Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - A Conversation with That Guy T, cont.

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 27, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

04:21:04

A Conversation with That Guy T, cont.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Sorry about that, everyone.
	I'm using this remote connection thing that actually belongs to my parents.
	I'm just too cheap to get my own internet connection.
	Basically, every hour or so it clocks me off, so I am so sorry.
	Yeah, the Bane video.
	The Scum Manifesto thing.
	Shocking.
	Absolutely disgusting.
	So yeah, I've got a question.
	Did you get any, what sort of answer did you get from your questions for the trans folk community video?
	Pretty reasonable responses, actually.
	No, I didn't have any social justice warriors come by.
	People were pretty much glad that I was generally interested in learning about them.
	But overall, yeah, very respectful responses.
	Yeah, you did approach it in a very good way.
	I was quite impressed.
	Yeah, kind of bummed out.
	I kind of wanted some.
	I wanted to be famous on something, but I wanted to go to war, but I wasn't being nice.
	So there's that.
	The sons of bitches.
	So what sort of questions did you ask them exactly?
	Just to recap a few of them.
	Basically, the answer is the questions I particularly asked them was: let me see, should gender transitional search, that's not what it's called.
	Should basically transgender or transsexual surgery be taxpayer funded?
	Many of them agreed.
	Most of them were from Canada, so I'm not surprised.
	But another one was: can someone be like, for example, if someone was to commit a crime who was a transgender person, should they go to the jail that correlates with their gender or their sex?
	And most of the, pretty much every response, I believe, said they should go to the prison that correlates with their gender.
	Right, okay.
	So the gender they've chosen, not sex.
	Yeah.
	Right, okay.
	So, yeah, so transsexual men who have become women will go to the men's prison.
	Is that correct?
	That's going to be brutal.
	Is that correct?
	No, no, no, no.
	If it was a man who transitioned to a woman, he would go to the female prison.
	Right, okay.
	I don't know how I feel about that.
	I don't really have an opinion on it, you know?
	Yeah, I'm kind of.
	It's an interesting point, but it was mainly just something that I brought up.
	I don't see it as going to be a huge issue that's going to but when it comes up in court, we'll deal with it then.
	Yeah.
	That's got to be an uncomfortable thing to be on the jury for.
	Just be like, oh, God.
	This is one of those things I've always wanted to say to them.
	It's just that, look, nobody really cares about your gender.
	It's because you're making it such a big deal that everyone is talking about it.
	If you guys were just less militant, that's one of the questions I had asked.
	I asked, why does the LGBT community at large allow these social justice warrior type people to represent themselves vocally without any backlash?
	And many of them said that they don't agree, but that they just don't have a loud enough voice to them for their movement.
	Yeah, I don't think it's helping them letting the radicals have the loud voice.
	This is like a symptomatic problem in society in general, isn't it?
	You know, the silent majority of people who don't really agree with what the very noisy ones who are claiming to speak in their interests say, but because they say they're speaking in their interests, they don't really go against them.
	Yeah, and I think it's mainly because most of these people, they're just normal people.
	They just want to live their lives how they see fit.
	They're not asking for any special treatment or trying to play the victim.
	Yeah, I fully agree.
	Just people in the comments have just asked, sorry, my internet dropped.
	I'm cheap.
	my fault.
	But yeah, I do think that that's ...
	A friend of mine has got a quote by Oscar Wilde that he absolutely adores.
	...
	And it's living the way you want to live isn't what being selfish is.
	Being selfish is expecting others to live how you want to live.
	And I think I very much subscribe to that.
	I don't really care what other people do, but I wouldn't ask them to live in the same way that I do.
	And therefore, I would expect them to leave me the fuck alone.
	Yeah.
	You know, it's, yeah, it's the in-your-faceness of it all.
	And the complete denial of reality doesn't help.
	Does not help.
	I saw a Tumblr post a while ago about criticizing what normal was, you know, and it was saying just because it's the most common thing doesn't make it normal.
	And I was just, well, actually, I think that is exactly what I mean.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, you know, you guys have wandered off the reservation, you know, when you start doing that sort of thing.
	So I mean, and even if you don't agree with them calling something normal, like, for example, what used to not be normal, it used to be unnormal for interracial couples to date.
	Yeah.
	It used to be not normal for what's the things that men not own women's chattel, if you listen to me.
	And nowadays, if I think the main reason that we've overcome many of those issues as being unnormal is because when people said they were unnormal, most people just said, well, fuck you.
	I don't care if it's not normal.
	I'm going to do it anyway.
	Exactly.
	It became more and more accepted, and then it eventually became normal.
	But when you come at it at a strong, defensive, aggressive position that, like, no, if you don't like that, if you think that I'm not being normal, you have to change your mind immediately and assume that I'm normal.
	Basically trying to force the way other people think.
	And I think that is really holding back a lot of, I guess you could call equality that people are striving for.
	Yeah, I think that I'm aware that in America it's the religious rights who are particularly against gay marriage.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I thought that was the case.
	So yeah, and coming at them swinging, you know, coming straight for them and attacking them, they're not going to, you know, they're not going to agree with you, are they?
	You know, that's just going to entrench them even further into their position.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Even though I don't mind coming at them hard from a point of trying to make gay marriage illegal, like you cannot agree with it, but at least when you start getting your beliefs upon me, that's when things get yeah, that's what I mean about the Oscar Wilde quote.
	If it's not affecting you, it's nothing to do with you.
	Yeah.
	You know, between two people.
	This isn't very controversial stuff.
	We're agreeing on too much.
	Okay.
	We need to find something that we're not going to agree on.
	Just looking through your videos thinking, right, is there anything else I want to take the jump on?
	If you've got anything that you want to ask, or if anyone in the comments has got anything, please do ask.
	I'm trying to think of that subject you were talking about.
	Actually, let me see.
	It might be in the comments.
	God, I'm just the worst at doing this.
	What did you say?
	Goodfellow was out for us.
	Sore throat?
	He had an operation on one of his teeth or something.
	He had teeth removed.
	So he can't pronounce particular words correctly.
	And I did point out that he was Scottish, and that really wasn't sort of a good thing.
	That would be awesome.
	He should have came on.
	I would have liked that too.
	I was a bit gutted.
	It's good to have you here as well, but it would be nice to have him too.
	If you're listening to this, definitely make a video before you pour your tooth.
	See how unpronounceable everything is from you.
	Right, okay.
	Let me just grab some.
	I've got some links to stuff that pissed me off.
	Yeah, just watch your recent this weekend stupid video.
	I love doing those.
	Honestly, they're so much more fun.
	The other ones I tend to get pissed off about because some of it's just so stupid.
	But my favourite was the hysterical women one.
	I was watching on Facebook these comments coming up just in awe of how absurd.
	I mean, the social services should be called.
	We should glass the brick in the window.
	It wasn't in the Sahara Desert.
	Yeah, like you said, I was picturing it, but then you did mention that you guys were in England, which you don't have 95-degree weather there, do you?
	Oh, no, it was probably about 30 degrees Celsius, which I don't know what that is in Fahrenheit because I'm civilized.
	But just kidding.
	Just kidding.
	Weird metrics.
	It makes sense.
	It's just like the dates.
	You know?
	Just like the dates.
	Why the month first?
	I don't get it.
	But, right, yeah, I found this thing called theblog S.com, which is some feminist who is blogging, which is a new thing, and it's definitely something the world needed.
	And she's written this thing called Women Who Are Ambivalent About Women Against Feminism.
	I don't know, against Women Who are Ambivalent About Women Against Women Against Feminism.
	And basically, she goes on about just how she thinks it's crazy that there would be women against feminism.
	And she makes some really stupid points, and I thought I'd share some of them.
	So she goes, there's been a lot of talk on Tombaugh against women against feminism.
	And just some of the pictures, the handwritten signs, some of the reasons they give for not needing feminism almost seem like a parody.
	And she quotes, How the fuck am I supposed to open jars and lift heavy things without my husband?
	How is that a parody?
	I mean, what is taking the piss there?
	I can think of plenty of girlfriends that I've had who have asked me to lift heavy things for them because they're too heavy for them.
	Does she believe that that's like something that never happens?
	I guess so.
	I mean, women are socially conditioned to be weaker than men.
	I think she's trying to say, I guess.
	I don't know.
	But it's just like, and then, and some, I don't need to grant my body hair to prove I'm equal to men, and it's just like, don't you?
	You know, I mean, she thinks this is a parody and it's like, I don't know, I don't know where she thinks she's going with that.
	So obviously, is she speaking in promotion of feminism or opposition in promotion of feminism?
	She's very much a feminist, she.
	She thinks that them saying I don't need to grant my body hair to prove I'm equal to mat, to a man, is is somehow absurd and like a parody.
	And it's just like, don't you understand that?
	Thinking that growing out your body hair makes you equal to a man is absurd?
	I mean, I mean, the same could be said that you have to be able to bitch press as much as your husband in order to be equal to him.
	Yeah exactly, it's absurd.
	It's just like.
	So the well, go ahead, go on.
	No no, go on, go on.
	I was just going to say that this is the type of equality that feminists they think equality is.
	They don't want any differences.
	They don't want any any advantage or disadvantage between two people.
	Yeah, even if they're the same gender, no one woman can't be better, better than another woman, or it's just, it's really weird.
	Like I don't see how they expect that to even be possible to obtain like an achievable goal.
	Yeah it's, it's, it's strange, I mean what it?
	It's like they're trying to remove the concept of like just just competition almost.
	You know there's a reason that people are different and good at things, and to try and just remove that entirely from life I find really a really weird denial of reality.
	You know, it's just like, what are you?
	What are you getting your panties in a knot about?
	I've just lost that page because it kept going on so sorry for being an idiot everyone how have I just lost that page Ah, there we go, right.
	So she considered making her own, I don't need X because of Y. Like, you know, I don't need books because, you know who wrote books?
	Hitler.
	Hitler wrote a book, no thank you Nazis.
	And it's like, yeah, that's not funny.
	It's crazy.
	Yeah, then they're not funny.
	I don't know why they bother.
	Let me just so.
	Yeah, she gets to the point where she's like, so here's the thing.
	You think men and women should have equal rights politically, socially and economically?
	Then you're probably a feminist and it's like, oh my god, what don't you have?
	What don't you have?
	You know what?
	Where are they being held back?
	I'm not seeing a feminist be able to answer that question.
	I mean usually, when they do answer, they come back with, you know possibly oh, there are not enough women in parliament, in politics, in parliament.
	There aren't enough women in parliament apparently, but still they like, that's, that's not oppression, that's you not wanting to be a politician?
	Go be a politician if you want to change it.
	It's a result of a free society.
	Like people say the same, that there are not enough men in ballet, and I feel oppressed really.
	God damn it T. Why didn't you go into ballet?
	I shouldn't have to go into ballet.
	It should just happen.
	I don't have the answers for this.
	You want to expect me to actually try to solve my own grievance?
	I think you've got this feminism down, man.
	I think you know what you're doing.
	But yeah, so she goes on to say, you know, you're probably a feminist, and it's just like, no, we just probably happen to have one idea in common.
	And there are a million tiny aspects of this to break off to, and I get it.
	It's complicated.
	There's not just one type of feminist, just as there's not one type of Christian or Muslim man or woman.
	It's okay, yeah.
	All right.
	This is where this is going, is it sectarianism?
	But yeah, so she goes, the point is, feminists are awesome and beneficial, and the world would be a worse place without them.
	And it's like, I don't think you understand what you're talking about.
	You can't really.
	There would be no going back to a position where women couldn't vote or got paid less.
	I get the feeling that these things were past.
	Sorry about this.
	You can probably have a siren going past.
	Many apologies, everyone.
	I didn't get them.
	No, no.
	I have to say, real quick, that siren actually sounds like a regular police car siren.
	I don't know how you guys sound out.
	It's actually normally a policeman ringing a bell in one hand with a truncheon in the other.
	But yeah, so she keeps going on.
	And as if that somehow there would be some rolling back of suffrage, even though, you know, they got it like 50 years ago.
	Well, not for suffrage, but like equal pay and stuff like that.
	They got it 50 years ago.
	Yeah, it's just a really crazy mentality.
	They think that they have to be so strongly protective of the rights that they've gained, which because I think they believe that these rights are only gained politically, which isn't true.
	They're also gained socially.
	This is starting to become a mainstream mentality.
	It's like me constantly saying, I need that amendment in the Constitution that says I can't go back to being half of a human being because if that goes away, right back in slavery.
	It doesn't make sense.
	Exactly.
	I've said this to feminists before.
	I'm not in favor of slavery, but I'm not actually an abolitionist.
	It's because there's no need for abolitionism.
	It's over.
	That's the thing.
	They're so passionate about people taking the label feminist.
	That's why what video was that I commented on?
	It was someone's.
	It was Jacqueline Glenn's video.
	Did you see that video?
	I did.
	I think I know the one you're talking about.
	I think it is.
	Yeah, she was getting on Ryan Wiley, PZ Myers, and Rebecca Watson.
	Because Rebecca Watson had just recently made an article about her claiming her to be a plagiarist.
	Really?
	Are you familiar with Twitter?
	I know you're on.
	Yeah, I use it every now and again.
	I try to use it more.
	But hang on, was she just saying that she was a plagiarist?
	As in she'd plagiarized someone else's work.
	Yes, but here's the thing.
	She said it because Jacqueline had tweeted a tweet that someone else wrote without giving them a proper citation.
	Oh, my God.
	Quick.
	She's called the universities.
	Jacqueline Glenn, she's banned from talking.
	Not only that, all of feminism is basically plagiarism.
	They all say the same exact things.
	How would you know if they'd plagiarized someone?
	You could have plagiarized anyone.
	Like I said, it's very hard to surprise me with a feminist talking point because they've got the same playbook over and over and over.
	Yeah.
	That's insane.
	Do you know what the tweet was, just out of interest?
	I'm curious.
	No, I don't think she linked to it.
	I think Jacqueline went back and corrected it, so they pretty much let it go.
	But it's just such a petty thing to go after.
	Yeah, that is.
	But basically, Jacqueline came back and said, you know, when she was going off about it, like, you know, I don't want to take the label feminist.
	I don't like everyone in the feminist movement or the majority of people in the feminist movement.
	I don't like what you guys are doing.
	I believe in equality, but I don't like the radical feminists.
	And that pisses feminists off because, to be honest, feminists is composed of pretty much all radical feminists.
	Even moderate, I mean, even moderate feminists are radical feminists in reality.
	They have the same mentality.
	You're absolutely right.
	It's hard to find a feminist that isn't radical.
	And the thing is, I think that I can't remember who said it, but it was probably like Thucydides or something said, constant exposure to dangers breeds contempt for them.
	And I think that really applies there, because one of the things I notice is that sometimes I forget how absurd a lot of the things the feminists are asking for.
	And I have to just remind myself how divorced from reality their worldview is sometimes because you kind of get used to it being mental.
	And so you see it coming and you expect it as if it's normal.
	And it really shouldn't be normal.
	Yeah, I get that too.
	Sometimes I just think like, okay, is this like I have to remind myself that they really think these are problems.
	They're not just saying it just to say it.
	They're not just doing it as a PR stunt.
	They actually believe they're oppressed.
	Yeah.
	And they actually believe that they're being paid less on the dollar, which honestly, unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	Like in their jobs, I'm sure that's the awkward workplace, you know, just looking at the boss.
	You know, bastard.
	Even though you know co-workers.
	The thing is, though, if you really did believe that, then, yeah, the world would be this hellishly oppressive place.
	Yeah, literally, you go into work and you're convinced that when your co-worker says, you know, morning, he's actually saying nice tits and, you know, walks in your ass as you walk by and stuff.
	And yeah, and he's getting paid 30% more than you or 25% more than you.
	And it's just this, it would be this terrible hell.
	It would be really awful.
	But it's just not reflective of reality.
	And there's no way to persuade them any, you know, of that fact.
	I just.
	Yeah, because in their day-to-day lives, they're creating their own oppressive reality.
	Like, how often do you hear feminists say, I'm a feminist because I'm afraid to walk to my car at night so that scares me rapes?
	Well, the institution of rapists is busy.
	That is a new problem.
	What do you want?
	I mean, I ask them what's the solution to this, and they say, oh, well, make rapes go down.
	How am I supposed to do that?
	I'm not a rapist.
	I don't know where rapists are.
	I can't just magically take out rapists from a cloud and say, cops, arrest them.
	Yeah, no, no, I'm with you.
	Completely with you on that.
	Because it's one of those things where it's like, I'm so scared of being raped, so I need feminism.
	Well, isn't feminism the thing that's actually made you really scared of being raped?
	Because women who are non-feminists don't really talk about getting raped all that much.
	So it's something that seems to be a self-reinforcing thing to the point where they're absolutely terrified of being raped because feminism is constantly telling them they're going to be raped.
	And the only thing that can save them from this is feminism.
	Yeah, and I'm sure it's just a concept that most women have in their mind that there is a possibility that I might be attacked and possibly raped and in life.
	I go out every day with the possibility that I might get into a car accident.
	I might be shot.
	I might be kidnapped.
	You never know.
	But it doesn't stop me from living my life.
	That's the thing.
	If you let it stop you, then isn't it winning?
	That problem is kind of overtaking you and you've lost to the problem.
	Be a stronger person than that and brave it.
	And at the end of the day, the feminist figures aren't true.
	So they're objectively not true.
	So it's not like, I don't know.
	I mean, they obviously think they are objectively true and that all men are rapists.
	And on this article, on this thing, the next paragraph I was going to read out is the first line, it really bothers me.
	It's feminism is inherently good.
	That's just it.
	And it's like, is it?
	You know, is anything inherently good?
	You know, I mean, the Nazis would have said Nazism is inherently good.
	You know, any ism, anyone, any follower of an ideology is going to say their ideology is inherently good, which is why.
	It's a baseless objection to just say that something that I like is good.
	What's good?
	Good is subjective.
	Yeah.
	What do you point to that's good about it?
	I mean, you could say feminism is battling rape culture.
	How often have you heard on the news that a rape attempt was stopped by feminism?
	I've never heard it, so I'm assuming it's not happening.
	I don't know what rape culture.
	If I owned a news station, I would absolutely do that.
	You know, this week, number of rapes stopped by feminism, zero.
	And in other news, just every day.
	But this girl goes on to say straight after that, it's not even close to perfect, and it still needs lots of work, and sometimes it gets all fucked up and backwards and awful, but that doesn't mean it's not still worth fighting for.
	And I just wonder, I think that is actually a really good argument for it not being worth fighting for.
	If it's all fucked up, backwards, and awful, is that something you really want to keep fighting for just for the name?
	Exactly.
	It's like kind of like in America, the Republican and Democratic Party.
	Republicans don't fight for freedom and Democrats don't fight for civil rights anymore.
	It's all one big system.
	So it's like, you know, oh, well, I've no, but people say I'm staying a Republican or I'm still a Democrat because I have faith in the party.
	I have faith that it will come back.
	Why?
	Why are you so afraid to leave?
	That's when it becomes like a cult mentality.
	Like, I can't leave.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The fact that you're like, I believe it's going to get better.
	Well, I don't believe shit.
	You know, so I'm just going to go on the track record.
	And at the moment, it's pretty awful.
	So the things in this thing, she then says, now go back and replace feminism with the human race.
	Say the human race is inherently good.
	The human race is we're fighting for.
	And it's like, that is the kind of level of co-option we're talking about.
	If they think that feminism is interchangeable with the human race, they are insane.
	This person is mad.
	It would literally be like, now go back and replace Nazism with the human race.
	Doesn't that just show that Nazism is inherently good?
	And that's because Nazis are made of human, which is how she terms it, not me.
	But yeah.
	And then they go on to say, one of my favorite feminists is Sir Patrick Stewart.
	Great.
	He's a feminist.
	And he says his mother made £3.10 for working a 40-hour week in a weaving shed.
	And I'm just like, for fuck's sake.
	All right.
	A, we're going to go back before 1972 or 63 or whatever it was in various countries to literally like the turn of the 20th century, whether we're using pounds and shillings.
