Apparently, math is a white CIS heteropatriarchal subject and is naturally opposed to advocates for queer justice. Radical leftists are telling students how to rewrite their experiences to reflect forms of intersectionality, leading to a war over the term “woke” and how to define it. Critical theorists are those who adhere to critical theory, which is a school of thought that was conceived at the Frankfurt School in Germany and works through a framework of neo-Marxist ideology.
Critical race theorists want to divide the nation in such a way that the oppressed class wages a revolution on the oppressor class, leading to an outright race war, the ultimate outcome of which will be Marxism. Intersectionality is a Marxist idea that combines two topics—such as oppression and economic inequality. The left is trying to undermine free speech by telling us that our words constitute actual violence, when they are simply expressions of our individual rights.
This is the same framework that Professor Luis Leyva is applying to the idea that if math professors don’t profess queer theory, they are limiting learning opportunities. LGBTQ students are not subject to institutional discrimination in math classes at public universities, as they are not rejected based on their same-sex attraction or gender identity, and the only place they can learn is in a space where their sexuality is discussed publicly. This is insulting and demeaning to people of all types of immutable characteristics to claim that they cannot succeed unless they are surrounded by people who agree with them. The left is waging a war on objective truth, which is the root cause of every other cultural issue, such as the FBI targeting parents for objecting to critical race theory, the Department of Justice targeting pro-lifers, and the raid on former president Donald Trump’s residence.
Queer Theory is a Marxist critical theory that rejects traditional binary genders, and posits that gender is a spectrum, and is not based on science. As such, objective fields of study such as mathematics are a fundamental threat to the neo-Marxist agenda, because they offer an objective examination of the world—and more importantly, determine truth.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
This is the stupidest thing that I’ve ever heard. There’s a professor at Vanderbilt University. He teaches mathematics. He’s an assistant professor, actually. His name is Louis Leyva. L-e-y-v-a. Louis or Luis probably l-u-i-s Luis Leyva, who is a professor of math at Vanderbilt University, who gave a lecture, this is the title of the lecture, are you ready for this, undergraduate mathematics education as a white cis-heteropatriarchal space and opportunities for structural disruption to advance queer of color justice.
This is, like, the word salad that you would get if you gave directions to that AI thing, that ChatGPT thing, and told them to make a word solid of woke intersectionality nonsense. Undergraduate mathematics education as a white cis-hetero,patriarchal space you know how long that word is, cis-heteropatriarchal space and opportunities for structural disruption to advance queer of color justice. This is what the guy looks like, if you’re wondering.
This is the professor. This is how he announced this is how, by the way, he gave this speech, this lecture at the largest mathematics conference in the United States. This is now, so what that means is this nonsense is being disseminated into not just not just math, but into the entire STEM field, painting math as being racist, as being sexist, as being homophobic, and as being cis-heteropatriarchal. So what does this even mean? I don’t mean that question rhetorically.
When I say what does this even mean, I’m not I’m I’m not asking like oh my goodness, will you look at that? no, I want to break down what this actual actually means, because his description of, that’s the title of his of his speech of his lecture, his description actually tells us everything we need to know. If you haven’t already subscribed to the show, please do so go to Apple Podcast or Spotify.
Click that subscribe button. On YouTube, click subscribe and also click the bell so I can notify you of every new episode that we post every interview, every video. We have a lot of new content for you all the time. On Rumble.com/LizWheeler, hit the subscribe button over there. Let’s get to it.
Okay, so this professor of mathematics, an assistant professor of mathematics, he teaches at Vanderbilt University, his name is Luis Leyva, he claims that mathematics education, we’re talking about like undergraduate, we’re not even talking about graduate classes, undergraduate math is cis-heteropatriarchal.
