Peter Schaenk interviews Craig Bodeker, Feb. 18, 2009

February 15, 2009

Update: The interview is now available here; a high-quality version is available here.

VoR radio host Peter Schaenk interviews filmmaker Craig Bodeker this Wednesday. They discuss Craig’s new film, A Conversation About Race. You don’t want to miss it!

About Craig’s film

Craig Bodeker
Craig Bodeker

A Conversation about Race is filmmaker Craig Bodeker’s answer to then-Senator Obama’s call for such a dialogue. As he states in the opening lines of the film, “I can’t think of another issue that is more artificial, manufactured or manipulated than this whole construct called racism.” In the film, a diverse group of Colorado residents are challenged for their thoughts on:

  • Why do white students score better than black students on standardized tests?
  • Why is the NBA nearly 90% black?
  • Have you ever been “racist”?
  • Are whites better at anything than blacks?
  • Do blacks commit more crimes than whites?
  • Can you name a public figure who is “racist”?
  • Can you give an example of the racism you see in your daily life?
  • How do you feel about immigration from Mexico?

Craig says, “A Conversation About Race is just the starting point. Watch the film, and then have your own conversation about race. You’ll be surprised at what you discover!”

Related links


12 Responses to “Peter Schaenk interviews Craig Bodeker, Feb. 18, 2009”

  1. Susie on February 15th, 2009 1:34 pm

    Can’t wait. This should be an interesting guest.

  2. Euvipro on February 16th, 2009 6:18 pm

    This sounds very interesting indeed. I’ve seen his wonderful film, it was truly excellent! I’m from Europe, I’m not sure if I can listen to it live, but I’ll certainly be listening to the archive.

  3. Blue Collar Brad on February 18th, 2009 8:31 pm

    Not to be sappy or corny but God Bless you Peter Schaenk for this show, from one Christian man to another. You have outdone yourself this time. This is one of your best shows, if not the best show. I plan to get this movie ASAP. Thank you for bringing this interview & this gentleman to light. Wow! I really can’t say good enough things about this broadcast.

  4. Hayden on February 18th, 2009 9:11 pm

    I missed the first hour because of work, but I too was eagerly awaiting this show.

  5. Scott on February 18th, 2009 11:16 pm

    Looking forward to another fine interview by Mr Shaenk.

    This ain’t no patriotard radio site. ;)

  6. Peter Schaenk on February 19th, 2009 4:17 am

    Thanks for your comments. I highly recommend you buy this movie and show it to as many people as possible. It is a real eye-opener.

    Indeed, this is no patriotard radio network!

  7. K-Sensor on February 19th, 2009 3:16 pm

    This documentary is fantastic. It’s a pity its not public domain!

  8. Igor Alexander on March 23rd, 2009 1:54 pm

    Another excellent interview.

    Two things:

    1. It’s been a few years since I’ve looked into it, so perhaps things have changed, but AFAIK, there are NO laws against “holocaust denial” on the books in Canada. A lot of people think there are, just like a lot of people in the U.S. think so-called “hate speech” is illegal, but they’re wrong.

    Ernst Zundel was never prosecuted for “holocaust denial” in Canada. The first time he was prosecuted it was under an antiquated law against spreading “false news,” a law which was subsequently repealed by the Supreme Court of Canada, if I’m not mistaken.

    The second time he was prosecuted it was for “inciting hatred” against a protected minority (the Jews) under one of these “Human Right Tribunal” star chamber affairs.

    When he was more recently thrown in jail in Canada for a year or two, he was being held under provisions of Canada’s anti-terrorism laws, the Canadian equivalent to the Patriot Act, basically.

    What should be obvious here is that Jews (mis)use laws that are already on the books to persecute people against whom they have a grudge and wish to carry out Talmudic revenge.

    That is not to say that Jews aren’t working diligently to pass European-style holocaust denial laws in Canada, and I’m sure that at some point they’ll succeed, since Canadians don’t seem to value free speech as much as Americans do. I once heard a Canadian judge quoted as saying something along the lines of, “Free speech is an American value.”

