, I believe in you cast a protest vote. Think about third party the real signal, in my opinion. If you want to really send a message, let the duopoly see a third party campaign. Get 20% of the vote, let a third party get enough to qualify for public campaign funding. Let a third party get a significant enough vote to qualify to be on the debate stage. Can you imagine Dr. West on stage debating Donald Trump? Can you imagine Dr. West on stage debating Vice President Harris? Can you imagine Dr. Butch Ware on the stage debating JD Vance, folks, I'm talking peace shooter at a gunfight. That's what you would be witnessing. And I'm not saying that Dr. West on stage against Kamala Harris. In fact, I'm wrong to put it in that kind of conflict scenario because it's all about the best interest of the American people. It's not about protecting one person's image against and using another person to tarnish that image. That's not what this is about.
(01:00:10):
Thank you, Sherry, for coming back and agreeing with me. This is about you. This is about America. This is about our country. This is about social security. In fact, to that point, let give y'all, let me give you a very simple example of this. We keep hearing that social security is in jeopardy, right? You've got George W that wanted to privatize social security, which we know was just grant theft auto. Here's the solution, and you can do the math yourself. This one is so simple, a 10-year-old can figure it out right now, the social security contribution that comes out of your paycheck every month if you have a paycheck gets capped at, I think it's either 140 or $144,000. Every dollar you make after 140 or $144,000 is exempt from the Social Security payroll tax.
(01:01:49):
You want to salvage social security, which by the way isn't really in jeopardy, but if you want to salvage social security, raise the ceiling on the Social security payroll tax, raise it to, I don't know, pick a number, raise it to $500,000 of salary, raise it to a million dollars of salary, raise it to 1.5 million of salary. If you are making $500,000 in salary, you can afford an additional 10%, 15%, or 10% on that. Whatever the payroll tax is, I don't have it in front of me. And what you would be able to do by doing that, you would ensure the sustainability. That's not the word I was looking for, but anyway, sustainability of social security, you ready for this? Lower the retirement age, you could lower the retirement age and don't send your money yet because there's a bamboo steamer that comes with this deal. You could expand benefits, raise benefits.
(01:03:19):
They right now are talking about what? Raising the retirement age to like 72 and what's the life expectancy of the average American about 67 years. So now you got to work five years beyond your death. Does that make sense? No, not at all. That's a very simple fix, folks. The math is simple. Raise the social security ceiling from 140 or $144,000 to a million if you make a million dollars in salary. We're not talking about return on investments, we're not talking about all those other revenue generating elements in your stock, in your portfolio, just salary. You could salvage social security, you could lower their retirement age, you could increase benefits. Why isn't Kamala Harris talking about that? Well, because as son Ray says, if we hold her accountable, they will send her the, oh, that's not one.
(01:05:03):
Oh, I'm sorry. It was JJ Mars who says the American oligarchs will never allow it. Well, JJ Mars, that's why I'm saying it's not about what the oligarchs will allow. It's about what you as American people and voters and constituents will demand so that a candidate cannot come forward and win unless they commit to doing that. And then you have to ensure that the members of Congress understand if that doesn't happen, they no longer have jobs. See, I'm not going to concede this to the American oligarchs. If I were doing that, then I'm wasting my time talk. I've wasted an hour and six minutes of my day talking to you. I could be playing golf. I could be a shaan right now on number seven, teeing off on number seven. It's beautiful outside, right? Shit, it's 80 degrees outside.
(01:06:12):
So jj, if I'm going to concede that to the oligarchs, then why have I been sitting here doing this? I'm about to fight, man. JI don't know if you're male or female, so please forgive me. I'm about to fight. I'm about to struggle. I'm about kicking ass and taking names. I'm not throwing the towel in because I'm going to succeed or die trying. The Powell memo, Sherry, what was the Powell memo and the chamber? Okay, Louis Powell, former Supreme Court Justice before Lewis Powell was nominated and appointed to the Supreme Court, Lewis Powell was the chairman or president, I don't remember the title of the National Chamber of Commerce. He was out of Richmond, Virginia. And Powell wrote what has now become known as the Powell Memo in, I want to say in the mid seventies. And the crux of the Powell memo was corporate America. Remember, he was the chairman or the president of the National Chamber of Commerce.
(01:07:43):
It was his position that corporate America had to get more involved in American politics, that corporate America had to invest more money into candidates, had to invest more money into parties, had to invest more money into the machinery. Sherry, thank you, 1972, had to invest more money into the machinery of the American political process in order to ensure that their corporate interests prevailed in the legislative system. And so that's how you now wind up with, oh, shoot, I'm drawing a blank on the Supreme Court case that now comes out and says that corporations are people too, and that corporations have interest and voices that should be allowed, and you can now contribute ungodly amounts of money into the American political system. Corporations can donate all this money to candidates. Thank you. Thank you, Zach. The Citizens United Case. Thank you. That's how you wind up with the Citizens United case.
(01:09:20):
And Sherry, I'm glad you No, I'm not talking about Elon Musk, jj. I'm talking about talking Powell. But look at how long it took. It took from 72, I think this is right to 2010 for the Citizens United case to be passed however many years that is. See, they play it for the long game. Powell writes this memo in 72, gets a Supreme Court case validating that position in 2010. Look at how long it took. They play it for the long game. We play it. I wouldn't even say for the short game. We play it. We play it an inning. We're happy with an inning at a time. They're looking at series.
(01:10:23):
So hopefully, Sherry, does that answer your question about the Powell memo and what has also become, well, some call it the Powell Doctrine. Others associate the Powell Doctrine with General Colin Powell and the You break it, you own it thing. But anyway, do I think Trump and Harris are both fascists? Yes. Yes. Yes. And how so? Because look at the industrialists that are actually controlling the policies, and what does Kamala Harris say? We are going to have the most, she didn't use the word dominant. I can't remember, Sherry. Oh, yes, sir. I have a PhD. Well, you know what, Sherry, to that point, PhD, my son says, it means two things piled higher and deeper, and it also means, please help dad. Anyway.
(01:11:36):
Now, what was I talking about? Oh, fascism. It's the corporate interests controlling policy and using the police force slash military in order to support it domestically and internationally. And so I believe that Trump is just a more vocal fascist than Kamala Harris, but I believe that she's just as fascist as the rest of 'em, as Barack Obama was, as well as was George. I mean, I don't see how you get to the exalted position of president without being a fascist, because that's one of the basis of American foreign policy is fascism. You can put a, okay, to those of you that are now up in arms, Wilmer, how can you call Kamala Harris a fascist? She's a kinder, gentler, fascist. Remember in a more attractive fascist. Remember George HW Bush and his kinder, gentler conservatism. Remember that? Well, we are now dealing with a kinder, gentler fascism. So let me look to wrap this up for now.
(01:13:24):
Anybody but Trump, I believe that whole mantra ignores the fact as a US president that he's a functionary. A US president is a functionary of the United States government. An American president is a functionary of the interests of the elite. Look at Trump's position on Venezuela. It was the same as the Biden administration. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have had policies that included US interference and other Central American and South American countries. Trump's position on tax cuts and cuts to social programs builds upon tax policy and social policy cuts from previous administrations. Remember Bill Clinton and ending welfare as we know it.
(01:14:18):
And remember, Obama's failed grand bargain. Again, folks, I'm not talking with you now saying that any candidate is the right choice or the wrong choice. I'm merely asking you, what do we get for our loyalty? What do you get for your vote? Do you get more hope without substantive and systemic change? What do you get by settling for the status quo through the willful ignorance of supporting a candidate that has a proven track record on issues that aren't in the best interest of the American people that aren't in the best interest of the African-American community? We, as Baldwin said, are merely making peace with mediocrity without substantive systemic change. Are we believing that we are really what the white world calls a nigger?
(01:15:34):
This should never become our reality. So with that, let me say to all of you all that have invested the last hour and 15 minutes of your morning with me, with us, my phenomenal, phenomenal producer, melody Graves. I would not be able to do any of this without her. Let me see. S one. All we can hope for is a president that will give us the softest landing for this dying empire. Create your own strategy to save you and your loved ones as many others as you are able to do. You're absolutely right. Oh, oh, oh, oh, right. Who do I think is going to win the election? Thank you for bringing me back to that. This is what I see you ready.
(01:16:34):
I believe that either at the end of Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, the 47th president of the United States is going to be Kamala Harris. I believe it's going, and I've consulted with a former classmate of mine, Dr. Bari Jahi, who's a brilliant, brilliant brother, and I agree. The numbers will be around 2 93 Harris, 2 45 Trump. Remember, you need two 70 to win. I don't even think Trump's going to win the popular vote. He got 75 million votes against Biden. I don't think he'll get 75 million this time. It could go to three 19 Harris, because I think that she's going to win North Carolina and I believe that she's going to win Arizona so she could go as high as three 19 or three 20. This hate fest, racist diatribe 2024 that he held in New York, I think did him incredible damage, and what he said Thursday yesterday about Liz Cheney, I think it is going to do him incredible damage. Also, I don't believe that the polling numbers that we're seeing, excuse me, I don't believe that the polling numbers are anywhere near accurate. I think you're, if you look at the polls, I think you're being sold a pig and a poke.
(01:18:41):
Remember, I forget the year in the first Obama campaign, the polling and all of the analysts and everybody, la, and everybody was telling us that Mitt Romney was going to defeat Barack Obama and that Romney was going to win by seven to nine points. Didn't happen even election night. They were still talking about Romney seven to nine point victory didn't happen. Their polling is skewed. Some of it is intentional, some of it is inherent in the systemic nature of it. Let me go through these real quickly. Please tell you who, doctor, please tell me this live will be uploaded. It will be so you can watch it again, Jackie. Thank you. Sandra believes Kamala will win as well. Trump wins with 300. Okay, Zach, we'll see. You say Trump wins with 300 plus, it might happen. Let's see, jj, whoever wins will not be able to complete their four year term. I can't speak to that. I can't predict the future. My crystal ball right now, unfortunately, is in the shop.
(01:20:08):
Sherry, I will not be voting for Harris or Trump. Okay? There are viable third parties out there, and when you think third party, you got to think long game, which I think if you really want to send a message, if you really want to have a vote protest, let the elite see a significant increase in support for third parties, and I think that'll do this. Democracy and incredible service, big C. Hey, you want to thank me for my brilliant commentary? Oh, brilliant. You're too kind. I think you just need to get out more. You believe Harris will win. Okay, so with all that and a bag of chips, here's what I want to do. I got to thank you all so much for listening, for participating in the Connecting the Dots podcast, this live podcast, we are going live, and I hope to start it next week, but there'll be more posted on that one.
(01:21:07):
Thank you again for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wier Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes, hopefully every day Monday through Friday. Please follow and subscribe. Leave a review. Folks, we're going live that costs and it costs big. I need help. I need your help. Leave a review. Share the show. Follow me. Follow us. Again, without the wonderful, brilliant Melody Graves, I would just be sitting here talking to myself. You can follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, because talk without analysis is just chatter. I don't chatter here. We don't chatter here on Connecting the dots. Tomorrow. Saturday, my show Inside The Issues with Wilmer Leon on SiriusXM 1 26, urban View, 11 to two. Got a great lineup for y'all tomorrow. Check it out. You'll be really interested and surprised, and folks, I'm going to see you again next time. Until then, I am Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great, great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (01:22:28):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 
 

The Next World War? Gaza on the Brink as Tensions Explode!

In this explosive episode of "Connecting the Dots," I tackle the recent drone strike on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's vacation home—an intense response to the IDF’s assassination of Hamas leader Yaya Seir. With award-winning journalist Laith Maru by my side, we break down the escalating conflict in Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu’s hardline stance, and the powerful symbolism of martyrdom. We also expose the Western media’s biased coverage and dive deep into the impact of U.S. foreign policy. The stakes are high, and we explore the very real possibility of a broader regional war—calling for global solidarity in these dangerous times.
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Wilmer Leon (00:00):A drone strike hit Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vacation home after the IDF martyred Hamas' political and military leader, Yahya Sinwar, in Gaza. The genocide operations continue in Gaza and Lebanon, while Netanyahu declares, "nothing will deter us." Yet, this insanity continues. Let's dive into it.
Announcer (00:37):Connecting the Dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:44):Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast. I am Dr. Wilmer Leon. Here's the point: we often view current events as though they occur in isolation, but most events take place within a broader historical context. My guests and I probe these issues to connect the dots between events and the broader context, helping you better understand and analyze the global events shaping our world. Today, we’re tackling the ongoing U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza and the looming threat of World War III. My guest for this episode is an award-winning broadcaster and journalist, based in Beirut, Lebanon—my dear brother, Laith Marouf. Welcome back, Laith.
Laith Marouf (01:43):Great to be with you, Wilmer.
Wilmer Leon (01:45):Laith, I finally got it right this time! For further analysis and interviews from the region, go to FreePalestine.Video to see Laith in action. Did I get that right, Laith?
Laith Marouf (02:08):Yes, absolutely.
Wilmer Leon (02:09):Alright, let’s dive in. Al Jazeera and other outlets confirmed that Israel’s IDF killed Hamas’ political and military leader, Yahya Sinwar, in Gaza. He was martyred a few days ago. Laith, can you talk about his significance? Some compare him to Che Guevara or General Soleimani. Who was Yahya Sinwar?
Laith Marouf (02:49):Yahya Sinwar was a crucial leader for the Palestinian cause. He was imprisoned for over 20 years by the Israeli regime, with a 400-year sentence against him. During his imprisonment, he worked closely with Palestinian prisoners from various factions, becoming a prominent figure in the movement for prisoner rights in occupied Palestine. He was later released in a prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel, after Hamas captured Israeli soldiers.
Once released, Sinwar vowed to fight for the rights of Palestinian prisoners, whom many Palestinians regard as living martyrs—those who pay the ultimate price for Palestine's liberation. Sinwar’s leadership culminated in the planning of the October 7th operation, where Israeli soldiers were captured to secure the freedom of Palestinians imprisoned in Israeli jails.
Even until his last moments, Sinwar fought for the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. Israeli media had slandered him, claiming he was hiding or that he kept Israeli prisoners around him as shields. But the truth? He was on the frontlines with his soldiers, resisting Israeli invaders for over a year.
Wilmer Leon (05:30):Laith, I want to explore something you’ve brought up before—the concept of martyrdom. I think many in the West know the term, but they don’t grasp its significance in the region. Could you elaborate on what it means when someone like Yahya Sinwar or Palestinian prisoners are called martyrs?
Laith Marouf (08:21):Absolutely, Wilmer. The concept of martyrdom exists in many cultures, even beyond a religious context. For example, Soviet communists called their dead martyrs when fighting the Nazis, and French revolutionaries used the term during their revolution. In Christianity, saints who died spreading the faith were considered martyrs.
In Islam, the word "Shahid" (martyr) holds even more weight. It comes from the Arabic root meaning "to witness." A Shahid is an eternal witness to the injustice they fought against and provides testimony to God. In Islam, martyrs hold the highest place in heaven, alongside the prophets.
Wilmer Leon (10:08):President Joe Biden called Yahya Sinwar’s death an “opportunity for a new day” in Gaza and suggested this could lead to a political settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Biden described Sinwar as an insurmountable obstacle. What are your thoughts on these statements, Laith?
Laith Marouf (11:29):Biden’s comments show how much they feared Sinwar as a leader. To call him an “insurmountable obstacle” reveals the West's complete misunderstanding of the situation. This is not the politics of personality; it's the politics of persecution. Biden's administration and the West fundamentally misunderstand that this is a people's resistance movement, not centered around one individual. Yahya Sinwar’s principles and actions galvanized the resistance. In truth, it is the imperialist mindset that’s failing here.
The West tries to erase its historical crimes—genocide in the Americas, Africa, and more. Sinwar exposed the beast for what it is. His achievement on October 7th? He showed the world the real face of white supremacy and colonialism.
Wilmer Leon (13:14):What’s your take on the rhetoric from Western leaders like Biden and Kamala Harris? They talk about peace, but they’re assassinating negotiators and leaders like Hassan Nasrallah or Soleimani, who could facilitate dialogue. How does this fit in with their supposed efforts toward peace?
Laith Marouf (21:53):There’s no safety with the empire, Wilmer. Assassination has always been part of its modus operandi. Indigenous leaders in the U.S. were murdered while negotiating treaties. Soleimani was killed on a peace mission in Iraq. This hypocrisy isn’t new—it’s just becoming more blatant. The Zionist regime and the U.S. imperial powers believe they can impose whatever deal they want on Palestine and Lebanon. But they are gravely mistaken.
Wilmer Leon (24:00):Before we talk about the drone strike on Netanyahu’s vacation home, I want to address the idea that some confuse restraint with weakness. Could you explain why resistance movements, like Hezbollah, take a different approach compared to an oppressing force like Israel?
Laith Marouf (25:05):Absolutely. Resistance movements like Hezbollah are defensive. In 1982, Israeli forces took just four days to march from southern Lebanon to Beirut. In 2006, they couldn’t get past the valleys in the south, and now, in 2023, they can’t even advance a few meters into Lebanon. Hezbollah has repelled their attempts for 18 days straight, destroying their tanks and armored vehicles.
Hezbollah doesn't need to invade northern Palestine at this moment. Its strategy is to weaken the Israeli military, so when the time comes, an invasion will be decisive.
Wilmer Leon (28:13):You mentioned that a full-scale war could erupt before the U.S. elections. Why would the Biden-Harris administration risk such a conflict so close to an election?
Laith Marouf (29:06):Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. want to ensure that, no matter who wins the election, the war continues. Both Trump and Biden will be trapped into supporting Israel's agenda. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Kamala Harris suspended the election under martial law, should American soldiers start returning in body bags.
Wilmer Leon (31:24):Many African Americans ask why they should care about Palestine. Could you explain the connection between our struggles?
Laith Marouf (33:37):Historically, the struggles of African Americans and Palestinians are deeply intertwined. The Black Panthers trained with Palestinian resistance fighters in Algeria. In the 60s and 70s, many African Americans, Indigenous Americans, and leftist movements understood the international struggle against imperialism. Today, the empire is once again repressing marginalized communities, and Palestinians are facing similar repression. This should resonate with African Americans, as it's a global fight against the same oppressors.
Wilmer Leon (37:03):Now, about the drone strike on Netanyahu's vacation home. I remember saying on my show that someone needed to send a message, perhaps with a missile in his swimming pool—not to assassinate him, but to show they could reach him anytime. What do we know about this recent strike?
Laith Marouf (38:48):Yes, the drone strike was surgical. Netanyahu’s house near Tel Aviv was hit, and although Israeli media claims that Netanyahu and his wife narrowly escaped, the message was clear. The operation was meticulous, with missiles and drones sent in layers to confuse Israel's defense systems. Hezbollah has shown it can strike when and where it wants.
Wilmer Leon (40:59):This dark humor among Palestinians and Lebanese—like the jokes about sending quiet drones—seems to reflect something deeper about their mindset. What are your thoughts?
Laith Marouf (41:42):You're absolutely right. People here use dark humor and poetry to cope with endless invasions and destruction. It's a way to assert their humanity despite being subjected to constant imperial aggression.
Wilmer Leon (42:44):The U.S. media is so out of touch. I saw an "expert" on MSNBC comparing Hamas to drug cartels. The journalist didn’t push back at all. How does this speak to the state of journalism in America?
**Laith Marouf (44:19(continued from last segment…)
Laith Marouf (44:19):The propaganda in the West has reached a point where groupthink dominates. Critical thinking has been rooted out, so media narratives continue building on false assumptions. This has caused severe cognitive dissonance, especially regarding Israel and Palestine. The Western media has become so detached from reality that it’s making poor decisions seem justified. Assassinating negotiators and leaders only galvanizes resistance, and yet they keep making the same mistakes.
Wilmer Leon (46:38):There’s a saying attributed to Sun Tzu, “The evil ruler burns his own village to rule over the ashes.” I believe this applies to Netanyahu, Biden, and Harris. But it’s important to note that this is not just administration policy—this is American foreign policy. It transcends the individual leaders. What’s your take on that?
Laith Marouf (47:41):Absolutely. This is deeply embedded in U.S. foreign policy, especially in relation to the Middle East. Countries like Iran, Lebanon, and Syria stand in the way of imperial control, and the U.S. is willing to burn 30,000 years of civilization to maintain dominance. It’s not about protecting the land or people, but rather about control at all costs. They’re willing to destroy the Fertile Crescent, the birthplace of human civilization, to get what they want.
Wilmer Leon (48:53):Let’s talk about Yemen. The U.S. is now going after Ansar Allah, known in the West as the Houthis. The head of Ansar Allah, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, is reportedly being targeted. What does the name "Ansar Allah" signify, and what’s their role in the broader resistance?
Laith Marouf (49:39):Ansar Allah means "Helpers of God." Historically, it refers to the Yemeni tribes who allied with Prophet Muhammad when he migrated to Medina. They view themselves as the original Muslims and carry that banner in their struggle today. Despite being the poorest country in the world, Yemen has managed to withstand bombings from U.S., British, and Saudi forces for years. Recently, they hit an American aircraft carrier, showing their power on the high seas. Yemen is a key part of the axis of resistance, and it’s no surprise that the empire is now targeting them.
Wilmer Leon (52:22):People need to understand how costly this war is. It costs between $6 million and $8 million a day to operate a U.S. supercarrier like the USS Eisenhower or Gerald Ford. We struggle to fund infrastructure here at home, but we're spending billions abroad.
Laith Marouf (55:50):Exactly. They claim it costs $20 billion a year to support Israel’s war efforts, but that number is far from accurate. It’s probably closer to trillions. Qatar, for instance, admitted to spending $2 trillion funding the war in Syria. The U.S. and its allies in the Gulf are pouring dark money into these wars, and we’re seeing the same playbook in Palestine.
Wilmer Leon (58:16):As we wrap up, Laith, what are the two or three key points you want people to take away from our conversation?
Laith Marouf (58:32):First, visit FreePalestine.Video to stay informed and support the truth. Second, we’re at a critical moment in history. The West will go to extreme lengths to maintain the Zionist colony. We’re likely headed toward an Israeli attack on Iran, which will lead to a regional war involving Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Lebanese fighters. This will draw the U.S. into direct conflict. Finally, Western citizens have a responsibility to stop their governments from escalating this into a nuclear war. The stakes couldn’t be higher—this is about the survival of humanity.
Wilmer Leon (01:01:07):Laith Marouf, my dear brother, thank you for your time today. I’m always grateful for your insights. Stay safe, and we’ll talk again soon.
Laith Marouf (01:01:31):Thank you, Wilmer. See you soon.
Wilmer Leon (01:01:34):And thank you all for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Follow, subscribe, leave a review, and share the show. You can find all the links to our social media in the show description below. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge—because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don’t chatter here on Connecting the Dots. See you next time. I’m Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I’m out.
Announcer (01:02:18):Connecting the Dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon—where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

