reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I don't understand why left-leaning media, which some say is predominantly Jewish, labels people as white supremacists. According to my Jewish friends, this perspective exists. But why is there a perceived animosity towards white individuals? It seems to stem from what some call "woke" culture and virtue signaling.

There is concern about the rise of authoritarianism and potential fascism in the US. While the leader plays a role, it is the people who desire this that are a bigger part of the problem. One of the major political parties has been embracing extremism on the ultra right, which has become central to Republican politics. This movement is not solely influenced by Trump, but rather pushes him to be more extreme. It is a problem within the Republican Party, not just one man.

In the west, there is a movement called wokeness that emphasizes hypersensitivity to others' issues and feelings of entitlement to respect. This leads to extreme attitudes, especially in academic institutions, focusing on safe spaces, pronouns, and avoiding offensive topics. This approach may not promote resilience or societal cohesion. It is important to be more robust and avoid becoming overly sensitive.

Professor Zhang and the host discuss a era of rapid systemic upheaval in world order, centered on a peaceful yet unprecedented rise of China and the broader shift of power from West to East. They explore how likely it is that such a major redistribution of international power can occur without triggering major wars among great powers. Key points from the exchange: - Mark Carney’s Davos speech is used as a reference point to counter Donald Trump’s claim that Europe and Canada have free‑ridden on American defense. Carney argues the rules‑based order benefited the American empire but that America’s attitude has shifted away from multilateralism; middle powers must build a rules‑based order to survive, potentially aligning with BRICS. He suggests the Shanghai Gold Exchange and a global gold corridor function as a multilateral, reciprocal framework that could underpin a new financial system, with China emphasizing multilateralism, cooperation, and reciprocity. A central tension is that the American empire will not fade quietly, and the National Security Strategy envisions reshaping empire rule: no more liberal order, more national self-interest, vassalization of allies, and continued strategic challenges to China in all theaters, including Africa, Europe, and South America, even if military presence in East Asia declines. - The discussion contrasts the U.S.‑led multilateral consensus (post‑1945) with the current reality: an elite, close-knit club once governed global decisions, but Trump’s outsider status disrupts that club. This disruption incentivizes Western elites to seek China as a new protector, even as systemic fragility remains due to inequality, corruption, and a large disconnect between political leadership and ordinary people. - The speakers analyze Trump’s strategy as aiming to create a “Trump world order” by replacing the global elite with a new one, reshaping NATO leadership, and supporting more amendable European politicians who favor nationalism and tighter immigration controls. They describe Trump’s broader civil‑military plan, including using ICE to pursue a harsh domestic policy, potentially enabling emergency powers, and provoking a European political realignment through backing parties like Poland’s Law and Justice, Hungary’s Fidesz, Austria’s and Spain’s right‑leaning movements. They argue Trump’s Greenland focus is intended to embarrass NATO leaders and redraw European political loyalties, not merely to seize strategic real estate. - The conversation touches a perceived internal Western crisis: elite arrogance, meritocracy’s failure to connect with ordinary people, and the growing alienation and inequality. They argue this has contributed to the rise of Trump, who some see as a messianic figure for restoring Western civilization, while others view him as seeking to destroy the existing order to rule in a new form. - The guests reflect on the 1990s warning by Richard Rorty that globalization and liberalism could spark a political radicalism among previously disaffected groups, leading to the appeal of strongmen. They connect this to the contemporary surge of nationalist and anti‑elite sentiment across the West, and the collapse of faith in liberal institutions. - Asia’s prospects are examined with skepticism about a simple East Asian century. Zhang highlights four structural challenges: (1) demographic decline and very low fertility in East Asia (e.g., South Korea around 0.6, Japan, China) and its implications for a youthful labor force; (2) high savings rates and the risk this poses for domestic demand; (3) dependence on Middle Eastern oil for East Asian economies during potential global conflict; (4) long‑standing tensions among China, Japan, and Korea. He argues these factors complicate a straightforward rise of Asia and suggests Asia’s future is not guaranteed to outpace the West in global leadership. - Zhang emphasizes the need to recalibrate values away from neoliberal consumerism toward meaning, community, and family. He argues that both capitalism and communism neglected spirituality, leading to widespread alienation; he believes a healing approach would prioritize children, family, and social cohesion as essential to human flourishing. - On Iran, Zhang suggests the United States and Israel aim to destroy and fragment Iran to render it more manageable, while Iran exhibits resilience, unity, and a readiness to fight back against continued external pressure. He notes Iranian leadership now prefers resistance after previously negotiating, and he predicts strong Iranian defense and potential escalation if attacked. He also points to an anticipated false‑flag risk and the broader risk environment seeking a new status quo through diplomacy, not just confrontation. - Finally, the host and Zhang discuss the broader risk landscape: as U.S. leadership declines and regional powers maneuver, a multipolar, chaotic strategic environment could emerge with shifting alliances. They argue for a renewed focus on managing competition and seeking a civilized framework for coexistence, though there is skepticism about whether such a framework will emerge given strategic incentives and current political dynamics.

