A Shocking Revelation about the Radical Left and More About Ukraine and Naziism

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

So what is it that's really driving the radical leftist agenda? It's time for the Line of Fire with your host, biblical scholar and cultural commentator, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity. Call 866-34-TRUTH to get on the Line of Fire. And now, here's your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

I've been watching this for years. I've been thinking about it, but recently a lot of this came together in my thinking to bring greater clarity on the subject of what is really driving the radical leftist agenda. I'm going to explain the question. I'm going to explain the mystery behind the question, and then it's going to make a lot of sense. It's one of these broadcasts where many of you will have an aha moment. Now here's a number to call to weigh in.

866-34-TRUTH 866-34-87-884. A little later in the broadcast, we're going to go back to Russia's war on Ukraine and look a little more deeply at the question of quote, the Nazification of Ukraine or how prevalent Nazi ideology and far-right ideologies are within Ukraine. We're going to talk about that later in the show.

And I want to play a clip for you as well from the hearings right now for Judge Kitanji Brown-Jackson for the Supreme Court, which would make her the first black female on the court. I want to talk about that as well. I'm not talking about gender, not talking about race, but talking about an issue. We'll examine that. Again, phone lines are open for you to weigh in on any number of subjects.

866-348-7884. Now this is what's really triggered my thinking about the leftist agenda. When you have so many people so passionately standing for quote, transgender rights, even when you have more and more stories of young people with terrible regret from mutilating their bodies or destroying their possibility of having children through taking hormone, blocking drugs early in life and things like that. When you have more and more of these stories and yet people still are so passionate about quote, trans rights. When you now have people that were once passionate about women's rights, about female sports, about the integrity of women's sports and things like that. And now they are passionately siding with quote, trans rights and siding with someone like Will quote, Leah Thomas, a biological male trouncing, smashing female competition in 500 yard freestyle last week in the NCAA swimming competition. And they're standing with the biological male and not with the females.

You think, what's driving it? Why? It just doesn't make sense. And it's not like all of us have family members and friends that are males who identify as females or females who identify as males. And it's just so many tens of millions of people that, that of course we're going to side with them and their need. No, we're still talking about a tiny minority of less than 1% of the population. And then so many of them regret this, the sex change surgery they've had or the hormonal damage to their bodies and things like that.

And suicide rates are still so high. You think, why are so many so zealously supporting this and putting trans rights over women's rights? I watched this happen with the rise of gay activism where quote, gay became the new black of course for civil rights leaders, many of them, this was highly offensive and for many African Americans, a highly offensive comparison for many reasons, but quote, gay is the new black and not only so, but gay rights now trounce black rights.

And that's been going on for years here. I'll give you some examples. We'll start in 2008, Crystal Dixon, black woman, formerly associate vice president of human resources at the university of Toledo.

So that's a, that's a very solid position within an academic institution. Michael Miller, editor in chief of the Toledo free press wrote an editorial in which he likened the quote, gay rights struggle to quote, my black friends struggles and my wheelchair bound friends struggles. So Dixon took exception to this and she was saying, don't compare black rights and the black civil rights movement when African Americans have been through to quote gay rights. She did it on her own time. She, she did it in her own name. She did not bring in the university that this is a university position, anything like that, but for daring to express her views that you cannot compare gay rights to black rights and the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. She was fired. She's a woman. She's a black woman. Doesn't matter. The discrimination is going to be against her because she differed with the gay agenda. This is 2008 here. Let's go to 2009 this is all documented in a queer thing happened to her, to America.

Drew your ward. She's a pastor's wife. She's going for a master's degree in counseling because she wants to be able to stand with her husband and help him in the work more deeply. She has asked to counsel a lesbian couple and checked in with someone who said, oh, it's fine. Just refer it to someone else because she was told she needed to affirm their relationships. Well, I can't do that as a Christian. No problem.

Pass it on to someone else. Well, that ended up being a big problem. She has brought before you'd have to call a school tribunal inquisition where her faith was challenged and mocked and because she would not change her Bible based views, she simply said that I'm not the right one to counsel this couple, refer them to someone else. Kicked out of the program was 2009. So once again, the gay activist agenda trounces, trumps, overwhelms the position of a black female professional in America.