Divide and Rule: The Elite’s Playbook to Control America

In this electrifying episode of Connecting the Dots, I sat down with Jon Jeter—two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, former Washington Post bureau chief, and Knight Fellowship recipient—who pulled no punches as we unraveled the hidden dynamics of America’s class war. Drawing from his explosive book Class War in America, Jeter revealed how the elite have masterfully weaponized race to keep the working class fractured and powerless, ensuring they stay on top. He delves into the ways education is rigged to widen inequality, while elite interests tighten their grip on public policy. With gripping personal stories and razor-sharp historical insight, Jeter paints a vivid picture of the struggle between race and class in America and leaves us with a tantalizing vision of a united working-class revolution on the horizon. This is an episode that will shake your understanding of power—and inspire you to see the potential for change.
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Wilmer Leon (00:00:00):
I'm going to quote my guest here. We've been watching for a while now via various social media platforms and mainstream news outlets, the genocide of the Palestinian people, what do the images of a broad swath of Americans, whites and blacks, Latinos, Arabs and Asians, Jews and Catholics and Muslims, and Buddhists shedding their tribal identities and laying it all out on the line to do battle with the aristocrats who are financing the occupation. Slaughter and siege mean to my guest. Let's find out
Announcer (00:00:40):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history
Wilmer Leon (00:00:46):
Converge. Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which many of these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the issue before us is again, quoting my guest. When the 99% come together to fight for one another rather than against each other is the revolution. Na, my guest is a former foreign correspondent for the Washington Post. His work can be found on Patreon as well as Black Republic Media, and his new book is entitled Class War in America. How The Elite Divide the Nation by asking, are you a worker or are you white? Phenomenal, phenomenal work. John Jeter is my guest, as always, my brother. Welcome back to the show.
Jon Jeter (00:02:07):
It's a pleasure to be here. Wilmer.
Wilmer Leon (00:02:10):
So class war in America, how the elites divide the nation by asking, are you a worker or are you white? You open the book with two quotes. One is from the late George Jackson, settle Your Quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation. Understand that fascism is already here, that people are already dying, who could be saved that generations more will live. Poor butchered half lives. If you fail to act, do what must be done. Discover your humanity and love your revolution. Why that quote? And then we'll get to the second one. Why that quote, John?
Jon Jeter (00:02:50):
That quote, really that very succinct quote by the revolutionary, the assassinated revolutionary. George Jackson really explains in probably a hundred words, but it takes me 450 pages to explain, which is that the ruling class, the oligarchs, we call 'em what you want. Somewhere around the Haymarket massacre of 1886, I believe they figured out that the way that the few can defeat the many is to divide the many to pit it against itself, the working class against itself. And so since then, they have a embark on a strategy of pitting the working class against itself largely along, mostly along racial or tribal lines, mostly white versus black. And it has enveloped, the ruling class has enveloped more and more people into whiteness. First it was Italians and Germans and Jews, or Jews really starting after World War II and the Holocaust. And then it was gays and women, and now even blacks themselves have been enveloped in this sort of adjacency to whiteness where everyone sort of gets ahead by beating up, by punching down on black people. And so George Jackson's quote really sort of encapsulates the success that we, the people can have by working together. And I want to be very clear about the enemy is not white people. The enemy is a white identity.
(00:04:48):
Hungarians and Czech and the Brits and the French and the Italians are not our enemy. They are glorious people who have done glorious things, but the formation of a white identity is really the kryptonite for working class movements in this country.
Wilmer Leon (00:05:07):
In fact, I'm glad you make that point because I wanted to call attention to the fact that a lot of people listening to this and hear you talk about the Irish or the Poles or the Italians, that in Europe, those were nationalisms, those were not racial constructs. Those were not racial identities. And that it really wasn't until many of them came to America and or post World War ii, that this construct of whiteness really began to take hold as the elite in America understood, particularly post-slavery. That if the poor and the working class whites formed an alliance with the newly freed, formerly enslaved, that that would be a social condition that they would not be able to control.
Jon Jeter (00:06:11):
It was almost, it was as close to invincible as you could ever see. This coalition, which particularly after slavery, very tenuously,
(00:06:24):
But many, many whites, particularly those who were newer to the country, Germans and Italians and Irish, who had not formed a white identity, formed a white identity here. As you said in Europe, they were Irish Italians. Germans. One story I think tells the tale, it was a dock workers strike in New Orleans in 1894. I read about this in the book, and the dock workers were segregated, black unions and white unions, but they worked together, they worked in concert, they went on strike for higher wages, and I think a closed shop, meaning that if you worked on the docks, you had to belong to the union and they largely won. And the reason for that is because the bosses, the ship owners tried to separate the two. They would tell the white dock workers, we'll work with you, but we won't work with those N words.
(00:07:22):
And many of the dock workers at that time had just come over from Europe. So they were like, what are you talking about? He's a worker just like me. I worked right next to him, or he works the doc over from me or the platform over from me. He's working there. So what do you mean you're not going to work with, you're going to deal with all of us? And that ethos, that governing ethos of interracial solidarity was one that really held the day until 20 years later, 20 years later, by which time Jim Crow, which was really an economic and political strategy, had really taken hold. And many of the dock workers, their children had begun to think of themselves as white.
Wilmer Leon (00:08:06):
In fact, I'm glad you referred to the children because another parallel to this is segregated education. As the framers, and I don't mean of the constitution, but of this culture, wanted to impose this racial caste system, they realized you can't have little Jimmy and little Johnny playing together sitting next to each other in classrooms and then try to impose a system of hierarchy based on phenotype as these children get older. What do you mean I can't play with him? What do you mean I can't play with her? She's my friend. No, not anymore. And so that's one of the things that contributed to this phenotypical ethos separating white children from black children.
Jon Jeter (00:09:01):
Education has been such a pivotal instrument for the elites, for the oligarchs, for the investor class in fighting this class war. It's not just been an instrument, a tool to divide education in the United States. It's largely intended to reproduce inequality, and it always has been, although obviously many of us, many people in the working class see, there's a tool to get ahead. That's not how the stock class sees it.
(00:09:35):
But beyond that even it is the investment in education. This is a theme throughout the book from the first chapter to the last basically where education, because it is seen as a tool for uplift by the working class, but by the investment class, it's seen as a tool to divide. And increasingly really since about really the turn of the century, this century, the 21st century, it's been seen as an investment opportunity. So that's why we have all of these school closures and the school privatization effort. It's an investment opportunity. So the problem is that we're fighting a class war. We've always been fighting a class war, but it's something that is seldom mentioned in public discussions in the media, the news or entertainment media, it's seldom mentioned, but schools education, you could make an argument that it is the holy grail of the class war, whoever can capture the educational system because it can become a tool both by keeping it public or I guess making it public now, returning it to public. And so much of it is in private hands by maintaining its public nature, and at the same time using it to reduce inequality as opposed to reproducing inequality
Wilmer Leon (00:11:08):
And public education and access to those public education dollars is also an element of redistribution of wealth because as access to finance is becoming more challenging, particularly through the neocolonialist idea using public dollars for private sector interest, giving access to those public education dollars to the private sector is another one of the mechanisms that the elite used to redistribute public dollars into private hands.
Jon Jeter (00:11:49):
One of the things that I discovered and researching this book was the extent to which bonds sold by municipalities, by the government, those bonds are sold to investors. That is more and more since really the Reagan era, because we've shipped manufacturing offshore. So how do you make money if you are invested, if you've got surplus money laying around, how do you make money? You invest it, speculate. Loan tracking essentially is what it is. One of the ways that you can make money. One of the things that you can invest money in is the public sector. So schools become an instrument for finance. And so what we see around the country are schools education becoming an investment vehicle for the rich and they can invest in it and they're paying higher and higher returns. Taxpayers.
(00:12:57):
You and I, Wilmer, are paying more and more to satisfy our creditors. For as one example, I believe it was in San Diego or a school district near or right outside San Diego, this was about 20 years ago, but they took out a loan to finance public education there, I believe just their elementary schools in that district. And it was something like a hundred million dollars loan just for the daily operations of that school district. And that had a balance due or the money, the interest rate was such that it was going to cost the taxpayers in that district a billion dollars to repay that loan, right? So that is an extreme example. But increasingly what we've seen is public education bonds that are used to pay for the daily operations of our municipalities are the two of the class war are an instrument of combat in the class war because the more that cities practice what we call austerity, what economists call austerity, cutting the budget to the very bare minimum, the more investment opportunities it creates for the rich who then reap that money back.
(00:14:15):
So they've got a tax cut because they're not paying for the schools upfront, and it becomes an investment opportunity because they're paying for the schools as loans, which they give back exorbitant interest rates, sometimes resembling the interest rates on our credit card. So a lot of this is unseen by the public, but it really is how the class war being waged in the 21st century speculation because our manufacturing sector has been shipped offshore, and that's how we made the elites made their money for more than a century after World War ii, after the agrarian period. So yeah, it's really invisible to the naked eye, but it is where it's the primary battlefield for the class war.
Wilmer Leon (00:15:00):
The second quote you have is Muriel Rukeyser. The universe is made of stories, not of atoms. And I know that that resonates with you particularly because as a journalist, one who tells stories, why is that quote so significant and relevant to this book?
Jon Jeter (00:15:26):
This book is really, it took me almost a quarter of my life to write this book from the time that the idea first occurred to me, to the time I finished almost 15 years. And it's evolved over time. But one of the biggest setbacks was just trying to find a publisher. And many publishers, I think, although they did not say this, they objected to the subject matter. And my characterization, I have one quote again from George Jackson where he says, the biggest barrier to the advancement of the working class in America is white racism. So I think they objected to that. But I also faced issues with a few black publishers, one of whom said that after reading the manuscript that it didn't have enough theory. I would say to anyone, any publisher who thinks that theory is better than story probably shouldn't be a publisher. But I also think it's sort of symptomatic of today's, the media today where we don't understand that stories are what connects us to each other, Right? The suffering, the struggle, the triumphs of other people of our ancestors,
Wilmer Leon (00:16:48):
The reality Of the story
Jon Jeter (00:16:51):
reality, yes,
Wilmer Leon (00:16:52):
Juxtaposed to the theoretical.
Jon Jeter (00:16:56):
That's exactly right.
Wilmer Leon (00:16:57):
In Fact,
Jon Jeter (00:16:59):
The application of the theory,
Wilmer Leon (00:17:01):
I tell my students and when I was teaching public policy that you have to understand the difference between the theoretical and the practical, and that there are a lot of things in policy that in theory make a whole lot of sense until you then have to operationalize that on a daily basis and then have it make real sense. Big difference between the theoretical and the practical.
Jon Jeter (00:17:26):
No question about it. And you see this over and over again throughout the book, you see examples of, for instance, the application of communist theory. And I'm not advocating for anyone to be a communist, just that there was a very real push by communists in the United States encouraged by communists and the Soviet Union in the 1930s to try to start a worldwide proletarian revolution, the stronghold of which was here in the United States. And so the Scotts Corps boys, nine teenage boys, black boys who were falsely accused of rape, became the testing ground for communism right now, communism. It was something that sparked the imagination of a lot of black people. Very few joined the party, but it sparked the imagination. So you found a lot of blacks who were sympathetic to communism in the thirties and the forties.
Wilmer Leon (00:18:21):
 Rosa Parks's husband Rosa.
Jon Jeter (00:18:23):
That's correct.
Wilmer Leon (00:18:24):
Rosa. Rosa Parks's husband, Rosa Parks, the patron saint of protest politics.
Jon Jeter (00:18:31):
Yes. Coleman Young, the first black mayor of Detroit. I write about very specifically. It was a thing, right? But it was the application of it. And ultimately, I think most of the blacks, many of the blacks certainly who tried to implement communism would argue not only that they failed, but that communism failed them as well. So I don't, again, not an advocacy for communism, but that idea really did move the needle forward. And I think our future is not in our past. So going forward, we might sort of learn from what happened in the past, and there might be some things we can learn from communism, but I think ultimately it is, as the communist say, dialectical materialism. You can't dip your toe in the same river twice. So it is moving like it's gathering steam and it's not going to be what it was. Although we can take some lessons from the past, from the Scottsboro boys from the 1930s and the 1940s.
Wilmer Leon (00:19:29):
You write in your prologue quote, I cannot predict with any certainty the quality of that revolution, the one we were talking about in the open, or even it's outcome only that it is imminent for the historical record clearly asserts that the nationwide uprisings on college campuses' prophecy the resumption of hostilities between America's workers and their bosses. I'm going to try and connect the dot here, which may not make any sense, or you may say, Wilmer, that was utterly brilliant. I prefer the latter. Just over the past few days, former President Trump has been suggesting using the military to handle what he calls the enemy from within, because he is saying on election day, if he doesn't win, there will be chaos. And he says, not from foreign actors, but from the radical left lunatics, he says, I think the bigger problem are the people from within. And he says, you may need to use the National Guard, you may need to use the military, because this is going to happen. Now, I know you and Trump aren't talking. You're about two different things. I realize that different with different agendas, but this discussion about nationwide uprisings, and so your thoughts on how you looking at the college protests and what that symbolizes in terms of the discontent within the country and what Trump is, the fear that Trump is trying to sow in the minds relative to the election. Does that make any sense?
Jon Jeter (00:21:18):
It makes perfect sense. You don't say that about warmer Leon, all that all.
Wilmer Leon (00:21:21):
Oh, thank you. You're right.
Jon Jeter (00:21:22):
It makes perfect sense. But no, and actually I would draw a pretty straight line from Trump to what I'm writing about in the book. For instance, Nixon, who was a very smart man, and Trump was not a very smart man, it's just that he used his intelligence for evil. But Richard Nixon was faced with an uprising, a nationwide uprising on college campuses, and he resorted to violence, as we saw with Kent State.
Wilmer Leon (00:21:52):
Kent State, yes.
Jon Jeter (00:21:53):
Very intentional.
Wilmer Leon (00:21:54):
Jackson State,
Jon Jeter (00:21:55):
Yes, it was
Wilmer Leon (00:21:56):
Southern University in Louisiana.
Jon Jeter (00:21:58):
Yes, yes, yes. But Kent State was a little bit of an outlier because it was meant white kids as a shot across the bow to show white kids that if you continue to collaborate with blacks, with the Vietnamese, continue to sympathize with them and rally on their behalf, then you might get exactly what the blacks get and the Vietnamese are getting right. And honestly, in the long term, that strategy probably worked. It did help to divide this insurgency that was particularly activated on college campuses. So what Trump, I think is faced with what he will be faced with if he is reelected, which I think he very well may be, what he's going to be faced with is another insurgency that is centered on college campuses. This time. It's not the Vietnamese, it's the Palestinians, and increasingly every day the Lebanese. But it's the very same dynamic at work, which is this, you have white people on college campuses, particularly when you talk about the college campuses in the Ivy League.
(00:23:13):
These are kids who are mostly to the manner born. If you think about it, what they're doing is they are protesting their future employer. They're putting it all on the line to say, no, no, no, no, there's something bigger than my career than me working for you. And that is the fate of the Palestinian people. That's very much what happened in the late sixties, early seventies with the Vietnamese. And so Mark Twain is I think perhaps the greatest white man in American history, but one thing he got wrong. I don't think history rhymes. I think it does indeed repeat itself, but I think that's what we're seeing now with these kids on college campuses, that people thought that they dismantled these campus, these encampments all across the nation during the summer, the spring semester, and that when they came back that it would be over squash.
(00:24:07):
That's not what's happening. They're coming back loaded for bear. These college students, that does not all go well for the establishment, particularly in tandem with other things are going on, which is these nationwide, very likely a very serious economic crisis. Financial crisis is imminent, very likely. And these other barometers of social unrest, police killings of blacks, the cop cities that are being built around the country, environmental issues, what's happening in Gaza that can very much intersect. We're already seeing it. It's intersected with other issues. So there is a very real chance that we're going to see a regrouping of this progressive working class movement. How far it goes, we can't say we don't know. I mean, just because you protest doesn't mean that the oligarch just say, okay, well, you got it, you want, it doesn't happen that way. But what's the saying? You might not win every fight, but you're going to lose every fight that you don't fight. So we have a chance that we got a punch a chance like Michael Spinx with Mike Tyson made, but we got a shot.
Wilmer Leon (00:25:26):
And to that point, what did Mike Tyson say? Everybody can fight till they get punched in the face. Yeah,
Jon Jeter (00:25:32):
Everybody's got to plan until they get punched in the nose right
Wilmer Leon (00:25:35):
Now. So to your point about kids putting everything on the line and the children of the elite, putting it on the line, there was a university, a Bolt Hall, which is the law school at University of California, Berkeley, Steven David Solomon. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the law firm of Winston and Strawn did the right thing when it revoked the job offer of an NYU law student who publicly condemned Israel for the Hamas terrorist attacks. Legal employers in the recruiting process should do what Winston and Strawn did treat these students like the adults they are, if a student endorses hate dehumanization or antisemitism, don't hire 'em. So he was sending a very clear message, protest if you want to, there's going to be a price to pay.
Jon Jeter (00:26:30):
Yeah, I think those measures actually are counterproductive for the elites. It really sort of rallies and galvanizes. What we saw at Cornell, I'm not sure what happened with this, but a few weeks ago, they were talking about a student activist who was from West Africa, I believe, and the school Cornell was trying to basically repatriate, have them deported. But I think actions like that tend to work against the elite institutions. I hate to say this because I'm not an advocate of it, although I realize it's sometimes necessary violence seems to work best both for the elites and for the working class. And I'm not advocating that, but I'm just saying that historically it has occurred and it has been used by both sides when any student of France, Nan knows that when social movements allow the state to monopolize violence, you're probably going to lose that fight. And I think honestly speaking, that the state understands that violences can be as most effective weapon. People don't want to die, particularly young people. So it becomes sort of a clash between an irresistible force and an immovable object. Again, that's why I say I can't predict what will happen, but I do think we're on the verge of a very real, some very real social upheaval
Wilmer Leon (00:27:54):
Folks. This is the brilliance of John Jeter, journalist two time Pulitzer Prize finalists. We're talking about his book Class War in America, how the Elites Divide the Nation by asking, are you a worker or are you white? As you can see, I have the book, I've read the book, phenomenal, phenomenal, phenomenal writer. Writer. You write in chapter one, declarations of War. And I love the fact you quote, Sun Tzu, all warfare is based on deception.
Jon Jeter (00:28:24):
That's Right.
Wilmer Leon (00:28:25):
You write on the last day of the first leg of his final trip abroad, his president with Donald Trump waiting in the wings, a subdued Barack Obama waxed poetic on the essence of democracy as he toured the Acropolis in Greece. It's here in Athens that so many of our ideas about democracy, our notions of citizenship, our notions of rule of law began to develop. And then you continue. What was left unsaid in Obama's August soliloquy is that while Greece is typically acknowledged by Western scholars as the cradle of democracy, the country could in fact learn a thing or two about governance from its protege across the pond. What types of things do you see that we still could learn from them since we're being told in this election, democracy is on the ballot and all of those rhetorical tactics? Yeah, a minute, a minute, a minute. Especially in the most recent context of Barack Obama helping to set the stage of a Kamala Harris loss and blaming it on black men.
Jon Jeter (00:29:43):
Yeah, that's exactly what he's doing. He's setting us up to be the scapegoats,
Wilmer Leon (00:29:48):
One of the does my connecting the dots there. Does that make sense?
Jon Jeter (00:29:52):
It makes perfect sense. And one of the themes of this book that I guess I didn't want to hammer home too much because it makes me sound too patriotic, but in one sense, what I'm writing about when I talk about the class war, what I'm writing about is this system of racial capitalism, right? Capitalism. Capitalism is exploited. Racial capitalism pits the workers against each other by creating a super exploited class that would be African-Americans and turning one half of the working class against the other half, or actually in the case of the United States, probably 70% against 30% or something like that. Anyway, but the antidote to racial capitalism is racial solidarity, which is a system of governance in which black men are fit to participate in, because we tend to be black men and black women tend to be the most progressive actors, political actors in the United States, the vanguard of the revolution, really, when we've had revolution in this country, we've been leaders of that revolution. And so what I was really trying to lay out with that first chapter where I talk about this interracial coalition in Virginia in the late 1870s, early 1880s, is that this was a century before South Africa created the Rainbow Nation, right? Nelson Mandela's Rainbow Nation, which didn't produce the results that the United States.
Wilmer Leon (00:31:32):
There was no pot of gold. There was no pot of gold.
Jon Jeter (00:31:34):
Yeah, not so far, we've seen no sight of it. And Brazil hadn't even freed its slaves when this readjust party emerged in Virginia. And so what I'm saying is that this interracial coalition that we saw most prominently in Virginia, but really all across the nation, we saw these interracial coalitions, political coalitions, were all across the Confederacy after the Civil War, and they had varying degrees of success in redistributing wealth from rich to poor, rich to working class. But the point is that no country has really seen such a dynamic interracial rainbow coalition or racial democracy, such as we've seen here in the United States, both in that period after the Civil War, and also in the period between, say, I would say FDRs election as president in 1930, was that 31, 33? 33.
(00:32:36):
So roughly about the time of Ronald Reagan, we saw, of course there was racism. We didn't end racism, but there was this tenuous collaboration between white and black workers that redistributed wealth. So that by 1973, at the height of it, the working class wages accounted for more than half of GDP. Now it's about 58%, I'm sorry, 42% that the workers' wages accountant for GDP. So the point I'm making really is that this racial democracy, this racial democracy has served the working class very well in the United States, and by dissipating that racial democracy, it has served the elites very well. So Barack Obama's plea to black men, which is really quite frankly aimed at white men, telling them, showing them, Hey, I've got the money control. His job is to sort of quell this uprising by black men, and he's trying to tell plea with black men to vote for Kamala Harris, knowing that the Democratic Party, particularly since 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected, has not only done nothing for black men, but in fact has sought to compete for white suburban voters, IE, many of them racist has sought to compete with the GOP for white suburban voters
(00:34:04):
By showing they can be just as hard on black people as the GOP. People think that the 1995, was it 1994, omnibus crime Bill 94, racial 94, the racial disparities were unintended consequences. They weren't unintended at all. They weren't in fact, the point they wanted to show white people, the Democratic Party, bill Clinton, our current president, Joe Biden, and many other whites in Democratic party want to show whites, no, no, no, no. We got these Negroes in check. We can keep them in control just like the GOP can. And that continues to be the unofficial unstated policy today, which is why Kamala Harris says, I'm not going to do anything, especially for black people. It's why, for instance, nothing has changed legislatively since George Floyd was lynched before our eyes four years ago. Absolutely nothing has changed. That's an accent that is by design. So there's some very real connections that could be made. There's a straight line that can be made from the read adjuster party in Virginia in the 1880s, which had some real successes in redistributing wealth from rich to the workers and to the poor. And it was an interracial collaboration to Barack Obama appearing, pleading with black men to come vote for Kamala Harris, despite the fact she's done nothing for black men or for black people.
Wilmer Leon (00:35:31):
And to your earlier point, offering nothing but rhetoric and the opportunity economy where everybody, what in the world is, how does that feed the bulldog? So we've gone from, at least in terms of what they're, I believe, trying to do with black politics. We've gone from a politics of demand. We've gone from a politics of accountability to just a politics of promises and very vague. And this isn't in any way, shape or form trying to convince people that Donald Trump is any better. No, that's not what this conversation is about. But it's about former President Obama coming to a podium and telling black men how admonishing black men, how dare you consider this. But my question is, well, what are the specific policies that Vice President Harris is offering that she can also pass and pay for that are going to benefit the community? Because that's what this is supposed to be about, policy output.
Jon Jeter (00:36:55):
And that's the one thing that's not going to happen until the working class, we, the people decide, and I don't know what the answer's going to be, if it's going to be a third party, if it's going to be us taking control of the Democratic Party at the grassroots level, I don't know what it's going to be. But the philosophical underpinnings of both political parties is black suffering, right? Black suffering is what greases the wheel, the wheel, the political wheel, the economic wheel of the United States, the idea that you can isolate blacks and our suffering. What Reagan did, what Reagan began was a system of punishing blacks in the workplace, shipping those jobs overseas, which Reagan began, and very slowly, Clinton is the one who really picked up the pace,
Wilmer Leon (00:37:44):
The de-industrialization of America.
Jon Jeter (00:37:47):
The de-industrialization of America was based on black suffering. We were the first, was it last hired? First fired. And so we were the ones who lost those jobs initially, and it just snowballed, right? We lost those jobs. And think about when we saw the crack epidemic. Crack is a reflection of crises,
(00:38:12):
Right? Social crises. So we saw this thing snowball, really, right? But you, in their mind, you can isolate the suffering until you can't. What do I mean by that? Well, if you have just a very basic understanding of the economy, you understand that if you rob 13% of your population buying power, you robbed everybody of buying power, right? I mean, who's going to buy your goods and services if we no longer have buying power? We don't have jobs that pay good wages, we have loans that we can't repay. How does that sustain a workable economy? And maybe no one will remember this, but you've probably heard of Henry Ford's policy of $5 a day that was intended to sustain the economy with buying one thing, the one thing
Wilmer Leon (00:39:07):
 wait a minute, so that his workers, his assembly line automobile workers could afford to buy the product they were making. There are those who will argue that one of the motivations for ending slavery was the elite looked at the industrialists, looked at this entire population of people and said, these can be consumers. These people are a drag on the economy. If we free them, they can become consumers.
Jon Jeter (00:39:45):
You don't have to be a communist to understand that capitalism at its best. It can work for a long time, for a sustained period of time. It can work very well for a majority of the people. If the consumers have buying power. We don't have that anymore. We're a nation of borrowers.
Wilmer Leon (00:40:07):
It's the greed of the capitalists that makes capitalism consumptive, and there's another, the leviathan, all of that stuff.
Jon Jeter (00:40:19):
Yes. And again, black suffering is at the root of this nation's failure. We have plunged into this dark hole because they sought first to short circuit our income, our resources, but it's affected the entire economy. And the only way to rebuild it, if you want to rebuild a capitalist economy, and that's fine with me, the only way you can rebuild is to restore buying power for a majority of the Americans. As we saw during the forties, the fifties, particularly after the war, we saw this surge in buying power, which created, by the way, the greatest achievement of the industrial age, which was the American middle class. And that was predicated again on racial democracy. Blacks participating in the democracy.
Wilmer Leon (00:41:10):
You mentioned black men and women tended to be incredibly progressive, and that black men and women were the vanguard of the revolution. What then is the problem with so many of our black institutions that, particularly when you look at our HBCUs that make so many of them, anything but progressive,
Jon Jeter (00:41:42):
That's a real theme of the book. This thing called racial capitalism has survived by peeling off more and more people. At first, it was the people who came through Ellis Island, European Central Europeans, Hungarians checks, and I have someone in the book I'm quoting, I think David Roediger, the labor historian, famous labor historian, where he quoted a Serbian immigrant, I think in the early 1900's , saying, the first thing you learn is you don't wanna be, that the blacks don't get a fair chance, meaning that you don't want to be anything like them. You don't want to associate with them. And that was a very powerful thing. That's indoctrination. But they do. They peel off one layer after another. One of the most important chapters in the book, I think was the one that begins with the execution of the Rosenbergs, who were the Rosenbergs. Ethel and Julius Rosenbergs were communists, or at least former communists who probably did, certainly, Julius probably did help to pass nuclear technology to the Soviet Union in the late forties, early fifties.
(00:42:52):
At best. It probably sped up the Russians. Soviet Union's ability to develop the bomb sped up by a year, basically. That's the best that it did. So they had this technology already. Ethel Rosenberg may have typed up the notes. That's all she probably did. And anyway, the state, the government, the US government wanted to make an example out of them. And so they executed them and they executed Ethel Rosenberg. They wanted her to turn against her husband, which would've been turning against her country, her countryman, right? She realized that she wouldn't do it. I can tell you, Ethel Rosenberg was every bit as hard as Tupac. She was a bad woman.
Wilmer Leon (00:43:40):
But was she as hard as biggie?
Jon Jeter (00:43:41):
I dunno, that whole east coast, west coast thing, I dunno. But that was a turning point in the class where, because what it was intended to do, or among the things it was intended to do, was the Jews were coming out the Holocaust. The Jews were probably, no, not probably. They certainly were the greatest ally blacks. Many of the communists who helped the Scotsboro boys in the 1930s, and they were communists. Many of them were Jews, right? It was no question about, because the Jews didn't see themselves as white. Remember, Hitler attacked them because they were non-white because they were communists. That's why he attacked them. And that was certainly true here, where there was a very real collusion between Jewish communists and blacks, and it was meant execution of the Rosenbergs was meant to send a signal to the working class, to the Jewish community, especially. You can continue to eff around with these people if you want right,
Wilmer Leon (00:44:43):
but you'll wind up like em.
Jon Jeter (00:44:44):
Yeah. Yeah. And at the same time, you think right after the Rosenbergs execution, this figure emerged named Milton Friedman, right? Milton Friedman who said, Hey, wait a minute. This whole brown versus Board of Education, you don't have to succumb to that white people. You can send your kids to their own schools or private schools and make the state pay for it. So very calculated move where the Jews became white, basically, not all of them. You still have, and you still have today, as we see with the protest against Israel, the Jewish community is still very progressive as a very progressive wing and are still our allies in a lot of ways. But many of them chose to be white. The same thing has happened ironically, with black people, right? There is a segment of the population that's represented by a former president, Barack Obama, by Kamala Harris, by the entire Congressional black office that has been offered, that has been extended, this sort of olive branch of prosperity.
(00:45:40):
If you help us keep these Negroes down, you can have some of this too. Like the scene in Trading Places where Eddie Murphy is released from jail. He's sitting in the backseat with these two doctors and they're like, well, you can go home if you want to. He's got the cigar and the snifter of cognac, no believe I can hang out with you. Fell a little bit longer, right? That's what you see happening now with a lot of black people, particularly the black elite, where they say, no, I think I can hang out with you a little bit longer. So they've turned against us.
Wilmer Leon (00:46:13):
Port Tom Porter calls that the NER position.
Jon Jeter (00:46:17):
Yes. Yes.
Wilmer Leon (00:46:19):
And for those that may not hear the NER, the near position that Mortimer and what was the other brother's name? i
Jon Jeter (00:46:28):
I Can't remember. I can see their faces,
Wilmer Leon (00:46:30):
Right? That they have been induced and they have been brought into this sense of entitlement because they are near positions of power. And I think a perfect example of that is the latest election in New York and in St. Louis where you've had, where APAC bragged publicly, we're going to invest $100 million into these Democratic primary elections, and we are going to unseat those who we believe to be two progressive anti-Israel and Cori Bush in St. Louis and Bowman, Jamal Bowman in New York were two of the most notable victims of that. And in fact, I was just having this conversation with Tom earlier today, and that is that nobody seemed to complain. I don't remember the Black caucus, anybody in the black caucus coming out. That article came out, I want to say in April of this year, and they did not say a mumbling word about, what do you mean you're about to interfere in our election? But after Cori Bush lost, now she's out there talking about APAC, I'm coming after your village. Hey, home, girl. That's a little bit of aggression, a whole lot too late. You just got knocked out.
(00:48:19):
Just got knocked the F out. You are laying, you are laying on the canvas, the crowd's headed to the exits, and you're looking around screaming, who hit me? Who hit me? Who hit me? That anger should have been on the front end talking about, oh, you all going to put in a hundred million? Well, we going to get a hundred million and one votes. And it should have been exposed. Had it been exposed for what it was, they'd still be in office.
Jon Jeter (00:48:50):
And to that point, and this is very interesting. Now, Jamal Bowman, I talked to some black activists in New York in his district, and they would tell you we never saw, right? We had these press conferences where we're protesting police violence under Mayor Eric Adams, another black
(00:49:11):
Politician, and we never saw him. He didn't anticipate. In fact, one of them says she's with Black Lives Matter, I believe she says, we called him when it was announced that APAC was backing this candidate. He said, what can we do? Said they never heard back. Right? Cori Bush, to her credit, is more from the movement. She was a product of Michael Brown. My guess is she will be back, right? That's my guess. Because she has a lot of support from the grassroots. She probably, if anyone can defeat APAC money as Cori Bush, although she's not perfect either.
Wilmer Leon (00:49:44):
But my point is still, I think she fell into the trap.
Jon Jeter (00:49:51):
No question. No question. No question. No, I don't disagree at all. And that again, is that peeling off another layer to turn them against this radical black? That's what it really is. It's a radical black political tradition that survived slavery. It's still here, right? It's just that they're constantly trying to suppress that.
Wilmer Leon (00:50:10):
And another element of this, and I'm trying to remember the sister that they did this to in Georgia, Congresswoman, wait a minute, hang on. Time out. Cynthia McKinney. The value of having a library, Cynthia McKinney.
(00:50:31):
Most definitely!
(00:50:33):
They did the same thing. How the US creates S*hole countries. Cynthia McKinney, they did the same thing to her. So it's not as though they had developed a new strategy. It's that it worked against Cynthia and they played it again, and we let it happen.
Jon Jeter (00:50:57):
Real democracy can immunize these politicians though, from that kind of strategy.
Wilmer Leon (00:51:01):
Absolutely. Absolutely. In chapter six, the Battle on the Bay, you talk about 1927, you talk about this 47-year-old ironworker, John Norris, who buys this flat, and then the depression hits and he loses everything. You talk about Rose Majeski,
Jon Jeter (00:51:24):
I think I
Wilmer Leon (00:51:26):
Managed to raise her five children. You talk about the Depression. The Harlem Renaissance writer, Langston Hughes wrote, brought everybody down a peg or two, and the Negro had but few pegs to fall. Travis Dempsey lost his job selling to the Chicago defender. Then you talk about a gorgeous summer day, Theodore Goodlow driving a truck and a hayride black people on a hayride, and someone falls victim to a white man running into the hayride. And his name was John Jeter. John with an H. Yours has no H
Jon Jeter (00:52:13):
Legally it does.
Wilmer Leon (00:52:14):
Oh, okay. Okay, okay. All right. Anyway, so you make a personal familiar connection to some of this. Elaborate,
Jon Jeter (00:52:26):
My uncle, who was a teenager at the time, I can't remember exactly how old he played in the Negro Leagues, actually, Negro baseball leagues was on this hayride. And I know the street. I'm very familiar with. The street. Two trucks can't pass one another. It's just too narrow, and it's like an aqueduct. So it's got walls there to keep you. Oh,
(00:52:52):
Viaduct. I'm sorry. Yeah. Not an auc. Yeah, thank you. Public education. So basically what happened is my uncle had his legs sort of out the hayride, like he's a teenager, and this car came along, another truck came along and it sheared his legs off, killed him. I don't think my father ever knew the story. I think my father went to his grave not knowing the story, but we did some research after his death, me and my sister and my brother, my younger brother. And there was almost a riot at the hospital when my uncle died, because the belief, I believe they couldn't quite say it in the black newspaper at the time, but the belief was that this white man had done it intentionally, right? He wasn't charged, and black people were very upset. So it was an act of aggression, very much, very similar to what we see now happening all over the country with these acts of white, of aggression by white men, basically young white men who are angry about feeling they're losing their racial privileges or racial entitlement.
(00:53:52):
So anyway, to make the story short, I was named after my uncle, my father, my mother named me after my uncle, but I think it was 1972. I would've been seven years old. And me and my father were at a farmer's market in Indianapolis where I grew up. And this old man at this time, old man, I mean doting in a brown suit, I'll never forget this in a brown suit. He comes up to us and he just comes up to my father and he holds his hand, shakes his hand, and I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. And my father's said, no, it's okay. You didn't know. It wasn't your fault. Nobody blamed you. And come to find out that he was the driver of that hay ride, right? I think a dentist at the time, he was the driver of that hayride in which my uncle was killed.
(00:54:38):
And he had felt bad about it, I guess, the rest of his days. So yeah, it's really interesting how my life, or at least the lives of my parents and my grandparents, how it intersects with this story of the class war. And it does in many, many aspects. It does. And I suspect that's true of most people, I hope, who will read the book, that they will find their own lives and their own history intersecting with this class war. Because this class war is comprehensive. It's hard to escape from it. It is all about the class war to paraphrase Fred Hampton. And yeah, that story really kind of moved me in a lot of ways because I had personal history, personal connection.
Wilmer Leon (00:55:25):
You mentioned when you just said that there was almost this riot at the hospital. What a lot of people now today don't realize is how many of those incidents occurred during those times. And we know very little, if anything about 'em, we were raising hell. So for example, you listened to some kids today was, man, if I had to been back there, I wouldn't have been no slaves. I'd have been out there kicking ass and taking names. Well, but implicit in that is a lack of understanding that folks were raising hell, 1898 in Greenwood, South Carolina, one of my great uncles was lynched in the Phoenix Riot. Black people tried to vote, fight breaks out, white guy gets shot, they round up the usual suspects,
Jon Jeter (00:56:23):
Right
Wilmer Leon (00:56:23):
Of whom was my great uncle. Some were lynched, some were shot at the Rehoboth Church in the parking lot of the Rehoboth Church, nonetheless. And that was the week before the more famous Wilmington riot. It was one week before the Wilmington Riot. And you've got the dcom lunch counters. And I mean, all of these history is replete with all of these stories of our resistance. And somehow now we've lost the near position. We've lost. We've lost that fight.
Jon Jeter (00:57:02):
We don't understand, and I mean this about all of us, but particularly African Americans, we don't understand. We once were warriors. And so one of the things I talk about in the book I write about in the book is the red summer of 1919. Many people are familiar with 1919, the purges that were going on. Basically this industrial upheaval. And the white elites were afraid that blacks were going to sort of lead this union labor organizing movement. And so there were these riots all across the country of whites attacking blacks. But what people don't understand is that the brothers, back then, many of them who had participated in World War, they were like Fred Hampton, it takes two to tango, right? And they were shooting back. And in fact, to end that thought, some of these riots, which weren't really riots, they were meant to be massacre, some of these, they had scouts who went into the black community to see almost to see their vulnerability. And a few times the White Scouts came back and said, no, we don't wanna go in there. We better leave them alone.
Wilmer Leon (00:58:12):
I was looking over here on my bookcase, got, oh, here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Red summer, the summer of 1919, and the Awakening of Black America. Yeah, yeah.
Jon Jeter (00:58:24):
I've got that book. I've got that same book. Yep.
Wilmer Leon (00:58:26):
Okay, so I've got a couple others here. Death in the Promised Land, the Tulsa Race Riot in 1921, and see what a lot of people don't know about Tulsa is after the alleged encounter in the elevator
Jon Jeter (00:58:44):
Elevator, right!
Wilmer Leon (00:58:45):
Right? That young man went home, went to the community, went back to, and when the folks came in, the community, they didn't just sit idly by and let this deal go down. That's why, one of the reasons why I believe, I think I have this right, that it got to the tension that it did because it just came an all out fight.
Jon Jeter (00:59:12):
Oh yeah, Oh yeah!
Wilmer Leon (00:59:12):
We fought back
Jon Jeter (00:59:14):
tooth and nail.
Wilmer Leon (00:59:16):
We fought back,
Jon Jeter (00:59:16):
Tooth and nail. Yeah, no, definitely.
Wilmer Leon (00:59:18):
We fought back. So Brother John Jeter, when someone is done reading class War in America, how the elites divided the nation by asking, are you a worker or are you white? And I'm reading it backwards anyway, what are the three major points that you want someone to take away from reading? And folks I've read it, it's a phenomenal, phenomenal. In fact, before you answer that question, let me give this plug. I suggest that usually when I recommend a book, I try to recommend a compliment to it. And I would suggest that people get John Jeter class war in America and then get Dr. Ronald Walters "White Nationalism, Black Interests."
Jon Jeter (01:00:13):
Oh yeah.
Wilmer Leon (01:00:14):
And read those two, I Think.
Jon Jeter (01:00:18):
Oh, I love that. I love being compared to Ron Walters, the great Ron Walters,
Wilmer Leon (01:00:23):
And I would not be where I am and who I am. He played a tremendous role in Dr. Wilmer Leon. I have a PhD because of him.
Jon Jeter (01:00:33):
He is a great man. I interviewed him a few times.
Wilmer Leon (01:00:36):
Yeah, few. So while you're answering that question, I'm going to, so what are the two or three things that you want the reader to walk away from this book having a better understanding of?
Jon Jeter (01:00:47):
Well, we almost end where we begin. The first thing is Fred Hampton. It is a class war gda is what he said, right? It's a class war. But that does not mean that you can put class above race if you really want to understand the battle, the fight,
Wilmer Leon (01:01:09):
Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Lemme interrupt you. There was a question I wanted to ask you, and I forgot. Thomas Sowell, the economist Thomas Sowell. And just quickly, because to your point about putting class above race, I wanted to get to the Thomas Sowell point, and I almost forgot it. So in your exposition here, work Thomas, Sowell into your answer.
Jon Jeter (01:01:30):
Yeah, Thomas. Sowell, and I think a lot of people, particularly now you see with these young, mostly white liberals, although some blacks like Adolf Reed, the political scientists, Adolf Reed posit that it's class above race, that the issues racial and antagonisms should be subordinate to the class issue. Overall, universal ideas and programs, I would argue you can't parse one from the other, that they are connected in a way that you can't separate them. That yes, it is a class issue, but they've used race to weaken the working class to pit it against the itself. So you can't really parse the two and understand the battle that we have in front of us. The other thing I would say too, because like the Panthers would say, I hate the oppressor. I don't hate white people. And it really is a white identity. But as George Jackson said, and I quote him in the book, white racism is the biggest barrier to a united left in United States. That which is true when he wrote it more than 50 years ago,
(01:02:43):
It was true 50 years before that is true today. It is white racism. That is the problem. And once whites can, as we see happening, we do see it happening with these young, many of them Jewish, but really whites of all from all walks of life are forfeiting their racial privileges to rally, to advocate for the Palestinians. So that's a very good sign that something is stirring within our community. And the third thing I would say is, I'm not optimistic, right? Because optimism is dangerous. Something Barack Obama should have learned talking about the audacity of hope, he meant optimism and optimism is not what you need. But I do think there's reason for hope, these young students on the college campuses who are rallying the, I think the very real existential threat posed to the duopoly by the Democratic Party, by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's complicity in this genocide. I think there's a very real possibility that the duopoly is facing an existential threat. People are understanding that the enemy is, our political class, is our elite political class that is responsible for this genocide that we are seeing in real time.
(01:04:03):
That's Never happened before. So I would say the three things, it is a class for white racism is the biggest barrier to a united left or a united working class in this country. And third, there is reason to hope that we might be able to reorganize. And in fact, history suggests that we will organize very soon, reorganize very soon. There might be a dark period in between that, but that we will reorganize. And that this time, I hope we understand that we need to fight against this white racism, which unfortunately, whites give up that privilege. History has shown whites give up that privilege of being white, work with us, collaborate with us. But they return, as we saw beginning with Ronald Reagan, they return to this idea of a white identity, which is really a scab.
Wilmer Leon (01:04:50):
Well, in fact, Dr. King told us in where we go from here, chaos or community, he said, be wary of the white liberal. He said, because they are opposed to the brutality of the lash, but they do not support equality. That was from where we go from here, folks. John Jeter class War in America, how the elites divide the nation by asking, are you a worker or are you white? After you read that, then get white nationalism, black interests, conservative public policy in the black community by my mentor, Dr. The late great Dr. Ronald Walters, and I mentioned the Dockum drugstore protests. He was Dr. Ron Walters was considered to be the grandfather of,
Jon Jeter (01:05:40):
I didn't know that
Wilmer Leon (01:05:41):
of the sit-in movement.
Jon Jeter (01:05:42):
Did not know
(01:05:43):
The Dockum lunch counter protests in Wichita, Kansas. He helped to organize before the folks in North Carolina took their lead from the lunch counter protest that he helped.
(01:06:01):
I did not know that.
Wilmer Leon (01:06:02):
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Jon Jeter (01:06:03):
I did not know that.
Wilmer Leon (01:06:04):
Alright, so now even I taught John Jeter something today. Now. Now that's a day. That's a day for you. John Jeter, my dear brother. I got to thank you as always for joining me today.
Jon Jeter (01:06:16):
Thank you, brother. It's been a pleasure. It's been a pleasure.
Wilmer Leon (01:06:19):
Folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon, and stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, lie a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You'll find all the links to the show below in the description. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. And folks, get this book. Get this book for the holidays. Get this book. Did I say get the book? Because you need to get the book. We don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you all again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Y'all have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (01:07:15):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 