	I mean, we don't use shillings here.
	We haven't used shillings here for God knows how many decades.
	So this is a really old reason, you know.
	And, but the thing is, she only made £3,10 shillings, which I'm sure isn't actually that little adjusted for inflation, for a 40-hour work week in a weaving shed.
	And it's like, well, yes, she was doing manual labor.
	She was weaving.
	It wasn't, you know, she was using a loom or whatever.
	It's not rocket science, you know.
	How much do you think she's going to get paid?
	Yeah, exactly.
	How much should they have been paid?
	They've been paid 20, 30?
	I mean, basically, if they would have been, if there was a higher demand or a higher people wanted, needed the service of weaving, she might have been making more money.
	But apparently, this was the standard of living that she made.
	But, of course, feminists will probably say, no, she was oppressed.
	The male weaver made 33% score.
	I mean, he might have done, to be fair, but even then, we've fixed that.
	So why are you still going on about it, Patrick?
	But the thing is, the things you can tell that this is coming from an emotional place with him because he also says she was also an abuse victim and he's an anti-domestic violence advocate.
	Well, there we go.
	He's excessively concerned about women disproportionately because his father beat his mother.
	I can see why emotionally that would push you into that place.
	But that doesn't mean your arguments are logical.
	It just means that emotionally you really dislike watching women get hit, which, again, is completely understandable.
	It's just pushing things into a place that I'm uncomfortable with.
	And I'm not happy about women being the recipients of domestic violence, but come on.
	Which actually brings me onto a thing from the Young Turks, right?
	Do you watch the Young Turks at all?
	Yes, I watch them every now and then.
	Yeah, have you seen the one where they're going on about it was some football player who was in an argument with his girlfriend or fiancé and she started hitting him and then he like punched her to the floor and there's a video of her like I don't know if she's actually unconscious but she's she seems a bit out of it on the floor.
	I've heard that on the news.
	I didn't hear it on the young Turks, but I've heard that.
	One of the things that really pisses me off is when Anna gets into her gender ideologue mindset because she was going on about I'm just going to grab the comment just to give a direct quote, because it was it just it really pisses me off that it's such a double standard and they're always going on about double standards, so you know, stop perpetuating them.
	But basically that she was, she was like, well, because men are so much stronger than women, then there's a higher moral burden on the men to not hit the women and therefore, even though she hits him, he's more responsible effectively is what she was saying and a greater burden of responsibility lies with him.
	And that that, to me, is just saying, well, the men are the ones who are the you know, really responsible and have accountability.
	And you know the arbiters of morals really, you know, because then it makes it okay for the woman to hit him in the knowledge that he knows he's not going to hit back, and obviously that is socially conditioned.
	But it's a complete double standard and I've I've, I've got no real sympathy for anyone who can throw a punch but can't take one.
	You know, don't throw the first punch.
	That's just me having a right Young Turks argument yeah, that was, that was Anna from the young Turks argument that Men should be held to a higher moral standard than women.
	Because if a woman starts punching and then the results of that are her getting knocked out, then it wasn't, it's not that she should have thought better about punching, it's that the person she was punching should have just sat there and taken it.
	Yeah, and this is not that it's not that uncommon, to be honest, that mentality.
	I mean, yeah, no, absolutely not.
	It's a very white knight, though, isn't it?
	Yeah, definitely.
	And was she alone in that segment or was Chenk there?
	Oh, Chenk was there.
	I can see people in the comments now going, I hate the young Turks.
	But, you know, and you know, I can understand why a lot of people would hate the young Turks.
	But I'm fine with them as long as they're not talking about gender.
	As long as they're talking about government or corruption or whatever, you know, they're really good, I think.
	Yeah, they're.
	I mean, I enjoy watching them.
	Like I said, when they talk about gender or social issues, they lose me, pissing me off a little bit.
	But, you know, I like them, but they're not to a higher standard than any other media corporation.
	Like, I think I've watched one of Skeptor's old video where he just demolished Chenk.
	You saw that one.
	Yeah, I saw it.
	He's funny as hell, isn't he?
	He's really got it in him to be hilarious.
	Yeah.
	That Israeli accent helps, in my opinion.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The slightly foreign accent and not always perfect English is always funnier when it's making an intelligent point.
	I don't know why.
	And I don't mean that to sound condescending either, but it's like, I don't know, just it's funnier if someone who English isn't even their first language is pointing this out to someone who is, and I don't know why.
	It sounds really insulting now, said that out loud.
	I'm really sorry, Skeptical.
	But yeah, it pissed me off.
	And basically, they were all absolutely in condemnation of this guy.
	And don't get me wrong, I don't want to leap to this guy's defense because he's probably just a dickhead.
	You know, he's probably just a complete...
	But I just...
	And the thing is, his wife afterwards, well, I say his wife because they then got married and then she joined his side and was defending him against everyone else having a go.
	You know?
	And...
	And they're still going on at him saying, well, he had the higher burden of moral support.
	It's like, no, she understands that she was provoking him.
	She started the violence.
	She took responsibility for her actions.
	And then she got married to him.
	I mean, they're going to get divorced.
	He's going to lose huge amounts in a settlement.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	You know, it's obviously a financial thing for her as well.
	But there is still the admission of she's in the wrong, which I thought was, you know.
	And it's a strong media bias because when, like, in this particular situation where football player X, I don't know his name.
	Yeah.
	But when he hit his wife, everyone jumps to the conclusion, whoa, he's a monster.
	Why is he hitting her?
	He shouldn't have hit her.
	Exactly.
	Not asking what the situation was at hand.
	When just a few, I think a month or two ago, when Beyonce's sister attacked Jay-Z, everyone was hesitant.
	Okay, maybe he did something.
	Maybe he said something to her.
	Maybe he hurt her feelings.
	Maybe she was defending Beyoncé when clearly it's just her constantly attacking, physically attacking Jay-Z, where no one is criticizing her.
	Like, whoa, you're crazy.
	You're a monster.
	Why are you hitting him?
	And in some cases, they're praising her.
	Like, you go, girl.
	Yeah, and the last person I'd want to defend is Jay-Z as well, because I've watched a lot of Mark Dice videos.
	But I don't know if you've ever watched Mark Dice, but Mark Dice is the most hilarious conspiracy theorist on the internet.
	I'm familiar with Mark.
	Yeah, I just find him just the funniest thing in the world to listen to.
	But yeah, like you say, I really don't like the idea of someone just standing there and taking a beating just because they feel they should.
	That's awful.
	And I can see why Jay-Z did it from a market standpoint.
	I would too, probably.
	Because if I have 50 million fans, depending on my image, on my likeness to make money, hey, I'm not going to Beyonce's.
	She doesn't have any fans.
	Yeah, but she probably gained a lot by doing it as well.
	Yeah.
	But, yeah.
	I just wanted to say with Mark Dice, I particularly enjoy his blowhorn videos right before Black Friday.
	I don't think I've actually seen any of those.
	No?
	No, tell me about them.
	It's hilarious.
	It's just when he just goes to major retail stores and you just see loads and herds of thousands of people just standing outside of Walmart camping out to say, and he's basically right, just to save $20 on a DVD player that's going to be worth $50 less after a month.
	And he just goes and sell them, and he goes up to him and asks, are you paying with this in cash?
	And they're like, no, credit card.
	Oh, so you're going in debt.
	So putting your financial life at risk just to get a flat screen.
	Okay, that's.
	I love it.
	Yeah, Goodfella's just like, Mark Dice is alright, but he never shuts up about the Illuminati.
	That's the bit I like, man.
	That's the funny bit.
	I mean, and the thing is, I can see why he would think that that's the case.
	You know, I'm not saying that I think that's the case, but he presents a fairly good case for it.
	And, you know, like Alex Jones, there's probably some truth in there mixed up with a lot of bullshit.
	But I particularly like his ones where he goes up to the Americans on the street and asks them about the war with Canada and stuff like that.
	And they're just like, oh, yeah, yeah, that's terrible.
	And it's like, why are you adopting a position or something you have no idea about, you idiots?
	What are you doing?
	It hurts me even more when my, like, in regards, going back to my opinion on college, when he goes to college campuses and asks the most basic questions, the people and the students are just dumbfounded.
	They have no idea what he's talking about.
	It's really sad.
	It makes you wonder, like, okay, what are these kids being taught in school?
	I mean, they're forced to take these core classes, history, and stuff like that.
	They should know about this, at least to some extent.
	At least to some extent to say, hold on, that sounds a bit questionable.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But they went along with it.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, it's like Internet Aristocrats' video on the Cedar debates.
	He's like, we're raising a generation of monsters.
	And I think he's absolutely right.
	I think there's going to be.
	I don't know.
	I mean, like, a lot of millennials I find really don't have proper morals.
	And I know that sounds awful to say, and I know it's so generalizing.
	But whenever I speak to them, they just don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say.
	Why going to Starbucks is a bad thing?
	Why it's inherently not a good thing?
	Why working for Starbucks is a bad thing.
	As if they don't really understand that wage slavery is an option rather than a conclusion.
	You don't have to go down that road.
	And yet, I don't know.
	And maybe it's just me being biased or just, you know.
	I don't know to an extent it's right because I can agree that a lot of millennials are just Going through life as zombies, basically.
	Yeah, they have no individual character, really.
	No strong morals behind them, behind their mentality.
	And they're just cruising through life, at least until when it comes to the internet, that's when they become more of an individual.
	But as far as in the public, they're just always individual in a very narrow range, isn't it?
	I mean, if we were to take Tumblr as an example, they'd be like, oh, I'm, you know, squirrel kin, cross-gender bat eater, or whatever, you know, something, there'll be something mental, but they're all a different variation of the same shade of mental, you know, just different shades of insanity.
	There's no, you know, they're all the same, though.
	They're all very easy to lump in the same category.
	But one thing I've noticed about the sort of millennials as a whole is they seem to think that they seem to be very comfortable with authority, which is something I find very unsettling.
	You know, they strike me as the sort of people who would be complicit and probably remain silent because they were told to remain silent.
	Jean-Luc Picard just said sounds like the Generation X speeches again.
	I don't actually know.
	I'm part of Generation X, so I kind of missed what the previous generation was saying about Generation X. If you'd like to tell me, I'd be very interested in knowing.
	But yeah, you're right.
	I'm starting to see a change in many millennials' mentality, at least in regards to a lot of policies in the U.S., such as the NSA spying.
	A lot of them are pissed off about that, which I think is going to have a major, yeah, definitely.
	And I think that's pretty much the main talking point as far as when the presidential elections come in 2016.
	I'm pretty sure that's going to be the main focus point of what's going to determine the vote, what's going to determine who wins.
	So who do you think is going to win that one just while we're on that?
	Because it's going to be Clinton running something else, isn't it?
	Yeah, I hate saying that it's too early to say because I just feel like that's a cop-out of being afraid to share your opinion.
	But I think now it is becoming too early to say because about a year ago, I would definitely say it would have been Clinton versus either Rand Paul or possibly a Bush or something like that.
	But now that the New Jersey scandal with Chris Christie, which is pretty stupid, but regardless, Americans might have eaten it up.
	Could you tell us what that was about?
	Because I don't actually know what that was about anyway.
	It was about Governor Christie of New Jersey.
	There's a rumor going around the scandal that he shut down the George Washington Bridge, which is a major bridge connecting New Jersey to, I want to either say New York or New Brunswick.
	I don't know.
	I'm not sure.
	May not even be either of those.
	But it's a major city, and he shut it down for political reasons to get back at one of his Democratic colleagues, I think, because they didn't back him in the election, or they didn't.
	It was some sort of policy competition that they didn't agree with.
	Yeah.
	He gave me it for malicious personal reasons, yeah.
	Yeah, and it was on one of the busiest, one of the busiest days or something of the year, busiest traffic months.
	Oh, I think I saw that actually.
	Was the bridge packed with traffic, yeah?
	Yeah, and I think I did see that.
	No, everyone's um there was a thing where someone said that a woman died because of it, which that came out because she would have died anyway because the ambulance was stuck in traffic.
	But just the mentality, just the idea that's set in people's head now has got people hit Christie's pretty much out of the competition as of now.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I would have said Hillary Clinton, too, about a year ago, but now surprisingly, people are turning against Hillary.
	Really?
	What are they doing?
	Even a lot of the leftists, they're really because it's coming out that Hillary.
	Well, did you hear about the thing where she said that she was complaining about her finances, how she almost lost her house?
	No, I didn't.
	What?
	Yeah.
	Last month.
	Exactly.
	It was about two months ago.
	She was complaining about how she was losing her house.
	Her and Bill were living on the edge, paycheck to paycheck.
	Like basically an attempt, basically an attempt to relate to the common man, I suppose.
	Oh, fuck off, Hillary.
	People were saying, hey, you made, I think it was $15 million last year.
	Jesus Christ.
	Your property is worth $5 million.
	You pay like $100,000 in mortgage or something like that.
	And she doesn't even drive her own car.
	She has her own car service.
	She said she's never driven a car since...
	She hasn't driven a car in 50 years or something like that.
	And people are like, are you kidding me?
	Oh, no.
	Ah, he seems to have dropped.
	Sorry, boss.
	I assume everyone's still with me because it looks like my internet's fine this time.
	So this is T's fault.
	I've just reinvited him.
	I can hardly believe that's all bollocks, though.
	This is the political class all over.
	It's just completely out of touch with the real world.
	And I'm absolutely sick of it.
	In the meantime, one of the things I've been really thinking a lot about is just the kind of incongruity between the education and qualifications of British politicians and the positions they hold.
	Let me just get George Osborne's biography up on Wikipedia, just to make sure this isn't I'm guessing that something's happened on his end because he hasn't just joined back in.
	I would absolutely love to invite Shuon Head.
	I think she's funny as all hell.
	And Meta, I thought it was Michelle Obama who was a man.
	I tell you what, I saw that video about her being a transgender, and Obama's pretty gay.
	He's pretty camp.
	And Michelle Obama has got fucking impressive shoulders for a woman.
	She is pretty damn statuesque.
	I don't want to say that she's a man or was a man, but she's quite impressively muscular.
	And I say that with a great deal of respect.
	He can probably punch me in the face, knock me out.
	Hang on, I'm just going to go on Twitter and quickly reply to him.
	But yeah, so George Osborne, right?
	Now, call me crazy, but if I was going to put a finance minister in charge of the country as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the definition for the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wikipedia is the title held by the British Cabinet Minister who's responsible for all economic and financial maps economic and financial matters, equivalent to the role of the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of the Treasury in other nations.
	The officeholder controls the HN Treasury.
	It's considered one of the four great offices of state and in recent times has come to the most powerful office in British politics after the Prime Minister.
	Now, I would expect that person to have a really, really thorough knowledge of the banking system and just the economic system of the country in general and just the way that the world actually works.
	But the thing is, I really find it difficult to believe that George Osborne knows anything about anything because A, he sounds stupid as all shit when he talks.
	But B, his education is this.
	So, I'm sorry.
	So, he was originally named Gideon Oliver.
	He changed his name to George when he was 13, and apparently said it was his small act of rebellion.
	He never liked it.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	He was educated at Independent Schools, Norland Place School, Cullet Cotton, Colett's Court, and St. Paul's School, and given a deanieship to Magdalene College in the University of Oxford.
	He received a 2-1 bachelor's degree in modern history.
	At Oxford, he edited the university's ISIS magazine and was a member of the Bullingdon Club.
	He also attended Davidson College in North Carolina for a semester as the Dean Rusk Scholar.
	After graduating in 1992, he did some part-time jobs, including data entry clerk, typing the details of recent deceased onto an NHS computer database.
	He briefly worked at Selfridge's, mainly refolding towels.
	In 1993, he originally intended to pursue a career in journalism.
	He was shortlisted but failed to gain place on the Times Trainee Scheme.
	But instead, did freelance work, for fuck's sake, police, yes, I do live in the ghettos.
	The Times Trainee scheme, did freelance work on the Peterborough diary column, the Daily Telegraph?
	And sometimes later, an Oxford friend of his, journalist George Bridges, alerted Osborne to a research vacancy at the Conservative Central Office.
	Now, I don't think that this guy really has any kind of background to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	I don't really want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a banker, but they would be the people I would have thought would be most qualified for that position, given that they might actually know what they're fucking talking about.
	I think T's ready to come back in, so hopefully he'll be back with us.
	But I mean, this is basically my problem with almost everything.
	He's clearly there because of his connections, you know, the places that he went to and the people that he obviously knew.
	Because there's no way he's qualified for any of this, is there?
	Sorry, for some reason my it looks like one of my shift keys is stuck down and it's highlighting everything on the screen which is really helpful.
	I'm running such a professional outfit here.
	Just reading through some of your comments as I went over all that.
	So yeah, Sleeping Giant, I agree with this.
	He's a fucking idiot.
	He really does seem to be.
	I don't understand how anyone would think he's a good choice for anything ever.
	I mean, I just it's it's like Ian Duncan Smith being the person who deals with unemployment.
	It's like but he's rich.
	He doesn't know what it's like to be poor.
	He's never known what it's like to be poor.
	You know, why would you have him doing this job?
	He doesn't know.
	You know, maybe it's just me.
	Still trying to get T back.
	Sorry about this.
	I'm sure he will be back shortly.
	Crazy kid death, Putin, Cameron, and Obama, who would win?
	What, in a three-way brawl to the death?
	Putin, obviously, is going to just snap both their fucking scrawny necks.
	Jesus.
	There's no way that the two fucking Nancy boys running the Western world are going to defeat Putin in unarmed combat.
	Which is exactly what you meant.
	Ah, you're back.
	Yeah, just talking about Vladimir Putin fighting David Cameron and Barack Obama in hand-to-hand combat.
	That's a fun little exchange going on.
	Who would your money be on?
	Putin, of course.
	He would rather fucking bear than work.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Yeah, your app closed.
	Yeah, damn technology today.
	Yeah, it never bloody works, does it?
	I tell you.
	So yeah, what were we saying?
	Hillary Clinton, I think, is the person who's going to get it.
	I really do.
	I think she's going to win, even though she's even though her popularity is.
	Hillary Clinton.
	Yeah, I think that's going to be a determining factor.
	People just want a female president.
	Yeah.
	It's an idea.
	The informed populist, they see her as a bad candidate, but you've got to understand that the majority of American voters are not informed.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And this is something that...
	Do you ever listen to Dan Carlin?
	No, I'm not familiar.
	I think that you would absolutely love Dan Carlin.
	Just get a browser window up and go dancarlin.com and then listen to some of his podcasts.
	He's an independent journalist who basically runs his own website podcast series, and he does history ones as well, which is basically where the inspiration for mine came from.
	And he's just really, really good.
	Really good.
	And he basically, because he's a political commentator, and he's been doing it for donkeys years now.
	He's just like, you know, there is always a really bad alternative choice to the current sort of candidate that gets a lot of media attention.
	And like, so against like Bush, you had Kerry running before Obama in 2004, was it?
	Who was running against Obama again?
	Mills McCain.
	Exactly.
	Who the fuck's gonna vote for McCain?
	Only the Republicans.
	No one in the middle or undecided is voting for McCain, are they?
	And who was it?
	Who was against in the most recent one?
	Romney.
	Ronnie.
	Yeah, who the fuck's gonna vote for Romney?
	If you're not like, and they could have, they had, he made a point, they had some really good candidates, like Condoleezza Rice, didn't they?
	Yeah.
	She would have been a stormer.
	You know, she would have, there is no way she wouldn't have just, you know, dominated the field by being a black woman who can talk some sense.
	I don't know if she can actually talk some sense.
	She's probably just as corrupt as the rest of the political class.
	It's like the Republican Party doesn't try to win anymore, which I don't really care either way.
	I don't really vote.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, as far as at least in their political terms, I would think they would try harder than McCain and Romney.
	I think they're saying they might try Sarah Palin this time.
	Sarah Palin Jesus Christ.
	But that's the thing.
	He makes a good point.
	Like, they're not even trying to win.
	And it's just like, why are they doing this?