Things shifted dramatically in terms of perceptions. It was taken a court and the court side it with the school. It was appealed and a higher court side it with true reward, thankfully.

But this is the madness here. I'll give you a more extreme case. You know who Angela McCaskill is? She is the first deaf black woman to earn a phd, turn a doctoral degree in the world. And she was, her position was diversity officer at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., which is hailed as the premier school of the deaf in America and she was tremendously popular there. So you have a woman, you have a black woman, you have a black deaf woman. You would think if society is going to stand with someone, if the university is going to stand with someone in the area of righteousness, this is where it would happen.

Wouldn't you think that way? So here's what happens. She and her husband are at a church service in Maryland. There is going to be a discussion about same-sex quote marriage. This is before Obergefell, right?

This is 2012. This is before the Supreme Court ridiculously redefined marriage. There is going to be a discussion and a vote within the houses of Congress within Maryland. But there was a request and a referendum, no let's put this to a popular vote. Let the people of Maryland vote about this. She and her husband signed the petition. Yes, let the people of Maryland vote on the issue of same-sex quote marriage because she and her husband did not affirm that as true marriage in God's sight. Well, what happens is Gay Activist Publication publishes a list of everyone who signed the petition and when it's found out that she signed it, she's temporarily suspended from her job.

It's a complete outrage. What do we learn? Gay rights, gay sensitivities, Trump being female, Trump being black, Trump being deaf. It doesn't matter because you're now in the oppressor class. You're not in the back. I mean, that's how things have shifted.

Think, what's the logic behind this? So now, now with trans activism becoming so prominent, you have Jermaine Greer. She is a pioneer feminist, one of the most famous feminists in the world, iconic feminist. She has now been branded a TERF, a trans exclusionary radical feminist, and there have been attempts to cancel her lectures on university campuses.

And who's leading some of the protests? Other feminists who are now pro-trans. And Jermaine Greer and others have said, if a man can become a woman, then the whole women's rights movement goes out the door.

It becomes absolutely meaningless. Same with J.K. Rowling. As she is saying, no, no, no, it's not people who menstruate, it's women who menstruate. And it's now she is, she's taken the side of these young ladies who've had their bodies mutilated.

Only realized they made terrible mistakes. She's a well-known feminist, but people are trying to cancel her. Think of this. Will quote Leah Thomas. He competes against females. He wins in the NCAA national competition, right? 500 yard freestyle.

Big winner. And you look, you look at him next to the female swimmers, you go, no surprise. He was ranked 462. 462 is a male swimmer in college.

He goes from there to number one in this race and winning quite a few races before that. How do the other women feel? It's utterly outrageous. National Women's Law Center says, Leah, we need people like you.

And if you had a problem with him beating these women, you were a misogynist. You talk about turning the world upside down. So what, what's driving this?

How was it? People who were so passionate one day for women's rights and now say, that doesn't matter. It's trans rights. So passionate one day for black rights. Now it doesn't matter. Gay rights.

What's the answer? The answer is ultimately it wasn't about the people. Yes, there are some that really care about the wellbeing of African Americans and the wellbeing of gays, the wellbeing of trans and others and the compassionate people.

And they've seen injustice. They want to stand for it. But hear me, what was ultimately driving this in the radical left was not solidarity with African Americans. Otherwise you wouldn't trash them when it comes to gay rights. And ultimately it wasn't solidarity with women.

Otherwise you wouldn't trash them when it comes to trans rights. No, it was ultimately driving. This is pushing back against the system. What was ultimately driving this is pushing the envelope further to the left. What is ultimately driving this is a rebellion against the status quo and the tradition of the society. That's what's ultimately driving it. That's why if something comes along, it's even more radical than trans rights, then trans rights will get trashed in the name of the newest right that's out there.

Friends think about it. This is something very deep and sinful human nature. This rebellion against God's order or this rebellion against what is right or this rebellion against a certain standard of the day. Oh, it was absolutely wrong to have segregation in America. That was, that was a right and wrong issue and that wrong needed to be corrected.