    2. I think that Craig’s next film (if he does one) should definitely be about sex, sex roles, and feminism.

  9. Igor Alexander on March 23rd, 2009 3:09 pm

    “…yet no one is suggesting that the sexes are a social contruct.”

    Oh no? When feminists use the term “gender,” that’s exactly what they’re implying: that the sexes are a “social construct.” And therefore, that “gender roles” are roles that are arbitrarily assigned to people based on their genitals and which have no basis in biology.

    Really, feminists and to a large extent homosexuals use the same types of arguments that the anti-racists use to argue against traditional sex roles and in favor of not only permitting, but of celebrating, just about every sexual behavior imaginable.

  10. Igor Alexander on March 23rd, 2009 3:10 pm

    * construct

  11. Peter Schaenk on March 23rd, 2009 4:48 pm

    “Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. (Opening paragraph of the Scum Manifesto, Valerie Solanas,

  12. reasonable on January 24th, 2010 2:04 pm

    Just watched this guys video. Within the first five minutes I could already see through him.
    “let’s interview a bunch of idiots to discredit a concept which these idiots in particular do not understand”
    Then he looks to wikipedia for a definition!

    Ohh, there are many defintions… Therefore it can’t be a valid concept.

    For the first 20 minutes, the argument revolves around a small selection of people who use a term, but who do not nesessarily understand exaclty what the term means or the appropriate use of it. He then attempts to suggest that this problem means that the concept therefore can’t be valid. that’s daft and ridiculous logic.

    Maybe he should try looking up the definition of the colour ‘purple’. See how exact that concept is. But I’m pretty sure purple exists, even if everybody’s understanding of it is different.
    A lot of people use the phrase ‘harwinism’ or ‘survival of the fittest’ completely incorrectly. That doesn’t mean Darwin’s theories are not valid ones. It means that many people use the term incorrectly. Once agian, two different things.

    Anyway, one bad argument debunked.

    At the 20 minute mark now, and he’s using examples of reverse racism and double standards to suggest that racism itself doesn’t exists.
    What is that? It actually proves that racism exists. If people adopt the rhetotic in either direction, it is proof that the rhetoric has power and resonance, no matter who uses it.

    second point debunked.

    Later, he is on racial results on standardised testing.
    Interestingly, one thing he refuses to discuss is the relationship between those scores and class (not race).

    Also interestingly, he doesn’t talk about the historical tend of these test results, which show that while everybody is getting better at these tests over time. But blacks in the United States have been getting better at twice the pace of whites (mostly due to the develpoment of a black middle class in the US over the last few decades). Kianda kills his little argument, doesn’t it?

    In fact, on all of his points (crime, test results, etc.), the real elephant in the room is that these differences are explained by levels of poverty, regardless of skin colour. Instead, he bends over backwards to look at race as the variable in quesiton, not other, very well-established socio-economic factors, such as class.

    Third bogus point undone.

    And here we are in the last few minutes. Ok, I’m at the end now.
    His brief discussion of race as a social construct is hilarious, especially when he brings up sex, which, he argues, nobody thinks is a social construct. Hey buddy, ever heard of feminist theory? But still, he actually doesn’t deal with the argment at all, or the very real and conclusive research that demonstrates that there arem ore genetic differences within ‘races’ than between them. Or the general ridiculousness of the arument that someones skin colour has some sort of determining factor on thier levels of intelligence or behavior.
    Very weak.

    What this is a good example of, is a member of a class faction desperately trying to maintian his priveledged place in the social field, which is being eroded as white men see their cultural power declining.
    Aww. Poor guy. Essentially his argument is this:

    “yea, us white guys.. We can’t say anything anymore. Everbody hates us because we have had all the money and all the power for a long time, and up until recently, we’ve been able to keep that partly on the basis of shaping a worldview which puts us at the top and the people we want to exploit at the bottom. But now people are starting to see through this, which is baaad for us. The best that guys like me can do is make a desperate attempt at re-enabling our right to determine societies discourses, or, in other words, to make out that some people are inferior to us so we can exploit them”.

    Another great right wing set of nonsense. Congrats Craig!