Cis-heteropatriarchal. I dare you to say that five times as fast as you can. But you won’t be able to do it. This is how he describes the lecture that he gave at one of the largest mathematics conferences in the entire United States. This is how he describes his lecture. He says, he will depict how black, Latin asterisk, and Asian QT queer-transgender students’ narratives of experience reflect forms of intersectionality, or instances of oppression and resistance at intersecting systems of white supremacy and cisheteropatriarchy.
Like what does that even mean? what does that even mean? here’s the thing, I actually don’t mean that rhetorically. I want to break down exactly what he means by each one of each one of these words, or pseudo words, that he has event invented or adopted. So he’s talking about depicting black or Latin asterisk. So this is his way of not saying Latino, not saying Latina, not saying Latin, but putting an asterisk there depending on how you identify. I find this to be extremely dehumanizing.
What could be more dehumanizing than putting an asterisk in the description of someone’s cultural heritage? this is what this is what anti-Semites and white supremacists do to erase Jews. They won’t write out the entire word. They use an asterisk instead. And so he’s doing this here to be ultra-uber woke. Like at first it was Latin, and it was just a generalized term for both male and female, of Latino, Latina, Hispanic descent, then it became it became gendered, Latina or Latino, then the walksters try to make it Latin X or latinx, however you want to pronounce it, I guess it’s irrelevant, it’s a stupid word, a made-up word.
And now he’s putting an asterisk in erasing literally part of these people’s cultural heritage. I find that extremely insulting. I found that extremely demeaning. Then he says findings depict how black Latin asterisk and Asian QT queer transgender students’ narratives of experience. Well so what’s a narrative of experience? a narrative of experience is not an experience. A narrative of experience is a perception. Now that’s very different.
That’s that’s a fact. That’s an experience is a fact, a narrative of experience is a feeling. A perception is a feeling. Now your perception can reflect reality, but oftentimes perception does not reflect reality. That’s actually where we get the idiom, perception is reality, because oftentimes people perceive things differently than they really are, and therefore to that person, what didn’t happen but they perceived should have happened is what they believed to have really happened. But it’s not. And the thing about that is that’s not just a facet of human nature.
When you have these radical leftists, who are telling students telling students how to rewrite their experience, telling students that even if you didn’t feel XYZ in a certain situation, looking back on it now this is what you ought to have felt, it’s like in Prince Harry’s book Spare, I don’t know if you guys noticed this when you were you all read through it right of course you did, when you were when we were reading through it, how how Prince Harry often said, I didn’t realize it at the time, or I didn’t see it at the time, but dot dot dot, and then he’d make some kind of woke take.
So in other words, what he was doing is he was saying, well at the time whatever happened was fine and I felt a certain way, but now that Meghan Markle is in my ear telling me that I am oppressed as the prince of England the prince as a British prince, telling me that I’m oppressed as one of the wealthiest people in the world the most powerful people in the world, now that I understand that, now that I’m being indoctrinated, I’m reforming my thoughts to view the reality of what happened in a different way, shifting perception.
So that’s what that’s what this professor Luis Leyva means when he says students’ narratives of experience. A narrative of experience is a perception. It is not reality. So students’ narrative of experiences reflect forms of intersectionality. So what is intersectionality? intersectionality is a woke term, and I know that there’s a war going on right now over the word woke, what is woke, how do you define that term, oftentimes conservatives answer that question the way that the Supreme Court defined pornography.
Well, you’ll know it when you see it. You know you know woke when you see it. You understand what woke means when it’s being indoctrinated into your children at school, when you’re hearing it in the boardroom at work, when your when your college student is being subject to this, in in the policies, even the admission policies, the DEI policies at college, you know woke when you see it. But you can actually Define woke further than that.
Woke is the way of describing the cultural Marxism that has infiltrated the American Left, the American Democratic Party, and the liberal apparatus that surrounds the Democratic Party. Woke is neo-Marxism it’s neo-Marxism, just by a different name. And it’s it’s easy to prove this definition. When you look at something like intersectionality. Intersectionality, for example, was a term that was coined by a another college professor by the name of Kimberly Crenshaw.