The Real Impact of U.S. Foreign Policy: Connecting the Global Dots

In this episode of Connecting the Dots, I dive into how U.S. foreign policy impacts major conflicts in Ukraine, China, and the Middle East. Rather than simply telling you what to think, my goal is to provide context and analysis so you can form your own conclusions about these complex issues.
We’ll look at the roots of the Ukraine conflict, the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, and how these events ripple across Europe. I also examine U.S. military aid to Israel and its implications for the Gaza conflict, touching on questions of international law and diplomacy.
Additionally, I explore the effects of significant events, like the deaths of Hassan Nasrallah and Qasem Soleimani, and what they mean for long-term stability in the region. Join me as I connect the dots and invite you to critically assess how U.S. policy shapes the global landscape today.
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Wilmer Leon (00:01):
Hey folks. Look, when you understand what's happening in Ukraine, when you understand what's happening in China as it relates to the United States trying to start a war with China over Taiwan, when you look at the latest developments the Middle East, you have to ask yourself this. And has President Biden become a victim of his own rhetoric? Has he fallen into his own trap? Let's talk about this,
Announcer (00:41):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:49):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which they take place. So today, looking at Ukraine, looking at China, looking what's happening in the Middle East, I decided that I would just take a few minutes and just give you some extemporaneous just off the top of the head kind of stuff. No guests on this segment. Y'all are just stuck with me. So let's start here. In his last address to the United Nations as President Joe Biden said, I recognize the challenges from Ukraine and Gaza to Sudan and beyond. War, hunger, terrorism brutality, record displacement of people, a climate crisis, democracy at risk, strains within our societies, the promise of artificial intelligence and its significant risks. The list goes on.
(02:00):
Well, when you start to unpack that knapsack, when you really pay attention to the list of things, the litany of conflicts and tensions that Joe Biden just articulated, you have to ask yourself this. He mentions Ukraine, who started the conflict in Ukraine? Why did it start? Well, it started in 2014, during the Obama administration went with what was known as the Maidan Coup. The United States went in. In 2014, Victoria Newland led the effort overthrew the democratically elected government of Victor Jankovich, and installed a Nazi based Ukrainian nationalist government led by the current President, Volodymyr Zelensky. It escalated during the Biden administration and it has become a full-blown military conflict that President Biden refuses to settle. In fact, one of the most recent speeches given by Vice President Harris talking about the Ukraine, she said, the Russian proposal is not a peace deal. It is not a settlement.
(03:30):
She said, it is a surrender. Well, if you look at the data, it is a surrender because the Ukraine has lost, they hardly have any artillery shells left. Just about all of their tanks have been blown to smithereens. The F-16's that they've just received, some of them were blown up before they even made it off the runway. And you have US generals saying that the F sixteens that the United States and NATO sent are no match for the Russian Air Force. Their army is totally depleted. They've had to go to their prisons, empty their prisons, and send prisoners to the front. They have what are called press gangs that are scouring the Ukrainian countryside kidnapping men of age, sending them to the front.
(04:35):
It's over, it's over. The fat lady just ain't sung yet. That's really what you're looking at in Ukraine. It's over, but they just haven't blown the whistle. So yeah, it's going to be a surrender. You might as well, you might as well fire up the USS Missouri resurrect Emperor Hirohito from World War II and have Ukraine surrender the same way Japan had to because that's the way this has gone. September 26th, 2022, a series of underwater explosions and consequent gas leaks occurred on three or four pipelines of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea. This occurred during and based upon the Sy Hersh reporting tells us that this was conducted during the Biden administration. The Biden administration blew up three of the four pipelines of the Nord Stream pipeline, which provided natural gas from Russia to Germany and Germany was the distribution point for low cost natural gas throughout Europe.
(05:59):
And since 2022, what has happened to the economy of Germany and what has happened to other economies of European countries? They've been decimated because they now are forced to buy natural gas from the United States because the United States blew up their pipeline cutting off their access to Russian natural gas. Why? Because if you remember, when the Ukraine conflict started, president Biden told us what we're going to turn the rubble into rubble. Y'all remember that We're going to turn the ruble into rubble. Has that happened? Not at all. In fact, the rubble, the rubble, the ruble, which is the currency in Russia, is now one of the most stable currencies in the world. The Russian economy is in the top five economies in the world. Why? Because the United States was not able to bring about regime change in Russia through the Ukraine conflict. The United States was not able through its sanctions regime to bring about crippling sanctions on the Russian economy.
(07:18):
They have been able to find workarounds, and they have been able to continue to engage in international business all around the world. Look at the BRIC's meeting that's about to take place in Russia. You've got China. Well, the BRIC's, the acronym for what? For Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. And now you have a number of other countries that are joining this economic cooperative, and they are finding workarounds around the sanctions that the United States is imposing on all of these countries. In terms of Gaza, who's funding the genocide in Gaza, the Biden administration, of course, president Biden in May of 2024 said, he said what he would halt some of the shipments of American weapons to Israel, which he acknowledged had been used to kill civilians in Gaza. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a major invasion in the city of Rafa, well, Netanyahu did it. Biden did not honor his word. He still sent those weapons to Israel. And what do we find now?
(08:47):
$8.7 billion on their way of weapons and military aid are now on their way to Israel. Citizens have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of the bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. Biden said this on CNN to Aaron Burnett back in May of 2024, civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they Israel go after population centers. He said that to CNN, and he still sends weapons to Gaza. He said, I made it clear that if they go into Rafa, and they haven't gone into Rafa yet, if they go into Rafa, this was May of 2024. I'm not supplying the weapons. They've been used historically to deal with Rafa to deal with the cities that deal with that problem. Where are we now? Four months later, Israel said in September, it had secured an $8.7 billion aid package from the United States to support its ongoing military efforts and to maintain a qualitative military edge in the region.
(10:20):
Folks for the United States to send military weapons into Israel violates international law. It violates American law. It violates the Arms Export Control Act. It violates American law for the United States government to send weapons to countries that are in the midst of oppressing their own people. Look up the arms. Export Control Act. $8.7 billion of your hard earned tax dollars are being sent to Israel to support genocide. This package includes three and a half billion dollars for essential wartime procurement, what they call essential wartime procurement, which has already been received and earmarked for critical military purchases. What does that mean? Well, in common parlance, we'd call that a money laundering scheme. So the United States sends $8.7 billion or earmarks or tags or identifies $8.7 billion for Israel for military weaponry. And what then happens? Well, that money goes to Lockheed Martin, that money goes to Boeing, that money goes to Raytheon.
(11:52):
That money goes to what Dwight Eisenhower told us in his 1959 farewell address to the American people, the military industrial complex. So the United States Funds genocide is backing the extermination, the elimination, the removal of innocent Palestinian people while American arms manufacturers make billions and billions of dollars. Oh, and by the bye, president Biden also said he's sending another $8 billion to Ukraine. So that's 8 billion to Ukraine. That's 8.7 to Israel. That's $16.7 billion, and they're sending almost 600 million to Taiwan. That's $17 billion in just one month that the United States is sending for militarism and the United States isn't being attacked. We're not under threat.
(13:17):
8 billion to Ukraine. Ukraine is the proxy of the United States. The Ukraine is the proxy of NATO. Volodymyr Zelinsky, the president of Ukraine, he tried to negotiate a settlement with Vladimir Putin in April of 2022, right after two months after the damn thing started. And right as they were reaching an agreement, the United States had the former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, go to Ukraine and tell Zelensky, under no circumstances is the West going to accept a peace deal with Russia. Go figure. And now Kamala Harris says, oh, we won't tolerate this proposed peace plan because the peace plan is surrender. You had the opportunity in 2022 to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict that you started, but you ignored it. You ignored it. Your hubris got in the way. Your ego got in the way. You were blinded by your ego to the realities that were right before you on the ground, and you ignored the opportunity. And now what has Russia done? They just keep saying, y'all want to drag this out? We'll keep fighting. When we keep fighting, we keep taking territory, and when we take territory, we don't give it back.
(15:08):
So yeah, it's going to be surrender. It's going to be surrender. The question simply becomes, how much of an ass whooping do you want to take? So now back to the Middle East. According to Middle East Eye on September 27th, Israeli fighters, they carried out a series of massive airstrikes on Beirut southern suburbs in what appeared to be the most intense bombardment of the Lebanese capitol. Since the 2006 war, at least 10 explosions rocked the capitol's southern suburbs, a densely populated area, colloquially known as Dahiyeh, with large clouds of blacksmith rising over the city. The result of that attack, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nala, was assassinated.
(16:08):
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, was assassinated by the way, in violation of international law. Aaron Mate wrote one week after Israel began its US back campaign in a rampage in Gaza last October, Biden was asked by CBS news if fueling a Middle East conflict on top of the proxy war in Ukraine was more than the United States could take on at the same time. Basically, Hey, you're fighting wars on multiple fronts, and anybody that understands military history will tell you the more fronts you open up. This is my commentary, not mate, the more fronts you open up, the bigger problems you're going to have. What was Biden's answer to that question about is the United States taking on more than it can manage at the same time? No, Biden said, and he was incredibly indignant when he said it, we're the United States of America, for God's sake, the most powerful nation in the history, not in the world, in the history of the world. Not only does the US have the capacity to do this, Biden said, we have an obligation. We are the essential nation. And if we don't, who does?
(17:38):
Joe, you're reading your own press clippings, Joe, you're caught up in your own rhetoric, Joe. You've fallen victim of your own trap. It had overlooked comment. Biden gave his blessing not only to an Israel scorched earth campaign in Gaza, but Lebanon as well for Israel. Biden said, going in and taking out the extremists in Hezbollah up north along with Hamas down south is a necessary requirement. But what you got to understand, when you look at Hamas in the South, when you look at Hezbollah in the North, when you look at Ansar, Allah in Yemen, when you look at Iran, these are the forces of resistance.
(18:43):
They are resisting the occupation of historic Palestine. This isn't anti-Semitic rhetoric, it's fact. There's a reason why that area is referred to as the occupied territories. They don't use that language a lot in today's parlance because the West has now clearly come to understand that that narrative, that language contradicts the narrative that they're trying to present. But there's a reason why in the international criminal court, in the international Court of justice, in all kind of parliaments, in all kind of countries all over the world, they're referred to as the occupied territories. Who is the occupier? The Zionist government of Israel? Who is the occupied the Palestinians international law tells us? So when Vice President Harris steps to the podium at the DNC convention and says, Israel has the right to defend itself, nay, that's not true. When Joe Biden steps to the podium and says, at the un, Israel has the right to defend itself. That's not true. When Netanyahu steps to the podium and says, Israel has the right to defend itself, that's not true because international law is very clear. The UN is very clear.
(20:53):
The occupier, in this case, the Zionist government of Israel, does not have the right to defend itself against the interaction or the response by the occupied. In this instance, the Palestinians international law is, here's a very simple analogy. I can't walk into your house armed or unarmed, but I can't walk into your house armed, threaten you and your family, have you resist my aggression? And then I claim self-defense. I can't do it. It won't pass the laugh test. It won't pass the giggle test. It won't pass the smell test. I can't do that. I cannot walk into your home, take over your home, have you resist my aggression, shoot you in the process, and then claim I was defending myself. It's the same thing that's going on right now in the occupied territories.
(22:25):
So this isn't me being pouring haterade on Vice President Harris or Joe Biden. No, this is just the facts. So getting back to the recent assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, they reportedly used 2000 pound bunker busting bombs supplied by the United States in the attack that in the assassination of Hassan Raah, they leveled several apartment buildings. They killed dozens of people. I mean scores with others still being believed, trapped in a rubble, which means you're going to have, they leveled a whole damn neighborhood. They leveled a neighborhood to kill one guy.
(23:27):
And here is an incredibly interesting revelation to all of this. The Lebanese foreign minister now says that Hassanah Raah agreed to a ceasefire, a 21 day ceasefire right before the IDF assassinated him. Abdullah Habib, the Lebanese foreign minister says, Naah agreed to the US and French proposal for a 21 day ceasefire. He said that to on CNN to Christian Yama aur. They told us that Mr. Netanyahu agreed to this. And so we also got the agreement of Hezbollah on that. And you know what happened after that? They assassinated the man. So let's trace this back. If the reporting is true, and I believe that it is Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah was ready to accept the proposed ceasefire, which by the way, the US via Vice President Kamala Harris and a number of others, president Biden claim that they're desperately working on a ceasefire. You've heard him say this, we are desperately working on a ceasefire. We are desperately working on a ceasefire. We're doing everything in our power to come up with a ceasefire. So the US and France propose to Hezbollah a 21 day ceasefire.
(25:38):
Nasra says, okay, not only will there be a ceasefire in Lebanon, as in between Lebanon and the Zionist colony of it, settler colony of Israel, that ceasefire also has to apply to Gaza as well. There will be a cessation of violence across the landscape because after all, why is Hezbollah fighting the IDF in defense of Hamas, in defense of the Palestinians? Why is Ansara Allah in Yemen sending missiles into Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel? Why is Ansara Allah, why have they shut down the Red Sea and not allowing Israeli flagged or ships that are delivering goods or receiving goods from Israel from the Zionist colony to transit the Red Sea in support of the Palestinians? So you can't have a ceasefire with Lebanon and not with Palestine. That wouldn't make any sense.
(27:07):
So the story is Hassan Nasrallah was told Netanyahu has agreed the United States and France, everybody's in sync. We can now work towards the ceasefire 21 day ceasefire. And what happens? They assassinate it. And this is what Netanyahu said at the un, his words last week, knowing he said this, knowing that they were going to assassinate the man to speak for my country to speak for the truth. And here's the truth. Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. Israel has made peace and will make peace again. Yet we face savage enemies who seek our annihilation, and we must defend ourselves against them.
(28:17):
That's what he said last week at the un. Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. If that is true, then why did you assassinate the guy you were negotiating with for peace after you had received the message that he agreed to your proposal? Yet we face savage enemies. So you are negotiating for a peace deal. You're on the verge of accomplishing a ceasefire, which can then get you to a peace deal, and you assassinate the guy you're negotiating with, who's the savage Bebe, you or them, and you claim that these savages seek your annihilation. Oh, show me evidence where they have been the aggressor. And please don't give me this noxious BS about October 7th because this conflict did not start on the 7th of October of 2023. That's just revisionist history. This conflict started damn near 80 years ago. October 7th was just the latest iteration of the Palestinians saying enough. October 7th was just the latest iteration of the Palestinians defending themselves.
(30:22):
And I go back to international law. The oppressed have the right to resist oppression and the oppressor through any means at their disposal. So please, Kamala Harris, don't tell me that this started October 7th. Please, governor Waltz, don't say at the vice presidential debate that this started on October 7th. Spare me of that bs. Spare me of that revisionist history because you're lying. And I say you're lying because you're wrong. You know you're wrong, and you are intentionally perpetrating a lie. So I ask Netanyahu again, who, by the way, his real name, his family name, his grandfather's name before his grandfather immigrated from Poland to Palestine was Milikowsky His family name is not Netanyahu. The family name is Milikowski.
(31:40):
They're Polish. They're European. They're not Arab. Remember, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew with skin of burnt bronze and hair of lambs wool, kind of like this. They weren't Polish, they weren't French, they weren't Russian. They're Palestinian. That's why it's called the occupied territory. Again, I digress. Nasrallah was ready to accept the proposed ceasefire and the US and Israel assassinated him. Go back to this past July. Hamas' top political leader, Ishmael Heah, was assassinated in Tehran. He was attending the installation of the Iranian president who was Ishmael Haniyeh. He was not a terrorist. He was not a military leader. He was the head of the political wing of Hamas. Understand Hamas has basically two factions. They have a military faction and they have a political faction. They started as a political group, but only when they were compelled to develop a military response to the genocide and oppression that the Zionist government of Israel was imposing upon them in the West Bank. And in that concentration camp called Gaza, did they develop a military response. But Ishmael was not part of the, he was a negotiator.
(33:43):
He was in the process of negotiating a ceasefire slash peace deal with Israel and the United States. And what did they do? Assassinated him. They assassinated the man. But Netanyahu stands before the world at the United Nations and says, he's speaking for truth. Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. That's what he said. Who's the savage? Joe Biden, who's the savage? BB Netanyahu. BB Milowski. Nasrallah was ready to accept a ceasefire. You assassinated him. Haniyeh was negotiating a ceasefire. You assassinated him. Let's switch gears. January 3rd, 2020. Remember General Soleimani, Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian major general who was assassinated by an American drone strike near Baghdad international airport in Iraq. Donald Trump pushed the button on Soleimani.
(35:14):
Why was Qassem Soleimani in Iraq? He had been lured there under the false pretense of a peace negotiation. The Saudis trying to make peace with the Iranians. You've got Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia. You've got Shia Muslims in Iran trying to find peace between the two. He General Soleimani was brought to Iraq under the pretext of bringing letters of negotiation between the two governments. False pretense. It was a lie. He was there on a peace mission and was assassinated. I'm connecting some dots here, folks. Are you starting to see the picture? I'm connecting some dots here, folks. Are you starting to see the picture?
(36:39):
Why is this going on? Oh, by the way, so Soleimani goes to Iraq. They assassinate him under the pretense of a peace deal. China steps in. And what does China do? China brokers a peace deal between who? The Saudis and Iran. So months later, the deal does get done. Even though Soleimani was assassinated, Donald Trump pushed the button on him at the behest of the Zionist government of Israel. But Netanyahu Millikowski wants to stand before you stand before the world and say, Israel yearns for peace, but these savages seek our annihilation. I ask again, Bebe, who's the savage? Joe Biden, who's the savage? Y'all tell me.
(37:55):
So what do we have? Well, at least in terms of the Middle East, we have Iran responds to the assassination of Haniyeh and a number of other incursions aggressions that they have been incredibly measured and incredibly calculating. And so they send some missiles into Israel, but they were very, very careful. They selected military targets, and most of the military targets that they selected were the targets that were either a, well, primarily, I won't even go to a, and let me just say they were responsible for the assassination of keeping these names in my head is a bit challenging of Hassan Nasrallah. So they decimated some F-35's at an Air Force base in near Tel Aviv.
(39:23):
They didn't strike any civilian centers, even though Israel has strategically placed a lot of its military, its intelligence operations and whatnot in densely populated civilian spaces. See, they're not like Israel. Israel blows up a whole damn neighborhood with 2000 pound bunker busting bombs. Israel didn't do that. They could have done that. They didn't. And they were very clear in explaining why, because they said, we aren't going to attack civilians. Also, the Holy Quran guides them in their tactics for war. They are guided as Muslims. They are guided by the Quran in terms of what is allowable in war and what is not. That is why, for example, they haven't developed a nuclear program because in their mind, by their belief, too many innocent people will be affected by the action. And when they get into a it kind of eye for an eye kind of deal, when they get into a conflict, they deal with those involved in the conflict. They don't have this idea of collateral damage. They don't sit back and calculate, well, our enemy is here, our target is here, and there are so many civilians in on the periphery, and we have an acceptable number of those that we can exterminate and still call it fair. They don't operate like that.
(41:22):
Their guide, the Holy Quran dictates how conflict will be managed. So that's why, for example, they sent a message to Iran and said, we are about to strike. They let 'em know they didn't have to do that. They let 'em know. See, people are making a huge mistake by confusing restraint with fear, whether it's Russia, whether it's China, whether it is Iran, because they have been so measured in their responses. They haven't just gone all out blast because that's not their tactic, that's not their way. They have a different understanding of time and what Dr. King called the moral arc of history, because their cultures are thousands of years old, unlike the United States. That's the new kid on the block.
(42:30):
So they have a totally different concept of time. So the adage, you have the watches, but we have the time. So they're not going to be baited into a knee jerk reaction to an attack. They're going to sit back, step back, evaluate the landscape, and then they retaliate on their terms, on their timeline through their methods. And that's why, for example, when I think it was when Hania was assassinated, the United States went to Iran and said, don't retaliate, don't respond. And Iran told Joe Biden, no, no, no, no, no, no, Joe, we got to respond to this. But understand, here's what we will do. And this is what they said. Here's what we will do. We will strike military targets. We won't strike civilian targets. And the military targets that we select will be those targets that we're responsible for engaging and planning the action that we are responding to. And here's the key that you all need to understand. They also said, Joe, once we respond, we will consider the matter settled.
(44:04):
Once we respond, once we retaliate, we will consider the matter settled unless you or them engage in further action. If you do that, then we are going to have to handle that business. We're going to have to do what we got to do. So they are, and I'm I'm speaking about the resistance in general. They are incredibly measured because not only do they have tactics, they have strategy. See what you see playing out from the Israeli side. There's no strategy here. There's no strategy, there's no plan. There's no long-term methodological. I think that's proper pronunciation plan.
(45:08):
They're just out there shooting first and asking questions later. They have tactics, but no strategy. So that takes you to the adage, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. I mean, they know Annihilation, they know genocide is what they're after. But in terms of a planned, calculated strategy doesn't exist. That's why it's so hard for people to make sense out of what's happening. People keep going, what the hell are they doing? Why are they doing this? You don't know. They don't know. You don't know. They don't know. So look, that's kind of where we are now.
(46:11):
Israel is talking about, oh, the response is going to be horrific. Oh, the response is we are going to have a ground invasion into Lebanon. Well, they tried that and they're getting their butts kicked. They got their butts kicked. Israel got their butts kicked the last time they tried it in 2006. Israel tried to go into Lebanon in 2006, got their asses handed to 'em, and Hezbollah has only gotten stronger and smarter and even more determined if that is possible. I remember when George W. was getting ready to go into Iraq and Minister Farrakhan, and I guess I'll end with this. And Minister Farrakhan was trying to convince America that this was going to be a fool's errand. In fact, he called it the precipitant of greater tragedies to come. And one thing that he said to George W. in an open speech and letter, he said, you can't win this with your technology.
(47:45):
He said, the first week you got this, he says, your technology and your missiles. He said, the first week you got it, he said, but eventually you're going to have to bring your soldiers in here. And when you do that, they got something for you. He said, because you've never fought a soldier with the heart of a Muslim. He said, you're fighting God in a man. And so when you look at what the resistance is all about, when you look at what Hamas is all about, when you look at what Hezbollah is all about, when you look at what Ansar Allah is all about, do you know what anah means?
(48:45):
Servants of God. Would did Minister Farrakhan say you're fighting God in a man? That's not rhetoric. That's not rhetoric. My very rough limited understanding Ansar Allah means, and these are the folks in Yemen. You all know him as the Houthis servants of God. And where did that come from? When the prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him was in that region in what is now Yemen. There were a group of people that assisted him and protected him during his travels in, what were they called? Ansar Allah. So they have a history, long history of being anah servants of God. So when you have a people that have taken on that identity, this is who we are, this is what we do, you put them up against a group of 18, 19, 20-year-old Israelis that have been conscripted into military service because they are obligated by law to serve three or four years in the military. And so really all they're trying to do is get the hell out of town alive so that they can check that mark off of the list and say, okay, I did what I was supposed to do. I served my country. You put them kids up against these folks.
(50:42):
Sad day in Mudville, boys and girls. So I can tell you, when Casey came to bat, it was a sad day in Mudville. So hey folks, look, I thank you all for listening to my rant. Take some time, research what I've said, because what you'll find, I'm telling you all the truth. Thank you all for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow me on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. I'll tell you this. I ain't joking. I ain't playing. I'm just saying, Hey, see you allall again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (51:53):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 

Mossad’s Deadly Plot: Espionage, Terrorism, and the Global Fallout

n this hard-hitting episode of Connecting the Dots, I reveal the shocking truth behind Israel’s Mossad planting deadly devices in pagers ordered by Hezbollah. Joined by lawyer and journalist Dimitry Lascaris, we expose the dangerous global implications—this isn’t just espionage, it’s terrorism and a war crime, all ignored by Western media.
We uncover the sinister connections between Zionist ideology, Christian nationalism, and neoliberal politics, showing how civilians are left to suffer while world powers look the other way. Our political system is failing, and bold, principled leadership is more urgent than ever. Don’t miss this eye-opening truth they don’t want you to know.
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Wilmer Leon (00:00):
Reuters reports. Israel's Mossad spy agency planted a small amount of explosives inside as many as 5,000. Taiwan made pagers ordered by the Lebanese group Hezbollah months before they were detonated. Is anyone safe? Let's talk.
Announcer (00:27):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:34):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which most of these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events in the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is, as I said earlier, is anyone safe? Israel's consumer tech terrorism across Lebanon signals a terrifying new threat raising urgent concerns about the security of international supply chains and the growing insecurity of civilians worldwide. For insight into this, let's turn to my guest. He's a lawyer and journalist. He's based in Montreal, Canada and Kalama Greece. In fact, he joins us from Ada Greece. Dimitry Lascaris, Dmitri, welcome to the show.
Dimitry Lascaris  (01:48):
Thank you, Wilmer. It's a pleasure to be here.
Wilmer Leon (01:51):
So I thought that this most recent act of terrorism in a spate of acts of terrorism would be a great place to start the conversation. The cradle reports that this brutal attack should serve as a dire warning to the world. A stark reminder that the occupation states criminal actions, no, no limits indiscriminately targeting those who challenge its interest or those of its Western allies. Dmitri, your thoughts?
Dimitry Lascaris  (02:24):
Well, for really decades, but particularly the last 11 months, the West and particularly the major Western powers, the governments of the United States, Britain, Germany, and France, have sent an unequivocal message to Israel. And that message is you can do whatever you want. There's no red line From our perspective, we will continue to shovel weapons your way, even if that involves the depletion of our own weapon stocks. We will continue to exercise vetoes or abstentions at United Nations. We will continue to repeat your lies and support you rhetorically and from a propagandistic perspective. We'll continue to give you trade benefits under free trade agreements. So-called free trade agreements between our countries and yours. We will not impose any sanctions on you, even though we've imposed sanctions on states that were far less violative of international law and human rights than you. That's the message. They got the message very loudly and clearly, and I fear, I hope I'm wrong, Wilmer, I really do.
(03:31):
But I fear that this pager, walkie talkie terrorist attack is just a harbinger of things to come. Who knows what dirty, nasty, terroristic tricks Israel has up its sleeve, and it is not used up until this point in time because frankly before the genocide began in Gaza, there was some restraint being imposed upon Israel. It wasn't much, but there was some, so occasionally you would get leaders of the United States or other western countries signaling to Israel that their appetite for the depravity of this genocidal regime was not unlimited, but that's gone away now. And so everything that Israel is capable of doing from the perspective of violence, terror, oppression, we are now going to see it's all going to come out. And I think that this is just an indication of what is coming. What we saw in Lebanon last week, and it was as the former head of the CIA Leon Panetta said to a national audience on CBS last week, it was unquestionably a form of terrorism.
Wilmer Leon (04:38):
When someone in the position and former positions such as Leon Panetta makes a statement like that, what does that signal to you? Former head of the CIA, he's from the Clinton camp and advisors advisor Conti to the biggest and the best, and I put that in quotes. What does that signal to you? He definitely went off script on that one.
Dimitry Lascaris  (05:16):
Yeah, I don't think that Leon Panetta has had a come to Jesus moment. I think he's still the self-interested war monger,
(05:27):
Neoliberal that he always was. So when I saw this statement, which was startling, it was quite something to see the former head of the CIA. And by the way, this was not surprisingly, I guess picked up by the Israeli press. The Times of Israel had an article yesterday which was expressing its chagrin that Leon Panetta said this. So what's going on here? I can only hazard a guess Wilmer because I'm not in the man's mind and nor do I have any desire to be. But the first thing that popped into my head was this guy has some connection to a major technology company, and he's doing this because his boss or his benefactors in the technology industry are alarmed. They're alarmed about the fact that their business model is being threatened by Israel's latest technological terrorist gimmick. And sure enough, I didn't know this before I learned of the Panetta statement to CBS, but I discovered that he is on the board of Oracle, one of the most important, significant, powerful and influential technology companies in the world based in the United States.
(06:30):
Of course, whether this is influencing him, I can't say for sure, but the best guess that I can hazard based on the limited information available to me is that his colleagues in the technology industry are very upset about this and so should they be. If they're not, they aren't nearly the wizards and geniuses that they claim to be. If I were in their position, I'd be saying already the public has serious doubts. Thanks, for example, to the heroic revelations from Edward Snowden about the devices we sell to them, the technologies we sell to them, they already suspecting that this is a means whereby we can engage in mass surveillance, destroy their privacy, but never before have they thought that these devices that we sell to them are potentially bombs that could blind them, dismember them, kill them, or their children. Now everybody, any rational human being out there who knows about this terrorist attack has that thought in their mind, and that is a serious threat to the profitability of the Western technology industry.
Wilmer Leon (07:40):
One of the things that really, I use the word surprise, but I use it guardedly, is how little follow up there has been with Western media in terms of how horrific these actions by Israel have been. I remember reading a story, I think the young girl's name was Fatima, she was maybe five or six years old. Her father's pager was on the kitchen table. The pager goes off, she picks up the pager to take it to her father, and before she can get to him, the pager explodes. And I think the story said blowing off half of her face. And this happened all over Lebanon and it was reported on, but the context in which it was reported on was solely, solely lacking.
Dimitry Lascaris  (08:38):
I am going to plug two outlets right now, and I want be clear before I do that, that I have absolutely no connection to them. None whatsoever. And they are two telegram channels. One of them is called the Military Media Channel and the other is called the Resistance News Network. These were brought to my attention a few months ago by people in Lebanon who are sympathetic to the resistance. And every single day Wilmer, I spend, I devote an hour to two hours to reviewing what they put out, not because I believe everything that they say they're engaged in a war and information is part of warfare. So I'm cognizant of that, but they're giving us, they offer to us another perspective. So one of the things that I've learned by following the military media channel and the Rise News Network is that an extraordinary number of people, and they've offered gruesome video evidence and photographic evidence to back this up in Lebanon, were blinded by these devices.
(09:42):
People lost their hands. There are people with holes in their pelvises, in their abdomens, and I'm talking about children, women, elderly men, and of course military aged men. A cross section of Lebanese society was basically maimed, wounded and killed massed by these attacks. You're not going to find this information in the Western media, nor would you find information in the western media about the retaliation that Hezbollah has engaged in since then. It's amazing the disparity of the information you see from them and what you're seeing from the Western media. All of these sources I counsel, everybody who's listening to our conversation should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism. You should believe nothing on its face, always exercise your own independent thinking, your capacity for critical thought, but do not confine yourselves to Western media because if you do that, you're going to end up supporting a diabolical, genocidal regime. That's what's going to happen to you. You need to have access to all sources of information and think critically.
Wilmer Leon (10:48):
Another source that I go to is Laith maros free Palestine tv. For me, that's another invaluable source for getting an alternative perspective. I'm glad that you framed it in the manner in which you did, because one of the elements of the so-called analysis is October 7th. It says, though this conflict started on October 7th, ignoring the decades of oppression that Palestinians have been subjected to. When I listen to whether it's Kamala Harris, when I listen to former President Donald Trump, if they make reference to the conflict at some point in their dialogue, it's going to be October 7th. Look what Hamas did on October 7th, totally ignoring 70 years of oppression. And so how this gets framed is very, very important.
Dimitry Lascaris  (12:01):
Oh, 100% Wilmer. And I think that the answer that Kamala Harris gave in the debate with Trump to the question of how to deal with the human tragedy as they call it, it's not really a human tragedy, it's much more than that. It is a genocide. In Gaza, the way she responded,
Wilmer Leon (12:21):
The earthquake in Haiti was a human tragedy. Correct.
Dimitry Lascaris  (12:28):
Humans did not cause the earthquake. You're right. Absolutely.
Wilmer Leon (12:31):
Exactly. And so I made that point again because how these things get framed is incredibly, famine is a human tragedy. Floods are human. So go ahead.
Dimitry Lascaris  (12:45):
So the first thing out of her mouth, and I'm sure you know this Wilmer, probably many of the people listening us know this. Kamala Harris went into that debate with extensive training from public relations professionals. And she was told, when you get the question about Israel, because she knew there, they all knew a question about Israel was coming. This is how you start your answer.
Wilmer Leon (13:09):
Wait a minute, wait minute, wait minute, wait a minute, minute, wait a minute. Lemme see if I can channel my inner Dmitri Karus. Israel has a right to defend itself.
Dimitry Lascaris  (13:20):
That was actually the second thing mouth, the first thing out of her mouth. There was no question. You're absolutely right. That was going to be front and center in her answer to any question about Israel and Gaza. But the first thing out of her mouth was, let's remember when this all began. October 7th, right? A colossal lie, A stupendous lie. And of course, the moderators who in my opinion were extraordinarily biased in favor of Kamala Harris, they didn't do any fact checking of her. They said nothing at this point. It might've been the most audacious lie during the entire debate, the one that certainly has the most impact on actual human lives. This did not start on October 7th. This started decades ago when the Palestinian people were dispossessed of their land forcibly by Zionist militias in the nakba. And even before then,
(14:16):
And it has continued year after year after year, you can go and consult the casualty figures from any independent reputable source like the United Nations. And you will find that year after year after year for decades, the Palestinian people have suffered far more civilian casualties than Israelis every year. And it's a multiple. We're talking about a ratio 10 to one, 15 to 1...21. How the hell can you say in good conscience that all of this began what we're seeing today in Gaza and now in the West Bank, that this began on October 7th. It takes a colossal act of self-deception and mendacity to say such a thing. And she was prepared to say exactly that, and it was the first thing that came out of her mouth. This is the peculiar expertise that sort of the propaganda system part excellence that we have in the West is they always start history on the date that is most advantageous to their narrative always. And we always fall for this like suckers, like chumps, like as Malcolm X said many times, you're a sucker, you're a chump. That's exactly what we are when we believe this crap, that history starts on the date that's most advantageous to our government's narrative. So
Wilmer Leon (15:33):
Article 51 of additional protocol one to the Geneva Convention from 1949, it prohibits the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and Article 85 lists attacks on civilians as grave breaches, that amount to war crimes, still talking about these pagers in these walkie talkies, you have to identify who qualifies as a combatant under international humanitarian law when analyzing the pager detonations, and this is from the cradle, when analyzing the pager detonations from a legal standpoint, it becomes clear that Israel's killing spree in Lebanon lies somewhere between a war crime and an act of terrorism. And they say the classification depends on the current state of affairs. Your thoughts, because one of the things to your point about, we have to look at this in the context of October 7th, a lot of this depends on how it gets classified. But as a former prosecutor, if she does not realize when she makes the statement about October 7th, when she makes the statement about Israel has the right to defend itself based upon international law, that's just flat out wrong.
Dimitry Lascaris  (17:10):
Yeah, I need to address this whole thing about a former prosecutor. Okay? And I know you're entirely right to bring this up, that that's what she is, Kamala Harris, and that's what people constantly point out about her. Let's just start by acknowledging that the US justice system is rigged. It's rigged against people of color, the poor, minorities, workers. It always has been, and it arguably is worse now that it has been at any time in the post World War II history. And so Kamala Harris, the fact that she was a prosecutor, nobody should think that that for one moment has conferred upon her any expertise in of the rule of law. Prosecutors in the United States are basically instruments of oppression, and that's what she was when she was a prosecutor. In any event, it's important to know that something can be a war crime in an act of terrorism.
(18:05):
At the same time, these concepts are not mutually exclusive and in my opinion, as a capacity as a lawyer, these fall squarely within the definition of a war crime. And within the classical conventional definition of terrorism in the West, which is the use of violence or threats of violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure in order to achieve a political objective. Clearly the political objective here is to terrorize the Lebanese population into either turning against Hezbollah or if you're already a supportive of Hezbollah, to demanding that Hezbollah stand down and allow Israel to complete the genocide without any armed resistance from outside of occupied Palestine. That's the political objective. And clearly this was going to have a massive and unknowable impact on the civilian population because nobody can know where a pager is going to be at any time. If you just think about, I don't know if you've used a pager before or some other electronic,
Wilmer Leon (19:09):
I'm old enough, I'm pre-cell phone. You can tell by the gray.
Dimitry Lascaris  (19:12):
I'm pre too. In days bygone, I too used a pager. So I used many different, I used a Blackberry, I used a Motorola phone back in the nineties. And think about what you did with that device when it was in your possession. Oftentimes you put it down in the kitchen. Sometimes your children would play with it, sometimes you would leave it in your car, you'd forget it in your car, or sometimes you'd have it on you while you're driving your car. Or you might just be a civilian who is or is not sympathetic to Hezbollah like a doctor and you use this device. There is absolutely no way Wilmer, absolutely no way that the Israeli military could have made a confident assessment of who was going to be killed and maimed directly and indirectly by the explosion of these devices, by the detonation of these devices that is both a war crime and an act of terrorism.
Wilmer Leon (20:13):
A minute there's, there's another element to this as well. I believe there's a cultural element in the West, the cell phone, the pager is a very personal item. I don't give my cell phone, I don't even give my cell phone to my son. He has his own phone. I don't give my cell phone to my wife. She has her own phone. In many African countries and middle Eastern countries, there may be one cell phone in a family, and so it gets or pager, it gets distributed and used, I'll say indiscriminately within a family. It could be within a neighborhood. So you don't even really know at any given time who's going to be to your point. But I also wanted to add the cultural aspect of this. You have no idea whether the person whose name is on the contract is going to be the sole user of that device.
Dimitry Lascaris  (21:24):
I think that's an excellent point. The only modification I would add to it is that I wouldn't say it's so much cultural as it is socioeconomic.
Wilmer Leon (21:34):
Okay, I got it.
Dimitry Lascaris  (21:35):
But at the end of the day, it's a distinction without difference Wil. But I think what, from my perspective, why your point is so powerful is because people living in West Asia generally don't have ordinary citizens. The economic means that we have.
Wilmer Leon (21:51):
Correct, correct. Good point.
Dimitry Lascaris  (21:52):
You can't have multiple devices in a family. Absolutely. That is a very important consideration. But also another consideration is that a pager, one of the reasons why we want to have our own cell phones is because there's a lot of stuff in there that's personal to us. Emails, there's text messages and so forth. The page is different. A pager just makes a noise when somebody wants to draw your attention to something.
(22:17):
So people are much more, I think, willing to share pagers with others, leave them in the possession of others. Then they might be with a cell phone, for example, or a tablet. So this is a particularly dangerous device. And if you're going to use it as an explosive for all of the reasons that you and I have been discussing, there is a very high potential that you are going to maim or kill innocent bystanders. And you have no way, no way of accurately assessing what the damage is going to be to the people in those categories.
Wilmer Leon (22:52):
And that is considered by international standards, collective punishment of civilians. And that is illegal. And I understand your point about being a prosecutor, but she was a prosecutor. And I go back to that because that's a point that her campaign and that she loves to make, that is a point of validation of her and for her. So since they want to use that point, then I'll use the point.
Dimitry Lascaris  (23:24):
Totally, totally. You're absolutely right. Absolutely.
Wilmer Leon (23:28):
It's just wrong. The world isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and one plus one does not equal 17. I want to go back to something else that Joe Biden has said on more than one occasion that he is a Zionist. In fact, the last maybe it wasn't the, yeah, I think it was the last time Netanyahu was at the White House, sitting next to Joe Biden, he turned to Joe Biden and said, you are a Zionist. In fact, he said, you are a Irish Zionist. That spoke volumes to me. It took me back to the Secretary of State saying, when he first got to the region in October, I'm not only here as the American secretary, Tony Blink said, I'm not only here as a Secretary of state, I'm here as a Jew. What does that say to you about the mindset and how do statements like that resonate within the region when the United States continues to try to hold itself out as some unbiased arbiter of this conflict? Is that a valid question to ask?
Dimitry Lascaris  (25:01):
Well, first of all, let me say that in defense of our brothers and sisters in Ireland, most of them are not Zionists. In fact, in Europe, the Irish people, I'm not talking about the political elite Ireland, the Irish people are amongst the most principled and courageous and sympathetic when it comes to the Palestinian cause, number one. Number two, I think what Anthony Blinken said was antisemitic because he was implying that if you're a Jew, you support this genocidal regime and all of the crimes that's committed over decades. But you and I both know that all around the world, there are conscientious members of the Jewish community, people who identify as Jews and who have always identified as Jews, who are adamantly opposed to Israel with every fiber of their being. So when Anthony Blinken goes to Israel and he says, I come to you as a Jew, he's implying that if you're a Jew, you support this monstrosity.
(26:03):
That's antisemitic fundamentally, in my opinion. But at the end of the day, and I'll tell you on a personal level, Wilmer, I've had to deal with this issue in a painful way. And the painful way in which I had to deal with it was about six years ago, there were two members of the Liberal Party caucus, the governing party in Canada who are Zionist and who happened to be Jewish as well. And I'll tell you their names. Their names are Anthony HouseFather and Michael Levitt. And at the time, Michael Levitt was the chairman of the Canada Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group. And Anthony Housefather was the vice chair, and they were the two most outspoken, aggressive defenders of Israel in the governing party's caucus. And just to give you an example of how aggressive they were in supporting Israel in 2018, a friend of mine who's a Palestinian Canadian doctor, his name is Ek Banani, he was shot by an Israeli sniper in Gaza while he was wearing medical garb.
(27:10):
And he was out in the field during the great march of return tending to civilians who were being shot by Israeli snipers. He himself took a bullet to each leg. And the liberal government, Justin Trudeau, on a rare occasion, condemned Israel for this. And these two characters, Michael Levitt and Anthony Housefather put out their own statement, even though they came from the same party as Justin Trudeau, and even though their boss was Justin Trudeau and defended what Israel did, and I pointed out, in my opinion, they were showing more devotion to Israel's apartheid regime than they were to Canada, which they took an oath to defend as parliamentarians. And for this, I was accused by the Prime Minister of antisemitism. I didn't say what I said because they were Jewish. I said, what I said, because they're radical Zionists. It's as simple as that. So we have to recognize, I think today that there are people in Western politics, some of whom are Jewish, but not all of whom are Jewish by any means, who place Zionist ideology over the interests of their own country.
(28:23):
And by the way, I saw this myself when I was a child of Greek immigrants growing up in Canada. My parents told me when I was a kid, they came from Greece. They had a nationalistic orientation, and they said, you are a Greek first and a Canadian second. They told me that when I was a little boy, they were putting the homeland where their country of origin, ahead of the country, where I, myself, their child was born. So this is not a phenomenon that's peculiar to the Jewish community. It's one that you see in all kinds of the Asdas, including my own, the Greek, the Aspera. We need to be honest and say there are people in this community and other communities who put the interests of a foreign state ahead of the country that they have sworn to represent. This is absolutely the case. And Anthony Blinken is a classic example of this. I mean, my God, he's basically telling people, he telegraphed from the outset that I'm going to prioritize the agenda of the Israeli government over that of the United States. And that's exactly what he has done every single day of this conflict. That man is unfit to be the Secretary of state of the United States. He is not serving the national interest. He is undermining the national interest. People need to be honest about that.
Wilmer Leon (29:41):
When you have, I think people, because of how events have unfolded, whether it be with the Ukraine, Russia conflict, whether it be with the United States trying to pick a fight with China over Taiwan, folks need to remember that the Department of State, the Secretary of State, is supposed to be the chief diplomat in the United States. When I say chief diplomat, that means using diplomacy, not militarism to solve conflict. But you have people in the Pentagon, which used to be known as the Department of War. You have people in the Pentagon looking at Tony Blink and saying, no, no, no, no, sir, no man, no, you're you. You're traversing down the wrong road here in a number of instances saying, we don't have the capability to engage in the level of militarism that you are invoking or trying to get us into. People need to understand this man is not doing his job, even though he's following in the steps of Hillary Clinton, even though he's following in the steps of Madeline Albright, he's not doing his job.
Dimitry Lascaris  (31:05):
Wilmer, I'm going to make a strong statement, and I'm going to go on a limb here. I think that pretty much every leader of every western country, every foreign minister of every Western country day, certainly the major ones, they're traitors, in my opinion, they're traitors. They are all betraying the interests of the people they have sworn to represent. This is true in Canada, the United States, Greece, where I'm currently situated, I believe this government as a moral matter. I don't know whether it's true from a legal perspective. I'm not offering a legal opinion here. I'm talking about ethics, morality, the moral matter. The Greek government is a traitor. They have sold us out to Brussels and Washington. They're looking out for the agenda of a narrow elite based in Brussels in Washington to the detriment of the Greek people. The same is happening in Canada. It's happening in France.
(31:56):
It's happening in Britain. And we as people need to rise up and put into power those who actually represent our interests right across the west. We are governed by vassals. Even the United States is governed by vassals. They're vassals of a US-based oligarchy and the military industrial complex. I cannot stress enough that incredible speech that Dwight d Eisenhower gave at the very end of his presidency. We don't talk about that enough. When he warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex, he was very clear. It was a very, very ominous warning that it was going to destroy American democracy. What happened within the next 10 years? JFK is assassinated. Malcolm X is assassinated, MLK is assassinated. Bobby Kennedy is assassinated. And from then, it's been downhill ever since,
(32:47):
Downhill, ever since. And we've moved gradually, incrementally towards fascism, an oligarchic led fascism. That's where we find ourselves today. People need to rise up. I'm not suggesting that people engage in violence. We can do this in a way that is nonviolent against the elites who claim to represent us and remove them from power as quickly as possible before we are all taken down by their depravity. Whatever you may think of the Palestinian cause, whatever you may think about Israel, this may not be something. This entire region may not be something that matters to you, but the implications of this go, they're global. They're global. If this stays out of control, we are all going to be devastated and impacted by it in a profoundly negative way. And ultimately, we may find ourselves in a nuclear Armageddon.
Wilmer Leon (33:35):
In fact, that right there, and you went down this litany of domestic assassinations, you didn't even go down the litany of African assassinations. That's a whole nother show. I just wanted to make that point. And this could also be, excuse me, a whole nother show. But I want you just to quickly, you mentioned you're in Greece. You mentioned the traitorous action of leadership. Greece has been subjected to an incredible amount of neoliberal policy and privatization, which has not, through machinations by the World Bank and the IMF and Greece has been suffering with this, I want to say it's one of the first European countries to find itself. If my memory serves me correctly involved in these practices, am I right to make that assessment? And I bring that up in validation of your point of how leadership has sold out the Greek people to oligarchs.
Dimitry Lascaris  (34:47):
Oh, it's so true of this country. Wilmer starting in 2010, a financial crisis that was precipitated not by the ordinary Greek workers. It was precipitated by the fraudsters, the liars, the cheats in the banking industry in Greece and beyond Greece. And so in order to bail out the banking industry, the Greek people were made to pay ordinary workers, citizens the most vulnerable. They imposed upon Greece starting in about 2010, a neoliberal austerity program, the likes of which no country in Europe had ever seen in the post World War II period. And the country suffered an economic contraction in excess of 25%, which is I think the height of the economic contraction in the United States during the Great Depression. That's how severe it was. And it was totally engineered by Washington, Brussels and Mario Draghi, who at that time was the president of UCB, was entirely avoidable. And the unemployment rate soared to something like 27, 28%. The youth unemployment rate was nexus of 50%. The suicide rate soared, the poverty rate soared, the lifespan of Greeks fell. This was all engineered by Neoliberals and in Washington and Brussels, and I think in many ways it was an experiment and they
(36:10):
Found out that they could get away with it. And now we're seeing this transported exported to the rest of Europe. We're seeing this done in Germany. We're seeing this done in Britain, and they just elected Keir Starmer, who's supposed to be a Labor party leader, who's supposed to be prioritizing the interests of workers. And one of the first things Keir Starmer government does, it comes out and says, oh, we're going to have to deliver some very tough medicine to you. We have some real budgetary difficulties,
Wilmer Leon (36:38):
Austerity measures.
Dimitry Lascaris  (36:40):
Absolutely. Absolutely. They don't represent us. This goes back to the question of treason. They do not represent us. They represent a neoliberal oligarchic elite whose appetite for wealth is insatiable. It's never enough. Wilmer, I got $500 billion. Ain't enough. I got a trillion dollars. Ain't enough. There's never enough money for these people. The Elon Musks of the world, the Jeff Bezos of the world, Larry Ellison, Warren Buffett. These people have an insatiable appetite for money, and they are ruling us. They are the true rulers of our societies. I'm sorry to say, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is just reality by now. We should be able to recognize this.
Wilmer Leon (37:23):
It started in Greece in two. Who would've thought they were talking about privatizing the Parthenon. They were talking about privatizing Greek antiquity. I said, what? They were going to sell the coliseum to private interests, to raise money to pay the debt. And so you've seen it in Greece, you've seen it in Italy. You've we're seeing it now play itself out in Germany. It's playing all over Europe. It's playing itself out in France. I just wanted to quickly hit on that point. So now getting back to the conversation that all of this is inextricably linked, but wanted to get back to the point of the expansion of the conflict. You now have Hezbollah sending missiles into Israel. You have Israel increasing its attack on Southern Lebanon. Talk about how dangerous it is becoming even more dangerous if that's even imaginable, that this conflict is escalating. And what I think a lot of people are mistaking, they are mistaking restraint on behalf of the resistance for weakness.
Dimitry Lascaris  (38:48):
Absolutely. And when the contrary is true, restraint is a sign of strength. When you were able to control your emotions in situations where most people would feel their passions being inflamed and would act in ways that are contrary to their own interests, that's strength. That's an inner strength that we should commend and admire, and whatever we may think of, the politics of these resistance organizations in the government that we're in that particular aspect of their conduct deserves to be commended. They have shown a tremendous amount of restraint, but that doesn't mean they aren't escalating the Islamic resistance in Lebanon. The armed wing of Hezbollah has now expanded the zone of attack well beyond the 20 kilometers or so to which they can find themselves during the first 11 months. They are now attacking areas outside of Haifa. I think they've quite consciously said, we aren't going to attack the center of Haifa, yet.
(39:45):
We are going to attack the outline areas to give the Israelis an opportunity to retreat from the precipice to which they have brought us. There are reports that they fired, that they hit areas outside of Tel Aviv. Again, not inside the heart of Tel Aviv, but outside, I think this is a message. We can hit Tel Aviv, we can hit Haifa, draw back from the precipice to which you have brought us. They have hit the Ramat David Airbase for the first time. They hit Raphael facilities, which this is a major military contractor in Israel, which produces their obviously inadequate air defense systems in its facilities. I think it's the largest production facility they have in Israel is just outside of Haifa. So they're sending a message in a very disciplined manner despite the suffering that they have incurred over the last 10 days, and really the last 11 months that civilian casualties on the Lebanese side have been much higher from day one of this war.
(40:46):
The destruction to civilian infrastructure has been much higher on the Lebanese side from day one of this war. And now the disparity between what the Israelis are suffering and what the Lebanese are suffering is growing even wider. And yet we are seeing this very calculated, measured response and let us hope that there are some adults in the room somewhere in the west who will get the message. So far, there is nobody, I mean, the speech that Biden gave, I didn't have the opportunity to watch it, but I read reports about it and I saw a couple of excerpts from it suggest to me that there is no one getting the message in Washington. No one. These people are as arrogant as ever. They're as determined as ever to support this regime until it takes down the entirety of West Asia with it.
Wilmer Leon (41:32):
Two quick points I want to get to before we get to Biden's speech, and we'll wrap up with that. One is I think when we talk about restraint, there are some practical elements of this restraint, because Iran has been very, very clear. They don't want a war. Hezbollah has been very clear. They don't want a war. The only ones that seem to be encouraging this are Ansar, Allah in Yemen. They're saying, oh, United States wants to attack us. Please, please do that. They're the only ones that really seem to be saying,
Dimitry Lascaris  (42:13):
Someone's got to be the Bad cop. Wilmer. Ansar Allah is the bad cop.
Wilmer Leon (42:18):
And folks need to understand that's a fight you don't want. I don't know if you ever saw the story about Mike Tyson on the airplane coming across the top of his seat to beat up the guy that was kicking his seat behind him, but imagine Mike Tyson coming across the top of his seat in an airplane. You don't want that smoke quickly, though I think this is another very important aspect of this that doesn't get a whole lot of articulation or explanation. The impact that Christian nationalism is a lot of people are just attributing this to mistakenly Judaism, Zionism. They're trying to conflate the two. They are not anywhere near being the same, but Christian nationalism gets left out of this analysis.
Dimitry Lascaris  (43:09):
Oh, that's so true, and it's so important. The first time I went to Israel or occupied Palestine, as I prefer to call it, was when I was 21 years old. So this would've been back in the eighties. And at that point, I was basically incapable of seeing through the propaganda narrative about Israel, I believed it was assigning island of democracy in the sea of barbarism, and we had shared values, and the Israelis were just trying to live their lives in peace. But there were people in the region who were determined to destroy them for antisemitic reasons. I believed all of that. I went to Jerusalem, and I don't even remember how I found out about it, but there was this huge gathering of evangelical Christians from the United States in an outdoor stadium to which Shiman Perez, who I think at the time he was the prime minister of Israel, I think delivered the most really, it was a tremendously racist, anti-Arab racist propagandistic speech about the Zionist agenda, and they were wildly supportive of him. I saw a level of fanaticism I'd never experienced in my life sitting that Audience.
Wilmer Leon (44:32):
Wow, okay.
Dimitry Lascaris  (44:32):
These were American evangelical Christians, thousands upon thousands of them. It only was later in life that I realized as I came to study this conflict more closely that there are lots of reasons to believe that the most fanatical Zionists in the world are, in fact, Christian. Some of them are not even Christian or Jewish. They're secular. They described to this ideology for reasons that are completely non-religious.
Wilmer Leon (44:58):
Wasn't Theodore Herzl an atheist.
Dimitry Lascaris  (45:00):
I believe he was. That's my understanding. Absolutely. Yeah.
(45:04):
So this is a non religious ideology. It is an ideology of imperialism and colonialism and racism, and we shouldn't be shy about saying that, and never ever conflate that ideology with any particular religion or ethnic group, whether it be Judaism or Christianity, or of course there are many wonderful Christians who are adamantly opposed to what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people. There's a segment of self-professed Christians. I dispute whether they're Christians at all, just as I dispute whether Jewish Zionists are actually Jews. I have serious doubts about that. But they call themselves Jews. They call themselves Christians. They do not represent the Christian community. They do not represent the Jewish community. They represent an ideology that is racist and colonial.
Wilmer Leon (45:50):
In fact, to that point, Benjamin Netanyahu, his last name, his family last name isn't really Netanyahu. It's like WojaKowski, Mil Mil Milakowski, Milakowski. His grandfather immigrated from Poland to the region in 1920 and Arabis the family last. And there are a number of those who now are proclaiming their rights to that land, when in fact they are European immigrants. That that's hence the whole thing in terms of it's a settler colonial project. And people and settler colonial projects don't go nicely. They don't go quietly when you invade somebody else's land. The people that are there, the indigenous population usually wants to resist. But I make the point that so many of these people that are proclaiming a heritage to the space are actually parts of a settler colonial project.
Dimitry Lascaris  (47:13):
Absolutely, and you reminded me. So it's something I got. It's a be on my mind. And I got to say, does everybody notice when Netanyahu speaks? He sounds like he comes from the streets of New York because
Wilmer Leon (47:23):
He does, or Philly.
Dimitry Lascaris  (47:25):
Philly, yeah. Or Philly. Sure. I lived in New York for six years, and if I ran into that dude in the street and didn't know who he was, I'd say he was in New York or he is a Philly. He's from the northeast of the United States. Why does he speak that way? Because fundamentally, he is an American and he's speaking to an American audience. He's not from the region, he's not indigenous the region. I mean, come on, man. Benjamin Netanyahu, that man is indigenous to the region of West Asia. He's an alien in the region of West Asia, and he's treating people in the region like he's an alien. And why does he speak that way? He speaks that way because ultimately the very existence of Israel depends upon the sport of the United States people, the Society of the United States. Without that support, Israel would not exist in its current form. Impossible.
Wilmer Leon (48:15):
Final point here, and you mentioned Joe Biden's speech at the un. I want to read two short excerpts, which I think speak volumes from a couple of perspectives. The Washington Post reported Biden points to the relative success of his administration's efforts to rally western support for Ukraine, coordinating a robust response with European partners to the Russian invasion and reinvigorating the transatlantic alliance. He stressed, he didn't want to see a full scale war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He called for the war to end. Innocent civilians in Gaza are also going through hell. Thousands and thousands killed including aid workers. Too many families dislocated crowding into tents facing a dire humanitarian situation. They didn't ask for this war. Hamas started.
(49:16):
So a couple of things. One, I'm looking at what he said, and I'm looking at how the Washington Post has reported. I go back to the question we talked about earlier. When we hear Vice President Harris, secretary of State, Blinken Biden and others say that Israel has the right to defend itself, then you hear Biden say, this war has to stop. Well, the conflict in Ukraine started under his administration, and the United States started the conflict again, talking about restraint being mistaken for weakness. And in terms of what he sees in Gaza, if he truly wants it to stop, all he has to do is pick up the phone. Tell Netanyahu you don't get another artillery shell. You don't get another tank, you don't get another dime, and the war stops in two days. Is that too simplistic, Dmitri Karus?
Dimitry Lascaris  (50:23):
No, there's absolutely not. It is absolutely the reality, and I'm as hostile to the Israel lobby as anybody, so please don't mistake me as an apologist for the Israel lobby. But I think that people like John Meir shier, for example, all my respect a lot are grossly overestimating the power of the Israel lobby. I don't think that, sure, the Israel lobby can take out people who don't have a lot of power.
(50:56):
They can take out like Val Bowman, they can take out Cori Bush, and maybe people are somewhat more powerful, but the president of the United States states, the sitting president of the United States, what are they going to remove him from office? No, they're not going to be able to remove him from office. If he wanted to actually stop the war in Gaza, he could stop the war in Gaza with a phone call. It is that simple. He doesn't do it because as he told us, he's a Zionist. I mean, he told us, and he's also said repeatedly, Wilmer, as I'm sure you know, if Israel didn't exist, we would have to invent it in order to protect America's, what he calls, not really, but what he calls America's strategic interest in the region. What that really means is the interest of the US oligarchy, not the American.
(51:39):
The unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region.
(51:44):
A hundred percent. A hundred percent. So all of this is Kabuki theater. Joe Biden wants Israel to achieve the agenda that Netanyahu is set for it, which is to destroy by any and all means necessary any resistance to Western slash Israeli hegemony in West Asia. He wants them to achieve that objective. That should be our operating assumption. And just because from time to time, he or Blinken or anonymous sources go to the press and say, oh, we're frustrated with Benjamin Netanyahu and we really want to cease fire, and man, we feel so terrible about what's happening to those civilians, too many are dying. Nobody should buy any of this crap. Watch what they do. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. And what they're doing is enabling a genocide that is unequivocal.
Wilmer Leon (52:37):
And you mentioned the power of APAC, and we will wrap up with this. And folks, those of you that are listening to this, that are rolling your eyes and saying, oh, this is propaganda. Look it up. I mean, there's hardly anything that's been said here that you can't research and find to be true. APAC boasted back, I want to say it was in April in the New York Times, you mentioned Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush. They touted, they bragged in the New York Times and the Washington Post that they were going to spend $100 million in the US election to unseat Democrats that they deemed to be anti Zionist. And Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush were victims of that. And I put that in quotes because at the time that that story was released, I didn't hear anybody in the Democratic Party come out and challenge APAC for making that statement.
(53:46):
It was only after Cori Bush lost that. She then came out and said, APAC, I'm coming after your village. Well, if you'd have said that on the front end, you'd probably still be in office because that could have been used as a rallying point. If they're going to spend a hundred million dollars, we need a hundred million votes. That to me, would've been the line that would've made the difference. And Kamala Harris finds herself in the same position. When you look at the data, over 70% of Americans want this thing ended and they want it ended. Now, she would gain votes outside of the money she would lose from APAC funding. If she were truly looking at this from an electoral politics perspective, she would gain votes. The race wouldn't even be close if she erred on the side of Wright. And on the right side of history with that, Dimitri Lascaris, I'll let you take us home, what you got,
Dimitry Lascaris  (55:02):
You can get elected in the United States, despite all the obstacles by running as a principled candidate committed to the wishes and the priorities of the people, you can absolutely get elected. The problem Wilmer is that the system is constructed in such a way as to squash anybody who actually has a commitment to justice and to representing the wishes of the people. There are a series of filters that have been set up. So for example, you're seeing now, I'm actually working on Jill Stein's campaign.
(55:33):
They're waging, and I don't think any candidate is perfect, and I don't have an expectation that Jill is going to win. I certainly would love for that to happen. But the Democratic Party is waging war against the Green Party candidacy in every single state, a legal warfare. And they have enormous resources at their disposal to do that because the oligarchy is funneling massive amounts of money to them, to squash candidates like Jill Stein. If we had a system where it was a level playing field, so people who were truly committed to the wishes of the people and were able to, they were given an equal amount of airtime to other candidates who favored the wealthy, for example, you would see principled, honorable, decent people being elected to public office over and over and over again. But we have a political system throughout the west. This is not peculiar to the us, although I think the US is a bit of an extreme case. It's also true in Canada, it's also true in Western European countries, a series of filters that have been established to squash candidates before they get an opportunity to present their case to the people. If we could get them before the people on an equal playing field, the best candidates would win time and again, the problem is the system is designed to defeat them before they even get out of the gate.
Wilmer Leon (56:55):
And to that, I say, dare to be moral, dare to stand on the side of right. Dare to be on the right side of history. With that, let me say Dimitri Lascaris, I want to thank you so much for giving me the time that you've given me today. I greatly, greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much for joining the show.
Dimitry Lascaris  (57:16):
Great pleasure, Wilmer. As always. We've had opportunity to speak before and it's the first time we had to meet today, and I love what you do and keep doing it.
Wilmer Leon (57:25):
Well, thank you. Thank you. Without guests like you, I'd just be sitting here talking to myself. Folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace and blessings. I'm out
Announcer (58:10):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 