I'm critical of the Democratic party because I recently left it, like many others. I used to be a staunch liberal, but my perspective shifted when the left began pushing extreme narratives, leading me to research Trump more thoroughly. I realized much of what I'd been shown about him was taken out of context. The turning point was when I was told it was better to spend the holidays alone than with family who voted for Trump. I was also depressed as a liberal; liberalism made me hate everything. While empathy is good, lacking discernment is detrimental. The Democratic party now advocates for things I once opposed, like war, and they attack individual thought. It's why people are leaving, and Trump's increased support across demographics proves it. We're the "new right"—not Republicans, but a diverse group seeking positive change without the misery.

America and Europe are facing similar problems due to a globalist agenda. Europe is experiencing challenges with immigration from non-Western countries, leading to the erosion of national identities and sovereignty. Additionally, there is excessive spending on a nonexistent climate crisis and a war in Ukraine that is not Europe's concern. These actions are contributing to our own downfall.

I used to be liberal but now I'm not, for political and personal reasons. Attended George Floyd protest, got tear gassed. Liberals were never happy, bad for mental health. Insulting and condescending. Turned off by condescension and insults when someone disagrees. Gay pride parades with nudity in front of kids was a turning point for me. Being gay is fine, but not in front of kids.

I left the Democratic Party because it is controlled by an elitist group of warmongers who prioritize woke culture over important issues. The party I joined years ago, which fought for free speech, working people, and civil liberties, no longer exists. It is clear that a political party that undermines our constitutional freedoms cannot be trusted, and we, the people, must not let them stay in power.

Many people feel beaten down, questioning the purpose of their hard work just to provide for their families and pay taxes. They long for a time when life was simpler, where hard work led to home ownership and freedom without excessive control. Instead, they face negative labels and media manipulation. The recent funeral of a young girl received little attention, highlighting the disconnect. The truth is, these individuals are not defined by labels; they are decent, ordinary people who want to contribute positively to society. They are not far-right; they are simply wonderful people striving for a better life.

The speaker discusses the changing landscape of free speech and the shift of Jewish people from the left to the right in politics. They mention that historically, Jews aligned with the left due to shared experiences of persecution and a belief in equality. However, they argue that the left has now embraced a woke ideology that focuses on identity groups and redistribution, which has made Jews feel like part of an oppressor class. As a result, many Jewish individuals are realizing that the left is no longer a welcoming space for them and are shifting towards the right. The speaker also mentions the importance of judging individuals based on character rather than skin color or ethnicity.

I think most Americans stopped paying attention to South Africa after the end of apartheid in 1994, but the situation there has deteriorated. The democratic system set up in the 90s is being used to promote socialist ends. Black Economic Empowerment, for example, has nothing to do with economic empowerment. The ANC, South Africa's ruling party, has strong communist ties and is implementing policies that are actively discriminating against taxpayers. The government isn't protecting lives or property and is pushing to expropriate private property without compensation. This is coupled with a radical ideology being taught at universities that dehumanizes white people and could be a predicate for genocide. It's a collapsing society and the West cheers it on, but it's time to wake up to what's happening there.

The United States is in a state of decline, with no clear identity. Monuments are being defaced and destroyed, erasing our heritage. In Germany, Olaf Schulz is using the pretext of preparing for a fight with Russia to suppress opposition within the country. Similar fates await other Western governments, as their populations have had enough and will replace them with new leaders who are not like the current ones.