You might be familiar with the name Kimberly Crenshaw, because Kimberly Crenshaw is also the woman who coined the phrase critical race theorist. Kimberly Crenshaw admitted that she and her contemporaries are critical theorists who do race. So that’s a little bit to unpack. A critical theorist, what’s a critical theorist? Well, a critical theorist is someone who adheres to critical theory. Critical theory is a school of thought that was that was conceived at the Frankfurt School in Germany.
The Frankfurt School, that was originally named The Institute for Marxism, but the founders thought well the institute for Marxism as a name might get some pushback, we might be criticized here, we should we should call it something else, we should call it you know the institute for social research, it became known as the Frankfurt School.
But it begot this whole new generation of cultural Marxists, Marxists who bought into almost everything that Karl Marx said, but instead of thinking that a Marxist revolution would be sparked by the working class trying to overthrow the ruling class, the Frankfurt School Marxists understood that a Marxist revolution would be begot if only if cultural institutions are infiltrated with neo-Marxist ideology first. Therefore, they work through this framework of critical theory.
Critical theory is actually quite self-explanatory. It means looking at a certain institution, like the education system, for example, or marriage, or even sex, and and family is a good example of this, and criticizing, levying constant criticism, usually from a Marxist philosophy framework, at this institution until the institution itself falls, at which time these critical theorists want into our usher in socialist, communist, collectivist, or outright Marxist institutions instead. So Kimberly Crenshaw, the woman who coined the term Critical Race Theory here in the United States, called herself a critical theorist who does race. What she means by that is, she buys into the Marxist structure, the Marxist idea.
And this goes back even to Karl Marx, even further back than the Frankfurt School. Karl Marx’s entire premise of of his version of communism was was the idea that everyone is either oppressed or an oppressor, and the people who are oppressed should rebel against those who are levying the oppression, and once that revolution has taken place, well, Marxism as a government structure will will take form here. Kimberly Crenshaw buys into that, but she adds the racial element.
That’s why Critical Race Theory is often called racialized Marxism, because instead of it just being an economic oppressed versus oppressor dynamic Critical Race Theory adds race to it, makes it about race. Well, that’s what we’re seeing taught in elementary schools,? right that white children are taught that they are inherently oppressors, black children are taught they are inherently oppressed.
What is the culmination of this? The culmination of this will at some point not just be the racial tension that we that we see at the highest levels in our country in decades, things that we thought we’d gotten past in our nation, the result of this will be an outright race war, and this is the hope of the critical theorists who do race.
They want to divide our nation in such a way that the so-called oppressed class wages revolution on the so-called oppressor class, and the ultimate outcome of this will be Marxism. Of course it will be Marxism., Kimberly Crenshaw who coined Critical Race Theory and admitted that she and her contemporaries are critical theorists who do race, she was also instrumental in defining intersectionality.
Intersectionality. Intersectionality is pretty much the same thing, just applied to a different topic. While Critical Race Theory looks at rate the racial elements, Karl Marx’s version looks at the economic elements, intersectionality can look at anything. Any two things can be tied together. And from that, any two things, by the way, when I say any two things can be tied together, any two topics, where a certain demographic is labeled as oppressed and a certain demographic is labeled at the oppressor, can be can be related to each other.
It doesn’t have to just be men versus women, black people versus white people, rich people versus poor people, it can also be men versus black people, or women versus white men. Intersectionality is is a Marxist idea that combines things, and from that we get this invented word, this word that this college professor at Vanderbilt University uses cisheteropatriarchy. This is all one word cis-hetero-patriarchy. And I want to break that word itself down because when we break that word down, we see exactly what he is hoping to achieve.
Okay, so back to this lecture description. It’s amazing, in one sense, that so much is said in the space of one paragraph, this lecture description. We’re going to start over. He’s going to discuss, this professor discussed I should, say this speech already happened, findings depicting how black Latin asterisk and Asian QT queer transgender students’ narratives of experience reflect forms of intersectionality, or instances of oppression and resistance at intersection intersecting systems of white supremacy and cisheteropatriarchy.