	They can't be that stupid.
	They cannot be that stupid.
	You know, this is, again, this is just one of those things that people, it pushes into the conspiratorial aspect because, you know, you wouldn't make that decision if you were the one in charge of that party.
	So do they know something you don't sort of think is what they tend to think.
	And so, yeah, I just find it quite baffling.
	And so I think that whoever goes against Hillary Clinton is just going to be much worse.
	A complete joke.
	Yeah, definitely.
	But all I know is if Hillary Clinton does win, America is going to be involved in another major war very, very soon.
	Why do you say that?
	Hillary's a crazy strong warmonger.
	She's very strong.
	She's the one that wanted to help fund the Iraq resistance or something, something like that.
	And she wanted to help.
	Yeah, ISIS.
	She wanted to help ISIS.
	She wanted to arm the rebels in Syria.
	She wanted to, what is it?
	She wanted ground troops in Ukraine.
	She wanted something.
	It was something done with Israel.
	I don't think it was ground troops, but it was something she wanted.
	Some action she wanted to take.
	But pretty much for policy, she wants to be involved in every little part of the world.
	She wants to milk the military for every soldier it has in it.
	Yeah, very expansionist.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think Dr. Random McCammon, Goodfella Poirot, they both made basically the same point, which is they're just puppets.
	They're just, you know, nothing's different either.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	Whoever's going to get in, you know, nowadays, you don't have to worry about who's going to do the most when they get in.
	You have to worry about who's going to do the least.
	I want a president that's going to do basically how Obama's doing right now, just going to fundraisers and chilling out, not passing any new laws.
	That's how I want a president to do for their entire term.
	Just chill out, let us live our lives.
	I'm a big fan of Ron Paul as a person.
	He actually strikes me as a man of a lot of integrity.
	And I say this because I don't think he's actually a politician.
	He's just a man involved in politics.
	And I think that did you see the Daily Show segment where they were basically highlighting how left out of the last election he was and just like the coverage of him in some primaries or something.
	I don't really know how it works.
	But basically the media was doing everything they could to not cover what Ron Paul was doing.
	But the thing is, he was getting a lot of grassroots support because he was just speaking sense.
	And again, it's one of those things that it's again, I don't even think this is a conspiracy at this point.
	What I think it is, is just collusion.
	I think the political class as a whole has realized what's good for the political class.
	And they're all operating in the best interests of the political class just because they all benefit.
	Again, it's not necessarily something malicious.
	I think it's just a symptom of the system itself.
	Yeah, definitely.
	And it's not like, like you said, political class.
	That's the new hierarchical, top hierarchical class in society now.
	It's not the 1%.
	It's not the super rich.
	It's the politicians because the politicians are the ones.
	I actually think that the 1%, the super, I mean, they give the money to the politicians.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's the class.
	They're just aspects of the class, I think.
	Yes, but I just see the politicians as more dangerous because they have the gun behind them.
	They're the ones that can't force their will upon the people.
	Even the 1%, the top wealthy, they can give money to influence the politicians, and the politicians are the muscle.
	That's very interesting.
	I always think of it as a situation if you had Al Capone or something.
	If you want to get rid of the mafia, you could go after the head, but what happens when you cut off the head?
	You just get another head pop up.
	What you really have to do is take out their muscles, take out their power to do something.
	And that's when you basically end their thing.
	Yeah, no, I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	No, no, no, no, I'm completely with you on that, actually.
	It is like a hydra.
	Even if you keep chopping off heads, it's not like where the heads are coming from is being damaged.
	You have to go for the body because that's what's growing all these heads.
	And I think that's exactly right.
	It was interesting that I recently read the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, and I'm very interested in it as a book because it goes on, at one point, one of the characters goes on saying, is it any less violent to have your life shortened by 20 years?
	Because at the time, it's very similar to the economic disparity now.
	But obviously, medical technology wasn't so advanced.
	But basically, he was making the point that the fact that the poor are pretty much kept poor by the system, they're robbed of about 20 years of life.
	And so is this not just violence by other means?
	And so what this then brings me on to thinking is the constant espousal of the principle of non-violence.
	And I've been thinking a lot about it recently because it kind of pisses me off.
	Because there are multiple ways of waging war against someone.
	And the most direct one is, obviously, violence.
	You can wage economic wars on people, which is exactly what the rich class has done against everyone else, you know, the middle and lower classes.
	And I think they really have, broadly speaking, used the media to turn the middle class that's feeling the press even more than ever before, really, to then misplace that blame on the poor, which leaves the poor with no options because everyone is saying you can't be violent, even though that's the only weapon they've got left.
	The poor don't have money to fight their wars with.
	That's fundamentally one of the problems of being poor.
	And so the rich are saying, look, you can't use violence.
	You can only use money.
	And that's great because we've got all the money.
	And so I'm not advocating that people start going in and doing violence, but I think the people as a whole need to really start getting past the idea of not being violent because corporations don't have armies.
	That's the thing that they're actually weak on, which is probably why, as a general zeitgeist, it's, oh, you can't be violent.
	You can't be violent.
	Well, sometimes you're going to have to be.
	When the war is so lopsided in that way, you can't fight it that way.
	And I'm not, again, I'm not advocating for any kind of violence or anything, but I think it's going to happen whether they want it or not.
	And just constantly espousing this principle of nonviolence is just going to make it worse when it finally does explode, I think is the problem.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And you just have to slowly push the status quo.
	Pretty much everyone agrees that voting isn't an effective way to bring about change anymore.
	Voting is basically just deciding who's going to screw you.
	You're going to get screwed anyway.
	You decide which thing is going to look best doing it.
	Who's got the smallest dick?
	And when you're trying to actually bring about change, you have to push status quo sometimes, which sometimes can involve not necessarily always violence, but sometimes violence and sometimes just disobeying authority.
	Like, for instance, I believe it was about a year ago.
	Are you familiar with Adam Kokish?
	I've never heard of him.
	Yeah, he's a libertarian podcaster on YouTube.
	And he went to the state capitol.
	He was planning a protest to where a lot of gun owners in America would open carry to Washington, D.C., where it's illegal to open carry and basically illegal to own a firearm.
	So he was planning that, but it didn't go through.
	A lot of people backed out.
	The feds basically threatened with arrest.
	If you come past this line, you will be arrested.
	You're prosecuted.
	So he still went on his own.
	He went to the Capitol outside of the, what was it?
	Outside of the state building, I believe, with a shotgun, loaded it up, and he recorded it.
	He said, Happy Independence Day, which was brave.
	I wouldn't have done that because I was in jail, but he did it.
	Excuse me.
	Yeah, he got a lot of support for it and a lot of media attention.
	And now a federal judge just recently, I think it was yesterday or day before yesterday, overturned the ban that bans civilians from being able to open carry in Washington, D.C. as unconstitutional.
	So, you know, sometimes when you push the status quo and break the rules and break the laws, sometimes, you know, that yields results.
	Yeah.
	See, that's the thing.
	I mean, let me just grab a comment.
	NYC Treman said Sargon excusing violence based on someone having more than someone else, Basic Socialism 101.
	I think you might have missed what I was saying there.
	What I'm saying is the poor are already having violence done to them.
	It's just not physical.
	It's economic violence.
	So all they're doing is preventing reciprocation just by nature of power.
	If you've got all the money, then someone without the money can't really do economic violence to you.
	And so the only recourse is then physical violence, which I think is actually completely justified.
	If someone was holding me down through methods that I couldn't really see or combat, and the only option was to get violent, I mean, I'd have to.
	You couldn't not, could you?
	And I'm not, again, I'm not advocating for it, but I think it's going to happen.
	I just think it's, you know.
	And I think there's a big thing going around with the poor in America where they're placing their, everyone's angry at the rich right now, but they're angry at the wrong portion of the rich.
	The poor and middle class are mad at the rich who are actually productive, the ones who are actually becoming successful through entrepreneurship.
	The ones who are actually doing they're not angry at the ones who are receiving corporate welfare and the ones who are using the force of government to muscle out competition and force their will upon them.
	And I think that's the peop that's the reason why they're so that's the reason why no one's getting anywhere where no one's really because everyone's everyone's fighting the wrong person.
	The rich the well, the rich aren't, I don't know who they're fighting, but the poor are fighting the rich.
	The middle class are between fighting the rich and the poor because all you hear about on the news is you know minor poor subsidies and EBT food stamps and welfare, which I get, but it's not the biggest problem.
	You can't be against welfare, but then just ignore corporate welfare.
	I agree.
	I think that it does seem to be the yeah, like you said, the business owners and these people, I don't like using the term job creators, but they have created jobs.
	They've also done irreparable damage, but it's you know, these are, like you say, these are the wrong people.
	It should be like the hedge fund managers that they should be going after.
	The speculative capitalists who are really the ones doing all the damage.
	But they're very reticent about publicity and exposure.
	So whereas the big business owners, they don't mind it because it gets their name out in the public, because they want the public to buy things from the businesses.
	Yeah.
	And real quick, I just wanted to reply to a comment.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Please.
	Class probably, let me see.
	Class.
	I'm going to call you class.
	Class heading.
	Non-aggression principle.
	If a corporation gets power with voluntary trade, no force, is it really entitled to that power, though?
	I wouldn't say they're entitled to that power, but they have earned that power.
	Like for example, Walmart.
	Walmart started from, it did start from nothing.
	It started as a grassroots corporation, and then they expanded and expanded.
	And now, if, let me see, like present, for instance, Walmart has the power to go into a neighborhood and possibly put out other businesses because Walmart services so many different things and it's such a convenient location, which many people will say, okay, that's an abuse of power.
	Walmart's muscling out the little guy.
	But I would say, you know, if that's where the people want to go, if people prefer Walmart, you know, it doesn't mean they're entitled to those customers, but they've earned them.
	Well, yeah, I mean, I think that entitlements are earned.
	So if you earn something, then I think you are entitled to it.
	But I'm not sure that I think it's a bit of um I think it's a bit simplistic for this sort of thing because the the there's there's there's some obvious like obvious things that strike me.
	I mean a Walmart when when I look at it it kind of it was it was like um in in the I think it was 2008 G8 summit in in Britain.
	They they they they basically faked high streets in in the country.
	They they spent about two million pounds which probably about three million dollars rent not renovating these high streets just papering them with fake shops like you'd see in North Korea or something you know like when you know so that you the delegates would like look out at the city and it'd look like all these high streets are bustling because they were painted shops.
	I'm not even joking.
	That is something that really happened right and I was just looking at the business calculator on one of the banks local banks here and they were saying to start like a bookstore it costs like £12,000 to start a grocery store it probably costs about £20.
	And so, for about a million pounds, you could.
	You could completely repopulate those those, those streets, with actual shops, but it wouldn't matter and it'd be a waste of time because they'd inevitably close down.
	Because, you know, only like a mile or two away there is a giant Walmart-esque superstore that can offer everything at such a low price that it's just it.
	It just destroys it's.
	It's like it's like a black hole.
	You know it, just it.
	It just sucks the life out from under in in the way of just being cheaper and more convenient.
	And so ultimately, I think it's a bit of a fool's errand to try and say we can't have these things because they're more efficient.
	People are going to do them.
	You know people want to go to Walmart, so it's.
	It's.
	Really like altering our methods of interaction with these corporations to make sure that they don't become giant exploitative entities that go on to pay people minimum wage and the only jobs in town are based on this.
	You know are at this giant corporate, faceless entity that pays them minimum wage, and you know so that that's the thing it's.
	It's, it's very parasitical, and yet people they, they begin to benefit from it.
	They, they benefit from it at the start, and then, 20 years later, their children are not benefiting from it.
	You know, that's the problem and it's this short-sightedness.
	So I think that I mean, I don't even know what could be done.
	I don't know what could.
	I don't know what a solution to this is.
	You don't mind me expanding on those real quick?
	Yeah yeah, absolutely.
	Do you mind if I um grab a cup of tea?
	Are you happy to stick around for a bit longer, like a while longer?
	Yeah yeah, that's fine great okay yeah, if you want to ex um expand on that, I'll um, I'm just gonna.
	I can't actually hear you when you go through it.
	So shit sorry, I'll be back out.
	Yeah yeah yeah well, I'll just continue.
	Hello audience, you are now all mine.
	But when Sargon said the idea of when he said businesses going out no, like Walmart, putting small shops out of business, and generally you hear this quite often as an argument that this is why we don't need Walmart, because they're putting the little guy out of business when in reality I mean ask yourself,
	are you that?
	Are you or do you miss the small business next door to you?
	That much I mean personally I, I there's a Walmart upstreet from me about about no, not even a mile like 0.3 miles up the street from my house, and I like it there.
	I don't go to it all the time.
	When I need a specific Product or service, I might not want to go to Walmart for it.
	And but I do like having that option of convenience.
	And I think that the more like soon in the future, we're going to have areas in which there is a big corporation.
	It's a big business, one big business, but it services a lot of different areas, such as Amazon.com.
	I mean, I don't really complain about Amazon taking people's business because, hey, they're giving me a service.
	They're giving me quick delivery, easy access, convenience, cheaper prices.
	So I don't really have a problem with them.
	No, if they were stiffing me, then I would probably be like, you know, yeah.
	Or in other cases, you could still, you could be opposed to it, like places like Starbucks, I believe.
	Yeah, I guess that's a good example.
	Starbucks, if people don't like the coffee of Starbucks, or people don't like Starbucks all the way around the house, and they don't shop there, then you know, other businesses will come up.
	And I think I mentioned this, I talked about this in my Monopoly video.
	But yeah, before I start rambling, just curious, you guys, would you sacrifice your local Walmart, Publix, Kroger's, GameStop, basically your small-time monopoly business in your area for a whole bunch of other small businesses that may have higher prices?
	And now I guess we'll wait for Sargon to return as I read the comments.
	I suck at being live.
	Sorry, I'm back now.
	I caught part of what you were saying there while I was waiting for the kettle to boil.
	What was your conclusion at the end?
	Sorry, just basically big businesses like Walmart and big corporations that service, like Amazon.com, that service a whole lot of different things but are very are centered around one particular corporation.
	Would you sacrifice the convenience and lower prices that you get for From that business in exchange for a whole bunch of other smaller businesses who may employ more people, but may also cost you more in terms of prices and time?
	See, that's a really interesting position because on the surface, it's very hard to argue against that.
	Obviously, I want my things as efficiently and conveniently as possible for the lowest possible price, which is what Amazon and Walmart, they're doing a very good job of doing that.
	And it's unsurprisingly, you know, I remember when Amazon first came out and everyone was so, well, I don't know.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Ordering things off the internet, who's going to do that?
	I mean, come on.
	You know, obviously, lots of fucking people are going to do that.
	It's easy.
	And it comes the next day and problem solved.
	You didn't even have to leave your chair to get your new block of cheese or whatever the woman had.
	So it's, yeah.
	But the thing is, there's no way for a small business to compete with that.
	That's the problem.
	These companies have grown to the point of that they are so economically powerful by their just sheer size that they can afford to run a lower profit margin on volume of sales because they can achieve that volume of sales.
	A small outfit definitely can't achieve a large volume of sales like they can.
	Therefore, they can't keep their prices as low as Amazon and whatnot.
	So it prevents competition from arising.
	And that basically it's a system of monopolies.
	And I'm against the idea of monopoly in a competitive market, but what I think that we're going to have to start admitting is we're not the same world that we were.
	And no one's going to out-compete Amazon.
	No one's going to out-compete Amazon.
	No small guy in his, you know, he's going to get like, you know, £10,000 startup grant or whatever from the government and then create an online store that's going to out-produce and out-compete Amazon, is he?
	It's never going to happen.
	I really don't think it's going to happen.
	So it's kind of locking everyone into that system.
	And it is an efficient system.
	That's the problem, though.
	It's an efficient system, but it ultimately ends up leaving everyone as a wage slave of Amazon.
	No one's going to be reaping the rewards of their hard work.
	They're only going to get paid wages.
	So they can't ever really make a profit on their work unless wages were to be substantially increased.
	Yeah.
	And I think that's a strong point that you make where basically small brick and mortars aren't going to be able to compete with Amazon or big internet companies.
	And I personally think that in the next 20, 30 years, a lot of these brick and mortar stores we see now are going to be obsolete.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	The internet is actually becoming the new economy.
	Yeah.
	All the expansion that's happening, all the new startups, all the new businesses are pretty much all coming from the internet online.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think that the Walmart style stuff where it's like hyper-centralized, I think that'll always exist.
	And I think that'll exist primarily for women's clothes and shopping, the shopping experience itself, you know?
	I just thought of this as an off-fan point.
	That would be awesome.
	That's got to be an awesome industry to work in online for women's shopping because think how much ad revenue you get for how long women stay on the website.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, they've got to kill it.
	When it's too late and all the shops are closed and some woman's just bored at home and she's just browsing on a tablet sort of thing, there must be millions of them, untold millions of them.
	But I was thinking, like, I think what bothers me about this system is not that it exists, because I'm a big fan of efficient systems.
	And like Truth Things has just said, all large businesses want small businesses.
	And I'm absolutely right.
	But we've come to a point where it's settled.
	The institutions, because this is the thing about institutions, they start small, and if they're effective, they grow and they grow really quickly.
	And then the whole thing kind of calculates, where there's no more room to go into the institution.
	And that sort of calcification will last for, you know, can last for hundreds of years, you know, but it eventually gets reformed or comes down and something replaces it.
	Now, I don't really see the sort of Walmart Amazon model changing anytime soon.
	you know, I really don't think that that's I really don't think that's going away because it's the most efficient way of doing it, you know It's the cheapest way.
	But it also comes with its own real problems.
	So I think I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I think that once corporations get to a certain point, I mean, I think probably shares, when they start floating on stock markets and stock exchanges, is when they start dishing out shares, I don't think that people should be able to buy shares.
	I actually think that shares should probably be assigned to positions in the corporation instead.
	And I know that's absolutely radical.
	But what that would effectively do, I think, would be to democratize corporations, which I think is actually the most important and probably next step in our lives.
	I think that things are going to get progressively worse until that happens.
	I didn't think you would be in favor of that.
	Wouldn't that be basically putting the power back in the hands of the business owners rather than the individual people?
	Well, the individual people would be the business owners, effectively, wouldn't they?
	Because they'd be the shareholders.
	So even the janitor would be a shareholder.
	Oh, you're talking about the employees.
	Well, not the employees personally, but the people who hold those positions.
	So the janitor doesn't take the shares with him.
	You're not talking about just the corporate field, just the CEO and the CFO and whatnot holding all the shares.
	Exactly.
	That's the thing.
	I think the shares should be distributed.
	And it doesn't have to be equally.
	I don't think there's any getting around hierarchy.
	Just to go off on a bit of a tangent.
	I love libertarian socialist rants.
	Like Goodfella said, it was only when Goodfellow pointed out that he used to be Cami Yabams or something.
	I remember seeing him before years ago when I first got on YouTube.
	And he is funny as all hell.
	And I can't believe he's gone weird feminist anarchists.
	It's like, look, man, they're unrealistic, untenable prospects.
	Come back from the fucking outer rim of insanity.
	Because his old stuff is funny as hell.
	But anyway, the point is that there will still be disparity.
	The janitor isn't going to earn the same amount out of the corporate's profits as the CEO, obviously.
	Even though I think CEOs put far too much stock in themselves and their own abilities.
	Even the janitor every month he gets maybe a sizable chunk out of the profits of the corporation.
	And that just goes up.
	So he might have one share.
	Your average office worker might have two shares.
	The average manager might have three shares.
	Middle management might have three shares.
	Technical experts might have five shares.
	That sort of thing.
	But everyone earns more money as the corporation does better.
	And that means that if you are going to be trapped inside a giant supranational corporation that it dominates the landscape, at least you are the one making money out of that.
	All of the people are making money out.
	And the CEOs will still be making money out of it.
	That would just ultimately, I think that would kill the super rich class and reduce them back to what I think that sort of the idea, the ideal of America really was, which was to have, you know, you're going to have a poor class, but they're not too poor.
