have no knowledge in medicine of virology where they have large audiences and captivate people with devious ideas, which at the same time, the voice of those professionals who work in the red zone, who really see how hard it is, how many people are dying. a vaccination helps assembly heard to a much lesser extent of it. to my mind, it could popularize any vaccination process with any vaccines. we have no experience in mass vaccination of the adult population. we are always vaccinating and protecting the child population. in the majority of cases, we happily vaccinate children, but we do not go to get the job ourselves and therefore it's naive to expect that the population will go to get vaccinated all at the same time. it's rather long and hard road where you need to explain show by example. we need specialists to speak to, to make sure every person perceives lives through the prism of their own consciousness . and it's very difficult for children that somewhere out there, everything is statistically good yet. anyway, there is no other way. rather than to study a pre selected group of people. when you choose a group unvaccinated,

you can compare it with a commendable parts of the unvaccinated population. with the same sample, you estimate how many people got sick among the vaccinated and unvaccinated deficiency itself is made up of these figures they are not invented. when you, thanks joining us here in our to international where bank at the top of the i see them. and he really so thing they cause right on police report. it's an all cash in december 2020 a group of anti finishes. sell out a film crew access for 3 months. so like if people are organization, if an idea that is a must be opposed to channel out the gate while they may kill that, but he says, but they can say what they believe in. we believe in helping our community. we believe that our fascism is one of the major threats to the united states has

gotten reuben. this is a chance to see who and t for really are in order for me to extract my 1st amendment right and say that my life matter, i have to be on to the teacher to that's how america we can't trust the police. we can't trust the government, we can't trust anyone except ourselves to protect ourselves with with with hello and welcome to cross stock, were all things were considered. i'm peter labelle. the recent written house verdict is a cautionary tale for many in power ideology. trump,

to anything resembling justice that jerry thought otherwise. unfortunately, our leads when more times than not, they were informed by their ideology and they were pursuing a revolution from the top down. with cross sucking ideology versus justice, i'm joined by my guess what the rico's, briscoe in washington. he is an adjunct professor of politics at george sinton university school of political management in philadelphia. we have bruce marx, he's a former pennsylvania state senator and attorney for donald trump's 20162020 campaigns and in paris we cross to john laughlin. he is a university lecture in history and political philosophy. i gentleman cross hock rules and effect, that means it can jump at any time you want. now it's appreciate, let me go to john 1st and paris here. okay. i opened up with the rittenhouse case, but i mean, we know, look backwards. we have russia gate, how cove it has been sold to the public. we have our weapons of mass destruction

and the it's always lingering around, but it's on steroids. now is white supremacy here? i mean, all of these are, are pitches. okay. that a service ideology be they don't serve anybody else is far as i'm concerned. it is in service of a neo liberal ideology. that is, is a desperate to maint, remain relevant because it's only really relevant to the people that hold that ideology for the rest of us. it's, it's more than annoying. go ahead, john. well, i think i'm the only non american on the, on the show. so perhaps i shouldn't comment on the rittenhouse case, although i'm sure we'll remember, i'm sure the viewers will remember, previous cases are black on white law cases in the states which have caused great controversy. we think of course, of the dentist social van trial recently or 20 years ago the o. j. simpson trial. these things come up or from time to time and we all know that the race issue is extremely sensitive in america. but yes, the,

the issue of using justice for political ends is a very old and it is as you suggest in your introduction, peter, it is a left right issue. and in fact, i think it's the thing which distinguishes the left from the right. the left, of course, wants to change the world and the right wants to preserve what should be preserved . and the left has forked since at least the french revolution. if not, since the english civil war systematically used justice the judicial system as an instrument for political change. or, you know, we think of the trial and execution of charles the 1st of england in than 1649 of louis the 16th and 1793. and of countless revolutionary trials, a particular course in soviet terms, soviet, russia, and by contrast, conservatives regard the law not as an instrument, but instead as an order, as an intelligible order, which should be preserved, which deserves to be preserved. it's not an instrument in the service of social