Fighting to Survive: The Uhuru 3 and the True Cost of Justice

In the latest episode of "Connecting the Dots," Dr. Wilmer Leon drops bombshell revelations on the U.S. government's alleged attack on free speech. Featuring Chairman Omali Yeshitela, recently cleared of shocking charges of being a Russian agent, this episode dives deep into systemic oppression, global politics, and the fight for freedom of expression. Despite government seizures and legal battles, Yeshitela and his colleagues triumphed in court. Don’t miss this urgent call to action—your rights could be next!
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Wilmer Leon (00:00):
I opened with this piece last week, and I'm going to open with it again because it's as applicable today as it was last Thursday. The linguist, no Chomsky tells us the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum, even encouraged the more critical and dissident views that gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. That's from Noam Chomsky. Is this what the so-called Justice Department is doing via selective persecution and mainstream American media, and those in Western established press are complicit in promoting and protecting. Let's discuss it,
Announcer (01:00):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (01:08):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events in the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is very simply the first amendment, freedom of speech and the US government's attack on this inalienable, right? And my guest is a political activist and author, co-founder and current chairman of the African People Socialist Party, which was formed in 1972 and which leads the O Movement and he's one of the oi, he is Chairman Omali Yeshitela. Chairman Omali, welcome back to the show.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (02:15):
Thank you so much. It's very good to be with you, Dr. Wilmer.
Wilmer Leon (02:22):
Not a problem.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (02:24):
But the reason I really want to express appreciation to you and even the comments that you just quoted from Chomsky is that one of the reasons that we were able to come out of that courtroom after going to trial on September 3rd with an amazing victory, and we were able to fracture the total or the absolute solidarity of opinion regarding black people and the righteousness of our struggle and the validity of the criticism that we make against the United States government. Because as you know, we were charged the three of us, me, penny Hess and Jesse Neville with being Russian agents. And then we were charged with conspiring, I guess, to be Russian agents. And what they have done is taken issues like reparations, like the charge of genocide against the United States government for treatment of black people. Our opinion that differed from theirs on the Ukraine war and things like that.
(03:35):
They're saying that it was the Russians who were responsible. In fact, in the trial itself, they went so far as to say the Russians came up with the reparations idea. Russians came up with the genocide idea. Russians were responsible for the institutions that we've created over the number of years for the liberation of African people. So they would maintain that kind of position, and so that would protect them from any criticism that black people had about our treatment in this country. So they would restrict the discussion so that if we said something that challenges acceptable narrative, then it was because we were paid by the Russian. Some foreign entity was responsible for that. And so I think it was really important that we went to trial and that the jury was able to see through the essential question here, and the state lost in terms of its efforts to criminalize black people fighting for freedom.
(04:43):
It lost by saying that what we were doing was a consequence of being hired by the Russians. The jury said they didn't believe that the jury said not guilty. We were not guilty of being paid working for Russia and without registering as foreign agents. And the conclusion there was that the struggle of act people is legitimate, that we have legitimate wives, we have legitimate criticism of the government, and we showed the whole history of our fighting around these interests going back many, many years. We connected the struggle of African people here and African other places around the world. We did that during this trial. And so the jury said that they agreed that we had the right to do that. The problem, of course, was the confusing second charge, if you will. I say second, I don't know if it was a second charge, what order if you want to put it in, but there was the secondary charge.
(05:45):
It was secondary in the sense that not just because the penalty is like five years as opposed to a maximum 10 year penalty that we would've gotten for the conviction of working for the Russians. But also the fact is that the jury was confused by what that meant as I am even as we have this discussion now, what was the conspiracy? If the jury said that we were innocent, that we were not guilty of working for the Russians, then what was the conspiracy? And are they saying that we wanted to work for the Russians but it didn't work and so we conspired to do something and fail to carry it out? Is that what they're saying? And I think it's a lot more to it than that. And of course, we're going to be appealing this and there's a lot of work we have to do between now and then and the work that you have done, the doors you have opened for us and others, forces like yourself contributed to I think this magnificent victory that we had.
(06:50):
They couldn't put us on trial in the darkness. People were aware of it. People came to Tampa, the courthouse was full, and they had to get a larger courtroom. And every day the courtroom was full. And when the jury looked out at that courtroom, they saw people who looked just like them. And I doubt if they saw anybody that they would've characterized as a Russian there. So that was really important to get the people there, to get people from September 3rd throughout the duration of the trial and to make them have to put this thing carried out in the light of day. And that's what we are contending with right now because we still have to go for sentencing for on November 25th, we'll be going to sentencing and it's going to be important to get people to Tampa to that courthouse for that as well.
Wilmer Leon (07:42):
You talk about September 3rd, and the trial started on September 3rd. And if my memory serves me correctly, they were expecting a four to five week trial.
(07:55):
What said. And what they wound up with was not even 10 days.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (08:00):
No, no.
Wilmer Leon (08:01):
They ran out of ammo. They ran out
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (08:03):
Of ammo.
Wilmer Leon (08:04):
Go ahead, go ahead.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (08:06):
Really important to mention that because the thing is that the government attacked us and according to their own testimony, their witnesses and what have you, they took something like terabytes of materials that constituted at least 1.5 million books. So all the stuff they took from our cell phones, from our laptops, from other devices that we had, it was enough material for 1.5 for one and a million, half million books. And the thing was that out of all of that, I think they used something like four or five emails or stuff from Facebook because there was nothing. There was nothing there. There was no there. And the state did not even have a human being or people who testified against us. All of their witnesses were people who worked for the state FBI agents, they had 12 FBI agents. They had two. So-called experts and experts who didn't know how much under cross examination had to admit, first of all, they knew nothing about the case. Secondly, one of whom had to say that he didn't even know how much he was getting paid for doing this. And he was actually a Russian who was waiting to get his citizenship to be able to achieve citizenship in this country.
(09:48):
And they were unable going through stuff for more than 10 years of materials and the two year duration after this attack on us. They could not bring a single human being into that courtroom who would validate anything they said about what we stand for, who we are, that we somehow working for Russians, that anything we're doing now is different from what we've done for the last 50 years. They couldn't do that. We were the only human beings in that court when it comes to testimony and what have you. The state testified and then they saw people, and we were the people. And the people in that audience who came to this trial were the people and the jury. The jury. Those were the people as well.
Wilmer Leon (10:34):
Is this a test case? The ARU three were on trial, but was this a test case? Pennys, Jesse Neville, yourself Chairman, Mali Ello, the three of you, the O three were on trial, but if the government had been successful, if they had gotten a guilty verdict returned on that first charge, how dynamic of a problem for free speech for the Wilmer Leons of the world, for the Scott Ritters, for the professor Danny Shaws and the Dan Vallis of the world. Would this have been Go ahead.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (11:25):
Yeah, I think so. I think that very smart people, I think the FBI and the Justice Department are going to have to recalibrate how they take this issue on because it doesn't mean they're going to stop just because of what we have been able to do up to now. They will try to find ways to make even this conspiracy charge unfold in a fashion that challenges free speech rights of people even more. And that the conspiracy charge itself is a challenge to free speech. But this one, I think they'll have to recalibrate this whole thing about working for Russians, et cetera. And I think that people have been watching this, smart people, especially people like Scott Riter, especially people who have the audacity to share views about situation in the world, US foreign policy, what's happening in this country that challenges the narrative that the United States government puts forth itself. I think that people who have been dealing with the cop city question, I think there's a whole array of forces out there who have stakes in the outcome of this trial. And I think that so far we've done much better than I think many expected. And I think we can go ahead and further this by winning this case in the conspiracy. But beyond that, we are going to be doing more Dr. Wilmer. We think that the law itself is a political law.
(12:57):
When you got a law, it's a political law. It's not a law against robbing, killing, shooting, stealing or kidnapping, anything like that. It's a political law. The law was created for the purpose of carrying out political objectives in the contest with whomever was decided to be the enemy at any given moment.
Wilmer Leon (13:19):
Lemme jump in really quickly just to say, because I think it's very, very important for people to understand at this juncture, you were not charged with sedition, you were not charged with trying to overthrow the government. You were merely charged with saying things the government didn't like because what you said was consistent with some of the things that the government of Russia and other people in the country have said, which by the way, the things that you're articulating are true. So simply put it, if Russian President Putin comes out and says, the world is round, and you come out and say, the world is round, but Washington will have us believe the world is flat, all of a sudden now you're conspiring with Russians, you're working with Russians, you're operating on behalf of Russians.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (14:28):
Well, it doesn't even matter if Putin says the Russian, the world is round and we say the world is round. What they're saying is that we don't have to be lying. What we say has to be something that undermines the United States.
Wilmer Leon (14:45):
No, I use that example simply to make the point that what you're saying is actually accurate.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (14:52):
Yes, yes.
Wilmer Leon (14:53):
That's my point.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (14:54):
Yeah, I think that's true, and I think that's real because at one time we had talked about bringing in experts of our own to testify about the whole history, for example, of the Ukraine War and how all of that stuff got started. And it wasn't just some evil Russians who decide, let's jump on this helpless and defenseless and innocent Ukrainians or something to that effect. And the point is, of course, that it is true what we said. It is true. But even if it were, this is what the court is saying, what the judge affirmed at one juncture, I think, and certainly the prosecution, that even if it was true, even if it's true, the Russians told you to do it and therefore it's a crime, and they say, we will move it from the element of speech now to an action, it becomes an action because the Russian told you to do it.
(15:52):
So they liquidate the free speech question, and this is what they try to do, and this is their dilemma, not ours, because we didn't write the first Amendment, we didn't write the Bill of Rights. They did it. And they say this is what they stand on and believe in. So they find themselves in this very treacherous and insidious thing all the time of trying to find out how we can have the First Amendment and our first amendment and attack it without attacking it, without obviously attacking it, without saying that we are attacking it. In fact, at one juncture, I think one of our lawyers wrote in a brief calling for the dismissal of the charges that we could have been talking about Russian cuisine, and would that have served the purpose of a charge working for Russian? They said, yes, if the Russians told us to say something about Russian cuisine and we did it, that would be working for the Russians.
(16:50):
It's garbage. It's a garbage law, and we intend to take it on. I mean, because this is just one aspect of it, fighting against these particular charges. But the law itself is a political law. It is a law based on politics. It's not a law based on criminal activity or anything except what the political climate at the moment requires. And so that's something that all of us have to be really concerned about as well, not just the winning in this particular case, in this particular instance, because it's still there and it's still something they can use. And they need to be put on the back foot around this question of having this 9 51 or whatever it is that they can say, somebody's working for Russia or somebody's involved in some kind of conspiracy because it meets the political objectives. Objectives, yeah. Yeah.
Wilmer Leon (17:46):
In fact, let me take a moment here and read the First Amendment, quote. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peacefully to a assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances and What I think is also important for people to understand about the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution, we're very, very careful. Every word, every comma, every is in a particular place for a reason. So when they open the first Amendment by saying Congress shall make no law, what that is telling everyone is that this is a protection of the American people against action by the government. They could have said, you have the freedom of speech. They could have said, you can say what you want, you can write what you want. No, it's not. They are protecting individual rights by prohibiting action by the government. It's called a negative, right? Chairman? Yes.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (19:16):
I think that's really important. And I think this is what we've been talking about all along because that is in the Constitution, who has fought harder for the Bill of Rights than black people in this country. Historically, we started out with no rights that didn't apply to us. So free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association. We've been fighting like hell for this since we've been here. Every aspect of our existence in this country has been fighting for the benefit of the Constitution. So that is true. And I think that part of what we are looking at, so African people, black people, we've led around that question, we've led around this question of the Bill of Rights and the free speech, and we still are. And that was because even when this was put forward, when this was ratified, but the Congress, it didn't include us because we were enslaved in 1791 when this was ratified.
(20:06):
So we've been fighting forever up to now to this very moment until a trial that we just went to for the right to free speech, the right to freedom of association, the right for freedom of assembly, the right for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. We've been fighting for that. And now the problem is because it is in the Constitution, how can they attack us on the one hand without obviously offending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? And so that's the problem they're trying to solve. And so they're saying, except for now, they're trying to come up with an exception. And that's what even this law, this political law that they've come up with, it calls on the people, the court and everybody to overlook this constitutional right under these circumstances that's chosen for political reasons at political times in place. That's what we are looking at right now.
(21:02):
And the thing about that too, Dr. Wilmer, that's so important to us. I mean, the whole thing is important to us and to all the people. Make no mistake about it. When they come at us, it is not us because we never had the free speech. But it's for all those other people who, but the presumption that they had these rights presumption of free speech. So when they attack us and using attack on the First Amendment, it's on everybody's right to the First Amendment that's under assault. But I think it's especially and particularly significant for us, what we've seen just transpire because what they have concocted is this notion that everything is wonderful and peaceful. Everybody is acting civilized. There are no oppression of black people. There are no contradictions that we have that are legitimate contradictions. If we are criticizing the government, if we are criticizing our treatment, it's because we are working for some foreign agent, not because it's a legitimate criticism that the government has to respond to.
(22:01):
So as opposed to responding to it, as opposed to responding to the genocide convention that we are talking about, they have violated, they steal all of the 130,000 signatures and they say, the Russians are the one who got us to do this. Instead of dealing with the questions of what is happening to us as the people, a huge number of African people in prison and stuff, like they said, you can't make that complaint. That's not you making that complaint. It's Russians making that complaint through you. So they were nullified, they were nullify criticism by black people against the government itself. So not just an individual, it's the whole black population that has denied the right to criticize our treatment by the United States government. And that's been the fundamental thing that's really important, and that's why this winning this, at least on the question of working for Russians, that's why that was such an important thing to occur. And we still in the trenches having to fight all the way down the line around the other aspect of this charge.
Wilmer Leon (23:07):
Do you see similarities between the persecution that you all are enduring and what the United States did to Julian Assange, the Australian publisher who through WikiLeaks released documents that he had received government documents that he had received that exposed a number of American diplomats and a number of American elected officials for lying to the American people and to the world. The United States through an attempt of extradition, held Julian Assange in Belmar prison in London for seven years. He now has been released. He's now back in his home country of Australia. And when in fact, the United States was going after somebody for violating espionage and acts when he's not an American, never been to the United States, they were using their extra judicial reach in getting one of their proxies Britain to try to carry out their torture of another individual. Are there similarities between that and what the United States did to you?
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (24:24):
There certainly are, and I think that many, if not of the people who are tied to the Assange struggle, recognize that as well. We have been in touch with members of his family and they're members of the Assange resistance that have come on board in terms with us and even going into September, and we expect they'll be with us going to November 25th when we have to go and face the sentencing. So it is an absolute thing, and I'm old enough and dumb enough to have been impressed when we were hearing this stuff coming from our civic classes, et cetera, about free speech. I mean, I believed in free speech. Absolutely. I still do. Yeah. I don't think nobody believes more than freedom than slaves. You know what I mean?
(25:19):
And all of our children, all of our teachers taught us around this. I mean, they were really preached that to us. And so we were firm believers in this. We didn't need any Russians. We had our own experiences and we had magnificent training from teachers who really passionate, believed in free speech and had to believe in free speech to survive and to be able to pursue our interests. I mean, I was the same age as Emmett Till when he was killed. What was that murdered? It was at 1955. 55? Yeah, I was 14. He was 14 years old. And they murdered him. They said, because he whistled at a white woman, which was really dubious. And even if he did, so what? But the thing is, they murdered this kid, and it was something that traumatized the entire black community when his mama refused to allow him to bury him to have a closed casa at his funeral, she wanted
Wilmer Leon (26:19):
Mamie till,
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (26:20):
Yeah,
Wilmer Leon (26:22):
Mamie Till wanted the world to see. I think the quote was, I want the world to see what they've done to my son.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (26:29):
Yes. And Jet Magazine blew it up, and all the Africans saw that, and it traumatized us all and to know that people can kill you like this with impunity. But anyway, yeah.
Wilmer Leon (26:47):
So people listening to this that may not have seen you on the show before, many may be asking why. Why was this done? I will posit that the world is changing the empire, the United States, what was formerly the Empire after World War ii, its power is on the wane. Other forces is turning from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. China, Venezuela, Russia, the Middle East, A number of countries have decided we're not going to follow that playbook anymore. We're going in another direction. They're doing it peacefully, much to the United States dismay. And there's a story, there's a narrative that the United States wants to continue to tell that isn't true. And through social media, through the internet, through the use of technology, there are more voices out there now that are exposing that lie for what it is. And I believe that's really at the heart. That's the crux of your problem. What say you, sir?
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (28:11):
I think you're absolutely correct. I think it's really important for our listeners to understand that when we talk about how the world is changing and what have you, this is not just some abstract issue.
Announcer (28:26):
It has a lot to do with the cost of oil and gas and properties and the relative power that the United States versus other countries that it is contending with for domination in the world, et cetera. There are all kinds of important issues. I mean the aspirations and hopes and et cetera. The majority of the people who live in this country are tied to the maintenance of the status quo, maintaining the control of the people in Iran and Afghanistan and Nicaragua and Venezuela and the black communities in this country, and maintaining control of the people in these concentration camps, reservations that Indian reservation they call concentration camps. So there's a lot at stake here. I mean, all of the petroleum in the world, I mean it is located in these countries that's contesting for freedom like Iran, like these other places. And the others who have been pushed out of history. I mean China, up until recently, people used to refer to China. People who were not doing well or who didn't appeal to have good promise, they were saying, you got as much. You don't have a China mans chance at
Wilmer Leon (29:42):
This time. China used to be called the sick man of Asia, and they decided that they were going to shred or shed that moniker and that they were going to readjust their culture. They were going to readjust their economy. They were going to readjust their society and that they were going to rise from the ashes. And to that point, another example, the Association of Sahel States, if we look at Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso and how they have been able to throw off the yoke of colonialism by removing France and the United States from their countries, they're now trying to stand. Talk a little bit about what the association of Sahel states, what some of these African countries are doing now, taking control of their own economies.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (30:36):
Yeah, I mean that's a fundamental thing. And they're moving toward it. And the association SA Health states more effectively at this point, apparently, than most of the African entities that have come to be independent, because they're not just independent. They are combining. They, because as you know, Africa and its current designation countries and stuff like that, that was created by Imperialists, by the colonizer. They drew those lines, they drew those board split up people, et cetera. It makes it very difficult for Africa to even access his access own resources collectively. But France can access all of our resources as France. They can get resources from Burkina Faso, Mali, all of them and 14 different entities. France could play one off against the other, but we couldn't get our access to our own resources, right? When France would overthrow entities, governments that tried to do that, independent of France.
(31:38):
So that's a real kind of issue. And so I'm really appreciative of what these forces are trying to do, but it's very, very, very difficult because as you've probably seen since, because the France and the United States were using the basis for having these foreign troops, French troops in the Sahel, that they had to fight these jihadists, the jihadist terrorists and et cetera, and the moment the people kicked them out, then you see the rise of terrorism again. They say, you see people getting killed, slaughtered, and I'm convinced that the same forces are slaughtering them that are responsible for overturning the government of Ukraine when it did not suit their requirements and needs. They want to be able to have us say that we can't govern ourselves or to indicate we can't govern ourselves, and therefore the white man has to come in and take charge of our affairs.
(32:35):
Look at what's happening in Haiti right now. Look at how they're doing in Haiti. They've been doing for how long in Haiti. Right? And that's an aspect of the contradiction. We have to understand that there are all kinds of ways in which the colonizers attempt to advance their interests. And part of what they would try to do is to create a situation where you beg for them to come back. And they have succeeded in doing that. They're almost succeeded in doing that in Nicaragua. But Nicaragua people won their freedom and they started bombing and hurting people in Nicaragua to extend and demanding, and that the Nicaragua was having an election. The people were so terrified that they actually voted the revolutionary organization out of power for temporarily. So they will do that kind of thing. And this is really serious stuff. And I just want to say Dr.
(33:28):
Wilmer, that the oppressed never determines what methods are going to use to be free, the oppressor. If we could walk up to the White House or walk up to important staff and say, please, let's be free. Let us be free. And they say, okay, you're free now. And that was real. That would be cool. But that's not the case. Every instance you see all around the world, the oppressive, the determination of what it was going to take to be free was made by the oppressor. The oppressor. I mean, everybody tries to solve the problem the easy way. African people go, we pray, we beg, we nonviolent, do all of those kinds of things, and then they kill us and all around the world, not just us, but other oppressed peoples everywhere. So it is never been up to us to determine what methods are going to be used to be free. We don't want violence. We want violence out of our lives, but they employ violence of all sorts against us, and sometimes they disguise where the violence is coming from.
Wilmer Leon (34:33):
A couple of things that come to mind. First of all, let me be sure I explain why we went from the discussion of your trial to the discussion of the Association of Sahel States. And I brought that up as an example of how the world is changing, how we are shifting from a unipolar one control United States in control to a multipolar world. That's why I brought that up.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (35:03):
Right?
Wilmer Leon (35:05):
You mentioned mentioned hate
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (35:06):
sounds like, What sounds like Putin.
Wilmer Leon (35:09):
Well, okay, movement of Russia, hey, right is right. The world is round, the world is round, and one plus one does equal two. Even in Russia, one plus one equals two.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (35:23):
That's right.
Wilmer Leon (35:24):
The other point you mentioned, Haiti, and I just want to point this out to show some of the contradiction and some of the hypocrisy at the debate between Donald Trump and Vice President Harris. Donald Trump made that utterly racist, ridiculous, asinine statement about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. And Kamala Harris was aghast at that statement. She was mortified by that statement as she should have been. But here's the question. Where is the outrage of the United States tried to reinvade Haiti? Kamala Harris as Vice President, went to the CARICOM meeting, the meeting of the Caribbean states trying to convince and twist the arms of the leaders of CARICOM to back the United States invasion of Haiti. So on the one hand, she's aghast to Donald Trump's ridiculous assertions and racist assertions about Haitians eating animals in Springfield, Ohio. But if the Biden administration wasn't trying to invade Haiti, most of those Haitians wouldn't have been there in the first place. They'd be in their own country enjoying their own meals, living in their own space, doing their own thing. So I'm waiting for people that are as aghast at Trump's racist statement to be as aghast at the Biden administration for the Biden administration's racist policy. Your thoughts, sir?
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (37:06):
I think you take us right back to Chomsky's observation. Like they define this reality and they place constraints on even how people can see. You can't see the whole world. They've reinvented what the quote left and the right are. So now the Democratic Party is left wing and the Republican party, the right wing, et cetera. When did Joe Biden become a leftist or Kamala Harris for that purpose? What has happened to the concept of left and right? I mean, they've redefined everything and they've placed constraints on the ability to, people see anything outside of these parameters, ideological and political parameters that they've established. And I think that's right on. I mean, I even saw that when people proclaimed to be aghast, that Trump talking about building a wall dealing with Mexico and Mexicans, but they ain't saying nothing about the walls that's being built all over Palestine.
(38:04):
The same people had the ability, the walls built, not unusual and peculiar. It's the thing that people do when they steal land, steal territory, and they want the people to be kept out of their own lands and what have you. So we allow them to define stuff, and that's one of the reasons they would attack us. That's one of the reasons they would attack the whole Bill of Rights in the First Amendment and things like that. Because the matter, the fact is, it's not just a matter of my right to talk. It's the matter of the people's right to hear what I'm saying. And that way they don't have to agree, but that gives them the ability to make an educated disagreement if that's what it is. They don't want that. They can't handle that anymore. And I think the crisis that you just talked about in terms of a changing world, this is critical.
(38:50):
I mean, it is hard to overstate how profound this transformation in the world that is happening now. It is one that's moving away from the grasp of a soul hegemon. This unipolar world as it's been characterized, is something that's under tremendous amount of stress. And you can see it fracturing and when it happens because so much of the political economy revolves around that. It has serious implications inside the country too. And so that people who have relied on being able to suck the blood of forces from around the world when this stops happening, you see greater amounts of suicide. The death spike, death rate of white people of certain ages began to happen. Alcoholism began to happen. And you see also people attacking the capitol. They attacking politicians who they feel have betrayed their ability to remain the top dogs in the world. And this is not something that's left to just Republicans or Democrats. I mean, this is something that permeates the consciousness of people in this country, and there's a certain presumption of the right of America to dominate the whole world, et cetera. Otherwise even people couldn't even see what's happening in the that under American leadership and dominance without protesting mightily. So yeah.
Wilmer Leon (40:15):
One of the things also that I think one of the assumptions that a lot of people may have made as it relates to your case is you are engaged in dialogue at a time when America is at war, and that that's what makes your narrative so dangerous. Here's the thing that people need to understand. The United States is not at war. Congress has not declared war in Ukraine. Congress has not declared war against China. Congress has not declared war in the Middle East. There's a whole lot of fighting going on. There are a whole lot of bullets being shot and a whole lot of artillery rounds being launched. But the United States has started those conflicts. But more importantly, the United States is not at war.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (41:16):
There's no declaration of war.
Wilmer Leon (41:17):
There's been no declaration of war by Congress. So this whole thing about the sensitivities of the government and it needing to protect itself against domestic insurrection because this is a time of war, that's not true.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (41:37):
No, it's not true. I mean, I'm really disturbed sometime Dr. Wilmer about what often appears to be the gullibility. I don't think this is something generally true in the African community. I mean maybe sectors of the African community, but ordinary black people, we have this experience with the government. We know like treachery abounds as it relates to Cointel Pro. Yeah, coin Pro. And even black people who didn't know about Cointel Pro and just ordinary black people, the dealing that we have with the cops on the beat, everything. I mean, most black people who have a relationship with the government, it's through the police. You know what I mean? That's the direct relationship through the police and the housing projects. Everybody's given the corner, et cetera. And so we don't have the same illusions, not fanciful illusions about the state. And that's one of the reason we used to work hard to pass out, know your rights information to just poor people.
(42:40):
Because at the moment, poor people know that the Constitution says, I'm supposed to have these rights. And many people don't know. The Constitution say that says that. And because there's nothing in our lives that suggests that we have these rights. But if we say, these are rights, the Constitution says, you have these rights. You should have these rights. And then that often is alone is enough to foster resistance to what's happening to us. They say, I'm not taking this. If the Constitution says I don't have to take it, I'm not taking that. So this tendency too often of people to simply vow to the current iteration of a lie that's based on political domination of peoples and extraction of their wealth and their values, this tendency is something that we have challenged and continue to challenge. And almost everything we've done contributes to that. Almost everything is tied to tactics and strategies.
(43:48):
We want to be a free people and for us and the African people, social partner who movement, it means like all dignified people, we want to be self-governing. We don't want foreigners and aliens extracting all the value of being able to say that my laborer should not go toward benefiting my community and my children and their children. We don't want that. We opposed to that, we don't want somebody to be able to start wars, that black people are going to be in front lines fighting and all wars. That could actually lead to nuclear, conation, obliteration of the people on earth. We don't want people to be able to do that, and us simply to be here without having any ability to confront the powers that are making these kinds of choices and without even sharing the ability to do that with those of us who live here, who work for a living, who try to work, et cetera.
Wilmer Leon (44:47):
Well, and also something even more basic than that, you talked about these wars, the wars that we as citizens are paying for.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (44:57):
Yes.
Wilmer Leon (44:57):
And how that money is being wasted, how that money is being stolen. We talk about the military industrial complex in many regards. For example, the United States just authorized almost $600 million to send money for military aid to Taiwan so that Taiwan can turn around and use that 600 million for this year to buy weapons from American arms manufacturers. Well, how many teachers' salaries could you pay with that 600 million? There are so many projects. There are so many things that could be done to truly ensure the safety of this country by improving the standard of living in this country. But unfortunately, those dollars go to Lockheed Martin. They go to Raytheon, they go to the military industrial complex instead of paying people's salaries, providing for healthcare and better education.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (46:07):
Yeah, I mean, it's criminal. It would be criminal if the people had any power.
Wilmer Leon (46:14):
Exactly.
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (46:15):
It's not criminal now in the sense that the ones who have the power make the laws. The ones who want to do this stuff, make the laws, or if they don't make the laws, they tweak the law. They manipulate how people perceive law and things like that. And every time we get closer to the goal, they move the goalpost on us. They say, well, the law has changed. It used to be that way, but now it's changed. It's no longer that way. Now
Wilmer Leon (46:38):
The First Amendment doesn't matter anymore. Doesn't
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (46:41):
Matter anymore. Doesn't matter. There's,
Wilmer Leon (46:44):
As we wrap this up, what are the three most important things? First of all, there's going to be a rally. There's a rally coming up very shortly. Your sentencing is coming up very shortly. What are the three most salient things you want this audience to take away from this conversation today?
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (47:04):
Thank you very much. I really would like to win people to come to Washington, DC for the Black is Back coalition mobilization. That's going to happen along with support partnership with the hands off of Rural committee. We still fighting this conspiracy charge and what have you. That's going to be on the 16th annual mobilization, Black People's March. But this Black People's March is going to be an anti-colonial march that will see leadership coming from Palestinians, from Africans, Mexicans, Filipinos, you name it. The people coming together. And for white people who can unite with the rights of black people to have free speech and self-determination. So that's on November 2nd, go to black is back coalition.org. Black is back coalition.org for more information on that. On November 25th, we are going to be sentenced and we are going to be in Tampa, Florida for that at the Federal Courthouse.
(48:09):
And I'm really calling on everybody, all of you who were able to put off things and put on your calendar coming to the trial. And some people came several times to the trial, believe it or not, no matter of few days, people like Pam Africa and Cam Howard and others, they came several times to the trial. And we want you to come there because we think it's really important for the court to continue to see that the people recognize the significance of what we do and what we stand for. And then finally, we are engaging. And so to get more information on that, go to HANDS-OFF-UHURU, U-H-U-R-U.org. And then finally, what we are involved in is a letter writing campaign. We are asking people to write letters. This is pre-sentence stuff. So some of this is letters that we want to affect the sentence that's going to be handed out on November 25th, which could be as extreme as five years in prison.
(49:18):
And so we want people to write letters, and you can get more information on that by going to hands off uru.org and continue to support the work that we do because the final analysis, they attacked us because we've been effective in neutralizing or minimizing to some extent the colonial impact in our communities, the economic development programs that we've initiated and things like that. So continue to support us. And again, go to hands off ulu.org. Go to black as black coalition.org, and you can, that will get you everywhere. I'm not going to try to throw out anymore. Yeah.
Wilmer Leon (50:01):
Chairman Omali Yeshitela co-founder and current Chairman of the African People's Socialist Party, which leads the movement. I want to thank you for your work. I want to thank you for your commitment to our people, and thank you for being a guest on my show today,
Chairman Omali Yeshitela (50:18):
Dr. Leon, I will not be able to overstate the significance of being here with you and the work that you do and helping the world to see when the corporate and colonial media does do everything they can to keep us invisible. This is extraordinarily important. I think the victories we have up to now are do in part to your ability to keep us linked to the people. Thank you so much.
Wilmer Leon (50:42):
Well, thank you again, sir. I greatly, greatly appreciate it. I want to thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, folks, that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on Connecting the Dots. See you again next time: Uhuru - Uhuru - Uhuru... Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (51:32):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 