	You've got a very healthy middle class, and then the rich are still rich, but they're not unfathomably rich.
	I think a system that produces billionaires is a bad system.
	Yeah.
	Come on, say that one more time.
	Last part.
	I think a system that produces billionaires is a bad system.
	Oh, come on.
	I want to be a billionaire.
	Yeah, but you're never going to be.
	But all these other people are billionaires.
	And the thing is, you know, theoretically, there's only so much money to go around.
	So, you know, do you think that these people really worked hard enough to earn a billion dollars?
	Well, no, not all of them.
	Like, for instance, Mark Zuckerberg, he didn't really do too much of shit together.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	It's not even about working hard now.
	Now that we have the internet, like I said, the internet has changed so much.
	Oh, yeah.
	You have to work hard.
	You just have to expand.
	You have to get reach.
	That's to come in and you make money.
	See, that's exactly the point, isn't it?
	You know, they didn't really work very hard, and yet they are worth so much more than other human beings.
	Yeah, because in the 1900s, think how hard it would be for an individual to reach a million people.
	Yeah.
	And now you can do that today with one viral video.
	And it's just so much easier to reach customers, which I think is why many people are getting more and more rich.
	Yeah, and yeah, absolutely.
	That's the thing.
	Someone's doing the work.
	It's just not these people at the top.
	And like Arcane said, and someone else pointed out that they did it in France with a company called Mondragon that recently went bankrupt.
	I've never heard of that.
	So I'm very interested in hearing about that.
	So can I just, do you mind if I just go through another comment that someone else put?
	Apparently I'm standing up for statism today or statism.
	I'm not really sure how it's pronounced.
	I've only heard that written down.
	I'm not actually too familiar with the term.
	Could you define it for me?
	Can anyone define it for me?
	Yeah, statism?
	Yeah.
	Just what the core concepts of it are.
	Basically, beliefs and your personal opinions by force through government on otherwise peaceful people.
	Right, okay.
	Well, I thought you're going to be.
	Say it again, mate.
	I said, I don't necessarily think that what you were just saying was in defense of statism, per se.
	I actually thought it was a really good idea with giving employees shares.
	Yeah.
	That sounds like a really good idea.
	But I only have two questions for you in regards to that.
	Firstly, would that share be taken away if the employee left the business?
	Yes.
	The share belongs to the position and not the employee.
	Okay, so I guess it would work in favor of employees being able to decide as far as policy decisions in the corporation that would be best for them, but they wouldn't get any monetary value out of it since it still is owned by the corporation.
	Well, no.
	Again, I'd be making up rules as I'm going along effectively.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But basically, the share would act as if the person owned the share.
	So the person doing that job has the right to all of the perks that come with own shares, like dividends and voting rights and corporate policy and stuff like that.
	So it's the only way I can think of that would be most fair.
	Well, they wouldn't be able to sell them.
	Okay.
	What do you mean by wouldn't be able to gain any monetary value?
	Right, because basically the whole point of owning shares is not only to have a say in the company, but to have your profit, your investment grow with the company.
	Yeah, but that's exactly what it'd be before, yeah.
	But if they left the company, their investment wouldn't, it would only be valid while they're working for the company.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Which is interesting.
	And secondly.
	You don't sound convinced before you go into the second point.
	I just want to can I get your opinion on that?
	It's interesting.
	I just see it as like if I'm let's say I just got a job at Walmart and they give me two shares worth I think Walmart stock is at $73 a share.
	So about $140.
	So I get $140 worth of Walmart shares.
	That works in favor while I'm working there because, hey, I can vote.
	I can have a say in what happens to me as an employee.
	But, you know, let's say if while I'm working in there for like five, six years and the stock price jumps to $300 a share, and now I have like $600 worth of Walmart shares and I just basically everything that I go ahead.
	Sorry, yeah, I think what I'm actually advocating for is the abolition of the stock market.
	Because you wouldn't be able to sell shares and trade shares that would be tied to the positions within the company itself, you couldn't sell them.
	So all it really is, is voting rights within the corporation and a percentage of the corporation's profits.
	And like John Luke Picard's just said, it is towards the goal of promoting a meritocracy.
	Okay, so you're like in favor of reapplying the function of the stock market to have a different role, to serve a different purpose than it does now.
	Yeah, kind of.
	I mean, I don't even know what kind of stock market you'd really have.
	It literally, the way I'm picturing it, and it's incredibly simplistic because I'm no economist, but I mean, as I understand it, the shareholders gain dividends based on the number of shares they hold.
	So instead of that money going to people outside of the corporation who just happen to own shares, it'll go directly to the people within the corporation who are actually doing the work of actually making the corporation make money.
	And I get that, but I would ask you, why, would you not just be in favor of possibly advocating that more people who worked for Walmart actually purchase shares?
	Like just get the mainstream idea of getting people to be more involved in the company that they work for instead of just being a slave to them, actually invested in the company?
	A couple of reasons, actually.
	Sorry, the first one is that when you're on minimum wage, the last thing you're buying is shares.
	You're not buying shares when you haven't got any money.
	So this is, you know, that's the first thing that's going to be.
	I've got to say this because I know if I don't say it now, I'm going to say it on Twitter later.
	Okay, go for it.
	A lot of people who are making minimum wage now, at least in my city, they're spending money on $100 new sneakers here, new vinyl for their car here, a lot of frivolous things when they could invest in the stock market.
	That's on credit, though, isn't it?
	Well, um possibly I I I very much doubt that they've saved up for those sneakers.
	And I you know, I don't want to try and cast too much disparagement on them, but come on, they're not.
	You know, and that that that's a another problem as well.
	Debt is just it's it's well as far as the car thing goes, but the sneakers definitely the sneakers I've had my uh my my brother and my cousin and at least at least four of my friends when last year a new pair of Jordans came out, the Concorde 8 or something, same shoe, just another number added to it, same exact looking shoe.
	And each and every one of them took about $250 out of their paycheck.
	It wasn't our credit, and they went and stood outside the mall to get those shoes.
	Well, that's stupid.
	And that was actually going to be my second point.
	People are stupid.
	A lot of the time, you know what, right?
	That shout-out Swindon thing, excuse me, I see literally every day there's a new shout-out, and all the responses are just the most ill-informed, histrionic, knee-jerk reaction responses.
	I don't want these people voting.
	I don't want these people.
	This is the reason we've got such a shitty political class, because they're so ill-informed, and they can be kept ill-informed.
	That's the thing.
	So even though they, you know, but the thing is, this way they would still be able to buy those sneakers.
	You know, there's nothing about the system I'm proposing that's going to stop people from purchasing new sneakers.
	So if anything, it's actually going to give them more money.
	Sorry, let me just grab a comment with someone, a few people have asked, sorry did you want to ask your second question before I go into the comments?
	I realize this is quite a radical idea.
	Simple question.
	How would you go about applying this method?
	Would you just say that this is a good idea and corporations should do this?
	Or would you go the route of saying the state needs to force every corporation to get their stamp points?
	Well, this is what's going to determine if you're a statist or not.
	Yes, I know, I know, I know.
	And before I go into that, that actually raises a good point that I want to remind everyone about.
	The state isn't just a big bully, it's not there, originally it's there to serve people.
	That's the purpose of the state.
	That's why we have it.
	I know that the American government has really become a runaway out-of-control monster recently.
	And that's really due to the unparalleled accumulation of power.
	But in most countries, the state isn't as domineering as you think.
	And I mean, I'm the sort of person that thinks that the public good should be served by the state.
	So I think that people should pay for the roads for attacks.
	I think the healthcare should be a national investment rather than a private investment.
	Because that is why you would have a state, to make sure that the weakest in your society don't get just fallen through the cracks and don't just get maltreated.
	I would have thought that was the purpose.
	I guess this is the humanist in me talking.
	So I do think that, yes, this would be the state's job to do it.
	Now, this isn't me saying I'm in favor of a giant tyrannical super state that can see everything and kill anyone anywhere without any kind of constitutional oversight, which is, frankly, what the American system is actually like at the moment.
	So it's definitely something that I mean that's an issue that needs to be settled separately.
	But ultimately, what I think this would do is basically do that.
	I mean, someone said something like, you know, it's not fair to put wealth caps on people.
	And it's like, well, I'm not putting a wealth cap on people.
	What I think my system would do, it would redistribute wealth, but it wouldn't redistribute it unfairly.
	It would redistribute it to the people who had done the work to earn the wealth for the company, who are the people, in my opinion, who should be genuinely getting a lot of that money.
	I really don't think it's right that such huge amounts of money goes to the top of a corporation when all they're doing is exploiting people, really.
	And this would make it a less exploitative system.
	And yeah, it would reduce the amount of money that's at the top, but really that's what needs to happen.
	So if you all mind, let me jump in real quick.
	No, go ahead, please, please.
	So when you say you just want to redistribute the wealth of the people who serve the corporation, are you saying that you would only, if you tax Walmart, the taxes from Walmart would only go to the employees of Walmart?
	Or would it go to the Walmart or everyone?
	No, no, yeah.
	Nothing to do with tax, really.
	And nothing really to do with wealth distribution either.
	I'm not suggesting that anyone has any wealth taken off them.
	That's the thing.
	And I imagine that transitioning into a system like this, basically, the people who currently own the shares would have the shares purchased off them, or whatever the going market rate is.
	I don't want to just screw the people at the top.
	Don't worry, I don't have much sympathy for them at all, but at the end of the day, I don't want to just fuck them.
	That's just as bad as them fucking the poor.
	So it's like feminist revenge tactics, isn't it?
	I don't want to do that.
	But I'm not advocating taking any money off them.
	And I do think they should get a fair price for what they already own.
	But realistically, they don't deserve to own it.
	They didn't do the work.
	They didn't earn it.
	The people at the bottom and the middle did the work.
	I know this is going to drive everyone crazy, but if you think about the people who are actually...
	Are you familiar with the famous Barack Obama quote?
	No.
	No.
	Well, I mean, it might be.
	He basically just said it.
	Well.
	When he said, you know, everybody, all you people out there with multi-million dollar corporations and big businesses that you started and the owners of big businesses, basically, he just told them all, like, you didn't build that.
	Your employees did, which I would possibly disagree with.
	The employees were hired to build it, but.
	Well, that's the difference, isn't it?
	That's the difference.
	If I can just jump in there for a sec, this is the point.
	How valuable is management?
	That's the question.
	How valuable is management?
	And I've known a lot of managers in my time, and they've all been thick as shit.
	So I'm going to say it's not that valuable.
	Because if these idiots can do it, then anyone can do it.
	That's the point.
	But not anyone can put together machines and whatever, the actual expertise that is fixing the product or creating the product and then sending out the high-tech stuff.
	And just the people doing the daily grind, answering the phones, just moving boxes around a warehouse.
	They are the actual infrastructure and the arteries that pump the blood around the system.
	So I think they deserve a much bigger share of what rather than the brain at the top saying, you know what, I made this system happen, therefore I must be the best thing in the world.
	Without the rest of them, the system dies.
	And ultimately, if the system is getting screwed, then I don't think any good's going to come of it.
	Only poison fruit can be reaped from poison seeds.
	Yeah, definitely.
	I can definitely personally agree with that, that companies, basically the rich CEOs and rich owners of companies, it's kind of a luck thing.
	Whoever was lucky enough to go for it, which I sympathize with the workers that they're working hard, they're the ones actually putting in the grit hours of labor into the company where the CEO just isn't just making basically making calls.
	I'm sure they still do work hard, but not as much as you can.
	Yeah, of course they do work hard.
	But that's the point.
	How much is their work actually worth?
	And I don't think it's worth billions of dollars.
	Yeah, but it's kind of the idea that if you were brave enough and had the courage to go for it, to go try to make a business, and it turns into a multi-billion dollar company, you know, it's hard to subjectively say how much you think that person deserves because they're the one that went for it.
	Yeah, but they didn't go for it on their own.
	And the people who they employed still went for it with them.
	You know, they took the risk of taking a job at a business that may have failed and left them out of a job.
	You know, this is the thing.
	This is like the dream, the rhetoric that I think everyone really has to get past because there is no dream anymore.
	We are looking at a nightmare dystopia.
	So everyone has got to drop this bullshit.
	And I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound offensive, but it is bullshit.
	Like we covered earlier, you are never going to start a company that outearns Amazon.
	It's never going to happen.
	The option is not there for you now.
	And that's the point.
	Back 100 years ago, yeah, I totally would have been with you on it.
	But now, it's not happening.
	No one's getting there.
	The people who are at the top are going to stay at the top.
	The people at the bottom are just going to get further down towards the bottom until there are basically two classes.
	So if that wants to happen, if we want that to stop, then we've really got to do something and think about thinking of new systems and not just ways of changing the current system.
	The current system is broken and everyone can see it, I think.
	So that's the thing.
	Because that was the thing.
	It was an appeal to emotion.
	It was rhetoric.
	But what if you, and someone in the comments was like, so are you saying that if your game makes a billion dollars, then I never talk about my game anymore, apparently, which is apparently a bad thing.
	But if it doesn't make a billion dollars, then I didn't earn that billion dollars.
	And there's two sides to that.
	I'm not the only person working on my game.
	So I personally didn't.
	But even then, that's not the same thing, is it?
	I'm providing a service.
	I'm not exploiting anyone.
	And the people involved in my game were also, it's based on this model, actually.
	Even the people we've contracted are entitled to a share of the profits.
	So if I do end up making a spectacular amount of money, which, God willing, which is why I'm doing this, but even if I did, I would still be paying large amounts to the people who actually made it possible by producing the raw materials I need to build the game with.
	Well, I kind of agree with you to some extent on that.
	But have you ever seen the documentary Pencil?
	The short documentary?
	Pencil.
	iPencil.
	iPencil.
	No, I haven't.
	I'm not going to go into it deeply because my point is going to explain it basically.
	But I recommend anybody in the comments go check it out.
	It's called iPencil on YouTube.
	Right.
	The idea that when you hire an employee, when you're starting a business, it starts off with you.
	It starts off with you going and doing all the work.
	And then you might bring in people.
	You may have someone who invests in your business.
	And whether that's an investment in time or an investment in money, I agree.
	They deserve a significant or at least a good share of that company's profits.
	Those are the ones who come with you when you start up when you're not published.
	People who are coming at you from day one.
	Now, if I, like, let's say with your video games example, if I was to create a video game, let's say I'm creating the first Call of Duty right now, and I have Mark over here who's helping me with the development, and I have Chris over here who's helping me with the advertising.
	Both aren't really just in it to help the company grow.
	They're not in it to just make money.
	Yeah.
	Let's say if we get big and now we're hiring developers, we're hiring people to outsource these types of jobs.
	I wouldn't say that those people now deserve what we did at the beginning because now they're getting compensated what we agree for their labor.
	They're not getting compensated for an investment in the company.
	They're getting compensated for working.
	Yeah, I see what you mean because they weren't there on the path upwards, so they didn't help build it.
	But it's still their labor that's producing whatever goods the company needs to thrive and to grow and to continue becoming to maintain itself.
	So why is their labor any less valuable?
	I don't see it as less valuable, but I think everything has a value.
	But like, for example, if I was a CEO and I lived in a hotel and the bar, the person, the cook downstairs makes my breakfast every day, he's helping me in my day-to-day life.
	And he's helping me get up and have a firm mind.
	And he's playing a big role in my life.
	But I'm not going to say that he deserves more than his current salary because that's what his value is worth to me.
	If he's serving me, is what I'm trying to say.
	Yeah, but are you actually in this example, do you?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Right.
	Well, that's the thing.
	You wouldn't.
	You're not paying him.
	You don't pay him.
	But the thing is, his value to the hotel is a lot greater than what you would consider his value to be to you, personally.
	And that's the point.
	It's not your problem what his value to the hotel is.
	So to the hotel, his value is much greater because if you don't get your breakfast, you're an unsatisfied customer.
	You're not coming back to that hotel because you didn't get your breakfast because they didn't bloody hire a chef or they might have hired a really crap chef or something like that.
	So his value to the hotel is a lot higher than I think you give him credit for.
	Do you see my point?
	Yeah, I see it.
	And I guess what I would, I guess, basically to wrap it up, in this system where you feel that the employees, little guys, deserve more of a value in the company, who gets to determine how much that's worth?
	Well, that would be the state.
	No, I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	Sorry, say again, mate.
	No, I was just saying, good.
	I'm just joking.
	I don't want the state fixing market rates or anything like that.
	I'm actually, I am a believer in the free market, but I think I'm just a centrist.
	Like with anything, anything going too far, anything in excess is a bad thing.
	That's the thing.
	It was inscribed at the Oracle of Delphi, and it remains true to this day.
	Nothing in excess.
	And that's what billionaires are.
	Sorry, because I had some people saying that my audio quality is bad.
	Is it better, guys?
	Yeah, it seems better to me.
	It is.
	Yeah, yeah, so I know it's gone again.
	Am I still there?
	Yeah, I'm still there.
	Okay, so, all right, go fire.
	So, yeah, this sorry, I'm getting a bit of feedback now from yours.
	Yeah, headphones in, so people were saying that it wasn't good.
	Let me get it.
	I think it might have just been a connection or something.
	Okay.
	Yeah, no problem.
	Yeah, so hopefully it would be better.
	If not, then we'll just have to deal with it.
	I'm watching the comments go by and I can see how much of a polarising thing this is and I would expect it to be because I really think that this is I mean I realise how extreme this is sounding I mean, NYC Treman, Newsflash to Sargon, common labor, sorry, is less valuable than, say, an engineer who spent years in school.
	Jesus.
	I'm not saying that it's not.
	I'm just saying that all of these positions below the CEO are far more valuable than what we give them credit for at the moment.
	Because without these people doing these jobs, there is no CEO making billions.
	So he doesn't.
	It's not that I'm saying that a janitor is more valuable than an engineer, because, like I was saying, an engineer would have five shares, whereas the janitor would have one.
	So the engineer is getting five times more of the company's profits than the janitor is.
	But that's because he's doing a job that's probably realistically five times more difficult than a janitor's job.
	He had to spend five times longer training for it.
	That sort of thing.
	So, and Chris Russ, yeah, I did.
	I'm condemning the whole system.
	I can't make that any more clear.
	The fucking system at the moment is broken.
	It's fucked, man.
	This is the point I'm trying to make.
	We're in a system that is fundamentally screwed, and we need to unscrew it.
	But yeah, so what did you, were there any other criticisms?
	Because I'm more than happy to take them.
	Because I know this is just crazy, crazy crackpot theories sort of thing.
	Yeah, communist shit.
	Exactly.
	I'm a fucking common.
	I would just ask, what would be your opposition to the current way that we have where if you have money, invest in a company with shares through the stock market?
	Me personally, I can buy a share of Walmart right now.
	It's only about $73.
	I can't, however, buy a share of Google right now, which is $1,000.
	I think it's lower now, but it was at one point.
	But why would you be opposed to that system where anybody work for the company or not can be invested in the company's growth?
	Well, there are a couple of reasons.
	A while ago, I watched a documentary about the stock market in London.
	And it was very interesting because basically they came to the conclusion.
	Chris Russ, I'm giving you the plan right now, mate.
	They came to the conclusion that basically it was effectively random.
	The people who just made blind guesses on the stock market did just as well as the people who thought they were keeping track of all the latest information and wisely investing.
	So it's basically like a gambling machine.
	There's no effective difference.
	And so I just don't.
	It's a fiction.
	That's the thing.
	It's a big fiction.
	And it was great at generating wealth.
	And that's the problem.
	It's generated too much wealth for too few people.
	And so these people who how much is your I know that the Walmart stock would be worth $75 or something to buy, but how long would it take for you to get your $75 back out of that share?
	Well, that would all depend on the growth of the company.
	Who knows?
	Assume fairly good growth.
	what sort of timescale are we talking about?
	If it was very good growth, possibly within two, well, no, maybe not.
	Not in regards to Walmart.
	But Walmart's a very slow-growing company.
	So in terms of Walmart, possibly about maybe two years to get a double in my investment.
	Right.