Makes a lot more sense once it’s unpacked, doesn’t it? you can see exactly what he’s doing. And he’s doing this, you would expect this from someone like Kimberly Crenshaw. You’d expect this from someone like the author of The 1619 project, Nikole Hannah Jones. You’d expect this from a a a race Marxist like Ibram Kendi, you would expect this from from these these Marxist grifters. It’s not quite as expected in a mathematics department at Vanderbilt University.
This is what he says. He says, I apply my framework and research findings to argue how undergraduate mathematics education operates as a white cisheteropatriarchal space that limits learning opportunities affirming of queer or call of queer of color identities and experiences. I conclude by reimagining undergraduate mathematics education with structural disruptions that advance justice for learners marginalized across intersections of race, gender, and sexuality.
Well, that’s a mouthful, isn’t it? I’d read that about five times before the show little phrase by little phrase be like, what is he trying to say here? the the core of what he’s trying to say is that he wants even a math classroom, like think about when you’re a freshman in college and you go in to you go into your required mathematics credit class, maybe this is like algebra two, maybe this is trigonometry, I’m talking like elementary-level college courses here because we’re not talking about graduate level stuff, we’re not talking about advanced degrees, not even necessarily talking about calculus.
I think I my freshman year of college, I did not take a math course because I tested out because I had taken calculus in high school, but then as a sophomore I took algebra 2 as an elective because I knew it would be easy, and I took calculus one and calculus two, so even if we’re talking about these these fairly basic fairly elementary math courses, I know a lot of people, one of my sisters took algebra 1 and algebra 2 as her math, she wasn’t in any kind of science field.
And she took that as her as her math credits, but essentially what he’s saying is that when you walk into algebra one, algebra 2, trigonometry, calculus, one things that you probably learned in high school but probably forgot, even in the year or two since you’ve been in high school, he wants that space to brainwash you with queer theory. He doesn’t want you to learn about the Pythagorean theorem.
He doesn’t want you to learn how to calculate the volume of a of a sphere, things that you would do in a math class. He doesn’t want you to, I don’t know, learn about different things in calculus that I would like to think that I remember but I probably have forgotten because it’s been so many years. He this is what he said.
I apply my framework and research findings to argue how undergraduate mathematics education operates as a white cisheteropatriarchal space that limits learning opportunities affirming of queer of color identities and experiences.
So that word affirming is the key word. If you don’t walk into that classroom and have your mathematics professor, he was supposed to be a nerd wearing glasses with tape around his nose, a pocket protector, and a big old calculator, if that person doesn’t say, before we get started today, I’d like everyone to know that there are 127 genders, that my neo-Marxist pronouns are ze and zer, and that nobody in this class can use a male bathroom or a female bathroom because there is no such thing.
And everyone can use this communal urinal in the corner for, you know, for inclusivity. If the professor doesn’t get up and say something like that, then apparently this is limiting learning opportunities. This is where it gets very dangerous because this is the same sort of disingenuous argument as when the Left tells us that our words are actual hate.
Our words, not hate, our words are actual violence. Like a word cannot be violent. A word is a word a word is not is not harming someone. It might hurt someone’s feelings. It might offend somebody, but a word is not violence. A fist punching you in the face is violence. Being assaulted is violence. Being run over by a car is violence. There’s physical violence, and then there’s just, you know, rude behavior.
Perhaps the words are hateful. They might be, but that doesn’t make them violence. But that’s what the Left has done when it comes to free speech. That’s how they’re actually trying to undermine free speech right now, by telling us that anything that we say, especially when it comes to transgenderism, queer theory, Critical Race Theory, election integrity, that all of these things, that our words are actual violence.