And many were outraged about that, rightly so. But hear me, what was ultimately driving this was not so much compassion and solidarity with African Americans, but pushing against a status quo. In that case, a wrong status quo. In these other cases, a right status quo. That is what is ultimately driving things on the right. It is time to wake up to reality, driving things on the left.

It's time to wake up to reality. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us today on the line of fire. 866-34-TRUTH. You know, really when you step back and think about it again, how is it that some of the people who fought so passionately for women's rights and women's equality and female sports and the importance of female athletes and recognizing their place and all that, now they're trashing all of it in the name of trans rights. It's very simple, friends, because it wasn't ultimately about women. It was ultimately about challenging a system and bringing about some kind of change to the system.

Whether the agenda was a good or bad agenda, it was a push always to a further left position. 866-34-TRUTH. Okay. I want to shift subjects a little bit, but can we talk honestly? Can we talk as family here?

Is that all right? Many of you have been listening to me for many years. You know my heart on these issues.

You know where I'm coming from, but I always want to be sensitive because we become hypersensitized in today's society. There's so much garbage that's out there. There's so much bad stuff that's out there. There's so many assaults on our personhood, on our sensibilities every day that I want to be careful because there's so much rhetoric out there.

Okay. Here's my question. Can we together across racial lines, ethnic lines, across lines of color, can we have a conversation about the current Supreme Court nominee without it being a matter of race? Is that possible? Or a matter of gender? In other words, can we discuss an issue as an issue that is concerning without someone thinking, well, it's about race or you're just picking on a black woman or you just don't want another person of color in the Supreme Court.

Is it possible to do that? I would certainly hope so among believers. Look, I think it would be wonderful in terms of accomplishments, in terms of diversity, in terms of representation on the Supreme Court to have a female African American on the court. We all agree that the person has to be sufficiently qualified, obviously, and I can have someone that doesn't have the background, but someone that doesn't have the background won't even be nominated, right? If anyone's going to get this far in the process, be this thoroughly vetted and then nominated, obviously they've got a lot going for them. They've accomplished a lot.

They've done a lot. So now it's going to come down to ideology. Now it's going to come down to history of their decisions. Now it's going to come down to their judicial thinking process, right?

So that's what matters to me. In other words, Ronald Reagan made clear he wanted to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Was it wrong for him to do that? Why were there no women on the Supreme Court?

That was right for him to want to do that. However, it was necessary for him to make sure that he picked the right person ideologically and someone who would be a good justice, right? Donald Trump said that in replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it would be a woman. And we were told that he did not previously bring up Amy Coney Barrett.

Some said the interview didn't go well between them. Others said, no, no, he's saving that for Ginsburg. If Justice Ginsburg retires or passes away, then Trump will replace her with Amy Coney Barrett. So when Trump said that he was going to replace a woman with a woman, that's fine. There are plenty of qualified women out there, right? It's, it's not like there are no female justices that are good enough to be in the Supreme Court.

So it's just a matter of picking the right one. So here you have two Republican presidents who both said they want to pick a woman for the court, right? Reagan just in general, the next opening will be a woman.

And then Trump, he wants to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with another woman. That's fine. I have no issue with that. I have no issue with President Biden saying that he wants to nominate a black female to the court because there are more than enough that are qualified. All right. There's a way to say it and say, I would love to do that. And if we can find the right person with the right qualifications, we're going to put that person for it.

That's fine. It's not affirmative action and say, well, you're less qualified, but because you're a person of color or because you're a certain ethnic minority that we're going to push you ahead of someone else. So a wrong use of affirmative action. No one's talking about that. So I've got no problem just like with what Reagan did with what Trump did with what Biden is seeking to do.

It just has to be the right person. Right. And as I said, I'm quite confident. No, I'm not an expert in this, but common sense would tell you that there are more than enough female African-American judges to pick from to have someone that is well qualified to be in the Supreme Court. All right.

So that's not my issue. I'd love to see it happen. I think it'd be great for many reasons. I think it'd be great for America. If there's anything I'd like to see on the court, I'd like to see some evangelicals because you've got Catholic conservatives and others, but you don't have any evangelicals or evangelical Protestants.