Left wing and woke ideology is framed as noble—compassion, justice, equality, and progress—but the question remains: progress toward what? To understand modern leftism, especially in its woke form, the speaker traces its development back nearly two hundred years. Ideas evolve like viruses: as society builds immunity to one bad idea, academics tinker with it until it mutates into something more contagious, more destructive, and harder to detect. The journey begins with Hegel, who proposed the dialectic—thesis and antithesis colliding to form a new synthesis, the engine of supposed progress. Marx applied this framework to economics, developing dialectical materialism, arguing society is a class struggle between haves and have-nots, and that revolution is inevitable, with workers rising up to destroy capitalism and create a communist utopia. To the left, progress means the oppressed overthrowing the oppressors. But Marx’s vision flopped, leading Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, to retool it: the have-nots wouldn’t rise up on their own; they needed elites to lead and radicalize them. Perpetual revolution followed, where once one oppressor is toppled, the new ruling class becomes the next enemy, and the struggle never ends. When this approach failed in the West, the Frankfurt School updated Marxism. They observed that capitalism’s material success inoculated workers against revolution, so they targeted culture, education, media, churches, the arts. They called it the long march through the institutions: if they couldn’t radicalize people economically, they would do so socially and spiritually, slowly, generation by generation. Then came the postmodernists, who claimed power exists not only between rich and poor but everywhere—between man and woman, white and black, straight and gay, fit and fat, colonizer and colonized. All relationships become power struggles, and the personal becomes political. Finally, intersectionality emerged, declaring oppression is not one-dimensional but a matrix; every identity adds a new layer of victimhood, giving more moral authority the more layers there are. This, the speaker argues, has produced a modern ideological caste system. For example, the ultimate proletariat is described as a fat, old, disabled, single, black, Muslim, trans woman who is a lesbian from a third world country with no education, low income, and residing in a rural area. The final bourgeoisie boss is described as a middle-aged, married, able-bodied, straight, white, cisgendered, heteronormative, Christian westerner with a degree, high income, living in a city. The conclusion offered is that modern progressives are really just neo-Marxism in drag.

There's a perception that whiteness feels threatened by demographic changes and cultural shifts. Many voters are struggling with rising living costs, leading them to support candidates who may not align with their values. Some believe people are disillusioned with the political system, feeling their lives aren't fair despite living in a prosperous country. They may choose to vote for unconventional candidates out of frustration with the status quo. However, there's skepticism about whether economic concerns are the true motivation behind these votes. The belief is that many voters are aware of the candidates' flaws but choose to ignore them, leading to a disconnect between their choices and the reality of the situation.

My work consists of exposing how woke is a mind virus that creates divisive identity politics. It amplifies racism, sexism, and all the other isms, while claiming to do the opposite. It divides people, makes them hate each other and themselves, and it is also antimeritocratic. People should succeed based on hard work and talent, not based on who they are. Woke creates an artificial mental civil war, and it is no fun at all. Woke and fun are incompatible. There's no joy. The woke mind virus is all about condemning people instead of celebrating them. It's all about being divisive, and frankly, I think it's evil.

The speaker discusses a cultural shift between right and left authoritarianism. They point out that people often fail to recognize that actions such as war, suppression of free speech, and mandatory pharmacological interventions were previously associated with the authoritarian right, but are now being embraced by the left. The speaker believes this shift is due to ideology and warns against blindly following one's own side without critical thinking.

They started off as right wing conservatives wanting to bring back traditional values and improve schools. Now they're moving towards open borders and a globalist agenda, alienating some. Those not extreme on either side want to have discussions and find common ground, but feel outnumbered. Extremists are too far gone to engage with. The situation feels hopeless, with not enough like-minded individuals to make a difference.

The future of Western civilization is in the balance. In Europe, political opposition is being jailed and free speech is under assault. Republicans and conservatives believe the fundamental values and tenants of Western civilization that the country has been built on are under assault. The November election was the beginning of the pushback on that assault, but it's not over.

Many people want the most qualified individuals for various roles, rather than prioritizing factors like gender identity or race. However, there are currently many left-wing politicians in power who believe otherwise. They prioritize these factors over qualifications. The term "woke" is used to describe this mindset, but it is seen as negative, as it often leads to negative outcomes.

Voters who supported Kamala Harris are grappling with shock and anger over the election results, questioning why many traditionally Democratic voters shifted to Trump. This shift reflects a broader alienation from the Democratic Party, perceived as increasingly intolerant and radical. Many feel relief at Trump's victory, viewing it as a rejection of totalitarianism rather than an endorsement of Trump himself. Over the past decade, a rise in "wokeism" has led to societal division, with dissenters facing ostracism. The political landscape is changing, with Trump gaining support among diverse demographics, signaling a significant realignment. While some institutions remain entrenched in progressive ideologies, there is a sense of catharsis among those who felt persecuted, as they now feel freer to express their views. The journey away from peak wokeism is underway, though challenges remain in addressing past abuses of power and censorship.