The War on U.S. Journalists

In this explosive episode of "Connecting the Dots," I sit down with Professor Dan Kovalik to expose the harsh reality of free speech under attack in America. Dan shares his chilling story of being detained for hours at Miami Airport, interrogated simply for telling the truth on RT and other alternative news outlets. He’s part of a disturbing trend—journalists in the U.S. being raided, arrested, and harassed for daring to speak out. Is free speech in America on life support? We dive into Noam Chomsky’s theory of controlled debate, where public opinion is tightly managed, and how today’s media manipulates what we’re allowed to hear. From the prosecution of dissent to the silencing of pro-Palestine voices on college campuses, this conversation reveals the frightening erosion of our First Amendment rights. Don’t miss this urgent wake-up call—are we witnessing the death of free speech in the land of the free?  
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Wilmer Leon (00:00):
The linguist, Noam Chomsky tells us the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. Even encourage the more critical and dissident views that gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on. While all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate. That's Noam Chomsky. Let's talk about it. Stay tuned.
Announcer (00:43):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:51):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I am Wilmer Leon is this what American mainstream media and those in Western established press are engaging in actually the violation of the First Amendment? Let's discuss this. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which these events occur. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I, we have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the issue of force is very simple. The first amendment, freedom of speech, and the US government's attack on this inalienable right, and my guest is a US labor and human rights lawyer, writer, author, and activist. His latest book is entitled The Case for Palestine, why It Matters and Why You Should Care. He has been a peace activist throughout his life. He has been deeply involved in the movement for peace and social justice in Columbia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other countries in the global south. He's also taught international human rights law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law since 2012. He is Professor Dan lik. Dan, welcome.
Dan Kovalik (02:26):
Thank you. Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure. Wilmer.
Wilmer Leon (02:30):
So there are a number of events. We're going to connect a number of dots here, but let's start with the First Amendment and it reads as follows, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people to peaceably, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Dan, we take this as Americans, we take this for granted, but as the first amendment of the first 10, this one was very important and made number one for a reason why?
Dan Kovalik (03:18):
Well, because the founding fathers having come from England, where there was a king who was able to prescribe speech arbitrarily, wanted to protect the right of free spree speech, the right of religion. Of course, England had a state religion, the Anglican Church, and they wanted to make sure that Americans had the right to such things as speech and religion and freedom of the press. In England. Those things were not protected even to this day. By the way, great Britain does not have a written constitution and does not protect those types of rights in the way that the United States does.
Wilmer Leon (04:05):
And again, we've taken this right for granted for so many years, but we have found history shows us, particularly during times of war, when the United States feels that it is being threatened, the screws tighten on free speech, hence people get charged with sedition and other types of violations. When the government feels it's being threatened, when there is a perceived threat from outside the country, then the government will tend to tighten the screws restrict speech, and then once that threat is vanquished, then the prohibitions relax. Have you found history to prove that to be true?
Dan Kovalik (04:57):
Yes. I mean, one of the most famous examples, of course is during World War I, people like Eugene v Debs, great socialist from Terre Haute, Indiana. He was put in jail for publicly opposing World War I and famously his persecution and those of others like him was approved by the Supreme Court in a famous case by Oliver Wendell Holmes is one of the most celebrated jurors, and he created the clear and present danger rule. And what that says is that the First Amendment is not, as they often say, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. He said that in cases of a clear and present danger, Congress in fact could
(05:59):
Limit speech. He gave the example famous example of you're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. And he compared incredibly advocating for peace during a time of war as tantamount to claiming there's a fire in a crowded theater. And that remains the law of the day. And so that law or that decision, which is now almost a hundred years old, I think sets the precedent that advocating for peace in the United States is somehow a clear and present danger. And so when we look to how speech is being regulated and limited today, what we often see it being regulated when people are clamoring for peace.
Wilmer Leon (06:58):
There's an interesting piece in consortium news entitled Free Speech in the Department of Political Justice, and it's written by former judge Andrew Napolitano, who was a superior court judge in New Jersey. And he writes in this piece, I don't want to spend a lot of time getting into the weeds of the First Amendment, but I think this is very germane to what we find ourselves dealing with. He writes, the framers of the Constitution, were debating this idea of free speech, and they concluded that expressive rights are natural to all persons no matter where they are born. And natural rights are, as Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence inalienable. That's why I refer to them as inalienable rights in the open stated differently. He writes, Madison and his colleagues gave us a constitution and a bill of rights that on their face recognized the prepo political existence of the freedom of speech and of the press in all persons and guaranteed that in Congress, by which they meant the government could not and would not abridge them until now. And he, in his piece, he's referencing some charges that the United States government has imposed against some Americans and some Russians, and it's not even a matter of challenging war as much as it is challenging the established government narrative. Your thoughts?
Dan Kovalik (08:35):
Yes. So again, this is very similar to laws and regulations that have come down before during World War I and also around the same time you had the pomades against socialists and union leaders. Of course you had the McCarthy period, which also really represented an abridgement of peace of speech and of course very, I think relevant to today because of course the McCarthy period, at least ostensibly involved the persecution of communists. Though of course a lot of people persecuted were not communists, though a lot of the people who were persecuted were communists. Most notably in my mind, the great Paul Robeson who went, he and I went to the same law school. By the way, it's a big reason I went to Columbia Law School is because Paul Robeson went there, one of my heroes.
Wilmer Leon (09:31):
He was a few years ahead of you though.
Dan Kovalik (09:33):
A few years, yeah, yeah. I know I look old, but I'm not quite old enough to cross paths with Mr. Robeson. But why is that important? Because of course that involved claims that the communists were somehow how stooges of the Soviet Union. And now of course you have people making allegations that those opposing US foreign policy are pawns of Russia and Vladimir Putin. Right. So it's the same old trope that we've been hearing for years and years, and we see this manifested in the last two weeks with the Justice Department announcing indictments against people associated with rt, formerly known as Russia Today News based in Moscow. You had Anthony Blinken statements over the weekend that RT should be considered an espionage organization that means a spy organization. And of course the implication being that those Americans that work with it are spies. And then you had Hillary Clinton chiming in, I believe yesterday, saying that people spreading propaganda, Russian propaganda should be civilly if not criminally prosecuted. And so again, welcome to McCarthyism 2.0. It's a very scary time for people who, I'll just say like me, I'll only speak for myself who want to advocate for peace, but also specifically advocate for peace with Russia who say Russia's not our enemy who go to Russia. I've been to Russia five times in the last two years.
(11:26):
I've been to the Donbas three times to Crimea once to the Kherson region of what was Ukraine once. And I have worked with RT proudly so, but I and others like me are now in the crosshairs of the US government. And they're not even hiding it. They're being very clear that we are enemy number one at this point.
Wilmer Leon (11:51):
And this is important for people to understand because as you just mentioned, they've indicted two Americans living in Russia who are Russian citizens. They work for rt. The Feds are accusing them of spreading propaganda. And what they are basically doing is they're challenging the narrative of the Biden administration. And unlike what transpired during World War I, as you talked about Eugene Debs, and also what happened during World War ii, right now, last I checked, the United States has not declared war on Russia. So we are not in a war footing or on a war footing right now. These are individuals that, and I am one who is challenging the narrative of the Biden administration as it relates to what's going on in Ukraine as it relates to what's going on with China over Taiwan, what's going on in Venezuela, what's going on in the Middle East. There are a number of areas where I believe, and I think I have historic and current evidence to support the position that the established stated narrative of the administration is flat out wrong.
Dan Kovalik (13:18):
Yes, absolutely. And again, Anthony Blinken was very specific about that. He said that rt, that its alleged propaganda has undermined the cause of the war in Ukraine. But as you say, while the US is defacto at war with Russia, it is not officially at war with Russia. It is not declared war on Russia. And as you know, the US rarely declares war anymore. Only Congress can declare war. And rarely does it do that. We usually go to war again, not officially unofficially with countries without declaring war. So we are not officially at war with Russia, which means that those who work with Russia or Russia related entities are not engaged in sedition of any kind.
(14:12):
But that is what is being claimed. Now, I mean, that is being specifically claimed that we are in fact involved in sedition. And by the way, I know people, Wilmer friends of mine that are fleeing the country. Oh, really? Oh yeah. A number of people and some to Russia, but some to other places, Canada, other places for fear, they're going to be prosecuted because of their work with rt. And no, it's very serious. I know several people, I won't name them. I think I can name one because he's already done it. So he is safe there. And that's Jackson Henkel.
Wilmer Leon (14:55):
Oh, okay.
Dan Kovalik (14:57):
But there's others in the process of doing that. Some people have urged me to do that. So we have a very serious situation, and I understand why people would make that choice, because really the government is signaling that they may go after us. So it makes some sense,
Wilmer Leon (15:21):
And we're going to get to that with you in just a few moments because there, there's another, there are a number of facets of this that if you look at these things individually, people may have a tendency to think, oh, well, this is just a one-off here, or a one-off there. But when you start connecting these dots, what you find out is the government is engaged in incredibly fascist behavior, and they are establishing policies. When Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former First Lady comes on television and starts talking about people who are spewing propaganda need to be considered for facing criminal charges. What's the difference between her saying that here in the United States and some of the incredibly repressive policies that have been and are in place by some people that she and other members of the current administration label as dictators label as strong men label as fascists?
Dan Kovalik (16:37):
No, I mean, of course there's no difference. I mean, and think about it. The US has voice of America, which again, openly broadcast US viewpoints around the world and in particular in countries that the US is hostile towards. Radio Liberty is a similar one in Europe, but frankly, you don't even have to point to those because now frankly, most of the US media operates like those. They're nothing but mouthpieces For the US government, I would put NPR in that category, C-N-N, M-S-N-B-C, and of course the iron. And if those stations or those broadcasting systems are jammed in other countries or people associated with those entities are arrested or persecuted, of course the US is the first one to claim foul. Right? But of course, the other irony here is that M-S-NBC, which is the station that Hillary Clinton made her statements on, and Rachel Maddow, they have been propagandists themselves in terms of pushing these lies about Russian interference. They've been pushing these lies for eight years now. And Hillary Clinton herself was one of the main origins of that lie, which has been debunked,
(18:02):
Almost entirely and right. So they are pushing propaganda and they're pushing war propaganda again, specifically against Russia. They themselves are guilty of war propaganda, which is by the way, a war crime under international law. But so talk about calling the kettle black, or in fact, they're calling the China, the China plates black when they're the ones that are engaged in propaganda.
Wilmer Leon (18:32):
In fact, there's a, I'm trying to pull it up right now. There's an NBC story from a while ago from 2022 where they admitted to using propaganda to fool American people. And in fact, the author of the story is a journalist, Ken Delan, who by the way I believe had been dismissed from the LA Times because he was clearing stories through the CIA before the stories were being submitted to his editors at the LA Times. That's history. But there was a story back from 2022 where NBC admitted that they're involved in his propaganda war with Russia and that they will lie to the American people in order to get out in front of a story before the Russians can tell the story or to mislead the Russians. And so the United States government em, it does it to the American people itself
Dan Kovalik (19:41):
All the time. We know this happens all the time. Another classic case was Judith Miller at the New York Times, who was doing nothing but writing CIA propaganda at the behest of the CIA, which led it helped lead us to the war in Iraq. And in fact, the CIA credited her reporting for helping pave the way to the war with Iraq. And of course one of the big lies of the war, the weapons of mass destruction was a lie that she promoted and incredibly, she's landed on her feet. She was let go or forced to resign for the New York Times because that came out. But now she works for CNN. I mean these folks, it's really not a negative mark on their career if they do this sort of thing. John Stockwell just mentioned John Stockwell, I don't know if you remember him well, I do. But he was a CIA Bureau chief at Angola. He talked about how the CIA would write stories that they would've published in the press, and he gave one example. He said, we once wrote a story about Cuban troops who were fighting US backed forces in Angola, and who by the way helped liberate Southern Africa and South Africa, as you know, Wilmer.
(21:06):
He said they would claim Cuban troops had raped these women in Angola. Then they'd write a story saying the Cuban troops were killed. And then he said, incredibly, they'd write another story about the same Cuban troop unit somehow revived from the dead doing something else. And yet the press printed it without question. And this happens, and Hollywood's the same way. Hollywood is very much under the sway of the ca. If I can just give one example of that famous interesting example, if you've ever seen the movie, which I like quite a bit, meet the Parents, pretty funny movie. There's a scene in which Ben Stiller, the main character, goes into Robert De Niro's layer for the first time and discovers he's with the ccia. Originally, the script had it that he found he was with the CIA because there was a CIA torture manual de Niro's desk. Well, the CIA who reviewed the script and reviews many scripts in Hollywood, you can't do that. So they ended up just having photos of De Niro with Bin Laden and Clinton and different things. So a lot of what we watch on TV in the movies and reading the newspaper, a lot of that is clear through the ccia, if not utterly based on CIA misinformation that they feed to the press.
Wilmer Leon (22:42):
And let me connect these dots. I found the story and here's the headline. This is from NBC News in a Break with the Past. Now that's a lie. Us is using intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. It doesn't have to be solid intelligence. One US official said it's more important to get out ahead of them, the Russians Putin specifically before they do something. So this is NBC admitting that they're using less than accurate intel in stories that they're telling to the American public. They're basically lying in order to further a narrative. And we can take this back to the Iraq War with the Office of Special Plans, which was set up in the Pentagon to take intel that hadn't been vetted and spin it into stories that would support the US narrative about why the United States needed the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction. And Dick Cheney's letter about yellow cake uranium coming from Niger, okay, why are we getting into these weeds? Because the United States government is attacking American citizens, independent journalists for telling the truth about stories that are challenging the standard narrative when the United States government admits itself, it's lying to you. And this is in violation of the First Amendment, professor Dan Kalik. Is that a good summation of the issue?
Dan Kovalik (24:38):
It's a very good summation. You often hear, for example, someone like myself will say, oh, there's neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Which by the way, before 2022, even a lot of the mainstream press reported on that, right?
Wilmer Leon (24:55):
I won't say even Barack Obama said, one of the reasons we don't want to send weapons to Ukraine is because we don't want to give weapons to the Nazis.
Dan Kovalik (25:01):
Yeah. Not only did Barack Obama talk about it, there was a law passed by Congress that I think Obama signed saying that the US could not fund neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Well, I don't think they passed the law just because theoretically there might be because they knew there were Nazis in Ukraine, and then in fact, that law was repealed because they later decided, oh, well, we need to support Nazis in Ukraine. Okay, so everyone admitted there's Nazis in Ukraine. Then once the special military operations of Russia began in February of 2022, all of the press all of a sudden pretended, oh, there's no Nazis there. Okay? So now after that, if someone like me who's actually been to the Don Bass, which was part of Ukraine, says, oh yeah, there's neo-Nazis in Ukraine. They're like, well, that's a Putin talking point. Well, the fact it's a Putin talking point doesn't mean it's untrue. If Putin says the world is round, it doesn't mean the world is flat.
(26:00):
But that's what's happening. That is really the claim leveled against people who are trying to give a more balanced picture of what's happening in Ukraine as they're being portrayed as somehow being controlled by the Kremlin, when in fact they're just saying what the truth is. Even though, yeah, it may happen to correspond with what the Kremlin is saying, which I will say, I find the Kremlin a lot more credible on many of these issues than the White House, but other people have to judge that. But again, the fact that my views may overlap with those of the Kremlin at times doesn't mean I'm under their sway.
Wilmer Leon (26:47):
And let me give the reference those who want to look this up for themselves. Again, the headline of the story is in a Break with the Past US, is using intel to fight an in full war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. And the story is from April 6th and 2022 written by Ken Delan and others. And again, it's important to remember that again, Ken Delan was dismissed from the LA Times for writing stories, for sending stories to the CIA, having the CIA edit the stories, not telling the editors at the LA times that this was being done. So again, this shows you the kind of work and the kind of propaganda that is being sold to you as news. Now, there's another element to this because as we talked about before, there are a number of facets of this, and that is, again, in Consortium News, pro-Palestine students and faculty Sue UC, Santa Cruz, the lawsuit seeks to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and due process against overreach by university authorities. So basically what has happened, and this story came was last week, September 11th, 2024. So if you all remember back in the spring, there were a number of protests across college campuses all over this country in support of the Palestinian efforts, and they were protesting against the genocidal action of Israel against Palestinians at the United States is supporting. And a number of students were arrested, and some students that were arrested at UC, what did I say, UC, Santa Barbara or UC, Santa Cruz
(28:52):
In the spring have now still been put off campus in violation of campus regulation. So they are suing the University of Santa Cruz to have that overturned. And just Tuesday, the University of Maryland now finds that care, the Council of American Islamic Relations, Palestine Legal, they are suing University of Maryland for canceling. And this is who would ever think to do something this horrific Jewish and Palestinian student groups holding an interfaith vigil? Dan Valick, the country is going to hell in a hand basket.
Dan Kovalik (29:44):
Yeah, absolutely. It's outrageous. I mean, what we see is violations of the First Amendment in many different ways. Not only the violation of free speech, of freedom of assembly, but of course freedom of religion because of course, the interfaith vigil would be an expression of religion. I don't see how these actions by Santa Cruz, which by the way, is part of the University of California system, that's a public school system. It means they are subject to the First Amendment. I don't see how those actions can stand if they do stand, if the courts allow them to stand, then we have entered a brave new world, my friend. I mean a very dangerous world by any precedent of the court, at least recent precedent, they should be permitted to have these types of protest in vigils. And I hope they win in the courts. They should win.
Wilmer Leon (30:42):
In fact, I remember saying after September 11th, as we looked at the crackdown that the United States government was imposing upon American citizens, that when a country violates its own constitution in reaction to action taken by terrorists, the terrorists have won.
Dan Kovalik (31:06):
Yeah, well, that's absolutely true. And of course, what we saw after nine 11 was an abomination in terms of the rights, not just of US citizens, but of others that were curtailed. The people put in Guantanamo Bay without charge. It turned out most of them had done nothing. Some died in jail, some died of torture.
(31:34):
It was a huge mark on American democracy. I believe there's still people there. It has not been there. I think there's a couple survivors still hanging on. It's an amazing thing. And of course then you had Barack Obama who decided he could murder American citizens with drones abroad on his own authority. And he killed one man who was claimed to have been a terrorist again, that had never been proven, that he had not been, that had not proven in a court of law. And then incredibly, they murdered his son, his 16-year-old son. And in defense, one of the White House spokespeople said, well, he chose the wrong father.
Wilmer Leon (32:25):
Eric Holder came out and said when he was the Attorney General, that an American president can execute American citizens anywhere in the world without judicial review.
Dan Kovalik (32:37):
Yeah, incredible. An incredible thing. And it's bad enough, frankly, Wilmer, that the government has done these sorts of things. But the sad part also is there's been so little resistance to this, so little criticism. And that's what allows these things to continue and not only continue, but to escalate
Wilmer Leon (32:59):
Quickly going back to the campus issue. So we're told that there has to be this prohibition against protesting in support of the Palestinians because we have to be mindful of the sensitivities of Jewish students, and we can't have these Jewish American students feeling threatened and feeling unsafe on the college campuses amidst these peaceful protests, ignoring the fact that a lot of the protestors are the very Jewish students who the authorities claim their rights are being protected. I believe I submit to you attorney Kovalik, that that is merely a cover or a pretext for the protection of these interests of these students is a pretext, is a cover that is being used by the government to violate our First Amendment rights the same way the Israeli government claims it has to engage in genocide of Palestinians as it attacks Hamas.
Dan Kovalik (34:22):
No, exactly right. Because the other issue, I mean, of course you're right that many Jews are protesting for Palestinians, but also what about the Palestinians rights? There's Palestinian students on campus, there's Arab students. What about their rights? Right?
Wilmer Leon (34:37):
What about my rights? I'm neither Palestinian nor Jewish, and I have this problem, and I know I'm nuts, Dan. I got a problem with genocide. I admit it. I admit America. I admit it to the world. I got a problem with genocide.
Dan Kovalik (34:52):
It's an incredible thing. Wilmer, what we've all been taught since World War II is that the worst crime in the world is genocide, right? It is the high crime. It is the most abominable crime. And even one of the worst things you could say about someone is they're a genocide denier, right?
Wilmer Leon (35:15):
Oh, yeah. Heaven forbid.
Dan Kovalik (35:16):
And now all of a sudden when people are protesting against genocide, they're the bad guys. And yet it's an incredible thing that is happening. It's an amazing Rubicon we've crossed, and no one can really defend it. That's the problem. And that is why there's repression. The universities, including some of the best in the world like Columbia University, which may be the main offender on this, they can't defend their actions. They can't defend the genocide. They can't defend against those saying it's a genocide. So they've decided we just have to shut the speech down because we as an institution, we have no argument. We can't ideologically defend this. We can't ideologically defend the United States. And so we're just going to say, students, you can't talk, which goes against every notion that anyone has about what the university is supposed to be, a space of free speech and free debate. And Zionists should have a right to their views. They should have a right to peacefully protest. And those are against Zionism. And the genocide should also have that right. And that is so obvious and so clear, and the fact that the universities have decided to go the other way and only repress one kind of speech, and that is pro-Palestinian and not pro-Israel. It's abominable. It just shows the corruption of our institutions from the universities all the way to the White House.
Wilmer Leon (36:55):
And it also, I believe, shows the power of the military industrial complex, or what Ray McGovern called the Mickey Mat, in that once you start challenging the narrative via free speech, you now threaten the defense budget. You now start threatening the billions of dollars in weapons that are being wasted in Ukraine, that are being wasted in Gaza, that are being wasted as the United States is trying to foment a Middle East war. And heaven forbid those billion dollar contracts that are going to Lockheed Martin, that are going to Boeing, that are going to ge, Raytheon, heaven forbid, people start asking questions about why is so much money being wasted on genocide?
Dan Kovalik (37:53):
Yeah, no, exactly. That's correct. When we look around our cities, we look around this country, we see so many problems that need fixing, and people are saying, Hey, why aren't you fixing our problems instead of sending money abroad to these wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Those are very inconvenient people to the powers that be, and not just to the military industrial complex, but apparently we know that in the case of Columbia University, that they responded to calls by millionaires in New York City who asked them to repress the protest. So we know the ruling class is very much in the tank for Israel, very much in the tank for the genocide in Gaza, and that they are influencing these universities and how they respond to this.
Wilmer Leon (38:45):
And let's connect another dot. And that is the trial in Tampa, Florida that just wrapped up last week in the Uru, the African People Socialist Party, also known as the Uhuru movement or the Uhuru three. There was an incredibly confusing verdict that came down in that trial. It was alleged that the defendants were doing the bidding of the Russian government by sowing discord in America's political process by promoting political views that were contrary to those of the United States government and favorable to those of the Russian government. Now, I got to reiterate, they're not talking about overthrowing the government. They're not talking about attacking the government sowing discord, their own words in America's political process by promoting political views, not military political views that are contrary to those of the United States government. So well, go ahead, Dan. You want to say something?
Dan Kovalik (40:00):
Yeah. Well, that's exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect, are controversial views that go against the government. I mean, right? You don't need the First Amendment to protect speech that is pro-government, right? I mean, that's kind of obvious. If the First Amendment only protected pro-government speech, it wouldn't be much of a protection at all. As people say, you have to protect inconvenience speech and dissident speech. And so it's amazing that this prosecution went forward. Apparently, I guess they were convicted of conspiracy, but not some of the other charges. And by the way, let's say a couple things about it. First of all, I'm not sure they influenced anyone. I never heard of this organization to be totally honest, until this, right, until this indictment came down. And so number one, so they don't have much influence at all. Number two, I think this was over like 500 bucks in a donation they got for some Russian 500 bucks. Meanwhile, APAC is giving over a hundred million dollars in this election cycle to people's election campaigns. APAC owned
Wilmer Leon (41:15):
And Corey Bush Co Bush lost because of those efforts. And Jamal Bowman in New York lost because of those efforts. So not only is APAC donating and it's a hundred million by their admission in the New York Times, they were successful in their efforts.
Dan Kovalik (41:36):
They claim they were successful in every effort, every person, they backed one. And this has been true for years, of course, this type of influence. In fact, John F. Kennedy tried to make APAC liable under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which is the act that the Arru group was prosecuted. And of course, Kennedy was not able to do so, and he was actually killed shortly after. You can draw your own conclusions. APAC has been this huge elephant in the living room, a huge influencer of American politics for many, many years. And yet, who's getting prosecuted for that? No one. No one. They go after these small fish
Wilmer Leon (42:28):
To make a big point.
Dan Kovalik (42:29):
Yeah,
Wilmer Leon (42:30):
Small fish to make a big point. And so this was an incredibly bizarre verdict because they weren't, as you mentioned, they weren't found guilty of failing to register as agents of the Russian government. They were convicted of conspiring to fail to register as agents of the government.
Dan Kovalik (42:54):
Incredible. It's absolutely incredible.
Wilmer Leon (42:57):
So the jury said that Chairman Omali Yeshitela and the other two defendants agreed to become unregistered agents of the Russian government, but didn't actually become agents of the Russian government.
Dan Kovalik (43:15):
They wanted to be agents, but Russian didn't care. They didn't want them to be agents, whatever. It's absolutely bizarre. And that we could talk about this all day. I mean, again, I'm a lawyer. I study criminal law, and that sort of, to get someone on that, that becomes just a thought crime. They literally did nothing they made,
Wilmer Leon (43:35):
Which by the way, isn't a crime,
Dan Kovalik (43:36):
Right? No, you're right. I mean, again, because that would be a First Amendment violation. We were not supposed to prosecute thoughts. And the idea is, oh, I wanted to do something. Well, that's not enough to convict someone. I mean, it's completely outrageous. And I think their case is on appeal, if I'm not mistaken. If it is, I really hope they win. I mean, God bless 'em. They really are the test case here for the rest of us. I mean, I think the government went after this small group that no one heard of because they figured no one would support them. They go after them first, make some bad precedent for the rest of us, then start going after the rest of us, which means it's a very important case.
Wilmer Leon (44:22):
And the prosecution, the government was unable to present hardly any witnesses. They had hardly any evidence because this was 95% fiction. It was just flat fiction. And I think what also the government didn't expect was the attention that this was going to bring. The courtroom was full of supporters for the Uhuru. They've been around since about 1972, and they've done incredible work in the communities that they work in. And so now final data point, as I understand it, you Dan Kalik we're coming back into this country last week.
Dan Kovalik (45:14):
Yeah, Friday. Last Friday, yeah.
Wilmer Leon (45:16):
I'll let you tell the story.
Dan Kovalik (45:19):
Yeah. So I was coming back from the anti-fascist Congress in Venezuela.
Wilmer Leon (45:26):
Yeah,
Dan Kovalik (45:27):
I believe,
Wilmer Leon (45:28):
Oh, wait a minute. See, I knew when I saw that white jacket, when I saw that white jacket
Dan Kovalik (45:32):
Knew something was bad. Yeah, they used to say they were premature. I guess that's what I'm, but anyway, I came back through Bolivia. And to be, make a long story short, I was held for four hours. I was interrogated where, what airport in Miami, which is not the airport, you really do want to come back through. But I was asked about my travels, about who I meet with, about my connections, my political beliefs. They
Wilmer Leon (46:07):
Asked you about your political beliefs.
Dan Kovalik (46:09):
Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, it was all about what countries do you like? What countries do you not like and do you feel most comfortable? What countries are you most afraid of? I said, honestly, the one I'm in right now because I get treated like this. And then
Wilmer Leon (46:27):
What was their reaction to that answer?
Dan Kovalik (46:29):
Well, they were a little defensive, but tried to continue with the conversation and then, well, even before, so before they got deeply into the questioning, they searched all my bags and took my cell phone and my computer. By the end of the evening, I did get my computer back, but my phone, I did not get back. And I just got it back this morning. So that would've been about three or four days they had it. And we know, I mean, you can Google this. There's a lot of stories about it. They have the right outside New York City. We can get into the exception outside of JFK and LaGuardia. They have the right everywhere else to take your phone and copy the whole thing, copy your computer, which I imagine they've done, which is an incredible privacy violation. As you can imagine. Most people have a heart attack if that happened to 'em. And it was clear, it was motivated by my trips to Russia, Venezuela, other countries. And in fact, I've been subject to secondary interrogation, which is what it's called at the border in the airports a number of times since I first started going to Russia about two years ago, I've been stopped. That was probably my fourth or fifth time being stopped.
(48:02):
I was told in Chicago when I was stopped some months ago, that I have a case number with the State Department that marked me for this type of interrogation. And other people like Danny Shaw, who's a friend of mine, a colleague of mine, he also was stopped
Wilmer Leon (48:21):
Friend of ours. Yeah,
Dan Kovalik (48:23):
Stopped for three hours. His phone was taken. I mean, he's Scott Ritter.
Wilmer Leon (48:27):
That was in Chicago.
Dan Kovalik (48:28):
Danny was stopped
Wilmer Leon (48:29):
In Chicago.
Dan Kovalik (48:29):
Chicago. Scott Ritter's house in New York was raided by the FBI. They took his phone and computer. So look, the hunt is on. There's no question about that. I do want to give one caveat, I mentioned this exception in New York City. There is a judge in New York, the federal court in New York who held in her court district, in her court jurisdiction, which covers JFK and LaGuardia. They cannot take your computer and phone without a search warrant. So people out there, Wilmer, if you're doing international travel, try to come back through JFK because
Wilmer Leon (49:13):
Thank you. I was just going to ask you about the warrant because this seems to be another violation. You're supposed to be secure in your person and your papers. Last I checked, and I'm not a lawyer. I did go to law school and I did stay at Holiday Inn Express. So there seemed to be a number of violations beyond the First Amendment when they start to detain you and they start to seize your property without warrants.
Dan Kovalik (49:50):
Yes. Well, the problem we have, Wilmer is outside the jurisdiction in New York, the courts have held that customs has the right to hold you even up to 72 hours, Wilmer without a lawyer interrogate you and to take your phone computer and copy it. They have held that until you get through the customs and immigration,
Wilmer Leon (50:20):
You're not officially in the country.
Dan Kovalik (50:22):
You're not in the United States of America. The Constitution does not apply to you. That's an incredible, incredible thing. Most Americans have no idea of it, and most Americans won't experience the repercussions of that.
(50:36):
But what that means, until you go through passport control and get your bag and go through those double doors and push on those double doors and go into the main terminal, they really have the power of God over you. And again, most people have no idea about that. And so what the government's decided to do is, okay, we're not going to even worry about getting a warrant. We won't even send the FBI to Dan Aleks home. We don't have to do that. We wait until he leaves the country. He comes back because he travels all the time, and we'll do things to him and take things from him. We could never do without a warrant and without an attorney being present if he's interrogated, et cetera. It's an incredible violation of our rights, as you say, Wilmer. But it is totally sanctioned, at least at this moment by the courts, except for that court in New York City.
Wilmer Leon (51:33):
So and where did they approach you? You're coming through the jet way. You're coming off, you're deplaning, you're coming through the jet way. So when you come out of the jet way to the terminal, what happened?
Dan Kovalik (51:51):
Well, so just as almost every time, so only one time this happened to me in Chicago recently. They were waiting for me off the plane. Right outside the plane. In theJet.
(52:05):
Yeah. The only time that happened, in fact, as we were descending, they announced in the plane is we were descending. Please have your passports ready when you exit the plane. They checked everyone's passports. When they got to me, they stopped checking because they had their guy and they took me to be interrogated. Now, there was only time that happened every other time, including this time in Miami. I get off the plane, I walk all that way. Usually it's a long walk all the way to passport control. I get in the line, I get up to the passport agent, she checks my passport, had a few questions, and I'm thinking maybe I'm going to be okay this time. And then she said, please stand over there. And I knew what that meant.
Wilmer Leon (53:00):
Did you say, go stand in the corner
Dan Kovalik (53:02):
And face the wall, basically. And she put a little orange slip over my passport and another guy comes out, he takes my passport and says, come with me. And I'm brought into another room with a bunch of other people, and I sat there for probably an hour. Other people were getting processed very quickly. After an hour, a customs officer came and said, please come with me with your baggage. And she said, now she begins, I'm sorry, Wilmer. She lied. Okay. She begins to make up this story. She says, you're subject to a random drug search from Bolivia because a lot of people are bringing in drugs. So we're going to check your bags and then I'm going to ask you a few questions. We'll let you go. And this is just a random, but she checks all my bags that she does, but she doesn't have a sniffer dog and she doesn't check my prescription pill bottles, which could have drugs in them. She didn't check my coffee I brought in, which could have drugs in them. Clearly this is theater.
(54:08):
And she says, as part of our search, we can take your phone and your computer. We're going to do that, but we're only going to search for issues related to drugs. Whether you told someone you have drugs or you swallow drugs. But then when she takes me to another room for interrogation, there's no questions about drugs. It's all about what countries do you visit? Do you meet with government officials? Do you know government officials? Do you know presidents of other countries? Again, what countries you feel comfortable in? What countries do you not feel comfortable in?
(54:45):
That sort of thing, which indicates that was the real reason for me being pulled over was my travels and political beliefs, not the drug stuff. That was just a lie, I think, to get me feeling comfortable enough to talk to them. So there you go. That's what happened. Again, it took me days to get my phone back again. You can read about it. The customs now copies thousands of phones a year. They put 'em on a database. All of that information is on the database for 15 years, and all 3000 customs officials have access to it. So some guy in whatever Oklahoma's board during his lunch can go eat his sandwich and look at my data. I mean, it's an amazing thing. Wilmer again, most Americans have no idea this is happening.
Wilmer Leon (55:48):
Wow. The land of the free and the home of the brave. So it's also important for people to understand this is happening during a democratic administration.
Dan Kovalik (56:00):
Yes. And especially because it's democratic. We know from the New York Times, an article about three weeks ago, talked about the FBI, investigating people for connections with Russia and rt, and they said specifically that this was ordered by President Joe Biden. So this is not an accident. This isn't just the bureaucracy doing what they do or the deep state. This has been ordered by a democratic president to happen.
Wilmer Leon (56:30):
And we also know that more whistleblowers were prosecuted during the Obama administration than any other administration in history.
Dan Kovalik (56:40):
Indeed, indeed.
Wilmer Leon (56:44):
Dan Kovalik, professor Dan Kovalik. Man, thank you so much for your time. I truly, truly appreciate. First of all, I'm very sorry that you as an American went through this. I'm even more aggrieved that you as a friend went through this. Thank you. But thank you for joining me today,
Dan Kovalik (57:04):
Wilmer. It's always a pleasure and you are a friend, and I admire you a lot, and I look forward to the next time we talk.
Wilmer Leon (57:11):
Well, man, appreciate it. And folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting to Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can see all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (57:51):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 
 