All right. Well, maybe Neil Gorsuch would be evangelical. And anyway, I'd like to see a little more of that, whatever the color or ethnicity. But I'm totally good with the idea of it would be great to have a female African-American justice on the court. It's the ideology that's my issue. So can we have that conversation without anyone calling me racist or misogynist? So listen to this exchange with one of the senators and Justice Kitanji Brown Jackson on the question of related to trans issues, but now talking about who is a woman.

Let's listen. Can you provide a definition for the word woman? Can I provide a definition? Yeah, I can't.

You can't? Not in this context. I'm not a biologist. The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition. Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes.

If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide. The fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about. Just last week, an entire generation of young girls watched as our taxpayer-funded institutions permitted a biological man to compete and beat a biological woman in the NCAA swimming championships. What message do you think this sends to girls who aspire to compete and win in sports at the highest levels? Right, so this is what I'm not sure what message that sends.

If you're asking me about the legal issues related to it, those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the court. I think it tells our girls that their voices don't matter. I think it tells them that they're second-class citizens and parents want to have a Supreme Court justice who is committed to preserving parental autonomy and protecting our nation's children.

All right, so here's my question and I want to say this again. In today's climate, it's very difficult to have this conversation without someone saying this is all about race or why don't you criticize this one or that one. Or my issues with Coney Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had to do with what their ideology was and I agreed with their ideology by and large so that's why I was for them. I wasn't for them because they were white or because they were male or because they were female. I was for them because of ideology. And for all I care in that respect, aside from the fact it wouldn't reflect America well, but if all the justices were Hispanic and black women and their ideology was solid, I'd be happier with that. I'd be a million times happier with that than nine radical progressive white men, radically, day and night, in a heartbeat.

I'd choose the former over the latter in terms of ideology and in terms of judicial viewpoint. So here's my question. When asked to give a definition of woman, which is an adult human female, to not be able to do that because I'm quote not a biologist, obviously she's a brilliant woman, she can define women, she didn't want to because of what's going on now with trans activism and the attack on gender. Do you want someone like that sitting on the Supreme Court? That's my question.

Let me say it again. I would take nine women, Hispanic, Asian, black or all African American, for all I care, who held to a judicial philosophy I agreed with and held to certain values based on the Constitution and our history that I agreed with. I'd rather have them as the justices on the Supreme Court and them making generational decisions than nine liberal progressive white justices.

The issue is ideology. So I hope these things really get a fair vote and it goes beyond partisan politics. I hope there is a fair hearing that she's not the right person. I'm confident, I'm confident that there are other black female justices that can be brought forward and that President Biden's wish and the wish of many Americans would be fulfilled. Let it be so.

That'd be wonderful. So was that okay? Did we get through that conversation fairly? If you want to give me peace of your mind and think I'm blind and I'm only doing this because of skin color, give me a call. 866-34-TRUTH.

We return. We're going to talk about the so-called Nazification of Ukraine. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. April 14th. April 14th, based on Esther 4-14. Who knows you've come into the kingdom for such a time as this? National Not Ashamed of Jesus Day.

Take a moment. Go to notashamedofjesus.org, notashamedofjesus.org, and then spread the message. Copy the link. Post it on social media. Tell friends what you plan to do to be part of National Not Ashamed of Jesus Day. Everybody can do something, one way or another.

Let's take the most extreme case. You are completely shut in. You have no access to getting a message out to the outside world. You don't go out of your house. You're not on social media.

A friend happened to tell you about this after hearing me talk about it on the radio. What can you do? You don't have the ability to pick up a phone and call someone because your voice is weak. Pray that God would help millions of believers around America stand up and let their voices be heard.

Everybody can do something. National Not Ashamed of Jesus Day. Here's the number to call.