change. it's on the contrary, the very thing which should be preserved from change. and that really therefore is to me, is the, the philosophical dividing line between left and right. and that's why because we live in a well, that's dominated by as you call it, the liberal ideology. that's correct. but that is essentially now a left wing revolutionary ideology because we live in that world. now, this ideological take on everything comes from those historical sources in my view . because they can say in washington, i mean in, i go back to the written house verdict, i mean, i watched enough of it. a lot of us did here. and there were 2 trials going on simultaneously. one was a political trial for the, for the elite, particularly for the media, i suppose. and then her verb of her, the defendant. okay. and the jerry came to a conclusion to kind of echo it with john just said here, i mean, these institutions challenged, but it worked okay. and when it does work well, there are plenty people, particularly on the left. it's a, it doesn't work. okay. i mean again,

they were 2 different trials there and you could follow whatever one was your political flavoring. go ahead and d. c. peter. i think the fact the rittenhouse trial was turned into a last and a right wing. political as really is a call of justice, but let's be also very clear. here. it was written house himself was turned into our are right, we celebrity immediately following the murder of 2 men. democrats been fixed upon that idea. the essentially said that the trial was one of 6 to begin with. so there were, there was a sort of perversion of justice from the democratic perspective, but also from the right perspective, that he was also immediately turned into some sort of little cool celebrity. you're right, there were 2 trials and in many respects just written how's trial and even the trial that is currently going on in brunswick. georgia was, are very, these both sides are seen as referendums on white,

which lead to them that is across i think of what is going on, what the other guests talk about with regard to ok, but you've, you've already, but you've already framed it. vigilante is ok. i mean, i watching the trial of rittenhouse, you don't see that at all, at least i didn't see it. i can see if you have ideological lenses. that's exactly what you can see. i admit that you can see that if you want to see, let me pull in bruce here. bruce again, you know, people who were all the, they were going to get the outcome that they wanted. ok. and i had, it was irrespective of what happened in that courtroom, and i'm glad the john brought up a pass case was glowing back centuries here. i mean this, this is a tool in the, in the hands of the powerful go ahead. bruce in philadelphia. listen, i'm not sure what everybody's watching. i watch all the tv channels. rittenhouse was not made into some type of right wing, so i agree. i agree with the i watch fox. i watch other stations that they

covered the proceedings before the trial. there were some videos that were shown because those were evidence, but he wasn't made into celebrity people on the right. needless to say, it was a very sad thing than anybody was killed. but the issue was whether he was acting in self defense and the left treated it completely different. i mean, they alleged that there was races that he was a digital archive, that there was white supremacy. what kind of white supremacy is involved? one white person shoots 3 other people who were attacking and that's, and that's what the, and what we wanted to see is conservatives. we want the system to work. we want to do the jury's jury to hear the evidence. and that's what happened. and i'll tell you one good thing about wisconsin, other states, or like that to they allow televisions in the quarter. and that gives a lot of comfort, i think, to the community in the united states, when the people in the united states can actually see what happens in the court

room. they can hear the witnesses and let's not forget how witness rip, house testified, you know, it doesn't have to because of the privilege but he testified. and i think that one of the reasons why that verdict is being accepted is because people actually got to see the evidence. they got to hear what power house this at the say. and of course we have respect for the jurors. so i don't think he was made into a celebrity by the right. i think the left try to use it what purposes? and the jurors did their job. yeah. but you know, let me go back to john and parents. i mean that's, is the point you were talking about celebrities and all that. i think this is all intentional. i think this is just smoking mirrors. they focus in on these things. the divides people. this is perfectly, it's that the neo liberal ideology is that there's no real structural change for working people in the class is never mentioned here. it's always you know how we can we get each other's throats here? it's white supremacy. it's vigilante has them. you know,