Not that they beget violence, not that they encourage violence, not that they incite violence, not that they do any of those things, but that they are actual, literal violence. This is the same this is the same it’s not logic this is the same principle, framework I should say, this is the same framework, that this professor at Vanderbilt University Luis Leyva, is applying to the idea that if math professors don’t profess queer theory, that they are limiting a learning opportunity.
Because here’s the thing, if you are a young man and you have same-sex attraction, you are not rejected from a university mathematics program or a class because of that. If you are someone who has purple hair or green hair, someone who thinks that they are someone who has pronouns on their Instagram bio, but you have a high ACT score and SAT score, you are not you are not discriminated against because of the color of your hair, because you think other people should have to use your neo-Marxist pronouns, even though we won’t, and we’ll talk about that in a minute.
There is not institutional discrimination against LGBTQ identifying people at the mathematics level, especially at public universities, private universities. It’s not discrimination. Some of them require for admittance adherence to the morals or the religious doctrine of the school. If it’s a Catholic school, for example, or a Baptist school, sometimes they require students to sign pledges and say listen, I adhere to I believe the tenants on wish your school is found.
That’s different. What he’s talking about is public education, public education that does not, I repeat ,does not suffer from institutional discrimination against gay people. Because it does not, because gay people are not institutionally rejected from math classes at public universities based on the fact that they have same-sex attraction, or because they think they’re a boy even though they’re a girl, because they don’t face that, he has to take this to another level.
He has to say, well if you don’t actively celebrate this, if you don’t pass this along, if you don’t indoctrinate the other students in queer theory, then then LGBTQ students, queer students might feel uncomfortable just being around you if you have a different opinion, and if they’re uncomfortable, well, then they’re not that that limits their ability to learn.
Because if you don’t have a comfortable space, how do you learn? this is the argument that he is making, that the only place that queer students can be comfortable is in a space where their sexuality is discussed publicly, where the professor affirms them in their in their the choices that they make about their body and their sexual partners. That’s really weird.
And it’s not only weird, it’s insulting and it’s demeaning and it’s false to insinuate that the really smart people who exist in our country from all kinds of identities, whether it’s race, whether it’s racial, and you know that I don’t I don’t put I immutable characteristics as primary identity, but all kinds of students of different racial backgrounds, different ethnic backgrounds, different religious backgrounds, different different sexes, male or female.
And yes, people some people who have same-sex attractions, some people who have heterosexual attraction, this is really insulting to think that they would be unable to learn unless their sexuality is discussed publicly. It’s also, by the way, Marxist it’s outright Marxist.
Okay, so not only is this insulting and demeaning and false to claim first that there’s institutional discrimination against people who identify as queer. When it comes to taking math classes in college, that’s false. It’s insulting to people of all types of immutable characteristics to claim that they cannot succeed unless their sexuality is discussed, and unless that unless they are surrounded by people who agree with them a hundred percent, that’s a really coddling belief.
You don’t have a lot of faith in someone if you think that they can’t survive in a situation where someone might disagree with them. It’s also, of course, a horrible accusation for towards all of the people who run mathematics departments, all the math professors who just want to teach one plus one for goodness sakes, that they’re somehow limiting the learning opportunities for queer students because they’re not also teaching queer theory. but here’s the other thing.
This word that the professor uses CIS hetero patriarchy there’s no such thing as cis. That’s an invented word. That’s not true. There’s no such thing as cis. There’s men and there’s women. There’s no cisgender. Even gender is a made-up word. Gender is a is a, it’s a made-up word that was meant to replace sex because it’s so obvious that sex is male or female. Well, the queer theorists wanted to pretend that gender sex is not binary.
So they essentially brought in this word gender, because they say well, we can define that as identity, not just reality. But here’s the thing. Math is not even predominantly an invention of white people, not that this should matter. It’s just also important to note math itself. The person that’s like credited as being the founder of mathematics, was a Greek named Archimedes. And then get this. The father of algebra is from Baghdad, in modern day Iraq this is his name, from Baghdad in the Middle East.
