Okay, the amazing thing about this New York Times story is that it's not a story except in one half of the country. Imagine if you will that the New York Times got caught on secret recording telling their news crew, you know, the newsroom, how to cover the news for the next year before the events actually happened. So to tell them to frame things in a racial frame. This story is definitely bigger than Watergate. Am I wrong? It is not the New York Times getting caught on video and audio saying that they're going to frame the news and create a narrative in the coming year. They're not even talking about the past. They're talking about their plan for the coming year. Do you think that's bigger than Watergate or smaller? Because Watergate, for all of its badness, wasn't that big a deal. I mean it was a crime. You know, I'm glad that Nixon had to go. I'm glad that everything that happened had to happen. But if you were to rank somebody breaks into an office of the other team versus a major news organization that we trust has decided to rip the country apart through a bogus narrative about racial problems, and you catch that on tape, that feels at least ten times bigger, right? Or a hundred times bigger. It doesn't even feel the same. It doesn't feel like this is even anywhere in the same category.

Now part of it is that I don't think Watergate, for all of its badness, and again Nixon was bad, he had to go, but the actual crime was, he lied about something involving a break-in for an office that got some documents that probably didn't make much difference. You know, I'm not defending any of it. I'm just saying that on the list of big problems it's kind of small. Nixon had to go. It was big enough that you have to get rid of the president. It was kind of small. Ripping the country apart using the most trusted media source, at least trusted by people on the left, is maybe Hitler-level evil, wouldn't you say? What other organization intentionally called the meeting to whip up racial animosity in a country? What was the last time anybody did that? Well there was George Wallace I suppose, but you know, Hitler. Now this is one of those cases where the Hitler analogy isn't too far off. You know, normally I would mock people for making it, but in the narrow sense of intentionally forming a meeting and agreeing in the meeting that you're going to drive the country apart with racist narrative independent of the actual news, that sort of leads you to really bad things.

Now, so let me pull back on this a little bit. There's nothing quite like Hitler. There's nothing like the Holocaust. So anything you compare to that, you know, it's just sort of ridiculous on its surface. But in terms of a similar strategy of using race to divide people for power, I mean the reason that the New York Times does it is for profit and power. And it seems at least as evil, you know, to the murders. So at least in the philosophical sense it's completely condemnable.