866-344-866-348-7884. If you've not yet ordered your copy of The Silencing of the Lambs, not only will this book stir you, not only will this book communicate to you about the urgency of the hour and how we absolutely must push back against cancel culture and the attempts to silence us and marginalize us, but in the book, our chapter after chapter of strategy, strategic things, stands we can take, things we can do, chapters that will bring courage to you. So The Silencing of the Lambs and the last chapter we'll talk about National Not Ashamed of Jesus Day. All right. On Monday, I talk more about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And I said, look, don't give me the line, well, Ukraine is very liberal and it's leftist and it's pro-abortion, it's pro same-sex marriage. So Russia has the moral right to come in and attack because no, no, they don't have the moral right to attack another country because of liberal progressive ideology.

That's just wrong. And I did mention that there are various reasons that are given for the attack and justifications. And I found none of them were sufficient to justify Russia's invasion. And we got a couple of calls, a couple of great calls and folks challenged my viewpoint that the neo-Nazi movement, Nazism, far right white supremacist views, that those were largely marginalized in Ukraine. And they said, look, Dr. Brown, with all respect, we believe that presence is a lot greater in Ukraine than you realize.

And that's also part of the reason that Putin feels threatened and that needs to be factored in. Now, please understand this is not a hill I'm going to die on. All right. There are things I am absolutely dogmatic about. And to me, they're life and death issues.

And I'm going to hold to them tenaciously with everything in me, with God's grace, because I believe they are life and death issues. Then there are other things we talk about on the air that I have strong views on. But, hey, you may have a strong view on the other side and we go back and forth on it.

And then there are other things that are much more secondary. In other words, they're important issues, but I don't claim to be a world expert on them. And we're simply having a conversation on the air. So why talk about it? Because that's what we do on the radio, on talk radio. We we talk through issues. We get input. I may say, hey, I've got these thoughts. What do you think? And we go back and forth. All right. So that's that's what has has happened in the discussion about Nazism in Ukraine.

And after the show on Monday, later that night, I was sitting at my computer reading as much as I could. In fact, the first caller, I believe, named John Michael from Canada suggested I look at some of the writings or lectures of John Mearsheimer on this. And so again, I know different people are coming from different perspectives.

You can mention things like, oh, so-and-so, they believe this. Oh, so you throw out everything. But I try to sift it through and take it as much as I can.

At this point, from further studies that I've done, as far as I can tell, Nazism still is marginalized in Ukraine. All right. So I'm not claiming to be the world authority on this. I just keep digging, listening, trying to learn, trying to understand. I want to get into this from a couple of angles and then we'll go to the calls.

Your calls. 866-344-TRUTH. There's a really fascinating interview that memory TVs, this is Middle East TV reporting from Israel. They watch all these different shows in Arabic and Persian, Farsi, these different languages. It could be a sermon that's preached in a synagogue and they've got a record of it. It could be an interview that's on an Arabic speaking TV network in a Muslim country.

And they go through it and they see what's actually being said. So this is an interview. Breitbart.com reports on it. It's an interview on an Arabic speaking station.

So it's Al Jazeera this past Saturday. And they're interviewing a Russian, influential Russian thinker. He's been kind of blacklisted by America and Canada for some years now. His name is Alexander Dugit. Now, if I was a Russian specialist, I'd know his name, but I'm not. So I cannot tell you how accurate the claim is when he's been called the brain of Putin or the Rasputin of Putin. Otherwise, he's the man behind the scenes who's really influencing the thinking of Putin in a dramatic way. I don't know how much influence he has.

If you are a Russian scholar and can tell me, fine. And it just may be an opinion in any case. I don't know how much hard data there is, but that's how he's presented here. And he's been called the most dangerous philosopher in the world. So he's being interviewed. He's speaking Russian, but then it's being translated immediately into Arabic. And then there's a transcription so you can see exactly what's being said. And I want to read a couple of quotes here.

All right. Russia is destined to win. We have no other choice. Then he says, this is an existential threat to us. So victory is our only choice. And he said this after our victory, the role will not be the same as it is today. So he's asked very specifically about his views. And he says this, this is a fight against American hegemony, but not only the hedge of one of the Americans. He said the current confrontation is also directed, quote, against the global liberal elites who are trying to take over the world. He says, Russia's fighting against the hegemonic.

This is the second time in two days, I've gotten stuck on a word or a name, and this is a simple one. Total year. Isn't this wild? Hegemonic total year.