	So is it really worth you buying one share in Walmart for $75 now to get that $75 back in two years' time?
	Well, personally, to me, no.
	Why not?
	Though I would think that buying one share, no, that wouldn't be worthy investment.
	It's not really that much money.
	Now, if I were to buy 50 shares or 100 shares in the form of possible retirement or something that I could get once I graduated college, just something to have, basically just an investment to have grow until I can take it out and profit from it, then yeah, I probably would.
	Right.
	So that's automatically excluding people who can't drum up $750.
	Well, I assume, but the alternative would be to just give it to them arbitrarily?
	Well, not arbitrarily, is it?
	If we were to consider my system a valid system, then we'd be giving it to them based on what they've earned by earning the positions within the company that are producing the wealth of the company.
	And I just want to say to True Stings, I'm not advocating wealth quotas.
	Yeah, Nerco Panda's got it.
	Basically, co-ops or profit sharing.
	But yeah, I'm not advocating wealth quotas.
	These things would balance naturally based on the fact that it's a new system.
	But sorry, yeah.
	I've forgotten what your question was now.
	I forgot what your point was.
	Sorry.
	Oh, no.
	What was it?
	It was.
	Sorry.
	If anybody in the comments remembers, tell us because we forgot.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But just to answer Carlos Cole 2000's question, without a stock market, how do you evaluate the value of a single share?
	Now, that to me is everything that's wrong with the system.
	Because the people inside the system, that sort of question, it doesn't need to be asked in what I'm proposing.
	The value of the share is based on the amount of profit the company makes divided by the number of shares.
	And the number of shares is divided by the number of positions.
	It's a calculation that automatically calculates itself.
	You don't need to have a separate valuation for it because there is no real, it's all internal, you know.
	That's the thing.
	There would be no stock market.
	It would be based on company performance.
	And also, this system that you're proposing with corporations, it would basically be a democracy, correct?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	A democratized corporation.
	So what would happen if, let's say, there was a question about whether the company wanted to get into that question.
	Would you still in your system?
	other laws still apply, such as minimum wage, or would it be up to the Would you need minimum wage?
	Huh?
	Would you need Well, I guess if it was up to the employees I guess they could decide for themselves if they wanted It would be a government enforced thing, isn't it?
	That would be, a minimum wage would be a law implemented by the government so the corporation directly wouldn't have any influence over that They'd just have to abide by it like, like we have now really um, but I don't I I, I really don't think that you would actually need a minimum wage because basically, what people are accusing me of is wealth distribution and ultimately, I am setting up a system that would enact wealth distribution, but without actually rapaciously taking off anyone who already has wealth.
	So they just, they just don't continue to amass wealth in the same amounts that they did.
	It's not like they're simply going to go bankrupt or anything.
	So the wealth is basically, it is going to be redistributed without actually doing a wealth redistribution.
	So I don't think you'd actually need a minimum wage.
	That's kind of where i'm lost, where you say, this is about wealth distribution redistribution, but I don't.
	I don't see how the employees are profiting because it's the shares only are only valid while they're working at the company.
	They can't sell them, they can't buy anything with them, so it's more redistribution, I would say.
	I would see it as it is also wealth distribution.
	Um okay, let me give a simple example.
	Right see, you've got a company with ten shares and you know it's, it's got say, I don't know uh, five members or I don't know.
	However I, I don't.
	I haven't thought about these numbers, so they're probably gonna have to change as I go through this analogy.
	But um, so at the moment hello yeah, there you go.
	Oh, thank god, i'm back.
	Right okay yeah um, so basically in this analogy, the CEO has all ten shares and so the company as a whole makes say, a hundred million dollars and he has to pay through the wages for the other nine employees, say ten million dollars.
	These, these guys were all earning really well, but that's ninety million dollars that he then can pay out a large percentage in dividends and reinvest into the company as growth and all that sort of thing.
	But the he, he's going to get monumentally more wealthy than the people who have worked with him and for him, but those people ultimately, are the reason that he's getting so wealthy it, you know he's yeah sure, he's been more clever than them and whatnot, but it's, it's one of those things where it's, you know, does he deserve to really exploit them like that?
	And so what I'm, what I'm proposing, is not to actually take any money away from anyone, but if these shares are, it would be effectively share redistribution.
	But if he was then said, right, your shares are going to be bought off you by the company, so he'll get more money out of the company, based on the profits of the company, which will determine the value of the shares and each, each position then gets like from the bottom up.
	So you know, however many and I don't know shares could be created to balance the numbers, I don't know how it would work.
	I'm not an economist, but you know smarter minds and me can figure out the details to effectively it.
	So then next, next time that dividends are paid, he has saying, only got like say, five shares now, and then the other people in this company, or like four shares or whatever, and so he gets.
	He still gets like the lion's share of the dividends that are paid out, but each other person lower down the line also gets a share of that money.
	So it's it's going to produce less billionaires, but it's not going to bankrupt them.
	Am I have I made my point?
	I don't know, So I got that.
	Yeah, I pretty much understand.
	I got a bit discombobulated by the dropout there.
	Sorry.
	So I understand your position.
	So what was the question I was going to ask?
	Because it sounds like a good idea.
	If I was to start a business, I might even apply that to my business.
	Yeah.
	Instead of having the state enforce this idea, could it not be better to allow the people to choose?
	I hear this word a lot, being exploited, and I don't see it as exploitation if someone agrees to it.
	Well, at the end of the day, a lot of it's a Hobson's choice, isn't it?
	If Walmart is the only employer in the area because Walmart has sucked all the life out of all the small businesses around, you don't have a choice.
	So you can say, oh, you cannot, you know, what you can do, work at Walmart or not work.
	You know, it's not a choice, is it?
	So I agree with you.
	In principle, I fully agree that if it was a fair contract sort of thing, then, yeah, fine.
	You know, totally agree.
	Totally agree.
	I'm sure contractors would probably become fairly big business themselves just because you wouldn't have to pay shares.
	I'm not suggesting that should necessarily be ruled out or anything.
	But yeah.
	Sorry, I've kind of lost my train of thought there.
	Again, I keep looking at the comments and I shouldn't while I'm trying to make a point.
	But no, I get what you were saying.
	And unfortunately, I am a heartless fucking capitalist.
	But why wouldn't you just alternatively just say if you employees, if you want this system, talk to your make this system happen.
	And because what if the employees don't want the system?
	What if I want to just work for a company without shares and I want to just work for a profit that I personally agree with with my employer that we come to a personal agreement with?
	Can you think of a conceivable situation where you'll turn down that kind of deal as an employee?
	Well, not necessarily, but that brings the question: if you just make companies give a better deal, everyone's happy except for the companies, which breaks.
	No, seriously, tough shit.
	Fuck society.
	That's the thing between capitalism and socialism.
	Either way, someone's getting fucked.
	Either the business owners are getting fucked.
	That's the thing, you're assuming, you're talking as if no one's getting fucked right now.
	That's the thing.
	These big businesses, these really rich people have fucked the small people.
	There needs to be redress.
	There needs to be a balance brought back into the system.
	That's the thing.
	This isn't starting at square one and suddenly, oh, you know what?
	Let's just fuck those business owners.
	No, they have already done the fucking.
	So, you know, like my political styles will be, we need to unfuck the system.
	But it just comes back to the question: who determines how to unfuck the system?
	Who determines how much the businesses need to be brought back?
	Who determines what's fair and what's unfair?
	What's exploitive and what's not exploited?
	Right.
	Well, this is where we actually do turn to government.
	That's right.
	I'm waiting for the comments to go, government!
	But this is what governments are for.
	They're to make sure that the state runs well and fairly, or they should have been.
	That is ideally what you would want a government to do.
	So this is the point.
	That's what I want my government to do.
	Sorry?
	I was saying that's what I want.
	Sorry, you can't have it there.
	Could you say again, please?
	I was saying that's what I want my government to do, but it doesn't.
	I've seen every other government that people serve in that exact way as well.
	I agree, but I honestly think that a lot of that is down to the influence of the corporateocracy, basically.
	I do think that money is, I mean, young Turks have got a really good point where they just want to get money out of politics, and that's the problem at the moment.
	There are people with too much money, and they have too much voice in government.
	And this is leading to the problems that we're having now with the congestion in governments.
	You can't really go against the corporations, which is the problem, because the people in the corporations have got too much money.
	I agree.
	There's way too much money in politics.
	And I see people offering solutions to this as we need to ban people from being able to invest, being able to invest in politicians.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I'm kind of on the opposite end of that.
	I would say that we need to ban politicians from being able to involve themselves in free market activities, like regulating things.
	Well, I know.
	I just pissed off a lot of people when I said no regulations.
	Well, I don't think that there should be no regulations.
	That's a long shot.
	Just winding down the amount of influence the government has in the market.
	Yeah, it's a vicious cycle, isn't it?
	Because the people who are tinkering with the governmental system are the ones with all the money who have rigged the market system to get loads of money, who are then paying the politicians to continue to maintain this kind of rigged system.
	And so it's a vicious cycle.
	It's a cycle of bad incentives for the majority of people.
	Yeah.
	I think.
	So I know it's quite radical.
	And I know that talking to someone from outside the U.S., whenever I see the U.S. media talking about this sort of thing, I always find it really bizarre.
	Because there seems to be this.
	I mean, obviously, socialism is this awfully dirty word in the United States.
	Because people, like you say, you've got the dream of being that guy who works really hard and becomes a billionaire.
	But I like to think that we've established that you shouldn't really become a billionaire.
	And if you are, you're affecting the lives of so many other people indirectly by being the owner of Walmart or Amazon.
	You really are preventing people from competing with you.
	So it's hegemonic in nature.
	And so basically, yeah, there's going to have to be government intervention.
	There's going to have to be wealth redistribution in some way.
	At least this is a system that I'm proposing that would allow people to earn the wealth rather than have it taken from the people who currently have it and given to people who didn't earn it.
	Well, if we were to do wealth redistribution, I would first propose that we, as a libertarian point, get the prayers out of the Federal Reserve so that the money...
	Fully agree.
	Fully agree.
	I'm...
	I'm very much against sort of private banking institutions.
	There's a reason, and no one's going to like me saying this, but there's a reason that in the Middle Ages, the Jews were so despised in Europe, and it's because they practiced usury, which is basically exactly what banks do now.
	And the Catholic Church outlawed it because Jesus in the Bible recognizes that it's a terrible thing.
	It's making money off having money.
	So you've actually produced nothing.
	You've given no service other than the service of having money.
	And money, it shouldn't be the end goal.
	It should be the transition to the goal.
	So, yeah.
	So I don't know.
	I'm probably just talking shit.
	It's just crazy pie in this guy stuff.
	Someone said, I forgot their name, but they said basically, ultimately, it's a bitch of a topic.
	It's a bitch of something to tackle.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, Irish France just said taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't earn it, which is government invention.
	And yeah, but I'm not necessarily suggesting all government intervention isn't bad.
	The problem is the government intervention we see is heavily in favor of the corporations and the billionaires at the top.
	So it's not the government intervention in itself is bad.
	It would be ideally good to prevent the sort of mass accumulation of wealth.
	But yeah, so I don't think it's necessarily bad.
	It's just more how it's applied.
	Yeah, I'm just so hesitant, especially as being from America, I'm hesitant of giving politicians that much power.
	Wow, yeah, I agree.
	I just can't even picture them doing the right thing.
	But that's because you're picturing the corporate politicians.
	That's the thing.
	You're picturing the politicians who are there because the really rich people sponsored them into those positions.
	I try to think back how far it was before we had corporate-sponsored politicians.
	The founding of America.
	Yeah, I know, I know.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I'm well aware that what I'm proposing is insanely radical.
	But I really think that this would actually be the democratization of the corporate world.
	Because this way, you would be able to vote against offshore investments and like moving manufacturing overseas to exploit insanely cheap labor.
	So, you know, it's I mean, all it would take really, I mean, you would basically, no one's going to vote against their best interests.
	No one's going to vote for a corporation to take their manufacturing jobs somewhere else.
	And so you wouldn't get this kind of multinationalism.
	I mean, I realize that this fundamentally is kind of anti-globalist, but at the rate things are going, globalism isn't going to be democracy-friendly, and it's not going to be people-friendly.
	It's going to be corporation and the upper-class-friendly.
	Yeah.
	And so it's, I don't necessarily think it's a good thing.
	I'm not saying it's not inevitable, but I do think that giving people in the corporations a much bigger say in what happens with those corporations would probably be good.
	I think that it'd be at least be fair.
	I want to get your take on a statement real quick of the RMI.
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	You probably heard it.
	The idea of democracy is the majority imposing their beliefs onto the minority.
	Do you agree with that?
	I think it depends who the minority are and who the majority is.
	Because it's not like people are aligned on well, outside of the United States, people aren't all aligned in the same way, you know, um and so you don't just have two parties.
	So it it I mean yeah, i it kind of is in certain ways, but that's not always a bad thing.
	I mean for example, if you've got the the the in our corporate example, the the the vast numbers of unwashed masses who are toiling away in their jobs, then they would be imposing their will onto the the wealthiest upper classes.
	But how is that a bad thing?
	You don't want the upper classes imposing on the poor people because then you end up in the situation we're on now.
	Someone pointed out that there were 50 million Americans on food stamps.
	50 million in the richest country on earth.
	That is insane.
	Yeah.
	That is insane.
	And I just want to say something about the Jews.
	I'm not saying I care about the Jews in any way, left or right.
	I'm just saying in medieval Europe, people didn't like Jews because they practiced usury.
	Don't assume that I hate the Jews, you morons.
	Sorry, it just bothers me.
	Looking at everyone has Jews in it.
	Oh, fucking, yeah, exactly.
	I'm not, I'm just pointing out this is, you know, it's just an analysis of the situation.
	It's not giving an opinion on it.
	You know, it's what the people at the time thought, you guys.
	Come on.
	What if, for example, in Australia, for example, you know, we have, Bain just said, 72% of the women make up the household income.
	Right.
	Well, let's say, for example, I'm not sure about the demographics of Australia, but for the sake of making up let's say that Australia is 80% female, 20% male.
	Is this in the workplace?
	Voting population.
	Sorry, say again, voting population was that.
	Yeah.
	Okay, what was the question about that, sir?
	If, let's say, there was a law in government to force businesses to give women discounts.
	It was just a law in democracy.
	and 80% of the population voted for it, and 20% did.
	Then you would indeed have the tyranny of the majority, which is...
	Do you think that is avoidable in a democracy?
	Um...
	Well, technically no.
	But you've really got to you know you've really got to get to a huge swing like that.
	Because that's on the assumption that all women will vote against the men in this situation.
	And there will be some in anything that always have sympathy for the other side.
	So you would have to have a really significant percentage.
	But again, it's the tyranny of the majority.
	And I'm pretty sure there are most states that don't that have provisions for, say, you know, if we want to talk about the Jews, you know, if if I mean, there's no reason that a democracy can't just vote to exterminate the Jews.
	There's no reason.
	You know, there's technically nothing stopping it.
	So I assume that there are laws that actually prevent people from targeting specific groups maliciously.
	You know, I'm absolutely certain that there are.
	I'm sure that anyone who knows laws better than I do can provide what laws they are because that's the people who found these systems, they're not entirely stupid.
	And I'm sure that they're aware that that is a consequence of democracy if you've got a malinformed publisher public.
	What do you think on it?
	Yeah, I agree that it's it's for a democracy to work it takes an informed population.
	And I guess that's why it's working in places like Finland, all the smart motherfuckers.
	But that's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist personally.
	I just feel that if you have an idea for something of how you want a system to work, you can make that system.
	If you want to have different share value-based corporations, you can build that corporation.
	But I'm just not with the idea of forcing everyone else to go along with that.
	I do agree with you in principle.
	I really do.
	I like the idea of people being able to free to craft their own destinies.
	But I think that there's got to be a point where if the destiny you're crafting is going to be so detrimental to the people who might not even want to be involved with it, but have no choice, then, you know, I guess it's the right to punch ends where the other guy's nose begins.
	And that's why I'm not so strict on ideology.
	Like, I'm not, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I'm not just saying, you know, everything government bad.
	There's no way I could ever be in favor of it.
	It's just a personal belief.
	And I think that these types of discussions that we're having right now is a good way to possibly even create a new system between the two.
	Like, instead of just having either socialism, democracy, communism, or anarchy, you can possibly come to some sort of agreement to form satisfy everyone's needs.
	I just want to come to that agreement without forcing beliefs upon others.
	Yeah, I think basically all I'm really advocating for is a system of compromise.
	Because the whole anarcho-capitalist, I don't even know what these terms really mean, to be honest.
	I don't subscribe to any of them.
	And I don't think anyone else should either.
	I think any kind of ideology, anything that suddenly you've got to start believing in, it requires sacrifice at someone else's expense.
	And you're never going to get a decent and fair system if you're doing that, ever.
	I guess I want to kind of cherry-pick what's good about specific systems.
	And let's incorporate them into a better system that's just kind of because the thing is that it only serves the needs of certain people.
	Like you're saying, it leaves other people out.
	So I don't really want to create a system that does that.
	Yeah.
	It's too diverse.
	A lot of people, especially in regards to ideologies, think that their specific ideology, which may work in their area or in their country, will work for the entire world.
	And personally, I don't agree with that.
	I believe that people are different.
	There are different cultures, different areas in the world where different things may work and may not.
	Yes.
	What do you think of this caliphate?
	By the way, how long are you called to hang around for?
	Because I don't want to keep you if you've got a go or anything like that.
	Not that I'm asking you to leave.
	No, I don't have a schedule today.
	I'm free to whenever.
	Oh, great.
	That's cool.
	Me too.
	So yeah, this Islamic State, one of the things that this Dan Carlin guy always talks about and honestly I can't recommend him more, is that he's very much, I feel a great affinity for him because he's a student of history.
	He reads a lot of history and he really enjoys it.
	And the great thing about history is it gives you a much longer perspective on things.
	You end up looking at the results of the systems that are being operated under.
	And I really think that he's got a good point that he says that the Middle East needs a caliphate.
	And I know that sounds crazy, but I really think he's got a good point.
	What do you know about the ISIS situation in Iraq and stuff?
	Because I don't actually know all that much about it.
	Yeah, I don't either.
	I've just been researching it very, very rarely because I'm not good at foreign policy.
	I just non-interventionist, so basically, I'm just like, fuck it, let them deal with it.
	But I'm not sure exactly what the political goal is of this.
	And, you know, basically the whole main story narrative behind this is because Obama left so soon, that's why we're losing control in the Middle East, which I don't agree with.
	I don't think we ever had control in the Middle East.
	I think unless we stayed there forever, there would not be control, or at least they would lose control for some period of time while it transitioned to another system.
	Yeah, there's a lot I agree with that.
	I think the military occupation was just the illusion of control.
	It was never really control.
	It was just suppressing it, really, wasn't it?
	Basically.
	And I've seen a lot of misinformation going around about ISIS, which I mean, not ISIS.
	The Islamic State or something.
	Yeah, the Islamic State.
	Maybe it was on your page.
	I can't remember, but where they were talking about the general mutilation.
	Yeah, that was my one.
	It's just not true.
	Yeah.
	You know, and it's this campaign of misinformation that that would make me think automatically that this is actually a sort of homegrown reaction, an Islamic reaction.
	You know, the taking of territory and stuff is very strange.
	You know, and the fact America's letting this go on is also very odd.
	Yeah, it is.
	That's just a symptom of an uninformed populace.
	People aren't worried about what's going on in the world.
	They're worrying about dancing with the stars coming on at 9 o'clock.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Just to address a couple of the comments, if you don't mind, when I was talking about the new corporate system, Anne Heretic says it's been tried.
	It's called National Socialism.
	And I realize that that means Nazis to everyone, but I think that it may well have been an idea that was ahead of its time because it was also very mixed in with crazy ideas of racial superiority and all that sort of thing.
	And I think we're well past that sort of thinking now.
	I don't think anyone thinks like that.
	And so I really think that it may have been ahead of its time and failed 100 years ago, but now I think that it's a different world.