you can scream all you want, but it doesn't change the structural ally of pens, hundreds of millions of people. and at the end of the day, everyone is sweating and tired and angry. and the elite, when again, john? yeah, i mean i, we live in the victim culture and that is the, and it's been said by many commentators that the working class and ordinary people generally have been abandoned in favor of these mythical victim groups. in the case of the united states, the blacks in general, and who are put forward as i say, as eternal victims. and the same goes in europe for migrants or whatever. i think i listened with great interest to what lay 2 speakers have just said, because i don't know how great the pressure was in the rittenhouse case from the, from the left. but in the show van case, it was absolutely now after lena, or you will remember that term. we remember not just public opinion, not just demonstrations, including outside the courtroom,

but also elected officials, if i'm not mistaken, insisting that a conviction had to be handed down and so on. and that's why i say that the law, the judicial system, is often abused as an instrument for political change rather than being allowed to operate with full integrity as it seems to have done in this case. but on the other hand, it's not wrong for, for these issues to excite comment and for people to take up one cause against the other that in a way is normal. you know, there are plenty of trials which excite her interest was what's, what sad is when they are, when this interest is excited, as you suggested peter, through the lens of revolutionary ideology, because that simply distorts the facts are quite because they are the odd man out here, do you want to react to what we've heard here? go ahead. sure. listen. you had e mail. solicitations are signed by david clark who was the farmer, sheriff of law county. wisconsin was also a former spoke person for

a probably from last committee you congressman met gauge saying that he would give written house and internships. you had congress when margaret taylor green studying and telling how innocent he was and that he is a hero. these are all of course examples of how he was turned in fact into a political right. really the letter be and you're right peter, the structure of life for many, particularly black brown and other communities are racialized, colors are are continues to be left behind and that is the problem. and that, of course, according to audiology, as well as, according to political frame, me was brought out and both those trials that we saw in greenhouse case, ok, we got one minute before we go to the break, jump in. listen, i don't know about different people are being left behind. i mean, let's take chicago, which is the highest murder rate in the world. they've had a democrat and an african american mayor in an african american police chief for almost the last 30 years. i mean, i don't see how anybody could, you know,

articulate, isn't it in a real way how that's how that's caused by racism is caused by one party rule in chicago and in this management. okay. okay, i'm going to jump in here. gentlemen, we're going to go to a short break now to that short break and we'll continue our discussion on ideology versus just stay with our tea. ah ah ah ah,

ah. mm. progress driven by a dreamer shaped bath control center. those with airs sinks. we dare to ask ah, welcome back to cross type were all things are considered on peter level to remind you we're discussing ideology versus justice with

it. let's go back to john in paris. how i want to kind of widen this out a little bit. i, i bought my intention was not to talk about this tra, cases for the entire program. but i did say in my 1st question to john, you know, weapon and weapons of mass destruction, russia gate. you know how cove it was originally rolled out and, and then i ended with white supremacy. but all of these things have something in common. these are elite narratives. okay. and in more times than not there wrong narratives in the service of many people in power and why i'm asking the question why we're even doing this program is it never held to account. okay, that's why we get into these cold. this acts over and over. busy again, it was written house case over the last few days. okay. for what, for years that with russia gate. okay. and then you know, the drive to war against saddam, you know, it happens over and over again in the one of the ring. so i'm stressing it, john, it's not republican or democrat, it's the elite psy keep focusing on these leaps. go ahead,

john. so i totally agree again though, this is a distinction between left and right. i mentioned the distinction with respect to the judicial system just now, but perhaps a more even more profound difference between left and right is precisely that the left is ideological, whereas the right is based. in reality, the right is reality based on the left wants to change the world, the right likes the world more or less as it is and wants to and to try to learn, learn things from the world. it doesn't denounced the world. the less attitude is one of permanent denunciation because it hates the world way the world is structure to that. it wants to change it. and that's why id, ology is the reserve of the preserve of the left. and that's why it is fundamentally elitist because by definition, intellectuals and members of the elite are the people who dr. ideology, ordinary people, by contrast, live in the real world. they have to fill up their call with, with gas every,