Isn't that crazy? It's just, Whoa, this is really interesting liberal system and not against the U S as a country or Europe or Ukraine as a country. It's a war against those principles. It's a war of ideas.

All right. This is one man. This is one voice.

Allegedly. He has great influence over Putin's thinking or contributes a lot to his thinking. And he's not focusing first and foremost, and we have to denazify Ukraine. No, this is a war against America and totality. That's the funniest thing. I just have to say it now. Totalitarian. Yeah. Well, once once it got stuck, isn't that weird?

We lived through it together on live talk radio. Wow, wow, wow. That's that's what we're fighting. It's this liberal system. It's this world liberal system that's trying to take over.

Now, that's that's what he said. Is it accurate? Is it reflective of other views in Russia? I don't know. I'm just putting it out there. My friend Bill Muhlenberg in Australia and culture watch dot com wrote this five great reasons for Russia to invade Ukraine.

Not. And then he gives this. He says it's an article I didn't want to post, but he felt he had to because of so many strange views defending Putin coming from conservatives and Christians. He said, I feel sick in the stomach every time I see these folks coming along, defending to the death everything Putin says and does with announcing Zelensky is the antichrist.

What in the world? So he says five most common cheap excuses I hear every day from the Putin cultists. One, bio labs.

All right. Bio labs. He said, I'd be a very rich dude by now if I got a ruble for every time I heard this one brought up. The Putin files think bio labs in Ukraine fully justify Russia invading and destroying the nation.

Most countries have bio labs in one form or another. He goes on. Homosexuality. I mean, the Putin has taken some steps to promote family values more or less, and that has included not being so open to homosexuality and the like and that most Western nations and the like that most Western nations have been. Is it good that Russia is a bit more profoundly than some of the nations? Sure. But does that make it OK for it to take over and raise to the ground another country?

Obviously not. Number three. Soros. George Soros. How many times have we heard that George Soros is up to years in mischief in Ukraine?

Hey, you won't get me defending Soros, not Bill Muhlenberg. He is clearly one very evil dude, one of the worst. But of course, he has his grubby hands in all sorts of countries, not least of which America. According to the Putin files, to make the world a Christian paradise, we should invade those other nations as well. America should be the first to be targeted. And in four old territories, we hear all the time that Putin is not invading anyone.

He's not an aggressor. He's merely reclaiming former territories. And this, the Putin files assure us, fully justifies the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Nothing wrong with that, right? Once again, let's at least be consistent here. Well, we insist that Rome now starts working on restoring the old Roman Empire.

Is that where we go? For that matter, should we insist that the old Canaanite peoples, if they're still around, seek to reclaim lost territory and try to oust Israel? Oh, and of course, Alaska was once part of Russia.

Will the American Putinadors be cheering him on if and when he invades Alaska, threaten to use nukes if he doesn't, if it doesn't surrender immediately. Then lastly, a new Nebuchadnezzar. And anyway, we'll, we'll leave that off. Okay. So, so here's, here's a question.

Here's a question. What if it's as simple as you do have some radical Nazi elements, neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine. They have been fighting against Russia for some years now and started with a few hundred people. Now their military operation may have a few thousand and because they're fighting against the Russians, the enemy of my enemies, my friends. So widespread appreciation of Nazi values or far right values or in Ukraine.

No, it's getting more and more progressive, liberal, and a lot of ideologies I disagree with there, but absolutely not going in the direction of Nazism as a nation. But yes, they're absolutely willing to use these Nazi fighters because they're fighting the Russians. You're trying to slaughter them. So again, the enemy of my enemy because my friend, even if I disagree, we can't support. We come back. I want to play a clip for you and then go to the phones. There's a lengthy article, actually a few that I've been reading.

What I'm finding interesting is some of the people that are putting forward the Nazification of Ukraine argument are themselves branded anti-Semites or have some very, very radical positions as well. It's interesting the deeper I dig what I'm spotted. We'll be right back. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on The Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks for joining us, friends on The Line of Fire. If you want a lengthy article with a lot of links that will present the position that Ukraine is embracing Nazism much more than is being reported, that the West is suppressing that narrative. There's an article on Tony Greenstein or greenstein.com. Why has the BBC and the media whitewashed the role of neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine?