	So I think it'd be worth considering.
	But with the Islamic State, right?
	One thing I think people need to understand about Islam and how it's different to Christianity.
	Are you a Christian?
	No, I'm an atheist.
	Damn.
	I assume you're familiar with Christianity, though.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	One thing people have got to understand, Christianity, fundamentally, was developed as a mechanism with coping with occupation and oppression.
	Whereas Islam was developed fundamentally as a system to rule by.
	This is why we're so worried about Christian theocracies.
	It doesn't have the mechanisms in place to deal with ruling.
	It really doesn't.
	It's the religion of slaves.
	And I know that sounds awful, but it is.
	It's render unto Caesar, which is Caesar's, render unto God, which is God's.
	You follow the laws of the land because you're not in charge, and so you'll endure.
	Whereas Islam is setting the laws of the land.
	This is the difference.
	So when people are like, oh, no, the Muslims don't need a caliphate, and it's like, no, that's exactly what Islam as a whole is missing.
	And that ultimately is what Islam as a religion is always going to strive for.
	It's almost like the purpose of Islam.
	And it would be so beneficial to the West in so many ways if we had it.
	It would be so beneficial.
	The problem at the moment is we've got dozens of Muslim states who have all just batshit crazy.
	And they're all producing lots and lots of really dispossessed people.
	And it's our problem because as the West, we're the ones kind of getting in there and giving them shit.
	And so they devote all their attention to us.
	Whereas if we actually backed the Islamic state and basically allowed it to be, you know, helped it to become this new caliphate, A, it would give the Arab.
	I'm thinking really for the Arab world, not for the Muslim world at large.
	Because I really don't see the Iranians wanting to be part of this sort of thing.
	And yes, Laura, I am an atheist.
	But the point is that it's definitely something within Islam that's missing.
	And they keep bringing it up.
	Various Muslim groups keep bringing the idea up.
	So it's obviously something they're going to go for.
	So it would become the state's problem, this Islamic State's problem, when terrorism occurred.
	Because obviously they're going to want to maintain friendly relationships with everyone around them.
	As a fledgling state, they're going to want as much support as they can get.
	So if the United States goes to them and say, look, three terrorist attacks happen on the United States soil, what are you going to do about it?
	They're not going to be like, you know what, fuck you.
	That's what we're going to do.
	They're going to be like, well, Jesus, what will happen if we don't do something?
	You'd be like, well, we're going to stop buying oil from you or something like that.
	Something ridiculous.
	Sanctions.
	They went, well, Christ, that's going to weaken us economically.
	It's going to cause more unrest at home.
	People are going to doubt our legitimacy.
	And so they then have to not only agree on an international basis what's going to happen, they're also going to be the ones who are concerned with basically quelling dissent within their own borders.
	I know it sounds kind of radical, but I think that's what the Islamic world actually needs.
	It's kind of American foreign policy to want to keep the Islamic world divided, so I don't think that...
	I mean, I don't know.
	It's really weird.
	I don't really know how to take the non-intervention against ISIS.
	I was kind of hoping you might have some insights, because I'm just waffling now.
	Not Islam, but the Middle East overall is so complicated right now because there's so many different ideological goals between people.
	Some people just want to create a democracy.
	Some people want just embrace capitalism, like places like Dubai and Saudi Arabia.
	You could be a capitalistic theocracy.
	This is again another problem is that people seem to conflate capitalism with democracy.
	And I don't really see why that should be the case.
	I guess there could be a capitalistic theocracy, but I just don't see Islam as a type of religion that would embrace all of the values of capitalism.
	No, no, I don't think so necessarily.
	And you have other things that other factors, such as Israel and Palestine, and Hamas.
	A lot of different things that people in Iran, I mean, Iran, Middle East, are conflating on.
	And I don't think they're, I don't think there's going to be an agreeable stance anytime in the future, especially with how much radical Terrorism is going on over there.
	I know it might get a lot of flack from maybe the patriotic types, but I think a lot of the rise in terrorism is due to many of the West, just the West and its allies, because we keep getting involved in their conflicts, such as rebels in Syria.
	I know Skeptor might get on me, but bombing civilians in Palestine.
	It's happening, you know.
	I think what Skeptor really wanted was just to understand that Israel wasn't being evil.
	They were just being scared, because I think effectively what he was saying is kind of like this is what America would do if Mexico was bombing it.
	And so a right-wing government would get in and atrocities would happen.
	But it's not like it's not their desire to kill, it's their desire not to be afraid.
	Yeah, and I can agree with that, but as far as Israel, I just see it as a bad thing.
	I think Israel's in the wrong as well.
	And that's what I was trying to argue in my conversation with Skeptor.
	Yeah, I was just, I just couldn't agree with bombing civilians.
	I know Skeptor says that they do calls and pamphlets, which I've seen, that they leaflets, which I don't really buy.
	I mean, I believe that they do it, but I mean, come on, you're going to call a hospital to evacuate or someone's house.
	But even then, it's not like Haras don't get the information.
	I'm thinking, like, okay, everybody you're about to blow it up.
	Well, maybe we should move these rockets to this building so we don't lose our inventory, which I don't see how it's working.
	I don't see how Netanyahu can think that that's an effective method.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's obviously not.
	And yeah, so I fully agree.
	But this is actually kind of the point I was trying to make.
	If we were to allow Islam to create a caliphate, then that's all their problem.
	I mean, obviously, there's no way the United States is going to agree to the Islamic Caliphate going to war with Israel, for example.
	But I really don't think the Islamic Caliphate is actually going to want to go to war with Israel this soon into its own Genesis.
	I mean, it has got far too much.
	It will need to spend a really significant amount of time consolidating its position and gaining legitimacy within the Islamic world.
	So basically, as a way to kind of shut the Muslims up and keep them happy for probably about 50 years, it would make it all internal rather than external.
	They might still have suicide bombings and stuff like that, but it wouldn't be aimed at the West because now they would have a new boogeyman of big government.
	So let them have it.
	Ultimately, there are loads of Muslims who want that.
	It's a fundamental part of Islam.
	It is designed to create theocracies.
	And I'm against that because I'm part of the West and I'm an atheist.
	But I'm sure there are loads of Muslims who think that's exactly how it should be.
	Sharia law and all that, that's fine.
	And all these sort of changes have to come internally.
	I don't think we would have accepted whatever system of government someone else thought was so successful and then came and conquered us and installed into our reverse happened and they did install a theocracy here, like a Christian theocracy or whatever, you'd be like, that's insane.
	I'm revolting against that, wouldn't you?
	Yeah, I think I personally think one of the best ways to achieve this goal of just basically letting Islam I mean not Islam, I keep saying Islam, the Middle East, the countries in the Middle East, do their thing and come to their own conclusion is to enact trade.
	Like release not necessarily enact trade, but release the ability for them to trade.
	Like I think a lot of the tension in Gaza and the Palestine is because they they're not free to trade.
	They're limited to whatever aid Israel funnels to them.
	And I think that's that's very it can it can mess with your mind to have not have the freedom to interact with the rest of the world.
	And I think that's when you start ending up with terrorist cells who who can give this type of propaganda to say, look, the West is so bad because the children and people growing up there don't know any better because they're not interacting with the rest of the world.
	Yeah, I saw a thing by John Snell on Channel 4, who's a fairly famous reporter here.
	He's quite well respected.
	But the thing is, I've got issues with these sort of...
	I very rarely believe anything that I see out of the mainstream media.
	But he was saying that the average age of a Palestinian is 17.
	I didn't know that.
	No, I didn't know that.
	But the thing is, that's insanely young, isn't it?
	I mean, you know, if if the average person on the street was 17 years old, I mean, you know, what do they know?
	They don't know shit.
	You know, and then all you've got is like, like you say, there's no trade, there are bombs.
	And there are a bunch of, like, you know, people who are saying, look, we're going to fight Israel.
	Would you not sign up to that?
	I'd sign up to that.
	Whilst you can you don't know anything else.
	You know?
	Exactly.
	And that that's that's the main thing.
	That's the main driving factor behind radical Islam is lack of information.
	People don't know anything.
	They don't have access to open internet sources most of the time.
	And they're just learning from the people around them, which unfortunately happen to be radical terrorists.
	And Israeli bombs.
	It's very easy to find out who the bad guy is through a Palestinian, you know.
	But I did want to ask you something in regards to your area.
	Not particularly the area in which you live, but Britain.
	I've seen on Vice recently this, it was a documentary about the I forgot what it's called.
	It was some British nationalist party.
	I forgot what it was.
	There are a couple.
	There's the English Defence League or the British National Party is one.
	So it's probably them, to be fair.
	Yeah, I think it was that.
	And they were just saying how it's a major problem in regards to Islamic immigrants migrating to Britain and how they're making quality of life more and more difficult and basically taking over territories in Britain.
	They are.
	Yeah, they are.
	Yeah, that is accurate, actually.
	And there are going to be a lot of people who are like, oh, that's racist, that's evil.
	But, you know, the facts are as the facts are, right?
	You've got areas of London that have actually been patrolled by gangs of Muslims saying that this is a Muslim area and Sharia law is in force.
	Now, this was all broken up fairly quickly, but it is definitely something they tried.
	And I don't imagine that there are too many white British people who are like, you know, I think I'm just going to bust down there and chill out in that area.
	It might not be claimed officially as a Sharia area, but there are all these people standing around who tried to do it.
	You know?
	And so that's basically going to cause white flight.
	You know, they're going to they're going to move out of those areas.
	And Birmingham is very much the same.
	And a lot of sort of central England is very much like that.
	And if you look at I put this in my Saudi Britannia video because it's so striking.
	The area of rape crisis centers, the location of them, if you Google it, Rape Crisis Centre in the UK, and then Google Islamic immigration to the UK, it correlates exactly.
	Exactly.
	It's so creepy.
	Where there's Muslim immigration, there's rape crisis centers, where there weren't before.
	And no one wants to say it.
	It's such a horrible thing to say.
	And I know it's a horrible thing to say, but at the end of the day, the results speak for themselves.
	If loads of Muslims move into an area and then suddenly the rapes go through the roof, I mean, and in the news all the time, it's not uncommon to hear about rape gangs.
	And I know this sounds crazy, like I'm feeding into the feminist rape culture thing, but it's not like gangs that just rape.
	It's grooming, where a group of men, and almost without exception, these are Muslim men, will find influential, easily influenced young white girls and then ply them with drugs and alcohol and take them to parties.
	And they're only like 15 or something.
	So they think it's great.
	They think they're being all grown up and stuff.
	And then, you know, they'll they basically it's statutory rape at best, you know?
	And this is not uncommon.
	And in the media, they don't call them Muslim men.
	They just say men.
	And then the names are like, you know, Al-Qatar or, you know, whatever.
	And they're all a bunch of Muslim names.
	You know, it's like, okay, I don't want to be the dickhead, but someone's got to talk about this elephant in the room.
	You know?
	I know he's dropped.
	So yeah, I'm going to be that dickhead who makes himself eternally unpopular with everyone.
	I'm just reinviting T again.
	Thanks for everyone sticking with us for so long, by the way.
	I'm always impressed at how many people stay in these hangouts.
	And I always wonder if it's like a turnover of people who are coming in and dropping out when they get bored.
	Or if it's you know people who kind of get with us at the beginning or just join in and then stick with us to the end.
	I never know.
	So I'd be interested.
	Because I mean these go on for quite some time.
	Just gonna tweet him and see if he closed his application again, which is why I think it probably happened.
	All right, there we go.
	Ah, you're back.
	If you close the application again.
	Yeah, it just stops on on its own.
	Right, okay.
	So but yeah, that that's kind of my perception of what.
	And the thing is, by the, by the same account I don't want to demonize Muslims, and I know it sounds like I am.
	It's not Muslims as a group doing this, you know it's.
	It's really cultural relativism, I think you know it's it.
	I, I do think that for a lot of Muslims, the way it, they think that white girls are easy because of the way they dress and it's like well, if you're gonna dress like a whore, you know it's hard to not, and and I, I realize that I don't know, you know it.
	Just it it's definitely happening.
	The numbers definitely say that these things are happening and no one wants to talk about it.
	Yeah, and be quiet on it as well.
	Yeah, and I know it's a feminist position.
	That um, you know, you don't.
	You know that's.
	That's called victim blaming.
	When you, when you advocate that women who dress provocatively are being raped and they should dress more conservatively, and I, I always wonder, I don't.
	I don't think that's the position many people take.
	They may frame it that way, but I don't think that's what they believe.
	I think they're rather that if you dress provocatively, you're going to gain more attention from men than you would if you dress conservatively.
	And if you correlate more attention from men as a lot greater chance of being raped, then you just put the two and two together and dressing provocatively increases chance of getting raped if you consider those two to be aligned.
	Yeah, I think that, yeah, and I wonder if it's the sort of yeah, definitely.
	And I think that they're really looking at it saying, look, if you're presenting yourself like that, then you must be like that.
	Otherwise, why would you present yourself like that?
	Yeah.
	You must be looking for that kind of attention.
	Otherwise, why are you dressing like a slut?
	And that's the thing.
	They say it's only applied to women.
	I do too.
	I mean, for example, I don't have a very muscular chest, but when I go out, I might unbutton the first two buttons of my shirt just because it makes me look a little bit better.
	I wonder if Chester's still with us.
	We'll find out if she finds you rapidly.
	But no, exactly.
	You know what signals you're putting out, you know.
	And I think the feminism's definitely got a strong hand in telling women that they should be able to put out any signals they like and have no consequences for it.
	And ultimately, it's a pipe dream.
	Much like my new economic system.
	No, of course I wouldn't rape a naked woman.
	Jesus.
	Sorry, David.
	As far as she's naked publicly, that wouldn't want to rape her, anyways.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But that's, I think that's what I'm saying.
	I'm pretty sure rapists catch STDs.
	Sorry, say again?
	I was just saying, I'm pretty sure most rapists don't want to catch STDs.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But someone says a lot of Pakistanis, but it's also a lot of Turkish men who do it.
	And I know I'm awful for saying that, but you can't prove me wrong.
	That's the thing.
	No one's going to be able to be like, well, I've got a list of all these Muslims, and they're actually not from Turkey because they are mostly from Turkey.
	I don't want to paint all Muslims as some sort of terrible evil or something like that.
	But I think it's more, I really think it's cultural blindness of a way.
	In Islamic culture, the responsibility is very much on the women.
	And so if they see women effectively being irresponsible, then it's hard to say why they shouldn't think that.
	Yeah, it's kind of like the same thing in regards to, at least in America, in regards to the African-American community.
	Like when you see people dressed in, like sagging their pants and dressed in tank tops with tattoos and throw chains, you know, you don't want to say that they're inviting police attention because they're dressed like a thug.
	You don't want to be that guy, but they can't avoid the reality.
	Exactly.
	If I was a cop, I would pull you over.
	It's just.
	See, actually, you know, I actually forgot you were black for a bit there, because that is actually something I'd like to talk about.
	My grandfather was black, so any Aryan purists who are listening to me thinking, oh yeah, this guy's quite English.
	I just threw off my entire visual concept of what you look like.
	Well, I am still pasty white.
	But my grandfather was probably the descendant of slaves from St. Helena, which is where Napoleon died in exile, interestingly enough.
	And then he married a white woman in England in the 60s.
	And then my mum's family's Welsh.
	So realistically, I'm more culturally English than anything else.
	I'm not really ethnically English.
	But I'm very white, but I tan quite well.
	So, yeah.
	But you are very clean-cut.
	You're very respectable looking.
	And I doubt that you ever really encounter that kind of sort of response.
	And, you know, what's your thoughts on that?
	I mean, I suppose that is your thought, really, isn't it?
	Well, sometimes, you know, I mean, I don't always dress as professionally as I do in my videos.
	Sometimes I just, I think it was a video with, what was it?
	I think it was a transgender response video where I just had on a double X T-shirt, not double X, but extra large T-shirt and beanie hat to the side.
	I mean, sometimes I just dress, sometimes I do dress, and I'm aware that the way I dress is going to provoke different responses.
	And if, for example, I dressed like that with the big t-shirt and hoodie hat to a business, I would not, not a business, but like a professional setting.
	I would not be surprised if I got a little bit of stairs if I got people possibly even clinching their purse.
	I probably think they're a little bit stupid, but I wouldn't be surprised at that because I know the reality that they're thinking.
	Yeah.
	And the way I would think about it is I wouldn't necessarily begrudge them that because they didn't create the stereotypes, you know?
	They're just kind of the recipients of those stereotypes.
	And I'm not trying to excuse it.
	It's not, but, you know, it's like the rape thing.
	It's like, well, you know, if you're going to dress as someone who might well be sort of, you know, a thug, then is it any wonder that people might treat you like that?
	Yeah.
	And even in regards to the other way, as far as still rape, you know, with the stereotype that's being perpetuated on college, that, you know, if you walk down the street and you see a guy following you, even though he might just be walking the same path, he's possibly more than likely a rapist.
	And, you know, you should fear for your life and your safety.
	In reality, he might just be a guy, but it's not necessarily the people who have that mindset's fault.
	It's the people who perpetuate the stigma that's a bad problem.
	Yeah, yeah, no, I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	Because I think a lot of it might end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy as well.
	If you treat people like that before they do anything because other people have acted like that and they look the same, then you're going to end up with people who end up becoming that way because you expected them to be that way and you treated them that way.
	So they're going to end up kind of associating with those people, because certain groups aren't going to want to associate with them.
	How do you feel about racism in the United States?
	Do you think it's prolific or what are your opinions on that?
	Not necessarily.
	I think racism is alive, but I think there's more.
	I don't know if you've seen my video with Donald Sterling where I talked about his situation.
	I probably have, but I don't think this isn't really an issue that affects me too much.
	So it hasn't stuck in the mind.
	I think I've watched all of your videos, to be honest, but that one I'm not familiar with.
	To summarize, I was just talking about basically how there are different levels of racism, how every racist isn't hatred of the other race, like racial superiority, Hitler-type racist.
	There are people who are just lightly racist, who have stereotypical views directed at certain races.
	And I think I definitely think that exists.
	But I don't think it's as much as a problem nowadays because I think it's easier to break that stereotype through discussion, through conversation.
	Basically, if I just see somebody walking down the street and I might hold a stereotype towards them and that's not going to change because I don't know them.
	But if you present yourself and you talk about it, then I might not.
	That's why I think in jobs, if a guy comes in, half, like just looks terrible, you automatically want to think, okay, I'm not hiring this guy, put his application in the trash.
	But then after you go through the interview and you present yourself, and if you do it correctly, then, hey, he might be like, you know what?
	You know, makes sense.
	Yeah, no, I'm with you.
	Yeah, I mean, the sort of the stereotype thing, again, it's a preconception, isn't it?
	You assume that, say, you're walking along, you see a black person with his cap turned to the side and his trousers around his ass or something.
	You know, you think, oh, my God, he's going to, you know, do, you know, cause some hassle or something.
	But if he then says, hey, mate, you dropped your wallet or something and hands you back your wallet, like you say, by mission of action, suddenly your opinion of that guy particularly has just completely changed.
	You know?
	Exactly.
	I think it has a lot to do with different areas, too, like different, like your surroundings.
	Because people always say, like, it's racist for a white guy to cross the street if there's a group of black teenagers, you know, accumulating down the sidewalk.
	And I personally don't see that as – yeah, I do it.
	Hell, I don't want to get robbed and jumped.
	I'll cross the street.
	Yeah, yeah, I do that shit.
	Get through my keys.
	It's not racist.
	It's just being aware of the possibilities of what might come.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	It's silly not to be aware of it.
	I think that's the main type of racism that exists in America.
	And I think people are very oversensitive to that form of racism, I guess.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Truth Stings just wants to know what you think of that only white people can be racist and black people cannot be racist towards whites.
	But I think I already know what your answer is going to be to that.
	Yeah, basically, bullshit.
	Blacks can be racist towards whites.
	My neighbor actually just offered me a video, some kind of historical video.
	He told me he wanted me to watch it talking about Willie Lynch and white supremacy throughout the history of America and stuff like that.