Mathematics is not an invention of the white man, not that it would make a difference if it were, but just to make the point here that this professor at Vanderbilt saying that it’s a white supremacist intersectionality with cisheteropatriarchy blah blah blah word salad word salad, not even a white person, not even a white person invention.
See, this is the problem that the woke the woke Left, the neo-Marxists have with mathematics. Mathematics is objective truth. One plus one equals two. Two plus two equals four. Four plus four equals eight. Those things simply are. They are true. There’s nothing that you can do to warp that. There’s nothing you can do to change that. It is fact.
Marxists do not like objective truth reality is the biggest opponent of Marxism and this right here, is the this war on objective truth, this war on reality, this is actually the root cause of every other cultural thing especially as it relates to the federal government right now that we’re dealing with in our country.
So when the FBI targets parents, when the Department of Homeland Security labels parents as domestic terrorists for objecting to Critical Race Theory in their children’s classrooms and objecting to queer theory, when the Department of Justice goes after pro-lifers who are anti-abortion and doesn’t go after the abortion fanatics, that firebomb pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, when the FBI and the Department of Justice and the current President of the United States targets the former President of the United States with a raid at his residence. This is all tied together.
Right now, what the Left is doing is they are waging a war on reality. Objective truth is their biggest threat. I recently had a conversation with a dear friend. We’ve been friends our entire lives, and we agree on most things. We agree on on, we’re both we’re both Christian, we I actually don’t know how she votes, but for the most part we agree on on the principles of how we see life, except for the fact that she has pronouns in her Instagram bio.
And I asked her about that a couple weeks ago, and she said to me, and we we have these conversations, we’ve always had these conversations, it’s one of the really nice things about our friendship, and she said to me listen Liz, as a teacher I will call my students anything they want.
I will call them whatever name they tell me if, you know, if someone whose legal name is John Smith comes up and says hey, hey, call me cheeky, she’s like I’ll call him cheeky, I’ll call him whatever he wants to be called, even if it’s stupid, for the sake of demonstrating to him respect, and she’s like the same goes for pronouns.
She’s like, if that’s what they want to be called, I will show them the respect. Even if I don’t agree with the premise of what they’re saying, I’ll show them or the respect. I’m not going to make pronouns a battlefield. Why should it be a battlefield? why doesn’t it why can’t it be a discussion? and now I obviously disagree with this, right? Ithink it’s two separate things.
I think it’s fine to call someone by whatever name they ask. I actually do the same thing. If there’s someone who says hey, I’m a transgender person and it’s obviously a biological male but you know call me Molly, I’ll call that person Molly because there are a lot of stupid first names. They’re also people. Doesn’t Gwyneth Paltrow have a daughter named Apple?
Like I’m not gonna walk up to Apple and be like well, I think that’s a fundamentally stupid name for a human being. It’s actually the name of a piece of fruit, therefore I reject calling you by your name. No, I’m gonna call that girl Apple because that’s fine. It’s not it’s not an inherent commentary on any kind of ideology. It’s just a dumb name.
So I understand that. I understand if someone wants to be called a name that doesn’t that’s a traditionally female name, even though they are a biological male, I might think it’s dumb, but I’ll call you that. I don’t feel the same way about neo-Marxist pronouns. I will not use neo-Marxist pronouns because using neo-Marxist pronouns is being complicit.
It’s endorsing the ideology that underpins the neo-Marxist pronouns. And the ideology that underpins the neo-Marxist pronouns is, of course, queer theory. We’ve discussed queer theory at length on the show multiple times. We’ve discussed how queer theory not only rejects the gender binary and posits that gender is a spectrum not based on science that queer theory begots, it is a critical theory as well.
It’s begot of a Marxist theory. We’ve also talked about how awful and evil queer theory and the founders of queer theory are, how the founder, the authors of the founding document of queer theory, a woman by the name of Gayle Rubin, a lesbian named Gayle Rubin, how she advocated for the sexualization of children, she defended child pornography, and she defended outright pedophilia.