Let me read it again. Why has the BBC and the media whitewashed the role of neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine? Tony Greenstein or greenstein.com. Be aware that he has been branded an anti-Semite and that much of what you read also has a strong anti-Israel premise in it. But for those that want a lot of documentation, this is one place you'll find it. And then one other. This is an article called Globalists Enraged Putin Disrupts Their Plans for a New World Order.

Globalists Enraged Putin Disrupts Their Plans for a New World Order. This is Rare Foundation, R-A-I-R, rarefoundation.com. Be aware that this might be considered radically anti-Islamic. All right. So I'm not endorsing these sites. I am not endorsing these sites. I want you to know where this is coming from, but look at the data there and evaluate it as data. All right. So obviously I have a lot of disagreements with these these posts, but I just want to mention them to you. OK. Dalton Thomas, colleague of mine in the Middle East, is explaining how it is that Ukraine could right now be backing and America even helping support the Aesop battalion when they are well-known neo-Nazis, even Holocaust-denying white supremacists.

Here's what he had to say. In Mosul in 2015-16, it would have been the winter of 2016, the Iraqi army federalized the Hashd al-Shaabi. Hashd al-Shaabi is the Shia militias that are backed by Iran.

Now within the Hashd al-Shaabi you have some that are really hardcore pro-Iran and some that are not as hardcore pro-Iran. But it was a big deal because they're considered their brother and sister, so to speak, with Hezbollah, their brother and sister, so to speak, with other Shia terrorist organizations that are on the terrorist list in the United States as a designated terror organization. And yet the Iraqi army that was funded and backed and supported by the United States and the U.S. coalition to fight ISIS during the ISIS years is now that army is now federalizing and incorporating into the federal military institution and establishment an entity that the U.S. considers and designates as a terrorist organization, meaning if you take Hashd al-Shaabi and you put them in Lebanon, for example, alongside of Hezbollah, you'd say that's terrorists standing next to a terrorist trying to fight Israel.

So what's the deal there? The same thing could be said of the PKK, the Kurdish separatist group mostly in Turkey. What ended up happening is they are on the designated terror list in the United States and they're predominantly in Turkey and in Syria. But when ISIS rose on the scene, who led the charge against ISIS?

It wasn't the U.S. coalition. It was actually the PKK, which was formed into the YPG or the number of different acronyms. I won't bog you down with all the different acronyms, but the point is this is you had what's consistent in conflict and war in not just in the Middle East. What we're learning now outside of the Middle East as well is that in war, there are extreme minority elements that are because of their ideology, because of what they think and believe, they become very hardened, dogged and experienced fighters who are fighting for ideology, who are fighting for a belief system.

They end up being incredibly good fighters. I remember being in Iraq, I can't remember the month, it would have been sometime in 2016 after ISIS was pushed out of Kirkuk. What happened is a number of ISIS fighters infiltrated the city of Kirkuk and the Peshmerga tried to put it down. These are the Kurdish forces that are used to be federalized and part of the Iraqi army. Today they're a bit at odds with the Iraqi army.

We won't get into that. But the point is the Peshmerga tried to push this ISIS elements out of Kirkuk. It was only a handful of them, but they took control of a police station, I think it was, and it turned into this long shootout where a bunch of Peshmerga were getting killed. In the end, they called the PKK in. The PKK came, who's on the designated terror list, and they put the whole thing to bed in 24 hours. They came in with snipers, they have excellent snipers, they're familiar with urban combat, they're familiar with guerilla warfare.

They went in, they put the thing down. The Peshmerga couldn't do it, but the PKK did. When ISIS was raging in Kobani, for example, and they were fighting in Kobani, who led the charge to push ISIS out and to break the back of the Islamic State in 2014, it was the PKK backed by the US coalition. The point is this, there's lots of examples where in conflict and war, the extremist elements that in peacetime are normally marginalized as wackos and delegitimized, rightfully so, as wackos end up being brought in and in some sense leading the charge.