	And he just went off on a tangent of how the white man don't love no black man.
	When you go into business, don't be fooled because even though you're working with him, even though he might call you for and invite you into school, you're still just a black boy to him.
	So don't that type of bullshit mentality.
	See, that's the self-fulfilling prophecy I was talking about.
	If you go in there with a really negative attitude, you're very cagey and you don't make friends, you're not going to advance up the ladder.
	And you're going to misattribute that to them being racist, whereas it's, in fact, their response to that person's very standoff-ish manner, you know?
	But because it's a black person who's told a black person to do that, then it will look like racism.
	Just a response to Alien Gearbox.
	Yes, watermelon.
	It is delicious.
	You got a problem with it?
	Yeah, man.
	I fucking love watermelon.
	Maybe it's my black jeans.
	Jesus, I never thought of it.
	I love fried chicken too.
	It's bollocks.
	This isn't Ancestry calling to me.
	I was curious because, I mean, it's not, again, the numbers suggest that there are, I mean, there are obviously a lot more black people proportionally in prison and in low-paying jobs than white people.
	And that, again, it does indicate an institutional racism on the surface.
	And I'm not saying that necessarily it is.
	It's just, I think it's more the sort of this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
	A lot of people I know agree with that, but I don't.
	I've researched it as well, and I don't come to the conclusion that it's institutionalized.
	Yeah, I think it's more coincidence because when you think about it, the majority of crime occurs in highly populated urban areas.
	Yeah.
	Obviously.
	Since that's the majority of where crime occurs, that's where the majority of police are.
	And that also happens to be where the majority of minorities are.
	Yeah, poor areas are in their overwhelmingly minority.
	So I don't think it's that cops or government is just targeting black people in general.
	They're just targeting areas where crime is most prevalent.
	And I believe that that happens to be urban areas.
	Even though I still do believe that a lot of the crimes they are arrested for, such as marijuana possession, primarily, it's not racist, but it does have a disproportionate impact on African Americans.
	Yeah, I think that this is all a confluence of circumstances, like you're saying.
	Because I saw some research that suggests that drug use on the whole is fairly evenly distributed amongst all sort of ethnicities.
	But it's the fact that the police are mainly spending their time in poor inner-city areas that are populated with minorities because that's where all the crime's occurring because of the poverty.
	And one of the and the culture there is probably, is it a thuggish sort of culture?
	I'm assuming it is.
	You know, it's cool to be a third culture.
	What kind of culture is that?
	In sort of inner cities with large black populations, I assume there's probably quite thug culture going on.
	Yeah, yeah, it is.
	But it's actually changing a lot because it is becoming a thug culture, but it's not the type of thug culture it was in 2005 where it was just hardcore drug dealers, gangs, then basically that old-fashioned white triple XL, white teas, huge REMs type of thug culture.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Actually, if I dare say, a more sophisticated thug culture in which people still want to be considered street, people still want to be considered hood or whatnot.
	But they're also realizing that, hey, you can still do that and not be a dumbass.
	Yeah, that's good.
	That's good.
	You know, but that's the point, though, isn't it?
	If it's very much a thug culture and the police, like we were saying, they're on the lookout for people who are going to be dressing like that because they think that they're going to be stereotypically more inclined towards crime.
	Is it any wonder that you get so many more arrests of black kids with we than white kids?
	I don't think it's necessarily racism.
	I think it's just an unfortunate confluence of circumstances that on the fist could very well easily appear to be racism, which is what figures would suggest if you were just looking at the figures and not really thinking deeply about the issue.
	But yeah, someone in the thing said drugs, drug crime is no crime.
	What do you think about that?
	I agree.
	A drug crime is no crime.
	If you're not going to charge pharmaceutical companies with distribution, don't charge me.
	Yeah.
	I don't see a crime.
	I don't agree with crimes that aren't aggression.
	If I'm not hurting you, if I'm just doing something peacefully, it shouldn't be a crime.
	Agreed.
	Fully agreed.
	If it doesn't impact other people, then.
	Yeah.
	But.
	And like John Doe says, prohibition doesn't work.
	And he's right.
	It's never worked.
	Yeah, it's ridiculous.
	And it just doesn't make sense to me that people who are in favor of prohibition, you know, pay, you know, you can always get them with the alcohol point.
	Oh, do you think alcohol should be illegal?
	No.
	Well, you're a hypocrite.
	Exactly.
	It amazes me that people, usually, this is how I always get people who are against drug prohibition.
	I show them a picture of a tobacco plant, and I show them a picture of a marijuana plant, and I show them a picture of a cactus, and I tell them which one is worse and why.
	They all have mental effects.
	They all, well, not necessarily tobacco so much, but marijuana and it was a specific cactus and Peyote, is it?
	Huh?
	Peyote, is it?
	Peyote.
	It's a drug.
	It's a natural drug, isn't it?
	Yeah, it is.
	Yeah, it's peyote.
	I saw a Native American thing where they basically won the right to use it legally as part of their religious ceremonies and stuff, which is interesting.
	I just asked people why should one be more, why should one be illegal and one not?
	And people always say, well, that one hurts people.
	So you're telling me if I'm hurting myself, you should have the government come and take me away to a cage to be hurt some more.
	That's fair.
	Yeah, it's insane.
	Absolutely insane.
	And one other thing about drug laws that really bothers me is no one ever considers the kind of people that made them.
	I'm kind of sick of the tyranny of these fucking guys from 100 years ago almost.
	I think it was in the 30s or 40s that these things were criminalized.
	And these people were pretty fucking racist.
	They were pretty sexist.
	I don't really have all that much respect for them.
	So why would I trust their opinion on drugs?
	It's not I don't have any respect.
	It's just that a lot of them are really the sort of people I wouldn't take advice from in a lot of fields, you know?
	And so I don't really think...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	No, no, go ahead.
	I'd finished.
	I'd finished.
	I was going to say that not to go off into a tangent into politics again, but that's just another reason why I'm very hesitant with passing laws because once it's passed, it's there for a very long time, and it's extremely hard to get rid of.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I'm alarmed by the number of laws that are passed.
	I'm shocked that so many things need to be legislated.
	Not just in your country sort of thing, in ours as well.
	I mean, I suppose this is what happens when you have a class of professional lawmakers.
	They spend all day making laws.
	And it's like, do you really need?
	You know, we kind of need a class of professional unmakers for laws.
	Because, seriously, how many laws a year do they pass?
	It's got to be hundreds, right?
	Exactly.
	And that's one way that I figure out if I want to vote for a politician.
	Let's say if it's a small politician like in my um state, like a state politician, if I have the ability to talk to them, I'll ask them what are five ways, what are five areas you think government should be increased, and what are five areas if you think government should be decreased.
	If they can answer all five that it should be increased, they don't get my vote.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And if they can't answer all five that should be decreased, they don't get my vote.
	Yeah, because the state is so huge right now, and it's so much unnecessary bureaucracy that just affects people who and it's not it's not improving the lives of the populace.
	It's just basically a law to control and just to dictate arbitrarily what they think is right.
	And I think a lot of these laws should just be done away with.
	And I think he's a political commentator.
	He had an idea, suggestion that for every law a politician makes, they have to repeal five.
	That's an interesting idea.
	But the thing is, the thing is, that's a bit arbitrary because, I mean, there could be situations where you don't actually need to repeal any of the particular laws that are currently in place, but you do need to implement a law that is unexpected.
	You know, a new technology develops and a law needs to be created to regulate it.
	In America, if they did get rid of five laws a year, we would still take like 3,000 years, probably.
	Well, I guess what I'm thinking is that there's a fundamental flaw in the system.
	So even if it works now, you'd have to have a time span.
	You'd have to say, right, for the next 50 years, we're going to do that.
	And at the end of 50 years, we'll re-evaluate it.
	We'll have another public debate or something like that.
	Because, you know, this is the problem.
	Putting into place systems that work in the present, but no one's looking at how the outcome is going to turn out.
	So, yeah, I mean, I know, I know it's the extreme thing, but yeah, I mean, I'm sure that would work initially.
	But I don't know.
	I just don't know.
	I'm kind of reluctant about the concept of professional lawmakers now, to be honest.
	What else are they going to do?
	That's what they're being paid for.
	So, yeah.
	Let me see.
	I'm just taking a look at the comments.
	Yeah.
	Guys, ask some if you guys have any questions for you want us to talk about.
	Because I've seen some previous people asking some questions, but he was talking, so I didn't.
	Yeah, grab a couple if you've got a couple you want to answer, actually.
	Let me see, let me see.
	Let me see.
	This is, I'm proudly Islamophobic.
	Being against psychology is not something.
	Same with feminists.
	I'm not a question.
	Sargon, do you have a beard?
	I do have a beard.
	It's quite thick and black and going white on the chin, which I'm not proud of.
	On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of your resemblance would you say you are to Sargon of a guide?
	Probably about five.
	I imagine that in profile with the right gear and a proper Mesopotamian beard on me, I probably wouldn't look too dissimilar.
	Just a bit fatter and a lot less regal looking.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I'm kind of a little bit overweight, but not like Land Whale, overweight, because I like to eat.
	I'm quite stocky because I go to the gym.
	I'm just built stocky.
	And yeah, just kind of normal looking, really.
	On one of the history videos, I actually...
	Sorry?
	No, I was just saying, I was I pictured you as the type of person I could see riding uh riding a horse into the city, conquering it.
	Well, I'm glad I've managed to cultivate that kind of image, to be honest.
	That was kind of what I was going for.
	But yeah, I don't know.
	Sorry, what was that?
	I was saying, um, continue with what your thought I interrupted you.
	Yeah, I don't really know where I was going with it, to be honest.
	Okay, let's see.
	Let's see.
	Sargon and T, what do you think of voluntary or part-time politicians that aren't paid?
	What do you think?
	Personally, I don't think we should have politicians at all, but seeing as we're not in an anarchist society, I you know, generally, it still comes back to it.
	I don't think politicians should be paid through taxes.
	I don't believe politicians should be paid through theft.
	And so I guess I would be in favor of no not paying politicians because it's not like I'm taking away something they've earned.
	They're stealing the money anyway, so fuck them.
	Yeah, no paid politicians.
	I'm very much of the opinion that the public should be paying for the politicians through tax.
	I know that tax is a dirty word in the United States, but being the socialist, communist, Marxist, national fascist that I am, I actually think that ultimately it's a bit of an extreme position to say, oh, no one should pay any taxes.
	Everything should be decided by the free market.
	It's too extreme.
	I don't like extreme positions because they never work for everyone.
	And ultimately, everyone is part of society, whether you like it or not.
	So fucking just lump it.
	You're always going to have taxes.
	So I honestly think that if we actually wanted a democracy, if we were taking money off of people in the form of a politician tax, and the only money politicians could receive was from this politician tax, then if we had a law, you'd have to have a specific law to say that this can only be changed in line with inflation or due to a public referendum.
	The politicians wouldn't be allowed to change it.
	It would be X amount in line with inflation and that would be it.
	Then it would severely reduce the amount of people who are rich that would want to go into politics.
	Yeah, I like the idea, even though philosophically I'm against forcing things upon people.
	But I just don't like politicians so much, I really don't care about them.
	But I could see the idea of having politicians, at least definitely while they're in office, not be able to profit from other areas.
	Because pretty much in America, the main job of a politician, 75% of their time goes to fundraising.
	Yeah.
	Especially Hillary Clinton, aside from the bullshit, he's trying to relate to the middle class.
	I believe she just received $250,000 or something along that line for giving a speech at, I think it was either Yale or Columbia University or something like that.
	$250,000 for a 30-minute speech, and you want to relate to the average worker.
	Yeah, she's wildly out of touch.
	There's no way that her concept of what it is to be middle class can be relied on.
	Even if she thinks that she's correct, she's probably not correct.
	Exactly.
	I definitely think that if you had a rule that said your only source of income can be the politician pay tax, then that would definitely be interesting because I really think that you would get people who weren't in it for the money and who were actually in it for the right reasons, more Ron Pauls, you know.
	And then you might even get less career politicians because I mean most politicians are in it because they see an end goal of them being the next Bernie Madoff or Harry Reid bringing in millions of dollars a year.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think you're absolutely right there.
	I think that that is entirely the problem.
	Career politicians, people who become politicians when they're young and then go on to be politicians for the rest of their lives.
	How can that be good?
	How could possibly they be in touch with the real world?
	That's already one thing that the political system, once you enter it, you're taking yourself out of reality.
	You're taking yourself out of the day-to-day lives of your average citizen.
	And think about how much of an effect that has if you're in that system for 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
	Exactly.
	You're not going to know what the situation is.
	And that's such a long period of time that the world changes.
	The world is so different than it was 30 years ago.
	And so when Hillary Clinton first got into politics, it was the relatively sort of affluent middle class of the sort of late 80s, early 90s.
	And now, if you look at the stats, the middle class has just been compressed.
	And so 30 years later, she's going, well, I remember what it was like to be middle class.
	It's like, you don't remember what it was like to be middle class now.
	So yeah, I think that's important to remember with the career politicians.
	And the worst part about all this is that they're divorced from the consequences of their actions.
	They are never held to account.
	They are never held to account.
	I mean, in the UK, there was this, we've got the shittest scandals.
	We've got just the most.
	Oh, yeah, they're not bad.
	They're crap.
	That's the problem.
	I thought you guys politic atmosphere was just awesome.
	I thought it was just so quiet and subtle because I never get to that because I live in America.
	I don't hear anything.
	Well, it's not necessarily that.
	It's more that they're petty.
	There was recently the expenses scandal over here where politicians are like, yeah, I spent £400 on X amount of money.
	And everyone's getting really hit up on, oh, maybe you made claims for £6,000.
	In total, it's like, oh, wow, £6,000.
	How many billions did we give to the banks again?
	It's so petty.
	It's not even big corruption.
	It's small corruption.
	It's petty, pathetic, unimpressive corruption.
	I don't care about that corruption.
	I can live with that corruption for now.
	Let's crack the big stuff.
	It's the same thing in America, especially among my conservatives.
	I have a lot of conservative friends on Twitter.
	And their primary goal is to just bash Obama at every turn.
	They do things like, oh, Brook Obama taking another vacation to Hawaii, spending taxpayer dollars, $10,000.
	Like, yeah, I'm kind of against that.
	I don't really like the president taking vacations when the world is in turmoil and he's spending taxpayers doing it.
	But I also don't like our military spending $1.8 billion for a fleet, no, one single fighter jet that isn't even up to standards for actual combat, and we're buying hundreds of them.
	I don't like that more than I don't like Obama going to Hawaii.
	Yeah, it's a matter of scale, isn't it?
	I don't really like him going to Hawaii on taxpayer dollars, but it's not that big a deal.
	And it speaks more about him than it does anything else.
	If I was the president, I had all this crazy stuff going on.
	I don't think I'd be taking very many holidays.
	I think I would feel morally obliged, but that's probably because I wouldn't want to be a puppet president.
	That's why people always ask me.
	They always ask, oh, are you ever going to run for office?
	I'm like, no, I still want to enjoy a few years of my life with the soul.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's the thing, isn't it?
	A common argument is the people who get into that are the sort of people who shouldn't get into that.
	And the system changes you.
	You're staring too long into the abyss.
	I think it becomes normalized.
	I just want to respond to NYC Treman's comment.
	He says, so let's recap.
	Sargon wants a utopia for workers, huge government that will somehow have a spiritual epiphany and rule justly, and maybe unicorns who will shit Skittles over Africa.
	Now, this is, yeah, that would be lovely, to be honest, mate.
	That would be lovely.
	But that's actually not what I'm asking for.
	That's really not what I'm asking for.
	I would rather than vomit Skittles.
	No, but seriously, it's about changing the incentives and just the mechanisms of the system.
	I'm not asking for a utopia.
	I'm just asking for a system that's a bit more fair.
	And you're saying that anything less than perfect isn't going to work.
	And it's just like, well, no, I'm not asking for perfect.
	And, you know, making my position a straw man is so extreme that I want to work as utopia and huge benevolent government.
	I don't think any such thing, but that doesn't mean that I don't think we should try, even if we don't reach that goal.
	I can't remember what it's called, a fallacy from perfection or something like that.
	Yeah, man, come on.
	Come on.
	Everyone has an idea for end result of what's going to make society excellent, of what's exactly going to work for society.
	But you're not going to achieve that until you take baby steps.
	Yeah.
	Even if you don't agree with Sargon's end result, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's saying that this is going to result in a perfect utopia.
	No, not at all.
	I think you're saying that it may be better than the system that we have, right?
	Am I correct?
	That's exactly what I'm saying.
	I don't think there's any such thing as a utopia.
	It's a ridiculous concept.
	There are always going to be systemic imbalances and injustices.
	And the best you can do is mitigate them.
	That's all you can really hope for.
	You can never hope for a perfect utopia.
	That's absurd.
	And I don't mean to just be dismissive, but it kind of seems like there's an emotional attachment coming through here, which is why he pushes it to the most extreme position.
	And I'm not saying he's a fool or anything like that.
	I think that there's something else going on for him to be taking this position.
	I'm more than happy for him to comment and talk about it because I think it's genuinely something that there is a distinct trend towards extremist thinking in the world at large in everything you can think of.
	It's like if I say something about the Jews, everyone's anti-Zionist or something, or anti-Semite, whatever.
	It's like, Jesus, one comment, and now I hate all the Jews.
	And if you say, oh, that woman's a fat slag, oh, now you hate every woman.
	It's like, do I, you know, it's the presumption of guilt, the presumption of the worst possible scenario.
	You know, it's not the next worst thing, you know, on a scale of like one to ten, one being someone who dislikes that particular woman or someone who dislikes every woman.
	Instead of going, you know, criticizing one woman, go to the next step.
	And then, if I criticize two women, maybe it's a few women I don't like.
	And then, if I criticize a large group of women, then maybe it's most women I don't like.
	And then, if I criticize everyone, then it's I hate all women, you know?
	And so, yeah, it's you know, this is my problem with the world at large.
	And that utopian argument is the same thing, just the other way.
	You know, oh, we've got perfect and rainbows or shit skittles over Africa.
	And it's like, you know, I just want the next step rather than the last step.
	And like you said, you know, baby steps.
	Yeah.
	You know?
	I just want to respond to these two questions really quickly.
	Yeah.
	Do you mind if I grab a cup of tea while you do that?
	No, no, you're fine.
	Cheers, man.
	Cool.
	All right.
	Hopefully, God, I can tell you guys, fucking British people.
	You guys drink this much tea, honestly?
	I drink tea once a fucking week.
	I thought it was a stereotype.
	But anyway, Laura S asks, do you like African Americans or black Americans?
	It doesn't really matter to me.
	African Americans, I say it's black Americans.
	I just prefer black people or just blacks instead of saying black Americans.
	You're going to put American after it.
	I guess it just, I prefer African American.
	It just sounds better.
	I don't know.
	Even though I'm not fucking African.
	And the other one was, why are you an atheist?
	I am an atheist because I don't believe in things that I have no reason to believe in.
	So I don't believe in Santa Claus because I have no reason to believe that there's a magical man that leaves presents on my door because what evidence is there?
	The present?
	No, my parents actually have a receipt for those presents.
	So, you know, it doesn't really grant reason to believe in Santa Claus.
	So that's why I don't believe in God.
	And even, I don't want to go into a religious argument.
	That's just why I don't believe in God.
	It's silly shit to me personally.
	Let me.
	Do any of you percentage?
	Do any of you think taxes is theft?
	I do.
	I think involuntary seizure of someone's property is theft.
	And I consider money to be someone's property.
	Even though a lot of people say the government prints the money, when in reality, private banks print the money.
	And regardless, you know what?
	That's why I like Bitcoin.
	Because hopefully if Bitcoin gains enough traction, I won't be having to pay taxes.
	And I dare the government to try to impose a tax on Bitcoin.
	We will have a problem.
	Have any of you done a talk with Stefan Molyneux?
	I have not.
	I've got invited, I believe, to Free Domain Radio, but I haven't discussed anything with him.
