There’s an old adage that goes something like, “they sure know how to make an entrance,” and Kanye West proved during his short appearance on Tim Pool’s podcast on November 28th that an exit can be just as grandiose (not to mention, headline generating) as any sort of bombastic entrance.
By now, most everyone who stays in the loop of the topical media cycle have heard about West’s sudden walkout during his co-appearance alongside Milo Yiannopoulos and Nick Fuentes on Pool’s podcast. Following the podcast host’s brief pushback addressing West’s opinions regarding Jewish institutional power and influence, West abruptly walked out of the studio, trailed by Fuentes and Yiannopoulos shortly thereafter.
Needless to say, for those curious to hear what would come up amid a long-form discussion between these large (and controversial) personalities, the sudden walkout of all three guests was a bit of a letdown. Nonetheless, West was able to briefly dive into his perspective on the recent accusations of him being antisemitic.
“I’m saying, like, I’ve been labeled antisemite, right? So there’s different beliefs about our bloodlines, you know, like the documentary that Kyrie [Irving] posted and in general, America has been left ignorant and history has been changed. So when we start questioning things that question the indoctrination, then you immediately, get you know…demonized, demonetized and what’s so beautiful about this time is everyone got to see what’s really been happening. And now we can really understand, we can see that Rahm Emanuel was next to Obama and Jared Kushner was right next to Trump.”
At this point, Pool briefly chimed in while trying to understand and summarize West’s perspective whilst also delivering his own viewpoint that countered West’s beliefs of there being a concentration of institutional power and influence among the Jewish community.
“I think the issue is, one way to put it is, you’re expounding upon a localization issue that you’ve witnessed, right? Let me let me clarify, there are a handful of people that you see are Jewish in a certain place and then you associate Judaism with the power, whereas I view that as not relevant to it. Like Ye, you’re substantially more powerful than I am but I don’t view what you’re doing as an issue of black people.”
Even though much of West’s voiced opinions were a bit cluttered during his brief appearance on Pool’s podcast, he was able to bring up an interesting point about the commonly used term “the black vote,” which infers a sort of monolithic voting pattern and assumed behaviors associated with black Americans.
Yiannopoulos was able to expand upon the peculiar double standard around this and other forms of sweeping statements when discussing particular communities that are deemed socially acceptable.
“That’s the basis of the hypocrisy that people have been thinking about and knowing about and realizing for decades. We were all wondering how this dam was going to break. Everybody in the country was wondering what is the root of this hypocrisy: why can people talk about white people a certain way, why can’t they talk about that group a certain way…The wretched and wicked and oppressive prevailing orthodoxy of cancel culture. Well, it turned out that the one thing that was going to break the dam was the biggest star in the world – and it took the biggest star in the world to do it, and now the dam is broken.”
This fleeting topic about socially acceptable generalizations versus taboo generalizations brought up during the podcast is one that rightfully deserves more examination and thoughtful discussion.
Let’s face it, most folks, if asked directly, would vocally assert their disdain for the likes of double standards in any number of contexts and scenarios. Yet, in modern times, there is a glaring double standard of what groups of people can be spoken about while employing the use of collective terminology in reference to the group – especially when the context is any form of criticism or avowal of nefarious conduct/intent.
Outside of perhaps some workplace scenarios, most people can acknowledge that an individual isn’t going to get much flack – societally or institutionally – when saying anything flippant or bigoted about “white people.”
Frankly speaking, one could perform a cursory search of the term “white people” on any of the prominent social media platforms and find a litany of examples where this conclusion can be drawn: that it’s apparently socially acceptable and even, at times, celebrated when someone who is non-white is broadbrushing white people in a derogatory manner.
But once someone dares to venture outside of the safety zone of “white people” and begins using a collective term to share their criticisms of any other racial, ethnic, or even religious demographic, the utterings suddenly become taboo and can result in some serious ramifications societally and institutionally.
And depending on the specific group one mentions in a critical or disparaging context, the ramifications can exponentially increase – with recent events demonstrating that mentioning one group, in particular, seems to bear the most catastrophic outcomes as a result of cancel culture.
From a political and social perspective, this is a genuinely baffling enigma – that it is apparently okay to openly speak about one group of people unfavorably, a handful of other groups with inferences of monolithic tendencies, and one particular group can’t have the slightest hint of stereotypes or generalized negativity attributed to them.
West’s comments about “the black vote” and Yiannopoulos’ expanding upon that speech-code hypocrisy is exactly the kind of dialogue that needs to be taking place at this point in time.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.