Now, this is exactly what happened in 2014 until now. Exactly, so his point is, no one's defending the Azov battalion, no one's defending their ideology, quite contrary, we despise the ideology, but as they're fighting against invading forces of Russia, the army's happy to work with them, and obviously if we're supplying weaponry and stuff to help, then they're going to be using some of it. So that is the explanation as to why things are happening in a time of war or regional conflict in the years leading up to it.

There's a lot more, a lot more, but enough said there. Okay, let's grab at least one call before we go off the air today, and we'll go over to Jamal in North Carolina. Thanks for calling the line of fire. Thank you for accepting my phone call, Dr. Brown. I really appreciate what you do.

You give people like us a voice, and it's good that you're out there always pushing our issues forward, and I thank you for your voice. With that being said, I wanted to go back to what you were talking about earlier, about the gender issues, or I guess the gender dysphoria. You had mentioned a lot of sources, and I was wondering if this was all documented in your books or online somewhere. I just wanted to kind of know where I could reference all the information you were talking about.

Got it. So my book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, A Queer Thing Happened to America documents a lot of these. Right now it has to be reprinted, but you can probably get a used copy online pretty easily. It's 700 pages, 1500 endnotes, but in the chapter Big Brother is watching, there I document what happened to Crystal Dixon. There I document what happened to Julia Ward.

So that's the book, A Queer Thing Happened to America. Also the newest book, The Silencing of the Lambs, I document just the general attempt to suppress and silence. In fact, you have that book, The Silencing of the Lambs?

No, sir. So tell you what, when we're done, stay on the line for a moment. Morgan will get your contact info.

I want to send it out to you as a gift. My joy, The Silencing of the Lambs. So that's going to go through the first five, six chapters how one thing after another after another has been used to silence opposition. And then the last, if you just, if you just search online for Angela McCaskill, Angela McCaskill.

So it's two C's. You'll, you'll get the whole story because this here, I mean, I mean, think of it, she is the first deaf black female in history to earn a doctoral degree, a PhD. She is, she is greatly loved and serving at Gallaudet University, which is known as the premier school for the deaf. She's the diversity officer and she is temporarily suspended.

I mean, she, she's put on leave with pay. It was absolutely traumatic to her and her family that now she's the subject of national attention. And what, what is she and her husband signed a petition saying, yes, we would like to have the right to vote on the issue of same sex marriage. So it's this gay rights, trumping everything else or trans rights, trumping everything else. And it's, it's very, very troubling. And I've heard from many, many African Americans deeply insulted by the idea that gay or trans is the new black.

You know, it breaks down on every level philosophically and historically and everything else, but that's what we're up against. So the way that we combat it is expose it and then raise our voices. Yes, sir. Most, most definitely. And that was actually what caught my attention.

I was around the house, you know, various things. And I heard that thing about Ms. Angela McCaskill about how she was the first deaf black mute in the world to get a PhD. And even she was punished for going against a LGBTQ group and not really going to get them, but mainly voicing her value. And when you can't voice your values, I mean, that's an issue and I don't care who you are, exactly. Anybody should be able to voice their value. And I'll say this one also thing, Dr. Brown, those on the left, we will fight for anybody's right for freedom of speech.

I can't say that for the right. Yeah. You know what? It reminds me of a soldier and he's, you know, missing a limb. He's wounded in battle and he's telling some radical leftist person, I gave a part of my body so that you would have the right to differ with me. I, I fought for our freedoms so you would have the right to differ. Yes, sir.

You are exactly right. All right, listen, stay right there. Morgan's going to get your contact info.

My joy to send you the silencing of the lambs. Just look up, search for Angela McCaskill. You'll get the whole story. It's well documented. Thankfully there was an outcry, outcry around the country. She was restored and is highly respected in the university today.

And then the other data, if you're able to get a used copy of a queer thing happened to America, the chapter big brother is watching. All right, it's great being with you today. A whole lot of ground to cover on tomorrow's broadcast. One of the most famous rabbis in Israel passed away this last week, almost a million people at his funeral. He always talked about the coming of the Messiah. We'll talk about that tomorrow. Your program powered by the truth network.