She defended pedophiles and bemoaned the fact that they were put in prison for the crime of quote unquote loving underage youth, which is disgusting. It’s it’s really shocking. This is queer theory, and why I won’t use neo-Marxist pronouns. Because it’s not just a matter of oh, I’ll call someone what they asked to be called. No, it requires you to be complicit in queer theory, which is both neo-Marxist and horribly destructive to children.
This is the difference. This is this is why this math professor is attacking math, because math is, in a sense, the same as sex. It’s objective reality. It’s it’s there are certain things that are true and certain things that are false, and the reason that we teach math in school is not because calculus is helpful in 99.9% of career fields yet we teach math to every single student.
So why do we teach math, then? we teach math because it helps us train our minds for how to think logically. It helps us train our minds how to correctly discern right from wrong, how to solve a problem when you have certain variables that are true, and you reorganize them and calculate what the what the result is.
All of all of that is not possible without first acknowledging that certain variables are objective truth. So of course, mathematics is a fundamental threat to this neo-Marxist agenda, because the opponent, the biggest threat to the neo-Marxist agenda, is reality. It’s objective truth. By the way, this professor, I think I mentioned it a couple times, he teaches at Vanderbilt University, and when I read this, at first I thought of course, naturally he teaches at Vanderbilt University. He’s not just a mathematics professor.
He also works in their gender and sexuality department. Of course he does. But Vanderbilt University as remember as you remember was caught by Matt Walsh operating a children’s gender clinic. Now these children’s gender clinics, that’s even that’s a euphemistic name, it’s where people, where doctors commit malpractice by prescribing young children puberty-blocking medication that’s that’s inherently damaging to them.
And Vanderbilt University’s children’s gender clinic was caught transiting minors, including performing surgery on young girls who were under the age of 18. This is the school where this math professor where this math professor works. Of course it is. Of course it is. Okay, one other thing that I want to talk about today, which is completely unrelated, although a little mathematics education helping train your mind to think logically and deduce the outcome of a situation based on algorithmic variables, that would be extremely helpful right now for many politicians in the United States.
The United States is on the cusp of sending tanks to Ukraine. They claim that this is in advance of an expected Russian offensive. So we’re sending M1 Abrams Tanks to Ukraine. This is a bananas idea because Zelensky is a fraud. This is a position that I have taken firmly on this show, almost from day one. Almost from day one.
I remember the day that I realized that Zelensky wasn’t just a politician with a slightly different ideology, maybe a different set of interests here, the day I realized Zelensky was a fraud was the day that he called for the United States and NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. And I thought whoa, Zelensky calling for the U.S and NATO to enforce a no-fly zone means that he wants the U.S. And NATO forces to actually shoot down Russian jets, if they infringe on Ukrainian airspace, and if the U.S. Or NATO shoots down a Russian jet, what happens?
Then the U.S. And NATO are now part of World War III. We’re part of a war with Russia, probably a nuclear war with Russia. And I thought to myself, any person, politician who calls for that, especially when you’re the president of a country, meaning you should have some education about politics and the ramifications of political actions, any person that would call for that, any politician that would stand for that is psycho. Truly psycho.
Zelensky is a fraud. He actively wants an Afghanistan-style forever war in Ukraine, where the United States. He’s bleeding the United States, hemorrhaging the United States for trillions of dollars, and he wants it to continue indefinitely. What’s his end goal? I don’t know.
When you talk about an end goal, he just he wears his combat boots and and stages one of those videos, which by the way, are literally staged with a green screen. He stages one of those videos talking about the fighting spirit of Ukrainian people, conflating the two.