every day they have to drive their children to sue to school. they have to heat their houses, etc, etc. they all based in reality, you may remember i, i think it might, you might even have quoted at once on this program. there's a famous confrontation between the and the call back in the george bush. she is a journalist who was questioning and you mentioned peter about the weapons of mass destruction and the, the near called. i can't remember who it was looked pityingly and with contempt the journalist across the cross into course questioning him and said, i can see that you are part of the reality based community. we create our own reality. i think it was. i think it's paul wolf. it was like kind of person and that shows that the, the left cosigned cute, the near comes in that regard ideas as they're as an instrument of social change. because once again, they hate the world as it is. and they want to use ideas to break it. ok, what's

a good thing? a good a to watch. and i mean in watching a m s m b, c, and seeing and the way they looked at the, the, the written house trial was through video visual and his, i'm in and white supremacy. i mean, how, how does that mean? is there a mission? is to identify what they think is the problem. and if it's identified, how is it resolved? i mean, because it takes that judicial system out of the equation here because the jerry decided ok that were and if you like they were result or you know, are not ok. it's their decision. that's how the system works. but i mean, how does the, how do we get what, what do we gain as a society by constantly using this cudgel? because i didn't, i would things to resolve the, i mean, just throwing these phrases out in flames. people that i don't see the path forward to progress, go ahead in washington. so i think 1st we have to agree upon a working definition of ideology, right? which is very simplistically,

a system of ideas and beliefs to which both the right as well as the left are also have a sort of form of ideology to which the see the world view or a dynamic or a political theory list. i think that's 1st an important to note, you know, the country is teetering. as you said, peter, between a tyranny of beliefs as well as a tyranny of the irrationality, right? as it is a sort of a societal bipolar condition that will become crashing down on us because more representative moral garage as a representative democracy. both domestic enterprise is being down ready by this referent. popular? is it right? that is exploring or trying to use exploiter forces for the dominance of sort of political minorities. this anti democratic craziness has its roots and willingness. let's be very clear on one side of the political out that

be the right. but of course, democrats and the left of course are also asked for here. how do we get to a place where we understand both perspectives and yet agree to disagree? unfortunately, our world is completely polarized and we're trying not to understand is each other's perspective. i think that is the problem. yeah, i think that's an interesting description here. bit of it when i go to bruce here, i mean, then you throw in cancel con. so if you don't agree with me, you're cancelled. i mean, that's not a democratic process. that's not the, you know, engaging people here. and i totally disagree with your, your definition of populism. here a lot of people are turning to populism because the demo quote and quote, democratic process and the rhetoric that is behind it has totally failed tens of millions of people in the western world. ok i that is a reaction to a system that doesn't meet the needs of, of people that are go to the polls,

they vote and nothing ever changes. you change the president for one party, the next and nothing really changes. that's where populism comes from. bruce, go ahead and jump in philadelphia was, this is all very interesting to me. i'm. i'm just to help billy for west virginia. i grew up and we like pop is what's, what's wrong with what's wrong with the people making the sessions? and i think that that was, you know, an enormous step or one donald trump was elected president 2610 because he appealed to the working class in america that had been left out, particularly people for example in west virginia, ohio, western pennsylvania where i also grew up up, what i just would like to point out is that i think on the conservative side, we look at democracy is a small, the, where the people should make the decisions. and you let people govern their own lives. and on the other side, in the lib, liberal late and particularly in the media they,

they view using the judicial system. it's coercive they want to use the power of the government to change things and they want to do it through judges. and thank goodness, here in the united states, we actually have a jury system and it's average people. you know, that which is what america, average americans who are making decisions. and i think it's, it's really important to put in perspective the conservatives are trying to keep the power in the hands of the individuals to not put them into the institution, such as the courts. and then you talk about my favorite subject, one of the problems we do have in what in the elite is that the media is controlled with the exception of fox and a few other publications is controlled by, you know, very liberal lead to do 2 things. one is they dominate, you know, outlets like cnn, cnn, and m, s, b c. and then they now dominate, you know, the social media, facebook and twitter. and there's absolutely repression in the united states of