Polling Myths vs. Facts

In this episode of Connecting the Dots with guest Governor L. Douglas Wilder, we cut right to the chase: forget the polls, the hype, and identity politics—what really matters in the 2024 race is what the candidates have done and what they’re going to do. Governor Wilder doesn’t hold back as we dive into the hard truth: track records and real actions are what voters should care about. From public safety to education, we tear through the noise and focus on what’s truly at stake. If you're not asking what these candidates have delivered, you’re missing the point. Buckle up for a no-nonsense conversation that flips the script on political analysis.
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00):
The 2024 presidential race is shaping up as we sit here in early September. The Hill reports Harris v Trump polls Harris has a 4% lead based upon 162 polls. If you're a Harris fan, that's great for the popular vote, but the number that matters is 270. What's behind these numbers? Let's find out
Announcer (00:31):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:39):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the issue of force is what's the layout of the domestic political landscape and for some invaluable insight into this and some other issues. Let's turn to my guest. He continues to be one of the most astute political minds of our time. He's the 66th governor of Virginia, the nation's first elected African-American governor, former mayor of Richmond, Virginia, and he's the founder of the l Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. And a man that I am very proud to be able to a governor L. Douglas Wilder. Welcome to the show.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (01:56):
Thank you Wilmer, and it's always good to be with you and always learn from you as well and share opportunities for us to spread to others who would look to what we say for guidance or correction or whatever it is they feel. I'm always privileged to be with you.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (02:19):
Well, sir, the privilege is mine. Thank you so much for those compliments. Before we get to your analysis of the upcoming election, talk a little bit about the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at VCU. It's my opinion that of all of your historic and significant accomplishments, this one is historic and significant.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (02:43):
It is, and we have an excellent dean, Dean, Susan Gooden, who understands the importance of what we call government and public affairs. They understand what government is and as you and I discussed and have discussed on any numbers of occasions, that government, which is closest to the people is that which most affects the people at local government. Yes, we're concerned about who's going to be president, but who's going to pick up the trash, who's going to provide housing, and so we connect those dots between national elections, national government and local government and we involve the issues. We have a measure that she calls rise, a research Institute for social equity and it's very important, and that's distinguished from DEI talking about America and Wilmer. I don't have to tell you, you have no idea how many people are not aware of the history of America. Not just black history, but American history, which improves all of America's people. That's what we try to do at our school. We're critical, we're analytical and we hope to improve.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (04:07):
Your point about people not being aware of American history, and I'm going to get to the Wilder bite in just a minute because you did some surveys on some of those issues, but just the overall idea of teaching government in school, that is becoming harder and harder to find middle schools and high schools that are going to teach government in school.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (04:36):
You'd be surprised or maybe not surprised to know that our governor, governor Glenn Young requested Syl from our schools as well as a couple of other schools in Virginia as to what is being taught relative to this history. The governor of the state of Virginia most will be able to approve himself singularly, not the boards of visitors, not the people who are the historians, but he wants to do it and we projected it. People have rejected it, and I think one of the reasons is people want more of a corrective history. Tell it all the good, the bad and the ugly, and then we can improve upon it. We can see what it is we may have done wrong. When I ran for office, I never ran as a black person. I ran as a person entitled to run because I fulfilled the obligations of the need to run for office age, residency, et cetera. And then I never have considered myself a black governor. The vast majority of people in this state are not black. Matter of fact, Virginia, when I ran, was the lowest concentration of black voters or black population of any of the southern states, but for whites voting for me overwhelmingly to the extent that they did not overwhelming in terms of the numbers, numbers but overwhelming in terms of precedent. I wouldn't be here talking to you today as the former governor or the former mayor or the former.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (06:27):
One of the things that I find incredibly invaluable is I get that you have a publication Wilder Policy Bites
(06:36):
And the most recent, which I think was released on the 25th of August is entitled Commonwealth Poll. Most Virginians agree, history of race should be taught in schools. One of the issues of education, I'm sorry, on the issue of education, 75% of respondents think the history of race should be a subject In K through 12, there were three bullets. That's the first one. The second one is about Gaza and Israel's military action. 39% said Israel was justified in taking action in Gaza. And the third point, a high percentage of Virginians agree that VCU President Michael Rouse should provide public accounting of money. I highlight those three because that's quite a diverse area of information and polling that you all are doing with your Wilder policy bites.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (07:33):
Well, thank you very much. And policy bites put on by our school Dean Gooden and Dr. Robin McDougall handles the polling that we have put forth, but what you just cited was the illustrative of what the governor obviously doesn't know. The people want the things that you just described. They want to know about education, they want to know about the history. They want to know about what should or should not be taught. They're not asking the governor to tell teachers what to teach. Let the teachers who are trained to do the instruct our youngsters to let them know who we are as a people. And so in policy base, we also want to, and our polling, when you see the numbers of people, we, as I said, are not a purple state nor a blue state or a red state. We're a people state and that's why I've always been a little weary of polls because I wonder why no one ever call me. I thought of a poll and yet involving now with policy base and polling and knowing how fair that this poll is being conducted. Listen to the people and they'll tell you what you might not want to hear, but they'll tell you the truth.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (09:07):
I said, now let's turn to the current landscape. And I said in the open that the Hill has reported that Harris now has a 4% lead based on 162 polls, and we understand polls are no more than just a snapshot in a moment of time. But I also said that said, if you're a Harris fan, that's a very encouraging number, but the number that matters is two 70. So just give me first of all your overall thoughts of the political landscape as it stands before us right now.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (09:50):
Well, as you know, there are those who vacillate from day to day in terms of what this group says, what this person says, as I see the political landscape now, it's a turnout election. By that I mean not notwithstanding what the poll says. Who's going to vote, who's going to get up, who's going to feel motivated, who's going to feel inspired? That's why even in our state, our last poll showed plus or minus three to four, and that was with Harris leading. But are those people going to get out? Are they going to go out? Are they going to vote supposed it rains? Suppose you're not having childcare, suppose any numbers of the things, how important is it for early voting
(10:48):
Were going to do that, so I wouldn't pay any attention to those polls as it relates to being comfortable. I would consider them in terms of being inspired to say, look, we can win. This is what I think it takes to win and go to the people. And I think in this case the debates do matter and this next debate or this first debate between Trump and Harris, it's going to be very telling. It depends on which one of them is going to be appearing to be presidential, which one speaks for a voice for the future and which one speaks for the people.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (11:30):
I was asked a couple of days ago for my opinion about the upcoming election and my answer was, well, we have two troublesome candidates. We have a former president with a well-established and horrible record. We have a sitting vice president with very little to show for her efforts up to this point, neither side up to this point is really articulating substantive policy. Trump continues with his personal attacks and invectives and running on this project 2025 agenda that he now wants to run from, and there's still no policy tab on the Harris-Walz website.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (12:12):
It's one thing to tell us what you're going to do, but I say this to all of the people who tell me they want to run for office or that they want to be promoted further in office. What have you done? What have you fought for? What is your unfinished agenda? What will you continue to fight for? What is it that would make me want to vote for you? Give me some idea of the things that you tried to do that you haven't been able to get done, but that if you got elected you feel that you need more favorably inclined to do so because you'd have a greater following. Those are the kinds of things the public wants. They don't want to help get any sound bites of people coming out, I support this person or that person. What will you do to make me say that I can support you? That has to be an individual decision and that's why those who are running office, particularly this election, this is going to be a very trendsetting election because as you pointed out, you've got a history maker in the process with Kamala Harris and you've got a troublemaker who has been the president of the United States, which means don't take anything for granted, don't take these polls for granted because the only one that counts is the one that's taken on election day.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (13:38):
So the takeaway, one of the takeaways that I have from what you've just articulated is the fact that Vice President Harris is an AKA part of the Divine nine, which both of us are. The fact that she went to Howard, which both of us have done, and the fact that she can do the electric slide, which I can't do, but I know you're a pretty good dancer, none of that really should matter.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (14:06):
No, the introductory, the question is the same thing we've been talking about here. What have you done? What are you trying to do? What will you be able to do that is of an interest to me and mine? What about public safety? What about housing? What about health or what about the expenditure of money, the high cost of living, the economy and all of those things? Tell me where you stand on those issues so that I can determine what's best for me and mine. And once that happens, then I'm in a better position to say, I've got to only vote for you, but I've got to get out and get others to do so too. See, enlisting my vote is one thing enlisting me to encourage others to vote is something else. That's what has to be done.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (15:06):
And this issue around Project 2025, a 900 page document, I read that about 140 people tied to the Trump administration helped to write the document and the former president wants to throw up his hand and say, Hey, I don't know anything about this. I don't know where this came from. This has nothing to do with me, and we know the power of the Heritage Foundation, so now all of a sudden, these 900 pages don't mean a thing.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (15:44):
Well, it doesn not only not pass the smell test, it doesn't pass any test, and so I would think that disclaimer on behalf of the president would be something that he would be better advised to forget. Don't disclaim it if you claim that up to this point. Best thing you need to do is to say the things within that that you would change even now that it's been criticized or that you would stick to now that it's been criticized, but the disclaimer is not going to work.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (16:19):
One of the things that I've been saying about this document, because in some circles it seems to have just come up out of nowhere, I say to those who want to run around with their hair on fire, it's old wine in new bottles For the most part. It's not new. You go back and read Newt Gingrich's contract with America, go back and read Bill Clinton's reinventing government as we know it. The Democrats have played a role in a lot of this as the Republicans have, so I don't say that to diminish how horrific the document is, but history is very important and I think people need to understand the reality in which this document has come from.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (17:14):
I agree with that, but I go back again to what I said earlier. People wan't plain and talk.
(17:23):
They're not interested in documents or treatises or platitudes or slogans, plain talk. They don't need what you are going to do about immigration. What are you going to do about the high cost of living? What are you going to do about our economy? How threatening is the situation in to immigration as it relates to what could happen to American interests in the Middle East? What is the status of America's continuing pouring money into the Ukraine when we don't see the results that we would like to see? These are not questions that need to be documented to death. They need to be answered simply.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (18:16):
I wrote a piece a while ago called You're with Her, but is she with you? And the point of the piece, and I say this very clearly in the piece, it has nothing to do with Kamala Harris and everything to do with us. What are we demanding of her and up to this point, again, all I get is she's an AKA, she went to Howard and she can do the electric slide, but we aren't demanding policy, and I've even had people tell me, policy doesn't matter.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (18:55):
Well, again, I agree with you and I hate to keep saying that.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (18:59):
I don't mind it. Go ahead.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (19:00):
I like saying it because it's good to hear somebody finally make some sense. Your question really is not what you're going to do for me or for you. What are you going to do for the people? Where have you derived that impetus? Where have you gotten what I would call the thriving interest to say change has to be made? What needs to change? What do you see as it relates to what you did as mayor of the city or what you did as senator? Rather what you did and what you're doing is vice president. That's another thing that Ms. Harris has got to be very careful of. You are a sitting vice president with a sitting administration. What has your administration been successful in doing? Yes, you've made some tie breaking hopes, but in breaking those ties, what have they done and accomplished to the extent that they need enrichment, they need restructuring or are there more things that need to be put on that table? Forget to pass as it relates to what has been done in terms of what you promised. Fulfill those promises. Show us what you can do, and if you had my support and support of the people in Virginia and support of people in all of the states, it could make a difference.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (20:34):
What do you say? Going back to the fact that there's not even a policy tab on her website, and I've had some people tell me, well, it's too early for that, that the sooner that she articulates policy, that gives the Trump side more time to attack it, to which I've said, well, if you articulate policy, if you understand the policy that you're articulating, then you should be able to defend what you've stated. You should welcome that attack because that'll give you the opportunity to expand the conversation.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (21:18):
Couldn't agree more, couldn't agree more. Whenever I've taken a position as to an issue that I stand for, I prepared to defend it. If I had taken any one gun a month, we passed in my state and I was told I was crazy. We couldn't get it passed. We got it passed. We reduced crime, we reduced this proliferation of handguns, and even though I was criticized, we got it done and we set a model for the rest of the nation, those kinds of things. Second chance giving people who went to high school didn't get that degrees, give them a chance to come back to high school even though they might be 35, 40, come back and get your degrees. Those are the kinds of things that people see that make a difference. And don't try issues in sound banks or highfaluting language. Make it simple, make it plain, make it understandable, and if it is not defensible, then you shouldn't put it on the table and the sooner you put it on the table, they'll attack it. That's what you want, so you can defend it and defend it to the extent that it is a counter attack. They'll have to keep defending, defend
Dr. Wilmer Leon (22:40):
And in your defense of it, then if you are on your game, that enables you to expose them for what they, especially somebody like Donald Trump who doesn't understand power.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (22:54):
Well. What it does further is to say, since you've attacked what I've said on this issue,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (23:01):
What are you going to do?
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (23:03):
Where do you stand? Where have you stood? Then why are you all of a sudden now going to do something when all of this time you haven't?
Dr. Wilmer Leon (23:14):
You mentioned one gun a month in Virginia, and that brings me to the most recent shooting Appalachia High School. Colt Gray, a 14-year-old murder is accused of four counts of felony murder from a shooting in his school, and it's now reported that his father has been arrested and for having purchased the firearm for him, and the Republicans primarily still stand on these, to me insane opposition to simple common sense gun legislation.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (24:06):
Well, some Republican representatives might feel that way, but I think the people in the communities, Republican, Democrats, independents and all, they want sensible legislation. They want reasonable controls. They want the right to defend themselves, and I think government constitutionally has to afford people that, right, but this doesn't mean you open the flood gates. There is no excuse in the world for this 14-year-old to have done what he did without the knowledge and the consent of his parents, and that's why the father is in court and he should be.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (24:56):
You just mentioned the people want sensitive, sensible gun law. An overwhelming number of Americans want the genocide in Gaza to end. An overwhelming number of people in the United States are tired of their hard earned tax dollars being wasted in Ukraine, but the legislators don't seem to be listening to the people
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (25:27):
Couldn't agree with you more. That's why it's very important for those people who are in office, and that's why Ms. Harris, she has a difficult problem in dealing with that issue because the president of the United States is her partner.
(25:48):
She is his partner to that extent. So whatever is going on in Ukraine, whatever's going on there, look how we got out of Afghanistan, $85 billion worth of property. We left, left it. We left Americans. We didn't do it right. Now, having said that, if you didn't do that right then what makes people believe that you still have the expertise or the willingness to do what's right as it relates to those same issues in that part of the world? That's why Ms. Harris has got to step it up. It's difficult because she's inheriting a problem that has to be resolved.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (26:36):
One of the issues or one of the influences that many will say that she has particularly as it relates to Gaza, is APAC and apac. There was an article in the New York Times, I say it was around April that said they were boasting about committing $100 million to influencing the outcome of the primary elections. They were going to invest money to ensure that they deemed to be progressive Democrats. They that took anti-Israel policies for stances would not be reelected. Jamal Bowman fell victim to that and co bush fell victim to that. I didn't hear anybody from the cbc. I didn't hear anybody from the NAACP crying foul on the front end. Now they want to cry foul on the back end, and I say, you can't compromise for political expediency on the front end and then try to clean moral high ground on the back end. Your thoughts, sir,
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (27:54):
I think you need to go where the problem is. Go to Israel, look at the demonstrations that are taking place there. Look at what people are saying in Israel, Toya, we don't like your policies. They must change. Now, it's very difficult for us to sit back in America and to say, we're going to support this, that, or the other. When the prime minister of Israel is saying, we don't care what you say, I'm going to do what I want to do, even with some of his cabinet officials, sometimes more than just a handful of them, when you see the people in Tel Aviv, when you see them in Jerusalem, when they're saying, we cannot continue along the path, we're gone because this continuing unrest, this continuing wall, this continuing lack of safety is something that we cannot abide, and so that has to be resolved in Israel, but to the extent that we support the lack of resolve is not fatal,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (29:10):
And that point about how much we are contributing to the effort, and then Netanyahu tells us that, well, he's basically ignoring what's being said. My dad used to say, son, you can't ask me for my money and then ignore my advice. If you're going to take my money, you got to take my advice. And I just thought I'd, that just reminded me of something that my father would say to me, all smart man. There are a lot in the community that when we try to have a conversation about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump or Jill Stein in the Green Party or Dr. Cornell West, a lot of folks will say, well, if you don't vote for Kamala Harris, that's a vote for Donald Trump. I wrote a piece a while ago, the dangers of binary thinking in the African-American community that we've got to start to broaden our analysis and broaden our perspective. What do you say to those who will say, A, don't challenge her now because all you're doing is opening up the opportunity for a Donald Trump victory and to those who say, oh, well if you don't vote for her or if you're challenging her, then you're obviously for Donald Trump.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (30:36):
Well, I've always looked at it as I've tried to describe today I vote for issues. I vote for who's the best on this, who's the best on that?
(30:50):
Who's the best on public safety? Who's the best on housing? Tell me not what you're going to do. Tell me what you have done. What have you tried to do? If you failed, why did you fail? What did you need more support for? You cited the losses of some of the people who've articulated certain issues, and yet by the same token, when they were articulating those issues that sometimes they were considered popular and they were victorious. They were leading the pack, but the Pack sometimes turns, and that's what we see on a regular basis in politics, so it's not a surprise, but you can never lose if you stay with the people, listen to them. It's a continuing thing. You don't listen today at election time and then again, until reelection time, listen and respond on a regular basis.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (31:57):
We seem to have lost an understanding of the idea of elected representative That seems now people don't seem to understand what the word representative means.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (32:14):
Yes, they do. In too many cases it means represent yourself and that's what they are doing. In too many cases, I cite the example. In Virginia, particularly when I ran for the state Senate, the salary was $1,500 a year. We had no office, we didn't have a secretary, and we got I think $50 a year for stationary. That's changed Now in the representatives themselves, they can raise millions of dollars for their campaigns and put millions of dollars in their own pockets through artifacts, through indirect means, but all legal and so many people run for office for that reason to become further bettered or enriched personally and lacking the concern of the people. That's why I keep going back to it. I know it's like an old song. Listen to the people are ahead of leaders
(33:32):
Because they know where the rubber history road, they know where it doesn't hit the road. The rising cost of healthcare, the tremendous amount of money that's wasted in drug research, the amount of time it takes for the government agencies to approve drugs, and it is huge. It's big. It's money, money, money, and we finding that out. And so when you start saying Medicare for all, you're talking about a whole bunch of money and some people who will benefit from it and might not just be the people, it'll be some of those others who could say, I've got your Medicare in my pocket.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (34:19):
To your point in talking about the people, I think it was a French politician led Rollin, Alexandra drew Rollin who said, there go the people I must follow them for I am their leader. Yes,
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (34:42):
I thought it was. It made it very well been
Dr. Wilmer Leon (34:45):
Okay.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (34:46):
The crowd charging the Bastille,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (34:50):
Right,
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (34:50):
And he said, where are those people going? After all, I'm their leader.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (34:59):
You also mentioned, you said you want to know from someone that's running for office. What have you done and what have you tried to do? And for me, in many instances, it's the tried to do that can be as important if what were you willing to fight for? I say that about Barack Obama all the time. People tell me, oh, well, Wilmer, you don't understand what he was up against. Wilmer. You don't understand all the opposition. I said, well, wait a minute. What did he go to the bully pulpit and demand? What was the hill he was willing to die on? I never understood that. I don't know that that was ever clearly articulated. Am I off base?
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (35:53):
Well, I think to the extent that you don't try to do things just because you're going to be successful in doing it. It took me eight years, eight long years to get a national, to get a state holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Virginia was the first state in the nation to have a legislative holiday set aside for Dr. Martin Luther King. It wasn't New York,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:28):
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Virginia, the bastion of the Confederacy. They told me I was minute, lemme throw out one more data point. I think the largest slave holding state in the country.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (36:40):
Exactly.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:41):
Okay.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (36:42):
Okay. Presidents of Virginia owned slaves.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:46):
Well, presidents of the United States own slaves.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (36:48):
Yes, presidents of the United States, right own slaves, but they were from Virginia. Right, right.
(36:57):
People said, when I put that bill in, they said, well, we didn't elect him to do that. No, you didn't. But I felt I was elected to do what I considered that was right and now old people, they cited all the time. Virginia was the first state to have a legislative holiday for Dr. King, and as I said, it wasn't the northern states, it was Virginia and I didn't do it. What would I benefit from it? What do I get from it? But King sacrificed so much he spoke to the need for people to come together to recognize that their differences could be set aside. And one of the things that I always remembered about him, he said, adding additional numbers is one thing, but you must remember in the column numbers will eventually end up at zero and you have to go to the next column.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (38:02):
Give me a little background on the process for the King holiday because I know for example, former congressman, the late Congressman John Conyers, he put a bill in every year to get a federal holiday for Dr. King. Did Congressman Congress come to you? Did you just decide for yourself, Hey, I'm going to do this? How did that process?
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (38:26):
I did this on my own.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (38:28):
Okay.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (38:29):
King and I separated by two days and birthday mine's the 17th, he's the 15th, and we separated in Age by very little, and I was just so impressed in terms of reading the kinds of things that he had done and what he was doing that I said, I'm going to put it in. So when I put the bill in, it said I was crazy. I would get the bill passed in the Senate and I said, wow. And then the House of Delegates would kill it. I then would get it passed in the Senate and the house a governor vetoed. I had to wait two years because you got to wait until another session before session that the Senator comes in. I got it passed in the Senate and the House again and another governor, Vito, that King holiday bill was vetoed by two governors in Virginia and all of this was taking place when I was a state senator. Yet I got it done because the people wanted it and now that we've got it, I don't want credit for it, but understand what King was involved with and what he meant. Not just parades and marches, but betterment of mankind and the lifting of the veil of ignorance and making certain that we had a better life for all.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (40:08):
As we wrap up this conversation, and thank you, you are always so gracious for me when I call you understand we're spiraling closer and closer to the 5th of November. What are the three most important things stand out in your mind about this upcoming election? If someone walked up to you as you're stepping out of ECU today and said, governor, I'm not going to vote in November. What are the three most important things?
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (40:45):
Well then obviously you don't consider yourself a citizen. You don't consider yourself worthy of being considered a citizen and whatever's going to take place, you deserve it notwithstanding what happens to you. So you should never be in a position to complain about anything and so that extent don't vote. You're not doing me a favor. If you don't vote, you're not doing anyone else a favor. If you do vote, you do yourself a favor if you vote, if you don't understand that now you might know.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (41:31):
We're very fortunate in this country to where the transition in government doesn't result well, except for the last time with Donald Trump in the 6th of January usually doesn't result in public unrest. The transition of government is usually calm, so folks will say, well, my trash is going to get picked up. The stoplights are still going to work, and there's going to be milk at the grocery store when I go to get it. So there are those who say, it doesn't matter. It doesn't impact my daily life. And this is the last question. Your response to that mindset.
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (42:08):
You just described the three reasons why you should go. How does your trash get picked up? People have to make a decision and to put all those in place to pick your trash up food in the grocery store. How does it get there? Somebody has to decide that the store can be located there and zoned there for you to get invited and the other things spoke. Of the third one, the same thing local government is that which is closest to the people. National government is that which forms and shapes the local government. But if you don't vote, you hurt yourself.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (42:51):
Well, with that being said, sir, governor L. Douglas Wilder, thank you again. You are always so gracious. I greatly, greatly appreciate your joining the show today,
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (43:04):
Wilmer I'm always glad to be with you I count you as my friend.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (43:08):
Thank you, sir. Thank you folks. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You'll find all the links below in the show description. Remember folks, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out!!
Announcer (43:50):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
 

Connecting the Dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon – How the Democrats Fuel Militarism (with Jeremy Kuzmarov)

Get ready to rethink everything you know about the Democratic Party! In this explosive episode of Connecting the Dots, I sit down with historian and author Jeremy Kuzmarov to reveal how the party’s messaging has quietly embraced militarism—and what it means for America's future. This isn't just another political chat; we’re diving deep into the hidden history behind today’s headlines, exposing the bipartisan grip of the military-industrial complex on both parties.
Jeremy and I break down how Democrats have shaped U.S. foreign policy, fueling wars and global interventions that have real-world impacts on immigration and international relations. If you’re ready for a raw, eye-opening conversation on how our political system prioritizes power over peace, you won’t want to miss this!
Tune in for insights that challenge the status quo and uncover the urgent need for a more balanced, humane approach to politics, both at home and abroad. Watch now to join the conversation!
 