The Ukrainian people do have an incredible fighting spirit. You can recognize that, and also recognize that Zelensky is a fraud that is actively endangering his people. We should not give Zelensky another dime. If we have come to the point where we should not be giving him any more weapons or supports unless unless we the United States are controlling his actions, I don’t care if this sounds like I’m saying the United States should boss around Zelensky and what he does for his country.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. We should be bossing Zelensky around, if we are funding his lifestyle. It’s like sending a child off to college. If a child pays for college themselves, they don’t have to share their grades or their weekend activities with their parents. They’re independent. But if the parent is paying for the child’s college, then yeah, the parent has a right to log in and see the child’s grades.
The parent has a right to ask what are you doing on the weekends, and govern the child’s behavior because that child’s lifestyle is being funded by the parent. We are the parent, in this situation, and Zelensky is a misbehaved teenager who is about to draw the United States into nuclear war with Russia. What he needs to do, and what the United States, a string the United States should attach to any more funding, any more resources, any more support, is that he settles the war, reach a settlement with Putin.
I know Putin is in the wrong. No one’s arguing that he’s in the right here. Putin is in the wrong. It’s it’s egregious what he’s done. We all agree on that. Settle the war, even if that means yes, surrendering different parts of your land to Russia. This is what happens. I know that’s not ideal, but this is what happens when you support radical leftist policies that get us into a situation like this, a situation that I like to call a lose-lose situation.
You don’t have good choices when you’re in a lose-lose situation, but it doesn’t mean that the United States should fund a forever war that ultimately you’re still probably not going to win. But our money is going to be used to profit Zelensky and other very radical leftist interests. What I’m talking about is the World Economic Forum. Zelensky’s partnering with the World Economic Forum and BlackRock for quote unquote investments into his economy and his country.
The World Economic Forum, which doesn’t even believe in capitalism, they want this neo-Marxist, Chinese Communist Party style ESG dictated social credit score system to control people, can control corporations and businesses and the economy to serve the interests of the radical leftist ideology.
Blackrock’s the enforcer of this. Blackrock’s the one of the largest investment firms in the world, and one of the predominant voices forcing ESG standards, these environmental social and governance metrics, which serve as these corporate social credit scores on corporations all across the country and all across the world, not just our country.
And Zelensky wants their investment. He wants their control over his economy. Meanwhile he’s soaking us for our money? I don’t think so. Zelensky is a fraud. Zelensky is a hoax. Zelensky is a very, very dangerous man who has duped politicians on both sides of the aisle. He’s duped Democrats, he’s duped Republicans, and he if we allow this to continue, he’s duping us as well. And what’s going to be the end of this? we are going to be broke.
Blackrock and the World Economic Forum are going to control that part of the world, and we are at risk of being drawn into a nuclear war with Russia. Who does that, and who allows it? if you missed episodes from earlier in the week, I highly recommend you go back and check out Antifa targets Atlanta. This is some crazy stuff that’s happening down in Atlanta, and it’s not just the the burning up or the arson against police cars that’s crazy. That video is crazy but it’s also the reason behind it.
The reason behind it is we have a young white male problem in our country, just like the Left says we do. Except these are not young white men who are being radicalized on 4chan. These are young white men who are being radicalized by the Left to act as militant Antifa thugs. Don’t miss that episode, if you haven’t already seen it.
Also, at Davos, Davos the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering last year at Davos, new footage has been unearthed of the pandemic plot that was discussed, or I should say this was 2019, not last year, the pandemic plot that was discovered or that was discussed just a couple months before an almost identical, real-life scenario COVID-19 hit the globe. This is really, really interesting.
I talked to a great investigative journalist, Jordan Schachtel. Also, Gavin Newsom the governor of California, calls the Second Amendment a suicide pact. This is what the man wants for our country, and mark my words, he will run for president, if not in 2024 then he will run in 2028. And of course, in that episode we talk about that Damar Hamlin video. I have lots and lots of thoughts on that.
So if you haven’t already seen those, you can go to Apple, you can go to Spotify, you can go to YouTube, you can go to Rumble, check them out. Let me know what you think. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.
If you haven’t already, give this video a thumbs up. Hit the subscribe button below and ring the bell to make sure you never miss a video.