people who's, who's, who's message and beliefs are not the same as those who control the elite media. and that, you know, was unfortunate because reality is that people communicate these days not by standing on street corners and yelling, but by posting messages on facebook and twitter and so forth. and that's something it really needs to be done. and it would be a great thing if our government to put 1st amendment privileges in the institutions, the social media institutions so that people are not styled school. i'm glad i'm going to go to town and parents. i mean, i'm glad the word populism was, was brought up here. i mean, i didn't, but i, you know, it's, it's always kind of in the back of my mind here. but you know, it populism is democracy with a small, di, these are democrats to and truly believe it here. and i think that the left is terrified of it. i mean, all across social media populism is attacked. okay. i mean, they don't want to give it any kind of oxygen at all. and i think, and there's such a gross misrepresentation of what populism is. i mean, it's

a lot of people that are sick and tired ideology oppressing them. and the state is an ideology that has a state that will implement badly ideology. go ahead, john. and well, this is a very old problem in the united states as elsewhere. if you look at the political program of general weaver back in the 800 ninety's, it's very similar to trump. it was middle america rebelling against the kid against the east coast, but also against the west coast. you know, the people who felt they got left behind. i think if i may say so again, is the only non american. i think one of the other problems, and i think many europeans probably feel as i do. one of the other problems is specific to the united states is that the united states is, of course, a very litigious society. and that means that a lot of social conflict, he's tunneled through the court. plus, of course, the supreme court as we know and the various federal courts. and so we have

considerable power over legislation. and this doesn't happen in most other countries. those questions decided instead in polymers and inevitably, therefore in the states, these trials, these court cases attract a huge amount of political attention because they are actually where a lot of political decisions are made. and that's one of the reasons, one of the constitutional reasons why these court cases in america caused so much control oversee drinkers, react react to what, you know, what we've just heard from bruce and john here, i mean, you know, we all agree ideology is in play here, i think we disagree on how to define it and how it is instrumental to political change here. because, you know, when we're, again going back to the trial, i mean, i just saw on cnn and m, it's and see what they believe they were protecting their values. they were re work telling us what was going on in the courtroom. go ahead and d, c. no popular is in contrast are not pluralist. i mean that is in

fact the definition. they consider just one group, whoever they may be, the people legitimate. so the concept then of which intimacy stems from the fact that a populace you is the view there for you as the central, the moral essentially. right. and that is a problem is a small vocal minority that is not inclusive of other ideas or even trying to understand other ideas. and that is the problem with barbara. and again, what we saw going better read well is understanding the context as, as to how and why rittenhouse was on trial living. quite 3 consent, let me ask you this, why, why over an entire century is the democratic party been most oppressive against populace? it's not the right. ok. it's a, it's the democratic party that a horse. any kind of explain plenty of them here,

but it's called the grid has a dominic party then press that because popular isn't what we're talking about. popular isn't it, is the wheel of a minority of people who are trying to overtake the dominant. that is what part of the resumes. ok, well i, we have, we have different dimensions of this word and we will, we can reconvene and talk about it because it's very important. and the man in washington dc winds the bow tie contests on this program. many thanks to my guess and watch it in philadelphia and in paris. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here. darky. see you next time. remember process growth? ah, ah. oh yeah, we're still in el salvador and our in san salvador. it's all popping off here,

the country's into the big y as legal tanner is transforming the country, transforming the people, transforming the culture and transforming the region. all my dog in a short don't seem an official and mystery of pressure from one of the to from to check up on a sunday i washed the discussion and walk you through the phone yet with them giving you besides that. so i me at the other, she usually should almost by you. so what i'm going to look up in cities. it took us mission lifestyle, right? yes. the key moments. it's just the way she shared

with a historic, 13 co ordination with allies that you with it were leasing strategic oil reserves to bring down petrol prices on the failed attempts to convince the opec to base to production what i will never sent it to pump the guys, we are dissatisfied with fuel violence against people. gotcha. prime minister launch about to protest is off the night of rioting against tough new clothing restrictions, as cases. so john's locked downs all re imposed across europe. on britain's government is sending troops to the poland bowers bordered to assist with the refugee situation. get back home is facing accusations of failure to cope with an even bigger crisis.