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:00):
Hey, here are a couple questions. Has the messaging from the Democrats changed over the past few years? Is the messaging more jingoistic, more saber rattling, have they become the party of militarism? Let's find out
Announcer (00:00:22):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:30):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before is militarism and messaging. My guest is a man who holds a PhD in American history from Brandeis University. He's the managing editor of Covert Action Magazine. He's the author of five books on US Foreign Policy. He's the author of a piece at Covert Action entitled DNC Convention Features former CIA director who was in charge of drone programs that killed thousands. He is Dr. Jeremy Komaroff. Jeremy, welcome to the show.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:01:39):
Thanks so much for having me. Great to be with you.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:01:41):
You open your peace in covert action as follows, Leon Panetta was drowned out by anti-war activists when he spoke at the 2016 convention, but not this time. Former CIA director, Leon Panetta, who was the director from 2009 to 2011, was among the featured speakers on the final day of the DNC in Chicago on August 22nd when Kamala Harris accepted the party's nomination as its presidential candidate. Jeremy, does this represent just a shift in rhetoric, or is this a shift in policy and a shift in direction?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:02:25):
Well, I think we see a lot of continuity. I mean, Panetta was there in 2016. He's giving the same kind of speech eight years later. In 2016, he was really promoting these anti-Russia themes, anti Putin. This was the forerunner of the Russia gate. They were already attacking Donald Trump as a Russian agents. And his speech in 2024 was the same kind of thing. It was really very jingoistic militaristic in that speech. He was invoking the glory of the Obama administration assassination of Osama Bin Laden or alleged assassination because there are a lot of different theories about what really might've gone on there. And the official story was shown to be a lie. Seymour Hirsch had a piece that was very good, and he compared it to Alice Wonderland, and their rhetoric was so far out there as to what really is known to have happened. And yeah, there are a lot of question mark or they dumped the body at sea, so there are no autopsy and some question if that was even Bin Laden.
(00:03:31):
Some people believe he died years earlier from renal failure. But in any event, that's the kind of thing they were doing just touting the War on terror. The US military Panetta said something that America made mistake of trying to be isolationist in the 1930s. And there's this kind of insinuation, you can't appease Putin as if he the new Hitler and America was not really isolationist. It was a global empire starting the late 19th century when it acquired the Philippines and Puerto Rico and Cuba and function as a global empire from that time period. So it never really isolationist. And FDR had this major naval buildup in the Asia Pacific that essentially provoked the Pacific War. It was a horrific war. So I mean, he obviously doesn't know his history that well, but this is just theater. Yeah, it's a very hawkish theme. He's a dancing and his speech echoed Kamala Harris' speech, anti-Russia themes, pro-military themes.
(00:04:36):
So that's what you get nowadays out of the Democratic party. And yeah, I mean there were booze of Panetta in 2016, but it was quiet this time around. It seems that people are just trying to mobilize around Harris and the EM of the anti-war movement. I mean, there were protestors outside of the convention. A lot of that centered exclusively on Israel Palestine. So I don't know. I mean, I think the protestors in 2016 were part of the Bernie Sanders faction. Maybe they had some hope in the party then, but now I think anti-war people have no hope in the Democratic Party. So they left or somewhere outside protesting.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:05:21):
Well, in fact, that was really the crux of my question, Panda's rhetoric versus the convention's response. And does the convention's response, or some might say lack of response, indicate that there's a serious shift in the party, particularly as we look at how easily war mongering legislation gets passed through Congress, through the democratic elements of Congress as it relates to funding for Ukraine and funding for Gaza and more jingoistic rhetoric as it relates towards China?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:06:01):
Absolutely, and I think it's telling that Robert Kennedy and Tulsa Gabbard are considered more peace candidates and they've made a lot of statements critical of US foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine. Less so for Kennedy, and I think also Gabbard, Israel, Gaza, but definitely Ukraine. They've both been very critical and called for easing of relation with Russia. And they've warned about the threat of nuclear war and that we're in an era and new Cuban missile crisis, they've compared it to, and they were booted out of the party. I mean, Tulsa, they were treated horribly beyond just debate. I mean, Gabbard, she was in one of the CNN debates or televised debates in 2020 as she was running in the primary. And she was viciously attacked by Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris and others who dominate the party in kind of Neo McCarthy I term, and they called her a Putin stooge.
(00:07:01):
And a Bashir saw theologist because she wanted to, she was against the covert operations in Syria and the escalation of conflict. And somehow they called her all these kind of names and really treated her in the way that Joseph McCarthy would recognize or victim of McCarthyism with reminiscence of that. So she was totally driven out of the party. Now you find they're more on Fox News. I mean, I think the Republican, they're trying to capitalize on the disinfection of many pacifists and peace oriented people with the Democrats, and they're trying to recruit them and draw them into the fold. And that's why they brought in Kennedy and gather. But personally, I think that they're just, they're very cynical operative and their Republican party are just trying to get that vote. But they're not really peace oriented party either. And Trump's foreign policy was very bellicose and aggressive in many ways, certainly toward Latin America.
(00:08:00):
The drone war, Trump escalated the drone war, escalated war in Somalia, and he's very aggressive and very xenophobic and threatens a major escalation, I think with China. So I think it's just a cynical ploy by the GOP to try and get these disaffected people are disaffected with the Democrats and by recruiting Kennedy and Gabbard to create this persona as a new peace party. But I don't think they really are a peace party. And so those of us who are really committed to pacifism, anti imperialistic politics really have nowhere in the mainstream American politics, and I think we should work on developing our own independent parties.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:08:47):
Before I get back to your piece, you mentioned in your earlier answer a reference to people trying to compare former President Trump to Hitler. And I was at the RNC when JD Vance was, his name was placed in nomination and he accepted the nomination. And I was doing my standup after the nomination. And I was saying as I was closing my analysis, I said, I find it very interesting, if not ironic, that a guy who just a couple of years ago was comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is now his vice presidential nominee, and we'll be standing next to him on stage. I said, how does that happen? And when I said that, there was a guy standing next to me who turned to my cameraman and said, you guys have to leave. You have to leave right now. He was allowing us to use his space, so he was able to tell us that. But my point is, as soon as I said that, you guys got to go, you got to go right now. Explain that because I find it amazing. And only now would something like that happen in our politics.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:10:11):
Yeah, well, I think it is increasingly out of the Twilight Zone. I mean, well, firstly, I think a lot of the rather is a bit overblown. I mean, I think Trump, there are a certain fascist theme in the GOP and there are concern about ascendant fascism and authoritarianism both among both parties. I mean the scapegoating of immigrants in the GOP, the extreme nationalism, ultra militarism like veneration of the military, that bears fear that the GOP leaning the fascist direction. I mean, I think some of the rhetoric about Hitler may be overblown, but yeah, it's totally ironic that he was calling him Hitler, as you say, and then he's the nominee. So that's just insane. But why did they kick you out? I mean, you were just repeating a fact that is known to be a fact, and that goes to the growing authoritarianism we see that can't, the kind of conversations we're having are not tolerated in the mainstream. And just a journalist doing his job and just reporting on something is being removed that
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:11:22):
And can get you arrested and detained in airports and have your home raided by the FBI, as with Scott Ritter and O'Malley Yella and the three,
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:11:37):
Yes, this is, yeah, I think what we're seeing is, yeah, more overt form of authoritarianism. And I think it's showing the flaw of American democracy. I mean, on paper there has been a democracy, but in reality for years and generation dissidents have been ostracized and marginalized and faced a lot of persecution, maybe not physical violence, although I mean under FBI Cual Pro, there were a lot of victims of state repression, people who were unjustly incarcerated sometime for decades, there were people killed. I mean the FBI infiltrated leftists in radical groups with the goal of destroying them and creating divisions. And in the Black Panther, they orchestrated murders. So I mean, there very violent, undersized underbelly of American politics. And that's coming more to the surface more and more. And I mean, you see, look, mark Zuckerberg said that Biden administration told him to censor
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:12:45):
The Hunter Biden laptop story.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:12:47):
Yeah, well, the hunter bought laptop and relate to COVID-19. And without your view on that, people should have a right to express it, but Zuckerman was told to censor viewed that criticized the government position. And then yeah, you have these raids going on
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:13:04):
A minute, a minute, a minute because it's important. I think that people really clearly understand that the point that you just made about Zuckerberg, that's not your opinion. He stated that in a letter that he wrote to Congressman Jim Jordan. And so those who want to wait a minute, what is Jeremy talking about? Right? Google it. You can read the letter for yourselves. It was sent last week and Zuckerberg made those very clear statements and was apologetic for having done what he did in censoring those stories on Facebook because he has since come to understand that contrary to, as he was told, those were not Russian propagandist talking points.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:13:56):
Exactly. Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. And another fact is that Tim Waltz made statements supporting censorship if it was related to misinformation, and that seems to be the line in the Democratic Party, but they use misinformation. Could be anybody who's simply critical of the government. They call it somebody who criticizes government policy in Ukraine or vis-a-vis Russia. They say he's promoting misinformation or Russian propaganda, or the same for the Covid narrative. They question the dominant narrative. And I found the review of waltz's statements. He promoted misinformation. So for instance, he claimed that carried out chemical attacks on his own people, and that was refuted by scientists like Theor Postal did a very detailed scientific study, and I did an article and I interviewed postal and he showed me his data and this guy, the top flight MIT scientist, and he repu these claims, his analysis, and he was very neutral.
(00:15:02):
He wasn't really on any side of the war, and he wasn't even particularly political. It was a very objective scientific study that based on the angles, those attacks had to have occurred from certain areas that were controlled by the rebels, not the Assad government. And that other attacks didn't think that there were chemical attacks, one of those bombing of a fertilizer plant. In other case, some stuff may have been planted like dead animals to make it look like an attack because people would've been dead. He said, he showed me photos and he had images of photos where people who were on the scene would've immediately been killed if there was actually a chemical weapon attack the way they described it, and they weren't affected or sick in any way. So in any event, that's just an example of waltz can be seen to have promoted misinformation.
(00:15:57):
So based on his own statements, he should censor himself. But the broader point is the American constitution and the American Republic was founded on the deal to free speech, and that's what we should have. And this cancel culture. I think too often on the left, people support censorship under the GU of a cancel culture. And I think that's very dangerous, and I think people are smart enough to see which ideas are good or bad for themselves. They don't need to have this censorship. It serves no purpose, even for somebody who is promoting bad things or false information, you don't have to censor because people are smart enough to see there's no evidence behind what he's saying, which is often true, sadly, of the US government, and that's why they lose credibility.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:16:45):
I've asked this question of a number of guests, Caleb Moin and I think Dr. Gerald Horn and a few others that talking about censorship in the United States, engagement in censorship, that if you look over history, particularly since World War I, this whole idea of censorship really comes to a height when the United States feels threatened. And then once the perceived enemy is vanquished, then the whole focus on censorship tends to wane if not go away. And so I'm wondering if now because we're seeing heightened censorship, if that's an indication to you how threatened the United States empire feels?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:17:34):
I think so. Yeah. Censorship goes hand in hand with war. War is the enemy really of democracy. And we've been in a state of permanent war since nine 11, and I think they've manufactured this new Cold War for sustaining the military complex police state, which has to go hand in hand with censorship. And we've seen more authoritarian forms of government, even toward the domestic population, heightened militarized policing in inner cities. We've seen the government stripping funding from vital social programs, and that's automatically going to generate more and more dissent and dissatisfaction with the government and living conditions. So they have to ratchet up censorship and more authoritarian, greater authoritarianism, and that's the only way they could sustain their power, and they've really lost their governing legitimacy. People, if you talk to people from all walks of life, whether in liberal areas, conservative, you find almost universally people distrust the government and they're not happy with the direction of the country, and more and more are speaking out. So they have to censor them and try and control the media and channel any descent they want to channel it and co-opt it. And that's why a lot of the media has been co-opted their CIA or FBI, infiltrators and media, even alternative media.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:19:06):
In fact, to your point about people being dissatisfied with the direction of the country, if you go to real clear politics, those polled 26.9% believe the country's heading in the right direction. 63.4 believe that the country's on the wrong track. So again, I try my best to give as much data as I can to support the positions that are being stated so the people can understand that this is substantive analysis that we're providing because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here. Let's go back to your piece you write, Panetta said that Harris would fit the bill as a tough commander in chief to defend the USA against tyrants and terrorists, according to Panetta. Harris knows a tyrant when she sees one and will stand up to them, unlike Donald Trump, who Panetta suggested had coddled dictators such as Putin and effectively told them they could do whatever they want. Why is that exchange or that recounting by Panetta troublesome to you?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:20:18):
Well, firstly, yeah, and the statistics you're citing indicate that many Americans are increasingly seeing their own government as tyrannical. And this is the kind of tired rhetoric we've seen over and over to justify these foreign adventures and unjust and unnecessary wars that further divert our treasury away from actually solving the problem in our society. And yeah, we see,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:20:45):
Wait a minute, and many will tell you, because I've been having this conversation for at least eight years, that that's the intent, that the objective has always been to heighten the sense of insecurity within the country so that social program funding social safety net funding could be shifted away from the public to the private military industrial complex. And they talked about this when Obama came into office, they talked about this, I know I have it backwards. When Clinton came into office, they talked about this when Biden came into office, they said the narrative is more subtle with the Democrats, but the objective is still the same.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:21:32):
And the rhetoric, as you see, they're really attacking Trump from the right and they're positioning themselves as more hawkish. And that's why a lot of the neoconservatives have moved into the Democratic party. And William Christol, who this neo-conservative, intellectual, and a great cheerleader for the Iraq war, he sent out a tweet, Leon Panetta quoting Ronald Reagan at the Democratic Convention. This is my Democratic convention or a CIA director quoting Ronald Reagan. And yeah, you see from that statement you read, Trump is somehow soft on the Russian, but if you actually look at Trump's policy toward Russia, he pulled out of the INF treaty, which is a very good arms limitation treaty. He ratcheted up these sanctions from hell on Russia. He ratcheted up arm sales to Ukraine, for instance. He sold javelin anti-tank missiles, which Obama had up to that point hadn't sold. So he would not soft at all.
(00:22:31):
And he was plotting regime change. I mean, there's a lot of continuity in foreign policy. You see a lot of continuity among administration. So Trump's approach really was not very different from Obama. He's just kind of expanding on things Obama was doing. And then Biden takes it to a further level of provoking all out war and attacking Russia directly. So the rhetoric is meaningless, but yeah, it's designed to inculcate fear. I agree with your analysis that they just try and make us fearful and on edge whether it's of the next disease pandemic or the next threat. I mean, they're always playing up the threat of North Korea or Iran. I mean, look at North Korea. I mean North Korea was bombed back to the Stone Aid by the United States during the Korean War and the US pumps South Korea with weaponry and stores nuclear weapons there. I mean, obviously North Korea is going to respond.
(00:23:27):
I mean, developing a nuclear weapon is their only way to save their country and survive as a nation. I mean, they see what happened to Libya, but our media doesn't present it in that way, or our political elites, they present it like North Korea as some major threat to us led by this crazy dictator. But they give no context for why North Korea would invest in nuclear weapons or missiles and how a lot of their weapon development is just designed to protect themselves from the threat of renewed invasion and being destroyed again, that they were in the Korean War, but they never give the history of the context. So the public who believes that rhetoric as in fear of North Korea one day, Iran, another day, Putin is presented in the most demonized way, conceivable a totally kind of cartoonish way as this evil Hitler type figure. So we're supposed to fear him one day, and that's how they do it, and that's how they justify this huge military budget that's approaching a trillion dollars now. And yeah, I mean the government spends a pittance on social welfare programs and education and healthcare infrastructure. I mean, that's what the government should be doing, should be helping to create a better society, better living conditions here at home. But instead, they spend a trillion on weapons. And that comes back. And now you have the law like the USA Patriot Act and 1290 D program where all that Pentagon weaponry gets put into our police forces who become more like occupying armies in inner cities and their mistreatment minority groups. So it's an ugly picture. Yeah.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:25:13):
You mentioned Libya, and I think we can tie this to your piece. You mentioned Libya, and people need to remember that the execution of Libby and leader Muammar Kadafi took place under the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of state, and it was Hillary Clinton, and I believe Samantha Power that convinced then President Obama to execute Kadafi. And so if we understand a lineage of thought from Hillary Clinton, her predecessor Madeline Albright, she was a student of Brzezinski who was a Russia phobe. And so there's a lineage of thought within the State Department, and now we have to understand that Vice President Harris is an acolyte of Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:26:18):
And Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous figure. And I wrote a book on Bill Clinton and I did a lot of research on their career bill's career as the governor of Arkansas. So I learned a lot about Hillary, and even from that time, she's very corrupt individual. Clinton was tied with the national security establishment. He oversaw a major covert operation in Arkansas to the Nicaragua and Counter-revolutionaries, and they laundered a lot of money through illicit Proceed, and they were bringing back drugs as part of these arm smuggling operations. And Hillary worked for the Rose law firm and was representing clients who were involved in money laundering in Arkansas banks. And she was always known as a hawk. So she very unprincipled corrupt person who was involved in also all kinds of shems to raise money for Clinton's campaigns that should have put her in prison.
(00:27:16):
And then she was always known as a warhawk. She evolved into a major warhawk. There was a very good article in the New York Times, the Rare Good article, New York Times magazine called Hillary the Hawk, and it surveyed her career going back to the Kosovo War. She was a big proponent of the bombing there. She supported the Iraq war, every war she supported, and her hawkishness came out on Libya where she was gloating after Kadafi was lynched. She gloated, we saw he died and she was so happy about it and giggling. And I mean that was a disgrace comparable to Iraq. I mean, Libya was a well-functioning country under CA's rule. I mean, he may have had certain authoritarian features, but he used Libya's oil resources to develop their economy to invest in education. I met a number of Libyans who were able to get free education abroad that Libyan government paid for their education abroad, and they came back to work to develop their country.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:20):
Wait a minute, wait a minute. To that point, I was teaching at Howard University at the time, and I came across some Libyan students and I asked them who was paying their tuition and they didn't understand the concept of tuition. They were saying, well, wait a minute. Why would you pay to go to college? Help us understand. They could not put their head around
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:28:50):
Paying
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:51):
For tuition. And I believe, I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that at the time that Kadafi was the leader of Libya, that Libya was the most one of, if not the most stable country on the continent. It had one of the strongest economies on the continent. And Kadafi was developing his country, developing his agriculture. He was, as they called it, greening the desert. Libya had some of the purest water in the world, some of the deepest water, the water table. And one of the big issues was he saw himself as an African, not an Arab.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:29:36):
And I visited Zambia, my ex-wife was from Zambia, and I visited there in 2007 and Kadafi came during my visit and he was greeted as a hero because he was using Libby as well, resources to promote development projects across the African continent. And he was seen as somebody who stood up for African and was carrying on the tradition of Pan-Africanism figures who revered in Africa like Kwame Nama and Nelson Mandela. And he was seen an heir to that tradition. And then he was overthrown and treated worse than a dog. And Libya has now seen the return of slavery, violent extremism has come into the country, just pure chaos. And a lot of Libyan have had to flee to Europe and then the European under perilous conditions in these boats. And then Europeans complain about immigration. I mean, they turn Libyan to a hellhole and the cost in lives, and it's just sickening.
(00:30:38):
And Clinton was just laughing all about it and thought it was funny. And I think Kamala Harris seems to be on that intellectual level. She laughs at inappropriate moments. I've seen her. She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of world affairs, and she's close with some terrible leaders around the world, like the Washington Post report that she has developed as vice president, an unusually close relationship with Ferdinand Marcos Jr. And he's the son of one of the worst dictator of the US support in the Cold War Fernan Marco Sr. Who looted the Filipino treasury and killed who knows how many dissidents. And his son seems to be picking up where the father left off. He jailed Walden Bellow, who's a great intellectual in the Philippines, who is running for an opposition party, and they're building up US military bases in Philippines to confront China. And Harris went to ink some base deal a couple of years ago, and there were a lot of protesters for her visit. But yeah, this is one of the dictators she's very close with. So she's following this imperialistic tradition, and yeah, there should be, well, again, a lot of people have left the Democratic party. They see no hope in it, but it's troubling when this is supposedly the more liberal and humane party and this is what they're doing.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:32:07):
And folks, we're connecting the dots here. That's the purpose of this podcast, is connecting, linking dots, linking historic events so that you can see the trend, you can see the pattern, you can understand what's really going on behind the scenes. Let's go to Vice President Harris's speech at the convention. She says, as commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, and I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families. She'll always honor their sacrifice as she should, but the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world that now Jeremy seems to be really throwing good money after bad because the issue now, at least in terms of the geopolitical landscape, is economic. It's not militarism. It's the United States that seems to be using militarism as its only weapon. And I use that euphemistically against this unipolar to multipolar shift with the rise of bricks and the Chinese cooperation organization, their fighting an economic war with militarism.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:33:40):
Yeah, and actually it was ironic that she made those statements and that week the New Yorker published these photos from 2006 Haditha Massacre where the US military massacre, all these Iraqi civilian, and there were these horrible photos you may have seen of children who had been shot by us Marines or soldiers. So having the most lethal military force in the world, what does that mean? You go into a country like Iraq and shoot up women and children. I mean, is this something to strive for? And then as you say, this military force is getting us nowhere. I mean, it's just causing backlash against the United States. I mean, yeah, look, in Africa, all these new governments have come in and they're kicking out the US military. They don't want the bases in their country. Like in Niger, for example, a huge drone base that was removed. And I mean Ukraine
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:34:40):
Just recently, a couple of soldiers within the last couple of days were harassed Incaa. And Dr. Horn was saying that this is not an isolated incident, that when you see something like this happening on the streets of tur or as many still know it as Turkey, that this is an indication that the people are rising up, not the leadership, the people.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:35:08):
Absolutely. And we see, yeah, the United States is a paper tiger. I mean, look at Ukraine, billion and billion, the weaponry and Russians are gaining more and more territory every day. It's reported that even as Ukraine is taking the war into Russia, Russia's taking more territory in Eastern Ukraine every day than they were before. Israel is doing nothing in Gaza. They just leveled the place killed. According to the Lancet report, now it's about a month ago, 186,000 civilians. Now they're attacking people in the West Bank, but they've achieved nothing militarily and the United States wars were all failure in the last generation. You have Libya. I mean, they turn countries into chaos, but it's ultimately they don't achieve the broader goal they set out. I mean, look at Afghanistan 20 years and they achieved nothing, and the Taliban came back in and it's just
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:04):
Money. Well, Lockheed Martin and McDonald Douglas made a hell of a lot of money in Afghanistan. They achieved something.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:10):
Yeah, that's all they
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:11):
Achieved. Stock value went pretty high.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:15):
And I think the public needs to channel their revolt against those company in the military industrial complex. Their hard-earned taxpayer dollar. They're getting absolutely nothing for it. People are getting killed around the world that weaponry has coming, being sent to us police forces after the military used equipment. It's creating a more authoritarian environment here. And a few fat cats, what they used to call merchants of death are getting rich. And there should be a revolt against those people because they've grown rich off the misery and death of other humans. And it's not a way to run an economy or society rooted in violence and just the wealth of tiny number off the misery of everybody else. And horrific weapon we've never seen in human history, the kind of horrific weapon they're developing now. It's unfit for humanity, and there is movements to try and get universal bans on certain kinds of weapons, and that should certainly be supported as well
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:37:17):
In her speech. She also said, let me say, I know there are people of various political views watching tonight, and I know you know, I promise. Oh no. And I want you to know, I promise to be president for all Americans. You can always trust me to put country above party and self to hold sacred America's fundamental principles from the rule of law to free and fair elections to the peaceful of power. Well, when you look at the data and you look at the polling, an overwhelming majority of Americans, even Jewish Americans, want an end to the United States involvement in the genocide in Gaza. Now, she's saying that she promises to be the president of all Americans, but she and I put this on her because this was her convention, would not allow a Palestinian spokesperson, a representative of that position on the stage. Is that tone deaf or is it evidence that she's a Zionist and she's down with the,
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:38:37):
Or both? Well, I think it's an illusion. They were trying to claim at the convention that she was working tirelessly for a ceasefire and for peace in the Middle East. And that's simply a lie the Biden administration has. It's been a joint US Israeli operation in Gaza. And we should recognize that Israel is basically a proxy of the United States empire in the Middle East that the US has used Israel. The reason they've given all those weapons to the Israelis over years now is that Israel has served the key function for the US Empire in the Middle East and accessing Middle East oil. Israel provides US military bases, and it does a lot of the dirty work for the US Empire going back years. For instance, in the six day war, the Israelis humiliated the US nemesis, Kamala del Nassar, who was like Kadafi, started as a pan arabist, and he was in the mold of Nassar who had moved to nationalize the Suez Canal and nationalize the oil resources and was forged alliances with Syria and forged the United Arab Republic with Syria and was promoting Arab unity so the Arab states could go strong in the face of Western imperialism and reclaim control of their chief natural resource oil.
(00:39:58):
And obviously the CIA tried to overthrow Nassar. They even sent in Kermit Roosevelt, a coup master who had been in Iran, but he failed. But Israel did the job in the sixth day war. They humiliated Nassar. And by that point, Israel was getting a lot of the US weapons already starred in the Kennedy administration where he basically opened the spigots. And Johnson was a huge supporter militarily of Israel. And Israel also carried a lot of covert operations in Africa that have served US interests, including countries like in Congo where they help access the mineral wealth of the Congo. So Israel has gone after the Assad dynasty was an enemy of the United States and West because they were more alive with Nassar in whose day and the Soviet Union, and they're more nationalistic so that the regime the US doesn't like and they've used Israel to Israel has been bombing Syria for a long time now and has tried to gone after Asad.
(00:40:57):
So these are just examples of how Israel does some of the dirty work of the United States and functions as a proxy of the United States. So the country basically are arm in arm together, and they may pay for public relations purposes. If Netanya has seen a bit extreme among some of their base or among some of the electorate, they may try and take a public distance or say they're trying to moderate his behavior, but I think that's more for public relations. They continue to provide him the weapons he needs, and they're not going to do anything. The last president who had a kind of even handed approach in the Middle East was to some extent with Dwight Eisenhower, who when Israel and Britain and France invaded Egypt, and after Nassar nationalized the Suez Canal, Eisenhower imposed sanctions on Israel and threatened why their embargo and even to punish Israel and the United Nations, but they would never do that today.
(00:41:55):
They're just giving cover and the weapons and diplomatic support in the UN for Israel's conduct and ethnic cleansing or genocide, whatever you want to call it. And I think they support the US imperialists support the project of a greater Israel, the Israeli far right that their goal is to expand the Israeli polity to basically remove the Palestinian and to use their land for broader projects, canal building to increase the water resource in Israel, access offshore oil. And the US supports that. Could they want a stronger Israel because that's their proxy in the Middle East and the US wants to dominate the Middle East and its oil resources for the next several generations, and they need Israel for that.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:42:46):
We could spend a whole nother hour on this next question, but if you could just clarify a point that you made that you just made. You mentioned Kermit Roosevelt, you mentioned the United States going in and overthrowing Nassar, and you said they failed in, oh, you said they failed in Iran.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:09):
Sorry. They failed in Egypt. They succeeded in Iran.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:43:12):
See, okay, see that. Okay. Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwartzkoff Sr went in and overthrew Muhammad Ek and installed the S Shah. That's why I wanted clarification. I thought you said, and I could have misunderstood you. I thought you said they failed in Iran.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:32):
No, and my point was they succeed in Iran, Kermit Roosevelt with a coup master. Then they sent him to Egypt to get rid of that thorn in their side, Albu master, because his pan-Arabism. But there he failed. Nassar was very popular, and he couldn't work the same magic, or they didn't have the right people to get rid of him. So that's when Israel stepped in and it was beefed up by us armed supplies. And in six days, they humiliated him and they provoked that war. It's been admitted by top Israeli leader than generals that they provoked that war. They humiliated Nassar, and three years later he died. And he was replaced by Anmar Sadat, who was much more west and abandoned his Pan Arab ideology.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:44:16):
And also, again, this could be a whole nother show, but just quickly, you were talking about Israel being a US proxy, and you've mentioned this before, but I think it's folks, we're connecting the dots here, pay attention. We're connecting the dots. Ukraine is operating in a similar fashion as a US proxy in that part of the world as Israel is acting in the Middle East. And so because look, folks, the Ukraine war is lost. It's lost. And people say to me, Wilmer, you said that the war would be over in two years. And I was right as Putin wound up negotiating with, I'm drawing a blank on the Ukrainian president's name, Zelensky, vmi Zelensky. And he holds up the paper and says, we negotiated a settlement. The US sends in Boris Johnson to say, we're not going to accept this. The West will not. Hence the war is ongoing. Ukraine has no tanks of its own. They're now having to go into their prisons and empty their prisons to send convicted murderers to the frontline. They don't have an army of their own anymore. They don't have artillery of their own anymore. They don't have jets of their own anymore. Everything they're using comes from NATO and comes from the West. And it's a very same situation in Israel. Again, that could be a whole show of itself, but I just wanted to quickly connect the dots between the proxies in Israel and the proxies in Ukraine.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:46:05):
And I would add the point that the United States and the people of those countries should understand, and I think this is American Jews should understand that the United States doesn't care about the people. They're using them for their own agenda. And look, Ukrainian has suffered terribly through their lines with the United States. They never would've gone to war with Russia, Ukraine and Russia got along. They had some issues, but they resolved it. And maybe the Ukrainian felt slight in some way toward the Russians, but they weren't stupid enough to take up arms against the Russians and annihilate themselves. But they thought because they had the United States and all these weapons that they could take on the Russians, and they made the same mistake as Napoleon or Hitler. I mean, the Russians are, I spent time in Russia. They're very patriotic people, and they will defend their country.
(00:46:58):
And this was a war provoked by the United States that basically used, and the Russians know this, that the US was using Ukraine, a battering ram against Russia, and they're going to defend themselves. And the Israeli case, look, the Israelis Israeli security has suffered tremendously. Now they're inviting attacks from all their enemies and they've shed so much blood, they're going to invite vengeance and retaliation against them, the security situation, very poor in Israel. I would not want to live in Israel, and they could invite one day their own destruction. Already, they've compromised the moral of their society. Israel was founded as a haven for Jewish people, and a lot of the very idealistic people were part of the original Zionist movement. I mean, the kibbutz was a concept of a cooperative model of an economy. But look at Israel today. It's this armed military state that is pariah around the world because of the atrocity that's carried out with support by the United States doing the United States dirty work.
(00:48:05):
And it's eviscerated its own democracy. I mean, it's become very repressive there. Journalists who are trying to report on what's going on in Gaza have been, I don't know. I think they've been certainly blacklist, if not jailed or shot. I mean, it's just a evolved, a violent authoritarian state. That's king of assassination. Mossad carries out assassinations around the world. It's hate and fear. It has an extreme right-wing government, this is not the ideal of a lot of the original Zionists. And a lot of American Jews are very uncomfortable the direction of that society they should be, and it could invite their own destruction one day. So I mean, that's a lesson you can take. If you lie with the empire, they'll use you for their own purpose and ultimately they'll spit you out. I mean, ask the Kurds, ask the Hmong and Lao, they've used proxies in other countries, and those proxies got totally destroyed like the Hmong and Laos or the Kurd, and they'll abandon them when it doesn't suit their agenda. They may find somebody else. And Ukrainian society has been destroyed. 500,000 youth have been killed. They don't even have enough people. How are they going to run their economy when all the youth of the country have been killed? Others had to flee. They don't want to fight the front lines. Yeah, they've sacrificed them as ponds in this war. It's sad. And
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:49:29):
Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham goes to Ukraine and encourages the Ukrainians to fight and to continue to fight. And let me just give you a quick analogy. Imagine a boxing match, and one of the cornermen is getting paid not for the win, but for the number of rounds his fighter engages in. And so that's Lindsey Graham, he's the corner man, his guy. Both of his eyes are damn near shut. He can't breathe. His lips are swollen. His head has all kinds of knots on it, and he keeps sending his guy out there to get slaughtered because he gets paid by the round instead of the knockout. Is that a fair analogy?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:50:20):
Absolutely. Yeah. And I studied the history of the Vietnam War, and one thing I remember and I used to show students the TV history of the Vietnam War, and they had one, it was made in the eighties. They had one segment on the Secret War in Laos, like what I was saying with the Hmong who they used to fight the left-wing, Beth Lao and William Colby came on, was interviewed some years later. He was the CIA director. And he said, oh, well, that was a great project for us. The Hmong lasted 10 years is exactly what you're saying. Yeah, they lasted 10 round, but then they got killed. All of them. The Hmong were decimated, and they had to send, that's what the Ukrainians are doing, the hm. Had to send 14 year olds to the front lines. And a sea operative said, started to feel bad.
(00:51:06):
He is like, we're sending these 14 year olds on these planes to be killed, and I know they'll be killed. And I'm telling their parents, I'm patting them on the back and they'll be killed next week. And that's what's happening with Ukraine. And Graham won't send his own kids. I mean, if they're the real reading the fight, fight a war, you have to fight. If you're a real man, you'll fight it because there's a real reason your community's under attack or there's a real threat of Hitler. But instead they manufacture these wars and cowardly send and manipulate other people to fight and die. And that's the worst form of cowardice and manipulation I could think of in human society
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:45):
As we wrap this up and folks we're connecting dots. And if you don't like what we're saying, if what we're saying makes you angry, as Malcolm said, if my telling you the truth makes you angry, don't get angry at me. Get angry at the truth. And you can look all of this up. I want to get back to your piece you quoted, and you mentioned this earlier, but Panetta quotes Ronald Reagan at a speech at the DNC, and he emphasized the isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to government. You write, Panetta ended his speech by highlighting that Harris was a good choice to reinvigorate American world leadership as she worked with 150 foreign leaders as vice president served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, worked closely with VMI Zelensky of Ukraine to fight against Russia. And you go on a number of things. You say that Panetta provided a litany, my word, not yours, of misinformation and disinformation in that part of his speech. How so?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:53:00):
Well, I mean, the whole speech is disinformation because he has this mythical, romantic view of the killing of bin Laden that's not rooted in the reality. And then, yeah, he's claiming the US was an isolationist in the thirties, but the US was a global empire starting the late 19th century. And in the 30, the FDR had been the head of the secretary. I forget his position, but it was with the Navy, and he headed the Navy and he was a big naval enthusiast, and he initiated a massive naval buildup in the Asia Pacific. And then he historian believed that the key factor that provoked a Japanese counter response and led to the Pacific War. So where's the isolationism? I mean, it's not the accurate history, but I mean these conventions just about political theater. But I mean, yeah, quoting Reagan. I mean, Reagan is the icon of the Republican. That's not even your party. So what is he doing quoting Reagan? Reagan?
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:04):
Well, he's
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:05):
The thing that bar a right wing extremist.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:07):
Barack Obama said that Reagan was his favorite
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:09):
President. I know. And it shows how far to the right the whole American spectrum has been because Reagan, when he came up in the sixties, was viewed as a right wing extremist, certainly by people in the anti-war and countercultural movement. And his whole theme was to attack the mess at Berkeley. And the student, how dare they question the Vietnam War. And then when he came in, he veered American politics sharply to the right. He cut the corporate tax rate and he ramped up us militarism in Central America, and he wanted to avenge the Vietnam War. They call them Rambo Reagan. And you can't get, this is like an icon of militarism and fascism, and they're quoting him. So I mean, what kind of party is this? And we have two right-wing parties in our country. The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, and it's created dystopia.
(00:55:04):
We're discussing here where we invest trillion dollars on warfare, these morally bankrupt wars. And our own societies is filled with pathologies and majors, social ills, and we never address them. So they grow worse and worse. And we're not investing in our youth and education. I mean, where I live, the teachers are so poorly paid, it is just a disgrace. And you have third world conditions like the schools. They were protests in my state a few years ago, and I covered those protests for local newspaper. And there were people showing me on their phone who taught in schools in rural areas. I traveled in Africa and third world country. Then what they're showing me is from a third world country. There were no proper sanitation in their school. There were not enough seats for the students. And these are high school teachers trying to keep them in school. So I mean, the government is failing its citizens, and this is Reaganomics 1 0 1, so we've got to get beyond that. But they're touting this guy as a hero. That's terrible.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:56:06):
And again, I think this will be the final question, but the longer we talk, the more questions because of your insight, you mentioned that we're dealing with two right wing parties. Are we dealing with two right wing parties that are representing different interests of the right winging elite?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:56:30):
Yes, absolutely. The GOP has always been rooted in the oil industry, the extractive industry, because their environmental policy is very favorable to big business and extractive industries and big oil. I think the military industry that hedged their bets now with both parties traditionally, like in the Reagan era, the Republican and the Reagan Republican got a lot of support in states that had big military industry. Like California used to be a center of the Republican domination and states like Arizona and the Southwest. But I think the Democrats under Clinton started courting the military contractors, and now they hedge their bets on both parties. I mean, there are a certain cultural issue, the right wing, the evangelical churches who were very gung-ho about things like against abortion. That's a certain spectrum that supports the Republican party. The Democrats go for this diversity, and they court the African-American vote, but they do so really based more on symbolism than actually delivering for the black population.
(00:57:45):
I think something that the black population, I think we'll see more and more than maybe leaving the Democrat. They're not getting anything. They're just getting the symbolism of some black elected officials, but they're not getting benefits to their communities. And there have been studies about this, and I heard Michael Eric Dyson, who was it? Yeah, it was Michael Eric Dyson came to where I live, and he gave a talk. He had done a study, it was him, it was, sorry, TVIs Smiley who used to work for PBS. He did a big study on black America in the state of black America, and he found it got worse under Obama, a certain core thing like income and business ownership and education because the Democrat weren't delivering on concrete social program that would benefit their community. So it's more of the symbolism and that's how they get votes.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:58:38):
And as we get out, I want to read this quickly because again, folks here on connecting the dots, we connect the dots, we provide data to support statements made. You talked about the defense industry funding both parties and Dave Calhoun, who was the CEO of Boeing. When asked in July of 2020 who Boeing would prefer Trump or Biden Boeing, and this is from CNBC, Boeing CEO. Dave Calhoun said that he was confident that whoever wins the White House in November, whether it's Donald Trump or Vice President Biden will continue supporting the defense industry. I think both candidates, at least in my view, appear globally oriented and interested in the defense of our country. And I believe they will support the industries. They'll do it in different ways and they'll have different terms, different teams for sure. But I don't think we're going to take a position on one being better than the other. And Dr. Jeremy Komarov, that I think is clear evidence of the points you made that we're dealing with two wings on the same bird.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:59:56):
Absolutely. And viewers can go to open secrets.com and look at, well-known politician where they get their money. I mean, look up Joe Biden because I've done it. You'll see he gets a ton of money from Lockheed Martin. And yeah, the Democrats in some, I think they're getting more, Democrats now are getting more from the military contractor because they're even more hawkish, especially on Ukraine. That's been a big boon for a company like Boeing and Lockheed and surveillance industry. So I think they like Democrats even more now. And Democrats are positioning themselves to the right and more hawkish on foreign policy and even the border. I have an article next week on the border issue. Democrats are more to the right than Republican as far as spending on border surveillance. And that's a big, big industry, border surveillance drones, and that's part of the military industrial complex.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:00:53):
So I said, this was the last question. This is the last question, and you can just answer this, yes or no, all this conflation of the border, whether you're Donald Trump or whether you're Kamala Harris, whether you're Joe Biden or whoever, all of this talk about the border building, the wall security systems, drones a lot of money on the border. They don't talk about the US foreign policy that is driving people from Columbia, from Guatemala, from Mexico to the border because the United States policy is decimating their economies. And quick point people, you can look this up. About three weeks ago, Chiquita Brands was convicted in federal court in Florida of sponsoring death squads in Columbia. And now Chiquita Brands has to pay millions of dollars in reparations and damages to these victimized families in Columbia. Kamala Harris isn't talking about that. Donald Trump is, you want to deal with the border, deal with the decimation of these. Why are, ask the question, why are Haitians coming here? Because the United States is trying to rein, invade Haiti again, Jeremy, that in and of itself is another show. 30 seconds, am I right?
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:02:16):
Yeah, absolutely. And there's no debate about that, and it's been a bipartisan in foreign policy that caused that vast immigration. And also you have to look, that caused the wreckage in those economies and societies, and you have to look at the free trade agreement. The Clinton administration promoted the nafta, and that helped decimate Mexican agriculture and forced a lot of the Mexicans to come to the United States. So nobody questioned the free trade laws. That's a big factor inducing immigration, including, especially from Mexico. So they ought to address revising those laws and creating a fairer world economy, but that might erode us primacy and the primacy of dollar, and they don't want that. So it's better to beef up the border, boost the coffer, the Lockheed Martin, instead of doing that,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:10):
Dr. Jeremy Komarov. In fact, here's one of the books. War Monger. I got it.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:17):
Oh, great. Thank
Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:17):
You. Oh, hey, man. Great. Great work. Great, great work. Dr. Jeremy Kumar, thank you so much for joining me today.
Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:25):
Thank you. Great conversation.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:28):
Hey folks. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talks without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wimer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out
Announcer (01:04:11):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

Is America Really the Empire of Freedom? Maupin Challenges Everything!

Get ready for a game-changing episode of Connecting the Dots!
 
Dr. Wilmer Leon and Caleb Maupin dive into the seismic shifts happening worldwide—where the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower and what that means for our future.
 
They explore a growing movement challenging America's global influence and break down what the 2024 election could mean for the future of U.S. politics. If you care about where our country is headed, this is a must-listen. Don’t miss out on insights that could change how you see the world!  
 
 
Find me and the show on social media.
Click the following links to search for @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!
 
Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!
 
