@mattvanswol Never trust a nigger they lie cheat steal and kill and the number one thing they are good at is lieing because once you call them out on it they get violent never trust a nigger
Asmongold was PISSED learning that millions of US tax dollars go toward providing income for Orthodox Jewish communities to do nothing but read Torah all day
“God is going to provide the money. We don’t have to worry about that.”
@PossumStargazer@NBCMontana Are you fucking serious did you not see that fucking nigger puck up a rock first why do you think other dude grabbed one they were on a trail and the filthy nigger started shit mind your fucking business and none of it would of happened
She asked him to define CRT with no buzzword and no conservative talking point.
He led with Marcuse.
She didn’t ban the history. The history he gave is the talking point: Marcuse to the Frankfurt School to Marxism, then DEI, the 1619 Project, and wokeism, treated as one lineage.
CRT started in American law schools in the late 1970s with Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado. The Frankfurt School is an ancestor of critical theory. It is not where CRT was written.
In his own words, it came down to judging people by skin instead of character, reading law through a racial lens instead of a legal one. What that’s actually gesturing at: racism as structural, not just personal. Color-blind law treated as not enough on its own.
He also added things the literature doesn’t say. Spinoza is not in CRT’s founding texts. “Melanin content” as a ranking of worth is his paraphrase, not a line from any of them.
Then he asked how he did.
Joe Rogan just had on Chris Williamson who absolutely destroyed Britain’s Immigration Strategy:
The UK Home Office now issues Asylum Seekers a 9-Page guide explaining they CAN’T sexually harass women and that sex requires consent.
CONTEXT: This is real and the actual government document goes considerably further than the headline.
The UK Home Office published “Understanding behaviors and expectations in the UK” on August 19 specifically for asylum seekers.
It begins by warning newcomers that “laws and customs here may be different from your home country.”
Then it spells out some remarkably basic rules of British life:
• Women can work, study, travel and choose whom they marry.
• Women “do not need permission from a husband, father, brother or any other man” to make those decisions.
• Consent is required every time someone has sex including within marriage.
• Someone who is asleep, drunk or unable to respond cannot consent.
• You must not make sexual comments to strangers, whistle at them, make kissing noises, follow them or block their path.
• Breaking the law can lead to arrest, prison, loss of asylum support and consequences for an asylum claim.
WILLIAMSON: “Yesterday, I don't know whether you saw this, the UK Home Office decided it was going to release a booklet giving guidance to asylum seekers on acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the UK.”
ROGAN: “Oh well that'll fix it.”
WILLIAMSON: “Is this not the sort of thing that you need to be doing proactively, not retroactively?”
WORTH NOTING: The Home Office simultaneously released a separate “Keeping children safe in the UK” guide for asylum seekers which explicitly states that female genital mutilation and forcing a child to marry are serious crimes.
That document opens with another remarkable sentence:
“What is allowed in some countries may be illegal here.”
And that gets to the much more interesting debate Williamson is raising.
The government’s position is essentially that people arriving from very different countries may need British laws and social expectations explained clearly.
The Home Office also emphasizes that these rules apply to everyone living in Britain, not uniquely to asylum seekers.
Critics look at the exact same booklet and ask a very different question:
If the government believes some newcomers need to be explicitly told that women can make their own decisions, marital sex still requires consent and sexual harassment is unacceptable, is a booklet after arrival really an adequate integration strategy?
That is stronger than mocking the pamphlet itself.
Because the existence of the document creates a policy question Britain now has to answer:
MAIN TAKEAWAY: Which cultural differences can realistically be taught after someone arrives and which should a country expect immigrants to accept before they're admitted?