 
Wilmer Leon (00:00:00):
As we are living through a pivotal moment in world history, the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, anti-imperialism is at the core of this global movement as the US is at the center of this global shift. How did anti imperialism take hold in the us? Let's find out
Announcer (00:00:27):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:00:35):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historical context in which they take place. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before us, the issues before us, are the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world. How is this happening and what does it mean? As well as the developing 2024 US presidential political landscape to help me work through these issues. Let's turn to my guest. He's an author, independent journalist, political analyst and reporter for RT, and his latest book is entitled “Out of the Movement to the Masses, Anti-Imperialist Organizing in America”. And he's also the author of Kamala Harris and The Future of America, an essay in Three Parts. He is Caleb Maupin, my brother. Welcome back!
Caleb Maupin (00:01:53):
Sure. Glad to be here.
Wilmer Leon (00:01:55):
So first of all, your thoughts on my introduction, is that a hyperbole or is that a fairly accurate description of the dynamics that we find ourselves dealing with?
Caleb Maupin (00:02:13):
Trying to stop the rise of a multipolar world would be a lot like trying to stop the sun from rising in the morning, maybe trying to stop gravity. That's the way the world is moving. But our leaders are committed to trying to keep the world centered around Wall Street and London and they are going to fail. The question is how much of a cost in terms of human lives, in terms of the economy, in terms of political repression, are we going to have to endure before they come to the terms of reality, which is that we're going to have a world where there are other centers of power and countries trade with each other on a different basis. So I would agree with you,
Wilmer Leon (00:02:54):
And so as we look at this changing dynamic from the unipolar to the multipolar, we've got China, we have Russia, we have India. There are a number of countries that over the years have been targets of American sanctions, regimes and all other types of pressure from the United States. With all of that or from all of that, we now have the rise of the BRICS nations, we've got Brazil, we've got Russia, we've got India, we've got China, we've got South Africa, and now what about how many, I've lost track now about 15 or 17 other countries that have joined this organization, this economic organization, which also seems to be an anti imperialist organization.
Caleb Maupin (00:03:49):
Sure. I mean, if you understand imperialism in the economic sense, imperialism is a system rather than a policy, right? Kind of layman's terms imperialism is when one country is mean to another country or attacks another country. But we're referring specifically to imperialism as an economic system when the world is centered around financial institutions, trusts, cartels and syndicates centered in the Western countries that dominate the world through the export of capital, sending their corporations all over the world to dominate the economies of developing countries, to hold back economic development, to keep countries as captive markets and spheres of influence. That process whereby countries are prevented from lifting themselves up, from electrifying, from building modern education systems, developing modern industries, developing their own economies, and just kind of used to dump the excess commodities of Western countries and have their economy dominated by a foreign country and a foreign monopolies and big corporations from another country from the west.
(00:04:55):
That process refers to, that's what I mean when I say imperialism. I'm referring to a global economic setup, and that economic setup is on its way out. And that's been pretty clear and a lot has gone on, went on in the 20th century to kind of erode imperialism. And in the 21st century, imperialism continues to be in the decline, and there is this new economy rising around the world, centered around the two U superpowers, Russia and China. They are kind of at the center, the linchpin of a global network of countries, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. But then there's even other countries that are willing to trade and are kind of on the one hand friendly to the United States, but on the other hand are happy to work with Russia or China if they give them a better deal. The shape of global politics is changing, the world is changing, and this is just something we need to embrace. The world is not going to be centered around the West as it was for so long during the age of colonialism and sense.
Wilmer Leon (00:05:54):
In fact, what we're finding out is that on the 27th and the 28th of August, Moscow is hosting the sixth annual, the sixth International Municipal BRICS Forum. And what might surprise a lot of people is there are delegations from 126 countries that are expected to take part, more than 5,000 participants from 500 cities around the world. This isn't getting very much attention or coverage here in the western media, but folks need to understand, as we talked about the shift from the unipolar to the multipolar, this is a perfect example of that shift isn't happening, that shift HAS happened.
Caleb Maupin (00:06:45):
Sure. When I was at the Valdi Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia in the mountains near the city, I saw Ael Togi, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and he pointed out that in the Eurasian subcontinent and outside of the Western countries, this is like a golden era. The amount of electrification that's going on, the amount of roads and railways that are being constructed, I mean, there is a whole exploding new economy happening in the world. And I saw that when I was at the Yalta Economic Forum in Crimea in 2018, and other people have seen it when they go to the Vladi Stock Economic Forum in the Russian Far East. People have seen it with the Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that China is building. There is this whole new economy in the world now that is focused on development and growth, building power plants, building schools, building universities, building hospitals, and it's a really, really big part of the global economy. And our leaders are being very foolish by trying to just barricade it and blockade it and oppose it because they're locking the United States out of that economic growth. When somebody's growing economically, they have more money to spend, they have more products they can buy, and we could be benefiting from this new economy that's rising, but instead, our Western leaders are committed to maintaining their monopoly at all costs. And so we are getting locked out of an explosion of growth. It's just a very, very mistaken approach.
Wilmer Leon (00:08:18):
And I want to, with that intro shift to shift to your book out of the movement to the masses, anti-imperialist organizing in America, because as I said in the intro, one of the major elements I believe of this shift from the unipolar to the multipolar is anti imperialism. And you write in the second paragraph of your introduction, what made the Communist party USA important was that it was the first anti-imperialist organization to take hold in the country. There were certainly anti-war organizations such as Mark Twain's, anti-Imperialist League. There had been pacifists and socialists like Eugene Debs, who opposed War on a Class basis, but the Communist party of USA was founded on the ideological breakthroughs of the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia specifically the teachings of Vladimir Lenin. So I wanted to use this book out of the Movement to the Masses, which is a textbook, and wanted to start the conversation with what motivated you to write this book and what motivated you to write this as a textbook?
Caleb Maupin (00:09:33):
Well, it's important to understand that I think the ultimate interest of we the American people is in a society free from imperialism. I don't think that helping ExxonMobil and BP and Shell and Chevron dominate the global oil markets really benefits American working people in the long run. There might be some short-term bonuses, but those things are fading and that there is a long
Wilmer Leon (00:09:57):
Short-term bonuses such as,
Caleb Maupin (00:09:59):
Well, we've had a higher standard of living at least in the past, but that standard of living is in decline, and the future of the United States is not in this decaying western financial system. It's in a new order where we're trading with countries on the basis of win-win cooperation. And the reason I wrote the textbook is because I wanted people to be aware of the fact that there has been a strong anti-imperialist movement in this country, and that we can learn from these struggles of the past and these organizations that existed and what they achieved as we figure out in our time how we can build an anti-imperialist movement to rescue our country from the nightmare of the emerging low wage police state and the drive toward World War iii. And I mean, really, you don't have anti imperialism as we understand it, right? You don't have the rise of Russia and China.
(00:10:50):
You don't have the bricks. You don't have any of that without the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. That was a pivotal moment. That was a country that broke out of the Western imperialist system during World War I and started on an independent course of development. And it came out of the Bolshevik started out as part of the Marxist movement. Marxism was the ideology of the labor movement, right? The worker versus the employer. But there was a division in the labor movement increasingly between wealthy labor union bosses and higher paid skilled trade jobs that increasingly became supporters of empire and supporters of their country, colonizing countries in Africa and countries in Asia, et cetera. And the lower levels of the labor movement of more oppressed workers, the American Federation of Labor, the A FL was the big labor federation in the United States. And the people who started it, like Samuel Goer's, they were socialists or Marxists, but they were not anti-imperialist.
(00:11:55):
And by the time World War I came along, the A FL was a union that largely was for whites only. Most of the unions that were part of it banned black people from joining, banned people not born in the United States from joining, banned people who did not speak English as their first language from joining. And they were big supporters of World War I when it happened. And there was a divide in the labor movement and Marxism that had been the ideology of the labor movement got very much divided. And you had parties like the British Labor Party, the ruling party of Britain today. It originated as a Marxist party of labor organizers, but it became a pro imperialist party. Well, Bolshevism and the people who took power in Russia, the Bolsheviks, they were a breakaway from the Marxist movement that had developed this new theory of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.
(00:12:48):
And they said, we're not just fighting against regular capitalism. We're fighting against the monopolistic capitalism of Britain and France and Germany and America, and that means that we support nations, right? Originally, Marxists and the labor movement said, there are no nations workers of the world unite. It's just the workers versus the bosses. No borderers in our struggle. Well, Lenin says, actually, we do support nations in their fight against imperialism. And after the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, one of the first things they did is they called a conference in Baku in Azerbaijan. And at that conference, they invited all kinds of people from all over the world and they said, we will support you as long as you're fighting imperialism. And one of the people that came to that conference and was given military support by the Bolsheviks was the Amir of Afghanistan. And the Amir of Afghanistan was a conservative monarchist.
(00:13:40):
He was not a Marxist, not a socialist of any stripe. He was a conservative monarchist, a very conservative Muslim, but the Bolshevik said, you're fighting imperialism and so and so, we support you. And he gave them support. And many people around the world were inspired by the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist message that the Bolsheviks had, which was kind of a breakaway from the standard Marxist movement. The understanding was we're not just fighting capitalism, we're fighting against imperialism, and we support nations and colonized people of all different classes, workers, capitalists, whoever who are struggling against imperialism. That is the basis of this new movement that we are trying to build. And the Communist Party of the United States was the incarnation of that movement, and that's why it was embraced by many different sections of the population, most especially the black community in America, because they viewed black people as a colonized people, an oppressed nation within US borders. Marcus Garvey had been leading the black nationalist movement in the United States, the Back to African movement, and many black people saw African-Americans as a colonized people within the US borders. And the Communist Party agreed with that, and that was a winning point that they had with many people in the United States. And the Communist Party was supportive of anyone around the world who was struggling against British American or French imperialism.
Wilmer Leon (00:15:04):
And as we look at that history and we bring it forward to the current moment and the Russia phobia that we find ourselves subjected to, I submit, and please if I'm wrong, correct me that one of the things that's at the crux of this Russia phobia is the fact that America is an imperialist nation and a neo-colonial power, and Russia has the Soviet Union and then into Russia has been anti-colonialism, which is one of the reasons why we find now Russia gaining so much traction with countries on the continent of Africa.
Caleb Maupin (00:15:53):
Well, I got to tell you, just a few weeks after the special military operation in Russia began a couple of years ago, I was in New York City with Tanner, 15 of my friends, and we were marching around with American flags and Russian flags chanting, Russia is not our enemy, Russia is not our enemy. And we chanted this in Union Square, and then we went up to Grand Central Station, we marched around Grand Central Station chanting that, and while we were doing that, we got thumbs up from a lot of different people. Now, many people did not agree with us, but the people who did give us thumbs up, many of them were people that were not from the United States. New York City is a big international center. You have the United Nations that's there. You have Wall Street that's there. And I would say the majority of the people who gave us thumbs up and gave us support were from the continent of Africa.
(00:16:40):
They were people from West Africa, from Nigeria. They were people from South Africa. And that the economy of Africa is very tied in with the Russian economy, and Russia provides fertilizer to many countries. Russia has partnerships with many countries to help them develop their state run mining industries or their state run oil and natural gas industries. So support for Russia on the African continent is widespread. Now, this doesn't match the narrative of liberals. Liberals would have us believe that Russia is a white supremacist country, and that's why they rigged the elections in 2016 to get white supremacist. Donald Trump elected, and that just does not match reality. The Soviet Union, which modern Russia is built on the foundations of the Soviet Union, was the best friend of anti-colonial and liberation movements on the African continent, and those relationships still exist. When I was in Russia, I sat down with people from various African countries.
(00:17:43):
I sat down with people from Namibia. Well, the ruling party of Namibia is the Southwest People's Organization, which was a Soviet aligned, Soviet funded organization that fought for Namibia to become independent. The ruling party of South Africa, the African National Congress was armed and funded by the Soviet Union. If you go to Ghana, the man who created modern Ghana was Kwame Nkrumah, who was a big friend of the Soviet Union and was called himself an African socialist and developed his own interpretation of the Marxist philosophy that was specific to the African continent. I mean, there was Julius Nire, there was Gaddafi who built Libya into the most prosperous country on the African continent. There are just so many examples of how Russia is intimately tied in with the struggle against colonialism on the African continent with the struggle of African countries to pursue their own course of development.
(00:18:43):
And that is rooted in the foundation of the Bolshevik Revolution. And the Bolshevik ideology, which I will emphasize was a break with the standard Marxist view. Marx himself, he believed that the first communist revolution would happen in Germany, and it would be the European countries that had the communist revolution first because they were the most advanced. And it was Lenin who came along and said, well, actually, that's wrong. The center of revolutionary energy is going to be in the colonized and oppressed countries of the world. And the working class in the imperialist homeland is largely being bought off, and it's going to be the division between what we now some academics talk about the global north and the global south. It's going to be that division that brings socialism into the world. And that is kind of the defining aspect of what Lenin taught. And as much as the global anti-imperialist movement is not explicitly Marxist Leninist in the Soviet sense, they don't exactly follow that Soviet ideology. That understanding of imperialism and what happened in the 20th century with the Soviet Union, with later the Chinese Revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban Revolution, all of that laid the basis for what exists today. And that understanding is important, and that's why I wrote this textbook.
Wilmer Leon (00:19:55):
And to your point about all of these myths and stories and fictions about Russia being involved in our election and all of this other foolishness, mark Zuckerberg just wrote a letter to Jim Jordan saying that he apologizes for having purged stories from Facebook regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and some of the other stories, because he has now come to understand that that whole narrative was not Russian propaganda as the FBI had told him, he now has come to understand that those stories are true. And I bring that up just as one data point to demonstrate how so much of this rhetoric that we've been hearing, so much of this propaganda that we've been hearing about China being involved in our elections and Russia being involved in our elections, and Iran, mark Zuckerberg, the head of Facebook, just sent a letter to Jim Jordan laying all this out, that it was bs. It was a fiction created by the FBI, Caleb Moin.
Caleb Maupin (00:21:14):
Well, we've been through this before, right after the Russian Revolution, just a few years later in London, in Britain, there was a scandal called the Enovia of letter. And the British people were told, oh my goodness, the Russians are meddling in our elections. They're trying to get the Labor Party to win the election. And Lloyd George, who was the conservative military leader, was playing up the idea that the Labor Party was being funded and supported by Russia, and they held up this piece of paper they said was the smoking gun. It was the proof, the Enovia letter, this letter supposedly from the Russian government official of Enovia to the Labor Party. Well, it was later proven to be a complete hoax. It was fake, right? But that was happening back in the 1920s. And we've been through this over and over and over again. When Henry Wallace ran for president, he was the vice president under Roosevelt, and then when Truman was president, he ran against the Democrats as they became a pro-war party, the party that was leading us into the Korean War, et cetera.
(00:22:12):
He ran as an independent candidate in 1948, and they acclaimed his campaign was a big Russian conspiracy, and it was a communist conspiracy. There's a whole history of this and the FBI, if you look at the number of investigations they've done into supposed Russian influence in American elections, it's endless, but it's always a hoax, right? American elections happen because of events in America, not because of Russia. However, there is no question that many people in the United States do want peace, and they do want peace with the Soviet Union or with modern Russia, and they may vote for candidates who they think are more likely to bring about that peace, but that's not a conspiracy. That's doing what you're supposed to be able to do in a democracy expressing yourself at the ballot box. And what they're really worried about is Americans thinking wrong. They're really worried about not having a monopoly over the information that we receive. They're really worried about us questioning what we're told and not marching in lockstep behind their agenda of war and dividing the world into blocks and isolating certain countries. And this story has happened over and over and over again in American politics. We've been through it so many times.
Wilmer Leon (00:23:25):
Final point on this, I don't want to get back to the book. As you just said, events happen in American elections due to America. Well, all of this chicken little, the sky is falling and the world is interfering in our elections. Well, there was a story in the New York Times about what, three months ago, about APAC spending $100 million to unseat what they consider to be left-leaning Democrats, whose position on Israel was not consistent with the Zionist ideology. I'm going to say that again. This was in the New York Times. I'm not making this up. This is an anti-Semitic dialogue. It was in New York Times APAC spending $100 million on primary campaigns to remove Democrats that they consider to be anti-Israeli. What happened in New York with Jamal Bowman? That's what happened in Missouri with, what's her name? I think she's in St. Louis, the Congresswoman. I'm drawing a blank on her. Anyway, and they were successful in a number of campaigns. So we're running around chasing ghosts, chasing Russian ghosts, and Chinese ghosts when the real culprits are telling you right upfront in the New York Times what it is they're doing and why it is they're doing it. With that being said, you can either respond to that or how did you organize your textbook and why is it organized in the manner in which it is?
Caleb Maupin (00:25:16):
Well, I went over like case studies of three different anti-imperialist movements or organizations in the United States. I started with probably the most successful, which was the Communist Party of the United States, which at one point had a huge amount of influence During the Roosevelt administration, they entered an alliance with Roosevelt, and in the late 1930s, the Communist party controlled two of the city council seats in New York City. They had a very close ally in the US Congress representing Harlem named Veto Mark Antonio. They also had a member of Congress in Minnesota who was their friend and ally and read their newspaper into the congressional record. They had meetings at the White House with President Roosevelt. On multiple occasions, members of the Communist Party or the Young Communist League were brought to the White House to meet with Roosevelt, and they led the CIO, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which was a new labor federation they had created as an alternative to the American Federation of Labor.
(00:26:14):
And they were a very influential group in the labor movement among intellectuals in Hollywood. And they put forward an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist message, and their successes are worth studying. There were certainly mistakes that were made, and they were very brutally crushed by the FBI in the aftermath of the Second World War with the rise of McCarthyism. But there were studying then from there, I talked about the Workers' World Party, which was a Marxist Leninist political party that really came into prominence in the late sixties and really kind of peaked in its influence during the 1980s. And they were a party that took inspiration, not just from the Soviet Union, but from the wave of anti-colonial movements that emerged. They were sympathetic to Libya and Gaddafi. They were sympathetic to North Korea and others, and they did a lot of very important anti-war organizing, building anti-war coalitions. They were very close to Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General who left the Lyndon Johnson administration and became an international lawyer and an opponent of the International Criminal Court in his final years and such.
(00:27:17):
And then I talked about the new communist movement of the 1970s, which was a number of different organizations that emerged during the 1970s that were trying to take inspiration from China. They wanted to take guidance from the Chinese revolution. China had argued that the Soviet Union had kind of abandoned the global anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle. They felt it was holding back revolutionary forces, but China was at that point presenting itself as a bastion of anti imperialism. And so there were a number of new political parties formed during the 1970s that modeled themselves on China. And all three of these case studies, all three of these groups made big mistakes, but also had big successes. The most successful was the Communist Party prior to it being crushed by the FBI during the McCarthy period. All of them had big successes and were able to do big important things, and I studied all of them.
(00:28:08):
And then from there, the fourth chapter talked about divisions in the ruling class, and why is it that we see, at this point, we're seeing a big all-out fight between Donald Trump and those who oppose him. And when you talk about the Watergate scandal and you talk about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, what was really going on behind closed doors? And then in the final chapter, I tried to kind of take from all of that what we could take and what we could learn when trying to build a movement in our time. One thing I made a point of doing in the book is that every chapter is accompanied by a number of original texts from the period discussed. I have a number of texts from the Communist Party, from the Workers' World Party, from the new communist movement of the 1970s, so that we can hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, what these people were preaching and what they believed as they were building their organizations.
Wilmer Leon (00:29:01):
So how does this history, how relevant is this history you just mentioned Donald Trump? How relevant is this history to where we find ourselves today with our politics?
Caleb Maupin (00:29:15):
I would argue it's extremely relevant. And if you look at Roosevelt and who opposed him, and if you look at the Kennedy assassination, and if you look at the Watergate scandal, there has always been a divide among the American elite between what you can call the Eastern establishment, the ultra rich, the ultra monopolies, the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, the Carnegies that are now at this point aligned with Silicon Valley, the tech monopolies, bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and others. There's always been a divide between these entrenched ultra monopolies and a lot of lower level rich people who are not part of the club and feel that those entrenched monopolies are kind of rigging things against 'em. And I quote, there's a very good text called the Anglo-American Establishment by Carol Quigley that talks about this divide. I think he was one of the first people to talk about it.
(00:30:06):
But then from there, you also have a great book by Carl Oglesby called The Yankee and Cowboy War that talks about this and specifically applies that analysis to what went on with the Watergate scandal, with the assassination of JFK and the political crisis in the 1960s and seventies. And I would argue that in our time, this is the fight that kind of defines things when we talk about trying to build a movement against colonialism and imperialism in the United States, these lower level capitalists would gain if America had paved roads, if America had a stronger economy, and if we were doing business with the countries around the world that are growing right now in alliance with China, right? If we were trading with them and some of that wealth was flowing into our economy, we would be benefiting. However, it is the ultra monopolies that are very much tied in with the intelligence apparatus, the people who brought us, Henry Kissinger, the people who brought us z, big new Brozinsky.
(00:31:01):
They are determined to keep the United States at the top and keep Western imperialist this financial system at the top of the world at all costs, even if that means kind of playing a long geopolitical game and if it means dramatically decreasing the standard of living and kind of collapsing the domestic economy of the United States. And so when Trump talks about America first and his supporters rail against globalists, this is really what they're getting at is the lower levels of capital are fighting against the Eastern establishment. And that creates an opening for those of us who want to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country to intervene. And I talk about that, and unfortunately, it seems like really since the 1970s and since kind of the end of the 1960s and seventies, political upsurge, much of the left has kind of just deteriorated into being the foot soldiers of that Eastern establishment.
(00:31:56):
They see those lower level capitalists as being the most hawkish and warlike as being the most anti-union and the most authoritarian. So they think, okay, we're going to align with the Eastern establishment against them. And I argue that that's not the correct approach because right now it is those lower level capitalists who feel threatened, and it is among them that you found support for Julian Assange that you find interest in being friendly with Russia and with China and anti-establishment sentiment, you find opposition to the tech monopolies and their censorship. And that really we're in a period where those of us who are anti-imperialist need to pivot into trying to build an anti-monopoly coalition. And that's what the Communist Party talked about at the end of the Second War as the Cold War got going, as they were being crushed by the FBI, they said their goal was to build an anti-monopoly coalition to unite with the working class, the small business owners, even some of the wealthy against the big monopolies in their drive for war.
(00:32:54):
And I would argue that's what we should be aiming to do in our time, is build an anti-monopoly coalition. And that's what I've pulled from that textbook and from that history going over what has been done and what has been successful and that the Communist Party really gained from having an alliance with Roosevelt that was very strategic on their part. And I would argue that similar alliances are necessary, but the main thing is that there needs to be a network of people that are committed to building anti-imperialist politics in America. We need a network of people who can work together, who can rely on each other and can effectively carry out anti-imperialist operations. And there are examples of this. I'm about to go to Florida to support the Yahoo movement, the Yahoo movement, the African People Socialist party. They are an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist organization, and they're doing it. And if you go to St. Louis, Missouri, and if you go to St. Petersburg, Florida,
Wilmer Leon (00:33:50):
Who, Cory Bush, I'm sorry, her name you said St. Louis, Cory Bush, sorry, is the other congresswoman that was defeated by the, sorry, I had to get it out. Go ahead. Okay.
Caleb Maupin (00:34:01):
But you'll see the huge community centers that they've built, the farmer's markets that they've built, I mean, they have built a base among the African-American community in these two cities where they are providing services to people while teaching an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist ideology. Now, I don't necessarily agree with their entire approach on everything, but I see why they're being targeted because they are laying the foundations of building a broader anti-imperialist movement. And what they are doing is a great model to look at. They are building a base among the population. The title of the book is Out of the Movement to the Masses. I've been going to anti-war protests, and I've been going to socialist and communist spaces, and very rarely did I ever encounter the African People's Socialist Party, but they were organizing where it counted not in these kind of obscure academic bohemian spaces.
(00:34:54):
They were organizing in communities and they were providing real services, and they were building community centers and having classes for pregnant mothers and having organic farmer's markets. And they were doing things among the masses of people, not among the, so-called movements of people that like to read books about communism or whatever. And that is why they're being targeted, because they are actually building the kind of movement that needs to be done. They're doing what the Communist Party did during the 1930s. They're doing what the new communist movement of the 1970s attempted to do and was pretty unsuccessful because of global circumstances, et cetera. They are doing what needs to be done to build a real anticolonial movement. And that's kind of what I'm in the text is we have to have a reevaluation and we have to figure out how we can reach the bulk of the American people and not confine ourselves to kind of left academic and intellectual spaces.
Wilmer Leon (00:35:50):
Is it too simplistic to, when you look at this battle between the elites, is it too simplistic to categorize it as the financials versus the industrialists?
Caleb Maupin (00:36:01):
Yes. It's a little bit too simplistic because there is a lot of financialization, a lot of the lower levels
Wilmer Leon (00:36:07):
Of capital.
Caleb Maupin (00:36:09):
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's not exactly right, but you're pointing to a certain trend that there is one faction that favors economic growth because economic growth will mean more money for them. There's another faction that is not concerned about economic growth so much as they're concerned about maintaining their monopoly. And in order to maintain their monopoly, they need to slow down growth around the world, and they're actually pushing degrowth or slow growth economics. So that's probably the primary divide is pro-growth and anti-growth, right? You would think that every businessman would be pro-growth, but the ultra monopolies that are heavily involved in finance at this point, they're blatantly talking about degrowth as a way to stay at the top.
Wilmer Leon (00:36:51):
In fact, one of the ways that they maintain their position is through consolidation. One of the ways that the banks control their monopoly is by buying smaller banks and bringing the or. So that's just one example.
Caleb Maupin (00:37:10):
Sure, sure. I mean, we live in a time where at the end of the day, the issue is technology is that it is human labor that creates all wealth, right? It is only human labor that creates value at the end of the day, and it is the value that workers create that lays the basis for the profits that capitalists can make, et cetera. And we are in a period where the technological revolution is reducing the role of workers at the assembly line. There's a lot of jobs that are no longer in existence because of technological advancement. And in a rational society that would be great. But in our society where profits are in command, that's leading to an economic crisis. Great example is self-driving cars, self-driving cars should be a great thing. It should be great that this job called driving this chore, this human labor of driving cars is no longer necessary.
(00:38:02):
But if they introduce self-driving cars, you would immediately in this country have millions of truck drivers unemployed, millions of Uber drivers unemployed, millions of traffic court employees unemployed. You would have riots in the streets. And Andrew Yang talked about how if self-driving cars came to the United States, we would have a society-wide crisis of unemployment and chaos like we never seen. How is that rational? Why should technological advancement lead to greater poverty? And that is the problem that we are facing. Human creativity and brilliance has outstripped the narrow limits production organized to make profit. We need a rationally planned economy so that economic growth can continue and technological advancement leads to greater prosperity for all
Wilmer Leon (00:38:46):
That sounds like China.
Caleb Maupin (00:38:47):
Yeah. And China, by controlling their economy and by having the state assigned credit based on their five-year plans and having state controlled tech corporations that are in line with the Communist party's vision, they're able to continue having growth despite having technological advancement. And that's ultimately what we need to have. And that is what Marx wrote about. One of the writers I quote extensively from is a brilliant thinker from the new communist movement named Nelson Peery and his autobiography, black Radical, which is very good, talks about his involvement in the Communist Party and then getting kicked out of the Communist Party and FBI infiltration of the Communist Party and then starting the Communist Labor Party during the 1970s. But also his very important book that he published before he died, I believe in 2004, called The Future Is Up To Us, which really gets into this contradiction of technology leading to impoverishment.
(00:39:42):
And he's saying this like during the Bush administration before ai, before any of what we're saying now he's laying out how this is going to lead to a big economic crisis that's going to necessitate a new economic system. Nelson Period is a brilliant thinker who had this kind of understanding. I also draw from Fred Goldstein, from Sam Marcy from some of the other writers who said the same thing. But this has always been kind of the understanding is that technological advancement should not lead to impoverishment, it should lead to greater prosperity. I often quote, there's an old story called the coal miner's riddle, the coal miner. He's sitting in his house with his son. The son says, father, why is it so cold in the house? And he says, because I can't afford to buy any coal. And he says, well, why can't we afford to buy any coal?
(00:40:30):
And he says, because I lost my job at the coal mine. I was laid off. And he says, father, why were you laid off from the coal mine? Why did you lose your job? He says, because there is too much coal. That's capitalism, but that's not rational. It's poverty created by abundance. I keep hearing our politicians talk about a housing shortage. Have you heard this? A housing shortage in America, there's no housing shortage. I live in New York City, there's four empty apartments for every homeless person. There's millions of empty housing, there's no housing shortage in America. There's a shortage of affordable housing black, because the national economic system,
Wilmer Leon (00:41:06):
BlackRock bought up a lot of the housing stock and instead of putting those houses back on the market, they held those homes off the market and then put 'em out for rent. So in many instances, it's not a matter of oh, $25,000 credit to those first time home buyers allegedly to lower the price of housing or to make housing more affordable. No, all that's going to do is raise the price of houses by $25,000. What you need to do is get that housing stock that BlackRock has as bought up and put that on the market, make that available. Because if you look at the Econ 1 0 1 supply and demand, you put more houses on the market, chances are the price of houses is going to decline.
Caleb Maupin (00:42:02):
Absolutely. Absolutely. When we talk about imperialism and we talk about anti-imperialist movements, one great example is the situation with Yemen, right? Yemen right now, this is one of the poorest countries in the world, and right now, this country that has a big movement called the Houthis or Anah, they're shaking the world. But if you go and listen or read the sermons or the founder of the Houthis movement, Hussein Al Houthis, what he's fighting for is economic development because he points out that Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world, but yet it has a huge amount of oil. It has a huge amount of arable land to grow food, but the people there are very, very poor. And the Houthis movement that is now at this point, stopping ships in the Mediterranean and standing with the Palestinians and sending drones to the Indian Ocean and just shaking the world.
(00:42:56):
That was a movement of very, very poor people in one of the poorest countries in the world that demanding to take control of their natural resources and take control of their economy. My understanding of imperialism and such very much had a lot to do with the fact that in 2015, I participated in a humanitarian mission attempting to deliver medical aid to Yemen after the upsurge of 2015 when the Houthis movement and their revolutionary committee took power, I went on a ship from the Islamic Republic of Iran with the Red Crescent Society, and we tried to deliver medical aid to Yemen, and we were blocked in doing so. And reading about this anti-colonial movement that was formed in Yemen, a very religious Shia Muslim movement, demanding economic development, demanding, taking control of their resources, reading about that was very inspiring in the aim of building an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movement in the United States.
(00:43:54):
Now to see what the Houthis are doing as they're blocking ships to support the Palestinians as they're withstanding us attack, this is a movement of impoverished people fighting for their economic development and fighting to build a new country. This is a mass anti-colonial movement that is worth studying. And the fact that they align themselves with Russia and China, they're not blocking ships from Russia, they're not blocking ships from China. They are blocking ships from Israel and any country that trades with them, that shows you that this global anti-imperialist movement that is about mobilizing millions of people to fight for their rights, this global movement has a real strength.
Wilmer Leon (00:44:34):
Let's shift now to the 2024 presidential election. We've come out of the Republican Convention, we've now come out of the Democratic Convention and the Democratic Party convention, and Donald Trump was shocked when Joe Biden stepped down, Kamala Harris stepped in. That has changed the dynamic, at least in terms of the dialogue, and we're starting to see some shift in the numbers. Your thoughts on where we are now with this landscape.
Caleb Maupin (00:45:09):
I think that Kamala Harris is a completely manufactured candidate. She was created by the people who brought us the Hillary Clinton State Department when it was made clear that Hillary Clinton couldn't run for president once again in 2020, all of Hillary Clinton's financial backers put their money behind Kamala Harris. She was not popular with the American people, but yet powerful forces twisted Joe Biden's arm and put her on the ticket as vp. She has not been popular or successful as vp, but she is the candidate that the forces that are committed to regime change and all out efforts to oppose Russia and China at all costs. She is the one that they have invested the most in supporting. And I don't think she's going to win. I think that Trump will win the upcoming election. And that doesn't mean everything about Trump is good or I endorsed Donald Trump.
(00:46:03):
I'm just telling you that I think Trump is going to win. But I also believe that there are very powerful forces that see Kamala Harris as their best bet at getting what they want, which is more regime change wars, more destabilization around the world. I did write a book in 2020 about Kamala Harris four years ago, and I thought it was very odd that right after she got the Democratic nomination, this book that had been on sale for four years on Amazon suddenly got removed from Amazon. And for seven days my book was banned from Amazon and then restored with no explanation seven days later. I thought that was very, very odd. It raised a lot of eyebrows, but it also points to the amount of power the tech monopolies really have. It seems like everything was being done to support Kamala Harris. What I also thought was interesting is that in my book, I talked about Tulsi Gabbard and how Tulsi Gabbard kind of represents forces in the Pentagon that are really worried about another Arab Spring and what Kamala Harris and the Hillary Clinton State Department forces people like Samantha Power, people like Anne-Marie Slaughter, what they might engineer if they come back to office.
(00:47:11):
My book highlighted Tulsi Gabbard as being kind of a faction that is opposed to Kamala Harris. And the very same day that my book was pulled from Amazon, Tulsi Gabbard was added to the Quiet Sky's terrorism watch list by the American government. When she tried to board a plane, she found out she was accused of being a terrorist. And I thought that was interesting as well. And it just kind of points to, and there was all kinds of weird stuff going on in terms of social media and Google searches that was being manipulated around that time. But the book that I wrote about Kamala Harris and who has backed her and the ties that she has getting pulled from Amazon, it was interesting to see the timing,
Wilmer Leon (00:47:52):
The position of the Democratic Party as it relates to Gaza. And I was at the DNCI was also at the RNC conventions, but there were protestors in Chicago demanding a change in the US policy as it relates to the genocide in Gaza. Then you had uncommitted delegates that were able to have a sit-in at the DNC right outside the front door of the entrance to the United Center, demanding that a pro-Palestinian spokesperson be added to the speaker's list. And none of that was agreed to. In fact, it was basically dismissed summarily. So your thoughts on the dangers that the Democrats are playing with taking that position as it relates to the general election?
Caleb Maupin (00:48:55):
Well, if the Democrats are going to win this election, they're going to need lots of votes in Minnesota, lots of votes in Wisconsin and lots of votes in Michigan. And what do all three of those states have in common? Those swing states,
Wilmer Leon (00:49:06):
Large Arab populations.
Caleb Maupin (00:49:08):
That's right. Lots of Muslim Americans, lots of Arab Americans, and with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris giving a blank check to Israel to do what they're doing. I think it's very unlikely to see those folks lining up to vote for them. Now, Kamala Harris has made some noise about this or that, but she's basically the president already. If she was going to do something, she could do it right now. I mean, she's the vice president, but Joe Biden doesn't seem to be as actively involved in the political running of the country as some people might expect. That said, I will say that Donald Trump, I mean his position on Israel Palestine, I mean, is pretty reprehensible, and he continues to play up the idea that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are somehow anti-Israel, which they are not. What I think is interesting though, and I noticed that it seems like anti-Israel voices in the Trump camp, they may not be on the front stage, but they do have a lot of influence.
(00:50:03):
And I'm not saying all these people are doing what they're doing for necessarily good reasons, but I noticed when Elon Musk was interviewing Donald Trump in the chat, it just exploded. And all over Twitter, it exploded. The phrase, no war on Iran that came from Nick Fuentes. Now, Nick Fuentes is somebody that I don't agree with on many, many things and find a lot of his views and just his presentation style to kind of reprehensible and gross, but he, for his own reasons says no war with Iran. I also noticed that Candace Owens, who is a conservative and was very pro-Israel at one point, she was not pro-Israel enough. Now she's kind of moved for interesting reasons that are very different than anything I would say. She's moved into an anti-Israel direction and she has also got a lot of people in the Trump camp who listen to her and she is making noise, no war in Iran and urging Trump supporters not to support Israel. And this points to the fact that opposition to Israel, I think is much more widespread in both parties than anyone wants to recognize.
(00:51:07):
It's an element of the emperor has no clothes. Both parties pretend that everyone in their camp just supports Israel. But anyone who talks to a typical Democrat, you were at the Republican Convention and the Democrat Convention, and you could probably confirm that opposition to what Israel is doing is boiling beneath the surface, amid both political parties and amid all sections of this country. And that there is a lot of growing outrage about the influence and power of Israel and American politics, even among people who might support Israel otherwise, but just don't appreciate the arrogance and grip that they seem to have over policymaking.
Wilmer Leon (00:51:46):
And some people just help me understand why, but some people just have a problem with genocide. It's a bit os there are growing groups, Republicans for Harris, and there are those who are positing that this is because she's a stooge of the elite and this represents how she who's truly backing her. What about the argument that many of those in those types of organizations see her as an opportunity to reclaim the Republican party by getting rid of Donald Trump? And it's almost a any port in the storm kind of mentality, they see her as the stalking horse. If they can back her, if she can defeat Trump, they then can, the old school, the traditional Republicans can regain control of their party. What say you Caleb Opin?
Caleb Maupin (00:52:58):
Well, I would say that the Bush era Republican party is gone. It's never coming back. And Donald Trump is a symptom of that. And that's very clear. And that Donald Trump's recent embracing of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK, that indicates that Donald Trump is taking his campaign in an anti-establishment direction. Now, that doesn't mean that he's going to necessarily do good things as president. That just means that he's increasingly realizing that his appeal is to people that are opposed to the establishment. And I think that means the establishment is going to fight him a lot harder. There's no question about that. And that there are your regular traditional neo-conservative Republicans, my country, right or wrong, if you don't like it here, move to some other country, support the military, support the wars, support America dominating the world, and showing the world about our great American way of life.
(00:53:51):
Those folks are increasingly finding the Republican party to not be their home. And this is all very interesting. I noticed in Kamala Harris's DNC speech, she attacked the Republicans for denigrating America. And that made me smile because it reminded me of what I always heard about the far left, right? It was the far left. They hate America. They're always saying things are bad. Why are you always running down our country? And a lot of things that Kamala Harris said in her speech almost sounded like Neoconservatism. She attacked Donald Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-Un. She said he was cozying up to tyrants and being friendly with tyrants. And it seemed to me like there was very much the Republican Party, I believe over time is going to become more of a catchall populist, anti-establishment party, whereas the Democratic party is more and more becoming the party of the establishment of the way things are supposed to be. I think that what I would call the late Cold War normal in American politics is being flipped. It used to be the Republican party was the party of the establishment, and the Democrats were the party of opposition. Not very sincere opposition in many cases, but they were the party of, if you didn't agree with what you're supposed to think necessarily, if you're a little more critical, you become a Democrat. Well,
Wilmer Leon (00:55:05):
If you were proc civil rights, if you were pro-environment, if you were anti-war, that's where you went.
Caleb Maupin (00:55:12):
Yeah. And I think it's being flipped. And that doesn't mean that Republicans and the MAGA base that are talking a certain way are sincere at all. That just means who they're appealing to. The Republican party has an anti-establishment appeal more and more every day. The Democratic party has a ProE establishment appeal. And I think this Republicans for Harris is a great example of that.
Wilmer Leon (00:55:32):
So as we move now, spiraling towards November 5th, you've already said you believe that Donald Trump is going to win the election. One of the things that I find very, very telling, and I check it every day when you go to the Harris website, there's still no policy positions stated. There's no policy tab. In fact, when I asked that question a couple of times at the DNCC, I was told, oh, you don't understand. She hasn't had time. There hasn't been. I said, wait a minute. She ran for president four years ago. So she had to have, we hope she had established some policy positions as a candidate. She was the vice president going on four years now, we hope during those four years she could have figured out some policy and it's now been almost a month. You can't tell me that she couldn't pick up the phone and call a bunch of people in the room and say, Hey, I need policies on education, on defense, on the economy, on these five positions. I need policy in 10 days. Go get it done. Caleb Opin.
Caleb Maupin (00:57:00):
Well, I think there are three possible outcomes for the election. In my mind, probably the worst case scenario would be Kamala Harris winning. And I think that would be followed by a number of, there'd be chaos in the streets. A lot of Trump supporters will not accept it as a legitimate election. And I expect there will then be a big crackdown on dissent, and I expect there'll be a lot of provocations, et cetera. And that will be used by the establishment to crack down on dissent.
Wilmer Leon (00:57:26):
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. And people need to understand the crackdown on dissent has already started by looking what's being done to who's being platformed from social media sites. Look at what's happening to folks who are getting arrested, the guy that started Instagram and all of these folks, the three Scott Ritter, your book taken off of taking all of these things are data points to support your position that the crackdown on descent has already started?
Caleb Maupin (00:58:02):
No, I mean the Biden administration has already indicted. Sue me, Terry, who was the top advisor to Obama and Bush on South Korea. And I mean the fact that she's been indicted as a foreign agent of South Korea just because South Korea wants to have mattered negotiations with North Korea. I mean, it looks like blatant retaliation.
Wilmer Leon (00:58:22):
And South Korea is an ally.
Caleb Maupin (00:58:23):
Yeah, their closest friend in Washington dc Sumi Terry has now been accused of being a foreign agent. She's facing decades in prison. I mean, this is craziness. This is a top CIA person who's been a top advisor on career matters. So that would be kind of what I think the worst case scenario would be. The most likely scenario is that I think Donald Trump will win. But all the negative things about Trumpism will amplify. I think the pro-Israel stuff, the pro-police stuff, the anti-immigrant stuff will amplify
Wilmer Leon (00:58:55):
Project 2025.
Caleb Maupin (00:58:56):
Yeah, the government will try to, the powers that be will try to ride the wave of Trumpism to push forward their own agenda, which is not good But I do think there is a third possible scenario, which is a real long shot. It's a real long shot, which is that Donald Trump takes office in a completely defensive position. And under those circumstances, he may be compelled to do a lot of good things because he's just at odds with the establishment and needs popular support. So much so we shall have to see. But those are my three predictions. But in all of those circumstances on anti-imperialist organization, a network of people that are committed to anti imperialism and building a new America beyond the rule of bankers and war profiteers is going to be vitally important. And at the end of the day, what really matters is not so much who is in office, it's what the balance of forces is in the country and around the world, and what kind of movement exists, what kind organizations.
(00:59:58):
There are people that are involved in the political process and to change the world and taking responsibility for the future of their country. And I wrote the book as a textbook for the Center for Political Innovation. My organization as we try to do just that, as we try to build a network of people who can rely on each other and build an anti-imperialist movement in the United States to support the Hru three, to study these ideas to be out there. That is one thing we aim to do. If Donald Trump wins the election, one thing that we aim to do is and intend to get that picture of Donald Trump shaking hands with Kim Jong-un and get it everywhere and say that this election is a mandate that the peace talks on the Korean Peninsula should continue. And that could be a way to nudge the discourse toward a more peace oriented wing of Trumpism.
(01:00:46):
That's one thing that we intend to do. We have other operations that we intend to carry out with the aim of nudging the country in an anti-colonial direction. One thing that I think is very important is Alaska, right? Alaska is right there close to Russia and there's the bearing Strait that separates Russia and Alaska and Abraham Lincoln had the idea of building a bridge to connect Alaska to Russia. And a lot of great people have had the idea of doing that since. And I think popularizing the idea of building a world land bridge to connect Alaska to Russia and pivot the US economy toward trading with the Russian Far East and with the Korean Peninsula and with China that could nudge the world and a direction of Multipolarity pivot away from Western Europe and towards the World Land Bridge and the bearing Strait and all of that.
(01:01:36):
So there are various things that we can do to try and influence discourse, but I must say the explosion is coming, right? I mean, you can feel it rumbling in the ground. The avalanche is going to pour, the volcano is going to go off. It's only a matter of time. Those of us who study these ideas and understand things, we have the job not of making the explosion come, but rather of trying to guide it in the right direction. The conditions in this country are getting worse. Americans are angry at the establishment. Things are going to change. But what we hope to do is guide that change and point it in a good direction toward a better world. And that's all we can really hope to do. I quote Mao the leader of the Chinese Revolution. He said The masses are the real heroes and at the end of the day, it will be the masses of the American people and their millions who determine what the future of this country will be. I think they are going to awaken and take action. The question is only what type of action will that be? And I think guys like you and I have a role to play in shaping what kind of action they might take when they do awaken.
Wilmer Leon (01:02:39):
Well, thank you for putting me in that group. And if we are able to build a bridge across the bearing strait between Alaska and Russia, I'm sure Sarah Palin will be the first one. Should be operating the toll booth. My brother. Alright, my brother Kayla mopping. Man, thank you so much for being my guest. Thank you so much for joining the show today.
Caleb Maupin (01:03:05):
Sure thing. Always a pleasure
Wilmer Leon (01:03:07):
Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Woman Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, follow us on social media. The Patreon account is very, very important. That helps to support the effort. You can find all the links below in the show description and remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (01:03:50):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.