	And I haven't watched a lot of his videos.
	He has been a lot of very long videos.
	I don't have 40 minutes to watch every single one of his videos.
	Who are we talking about there?
	Stefan Molyneux.
	Are you familiar with him?
	Yeah, I'm familiar with him.
	I didn't sound very excited there, did I?
	I don't have a problem with Stefan Molly.
	No one has asked me for my opinion but I'm going to give it anyway.
	I'm not sure he's, I don't really agree with him on that many issues.
	But I don't necessarily disagree with his methods.
	When he's laying out an argument, a lot of the time they're pretty good arguments.
	But I feel that he's somehow, And I know this is coming from me, but I think he's a bit pie in the sky with a few of his thoughts.
	I'd need to have some specific examples to be more specific, because I can't think.
	I don't watch too many of his videos because I don't find them that entertaining.
	And I don't necessarily always agree with I'm in the same boat.
	I don't, I'm not that familiar with Malone.
	I don't watch a lot of some of his videos, you know.
	I think like 10 questions libertarians can't answer.
	He rebuted that.
	I enjoyed that video.
	But some of him, you know, like why Rio is a dangerous ideological shitstorm, the movie, the cartoon Rio 2.
	Yeah, nothing doesn't make good points.
	It's just it goes too far into philosophy that it kind of is like, okay, it's not that important to me personally.
	But some people enjoy it.
	I saw his one on Frozen, and I had to see Frozen a couple of times.
	And so it's not that he was wrong, it's just that he wasn't right, I think.
	That was more the problem.
	It was less wrong.
	Frozen is actually not a bad movie.
	And it's really not a bad movie, and it wasn't a hassle to have to watch it.
	The thing about Frozen is it's a movie for women.
	It's a movie for girls.
	I'm not the target audience.
	So I'm watching it from very much an outsider's perspective.
	But it's still a fine movie.
	There's nothing wrong with the story.
	There's nothing wrong with the motivations of the characters.
	There are a couple of good twists.
	I mean, they are actually genuinely good twists.
	And I was quite surprised.
	It's not a bad film.
	It's not a bad film at all.
	And so, and his interpretation of it isn't wrong.
	I can't remember exactly what he said, something like extreme feminist position on it or something.
	But it wasn't.
	I think it was too narrow.
	And I think that sometimes his views on things get a bit too narrow and a bit too speculative.
	And I'm a pretty narrow, speculative guy, so that's my opinion.
	I don't know.
	It's not these bad, and I don't want anyone to take that.
	I'm calling him out or anything like that.
	Because I do respect what he's doing.
	I'm just not.
	I'm on board.
	Like you said, I think I'm on board with him for the first five or six steps.
	And then beyond that, I'm not sure you can be sure.
	Are you still there?
	Yeah.
	Just checking.
	Cool.
	But I guess you get that with most all deep philosophers.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, so you're going a bit in and out there.
	Yeah, I was just saying that's kind of like what you get when you go in.
	When you're dealing with any deep philosophers, you get your yay moments and your nair moments.
	Yeah, I think you're right.
	I think it does get a bit expensive.
	Sargon, did you see the piece in The Guardian saying, Thomas, the train engine is racist?
	No.
	No, but I imagine it was as rational as that question is.
	You know, like the question sounds.
	No, I'd be interested to know more about it, actually.
	I'm like, go on Google.
	I've got Google and did.
	I heard about it.
	I'd be forgetting about who I've been hearing stuff from, but I think I heard it from Dr. RandomCam in his video, I believe.
	Right, okay.
	I watch all his videos as well.
	Was just talking about how the two different trains are, you know, the evil trains have black smoke and the good trains have white smoke.
	How that's perpetuating the idea of racism and how was it the one written by Tracy Van Slike?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I've just got it.
	Do you want me to read a few bits of it?
	Just think, Thomas the Tank Engine had to shut the hell up to save children everywhere.
	Classism, sexism, anti-environmentalism bordering on racism.
	Any parent who discovered these hidden lessons will be glad the show star just quit.
	Well, fuck me, that sounds awful.
	I mean, Jesus.
	So, yeah, she goes on to say, yeah, gibberish.
	My son, they're three and a half, blah, blah, blah.
	She heard that the actor behind Thomas's Incessant Winging quit the series because he was underpaid.
	So not exactly for moral objections.
	I remembered all the reasons that I cut my kid off from the show in the first place.
	Okay.
	So Thomas and those friends are trains that toil away endlessly on the Isle of Sodor, which seems to be forever caught in British colonial times.
	And on its surface, the show seems to impart good moral lessons about hard work and friendship.
	But if you look through the steam rising up from the cold-powered train stacks, you realize that the pretty puffs of smoke are concealing some pretty twisted anachronistic messages.
	Pro-slavery, I'm sure.
	For one, these trains fontas dictated by their imperious little white boss, Sir Topham Hatt, also known as the fat controller, whose attire of a top hat, tuxedo, and big round belly is just a little too obvious.
	Basically, he's the monopoly dictator of their funky little island.
	Hat orders the trains to do everything from falling hates to carrying pass hauling freight to carrying passengers to running whatever random errand he wants done, whenever he wants it done, regardless of their pre-existing schedules.
	We are still talking about kids' cartoon series, aren't we?
	If you don't mind me interjecting real quick.
	Go ahead, mate.
	Go ahead.
	This is why I can't enjoy TV anymore.
	This is why Social Justice Warriors ruin entertainment, especially for children.
	Because when you say things like that, like the old rich white controller, it's like the idea.
	I remember I spent a few years battling this where I was like, you know, I live, whenever me and my family are watching TV, you know, there's always the thing where the black guy dies first.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And it's, they always prescribe to this type of ideology.
	Oh, that's just because the company is racist.
	They don't want no black man.
	You can't get no long roll and stuff like that.
	I'm like, you know what?
	I personally would like to see more diverse characters in films too, but I don't want to force it because then it gets to the point where whenever it's a white character, you start to despise them.
	And, you know, when we watch where the white character dies first and the black character lives, everyone's happy.
	And I'm like, is that something I'd really be happy about?
	Someone did tell the white.
	Yeah, I know, exactly.
	It's just an airy, twisted mindset to me.
	And I hate that Social Justice Warriors even created this because now I can't get through a show without having that with, okay, maybe this guy should be black.
	Why is this white person successful?
	Why didn't the black guy get the promotion?
	Or why didn't he catch the bad guy?
	It ruins entertainment for me.
	Yeah, I just went on to excuse me.
	No, no, no.
	No, no, no, no, me, absolutely not.
	Don't apologize for that because I like rants.
	I'm exactly the same, right?
	Whenever I see a kid's cartoon, I was recently exposed to a kid's cartoon called Sheriff Callie.
	And all I was just thinking is just like, holy shit, this is so bigoted against men.
	And it's because the social justice warriors have put the idea of this kind of gender war that's going on in my head that I'm seeing the results of their efforts to get their ideology onto kids.
	Because this Sheriff Callie, it's this son, it's this female cat.
	I know this is going to sound ridiculous, but it's a cartoon for kids, you know.
	It's a female cat who is the sheriff's entertainment.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is.
	I don't even know if it is British, you know.
	It might be American.
	But basically, she's the sheriff of this town, and she solves all the problems she has with this magic lasso.
	She just says, lasso, do this, and then the lasso fixes the problem.
	And it's like, then she didn't really do it, did she?
	But either way, you know, and her two sidekicks are like these two male sidekicks, but they're stupid and bumbling.
	And there isn't a man in the town who isn't either, you know, who's worthy of any respect.
	They're all stupid.
	None of them do anything, but they all do manual labor jobs.
	They all run things.
	They're running the town.
	And Sheriff Callie's just running around telling her lasso to fix problems.
	And I'm just sat there going, this is teaching young girls that men will solve all their problems and that men are stupid.
	And I'm not supposed to be enjoying this, but it's annoying me that I'm seeing that because it's that mindset, like you say, it infects everything.
	I guess that's Thunderfoot's point.
	Feminism poisons everything.
	I have yet to see it be proven false.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I genuinely think, you know, I mean, maybe the original goals of feminism were very laudable, you know, suffrage, rights, pay, all that sort of thing.
	That's great.
	But once you've got them, where do you go from there?
	What do you need?
	What more do you want?
	You know, you've got exactly what men have.
	The rest is objective.
	It's pretty much the same.
	And it's not just feminism.
	It's a lot of ideologies, such as civil rights.
	We wanted quantity voting and equal pay.
	And now, where do we go from there?
	Now we go to race quotas.
	Jesus, yeah.
	Scholarships, things like that.
	And I guess I guess no one really.
	Because I want to say that someone should just be able to tell people when their ideology has surpassed its time.
	But I don't know who would be able to say that and at what point.
	I think it's just a matter of individuals just collectively coming together and saying, okay, we don't really need it.
	We don't really have a use for you anymore.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There definitely needs to be some sort of just method of just public forum.
	And I suppose it must be YouTube, you know, and Twitter these days, which are the public forums that, you know, it must be, because this has to be the natural outgrowth of feminism running its course, us having these discussions.
	You know?
	If I was looking at it from a historical perspective, if I had this as evidence, I'd say, well, there was a pushback, you know, against this sort of thing.
	You know, so this is how I would figure out the sign of the time.
	So you could see, if I was looking at this all as documented historical evidence, I'd be looking at the fact that there are loads of feminists in government.
	You've got loads of pro-feminist policies being enacted by the government.
	And you've got feminists in academia and all this sort of stuff.
	And it's feminists in the media.
	Every newspaper has a female section with loads of feminism stuff in it and stuff like that.
	So you'd be like, okay, that's a major influence on society.
	And then you would have these YouTube videos saying, you know, oh, and this is the pushback.
	And I think that our sort of rationalists are growing.
	I think enough people have been exposed to the crazy of feminism that those who haven't been subsumed by it are kind of coming to us, I think, man.
	Yeah, I believe so.
	And that's that's I don't want to keep going off the topic, but go ahead, don't worry about it.
	Remember when I was talking about Jacqueline Glenn and her deal?
	Yeah.
	She was constantly implying that she doesn't want to be labeled an anti-feminist.
	She doesn't like that idea.
	And I think you've seen my comments.
	I know you plus one did.
	I did, but it was probably a while ago now.
	Yeah, I was just saying that by definition, you are an anti-feminist because you dare to speak against feminist criticize feminism.
	If you don't take the feminist ideology full force without critique and accept that label, you are, according to feminists, against feminism.
	You're an enemy of feminism.
	Which personally I'm proud of.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	I'm very strident in my opposition to feminism.
	I'm sure everyone is aware.
	But yeah, this is the problem with ideologies, though.
	Fundamentally, they're quite absolutist.
	Even if you can find ideologies that technically mesh together because they don't encroach on each other's territory or they both want the same thing in a certain sphere.
	I don't, you know, it's all or nothing, you know.
	And like you say, if you're not a feminist, then you're an anti-feminist, which is why you had WhatsApp saying, if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot.
	There's nothing in between.
	And it's like, that's not what you're saying.
	If you're not a feminist, you're an anti-feminist, and therefore you're against me, you're my enemy.
	So, yeah, it's all or nothing.
	And I hate that kind of mindset.
	Absolutist sort of.
	There are a few comments I wouldn't mind answering, if you don't mind.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	One of them was, would I appear on the Drunken Peasants?
	And I don't see why not.
	I think the Amazing Atheists are right.
	They seem quite funny.
	Yeah, which is the watch that I was in there in that one with Jacqueline and Ryan Wiley.
	It was hilarious.
	I actually didn't watch that.
	I actually haven't seen that yet.
	I'll have to go back and have a look at it.
	What happened?
	It was great.
	It was weird because I agreed with everybody in the Hangout and I disagree with everybody in the Hangout at a certain point.
	Ryan was arguing.
	First of all, you know that Ryan, you know Ryan Wiley, correct?
	Oh, yes.
	I like Ryan Wiley.
	Yeah, I do too.
	I subscribe to him.
	Yeah, I do.
	You know, he's always pushing the idea that he has a math degree.
	And within the first about four minutes of the discussion, it was hilarious because they were talking about his videos against Jacqueline, and he was just saying, this is why I don't like to do the baits.
	And he was just like, this isn't how we do science.
	This isn't how we do math.
	It kind of led me to think that he based everything off of his knowledge of math, which I don't know how that works for him, but it was just funny to hear it.
	Yeah, it does seem to be...
	I've heard from...
	Sleeping Giant just said, I thought Whitey defended himself well.
	And I've heard from a lot of people that he did.
	And, you know, I should actually do that.
	Necropantha's asked, would I get drunk while doing this?
	I'd get stoned while doing this.
	What makes you think I'm not?
	I'm not.
	Yeah, so yeah, I will have to go back and look at it because I find I'll have to watch that conversation that you had or debate, I suppose.
	Because I'd rather not have debates with people.
	I'd love to have a feminist on or a social justice warrior or whoever, you know, but I don't want to attack them.
	I don't want it to be a debate.
	I'd much rather have a conversation and see if there's any way that they can compromise because they have to understand that the people on the other side to them are never going over to their side.
	It's never going to happen.
	Or at least for me anyway.
	And I doubt that our subscribers.
	I imagine that there's quite a lot of crossover.
	And I really doubt that they're going over to their side either.
	It's kind of like the tangent between Christianity and atheism.
	Many Christians are becoming atheists, but pretty much not that many atheists are going to Christianity.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And they're going to have to understand that people are well aware these days, or a lot more people are aware of what they want.
	And they need to learn to compromise.
	They absolutely need to learn to compromise, in my opinion.
	So I'd love to have got Claudia Berlin on or Ryan Wiley just to have a conversation with them about a lot of the things that they say.
	Because they just seem to talk from a position of presupposition that they already understand the opponent's point of view.
	You know?
	Have you contacted Ryan?
	No, I haven't actually.
	I did add him to my circles, but he didn't have me back.
	I think he'll be up to it because he recently had a discussion with who was it?
	Chaz Almighty.
	Yeah, I heard about that.
	I was talking to Chaz about that in a hangout.
	What happened?
	Because from Chaz's point of view, it seemed that he was surrounded by enemies.
	Well, he was.
	He went into pretty much everybody was on Ryan's side.
	Though the whole discussion pretty much got out of hand right out the gate with optimum attacks and basically getting off the subject.
	It was no structure to the discussion.
	So it was basically just a bunch of rambling here and there, interruptions.
	Yeah.
	I think that's.
	I don't know if Ryan would be up to coming to your forum because I noticed he does engage in a lot of discussions, but he does it on his term.
	Yeah, I do understand that.
	That's the thing.
	I like to think that I'd be fair.
	I know I'm a dick in my videos and everything, but I do think that's different.
	That is someone impersonally insulting me when they're saying, oh, you're part of rape culture and stuff like that.
	It's like, look, man, if you're going to say that stridently in a video, then when I'm watching that, that is a message that is being delivered right to me as an insult, you twat.
	So I'm going to come right back at you just as stridently.
	And it's really hard not to be.
	I know I'm supposed to take the high ground and all that, but I'm only human.
	And a lot of this stuff pisses me off.
	But in a personal conversation, I absolutely wouldn't.
	I'm British, so I was at least raised with manners.
	So, yeah, I definitely have Ryan on.
	Laura S said, get Claudia Berlin on.
	And someone's going to have to contact her for me because she's got me blocked on Twitter, even though I hadn't contacted her on Twitter.
	I think she's got some block bots or something.
	And I guess I must be on it, which means I'm pissing off some feminists, which is good.
	I believe I follow her on Twitter.
	I don't know if I still do, but I know I did at one point.
	Yeah, well, you know, send her a message and ask her to come on.
	And like, explain to that it wouldn't be a debate.
	It'd just be a conversation to try and understand the other side's point of view.
	My video, because she may be a little hesitant.
	Yeah, exactly.
	My video wasn't particularly kind either.
	But she was being such a little bossy boot, you know, from such a narrow perspective.
	And it was just like that, you just don't understand what you're saying, Claudia.
	You know, you only understand it from your position.
	You don't understand it from both positions.
	But things, I'm sure there's a lot about their position that I'm not really grasping.
	Because I was thinking about the patriarchy the other day.
	And just the kind of what the feminists say that the patriarchy is.
	And I'm thinking, right, okay, let's assume that everything they're saying is true.
	Let's assume that all of this is true from their perspective.
	What does that mean about them?
	Because they're like, for example, the sort of the this is.
	I find this this was actually when I was baked, so I won't guarantee the veracity of these ideas, but it was one of those things that it was.
	I was really struggling to think outside of the normal sort of paradigm that I, that I operate under and I was thinking, right okay, so the patriarchy is real and I know this because of the direct effects it has on me.
	So the the, the thing that had really sparked this train of thought was the.
	I think it was a Lacey Green video where she argues that, like you know, 75% of people who run like media companies and cosmetics companies are men, and so what they're doing is they're saying to little girls or young women or whatever, you, you have to buy all this makeup to look beautiful.
	You know the people in the magazines are doing it, the advertising campaigns are doing it.
	The you know the commercial things, and if I I look at that as and think, so fucking, what you know, you know when they're, when they're, when they're trying to advertise, like you know, sneakers or whatever to me, I just look at it and go, I don't give a fuck, i'm not buying your shit, I don't want your shit, I don't need your shit, and so, for me, it just washes off my back and I don't think about it, whereas if, if I couldn't do that which is, I think, what they're saying I think they find these things too tempting.
	If it was something that was particularly tempting to me, like I don't know, maybe it was like a history book or something you know, i'd be like, oh, that's very interesting.
	I'm seeing everyone's like, oh god, I just I have to stop spending my money on history books sort of thing.
	You know, it's bankrupt, I really want that one or something like that.
	You know, i'm just trying to, i'm trying to relate the feeling to what they were going on, and if i'm talking shit, someone tell me, you know.
	But you know so.
	So they can't not engage with these adverts and they can't not feel social pressures because, even if they're trying to, there are going to be a lot of women who don't you know, the women who are less bright, who don't really understand what is going on, and so they buy straight into it and they gain uh, you know the, the social status that is offered I, effectively.
	And so if, if and then when these women come to it, come to the the, the public, and say, look right, you've got these men who are foisting products on these women who can't resist these products.
	And then we tell you, and then your response is, fuck you, you're giving them money for it.
	In fact, that's going to make them do it even more.
	Then I guess that, in a way, could be considered to be some Kind of patriarchy or oppression.
	And if you're thinking, well, fuck, I'm coming to you telling you, look, it's having a really deleterious effect.
	And there's nothing they can do about this.
	They can't not do anything about this.
	And you are just saying, instead of saying, oh, I'm going to be sensitive to that, I'll actually do something about it.
	You're saying, fuck you, I'm going to do it even more because I'm making money out of it because they're stupid enough to buy it.
	I'm going to exploit that.
	And so that was the only way I could really conceive of the patriarchy being true.
	Yeah.
	I definitely see your goal with that because I just spent while you were talking, I was just spending a little few seconds actually doing the same thing, except I wasn't stoned, so it was probably not as effective.
	But it's probably quicker.
	I was just thinking, like, for example, I have a pair of Nikes.
	I bought them because I just like the shoes.
	I'm thinking if I was so attached to wanting to conform to the ideas that are portrayed in the commercials for the shoe, the athlete, the strong guy with the muscular arms and the muscular legs, some superstar basketball player or something.
	I would probably have a large disdain for probably sports because I can't live up to that definition.
	But the difference is, bringing it back to reality, I don't want to live up to the definition.
	I'm not trying to.
	I just like the shoes.
	I get why they're advertising it like that because they want to appeal to fitness.
	But, you know.
	Yeah.
	I guess I see what you're saying.
	Feminists don't have the capability to detach themselves from the immediate presentation and just say that I just like the product.
	I get why they're advertising it like this, but just want to buy it for that reason.
	Yeah, and I'm the first person to say that men and women are different.
	That's the thing.
	I really believe that there was this study in the papers a while ago that just the differences in brain hemisphere and stuff like that.
	And I refuse to believe that with such physiological differences and needs as well, and such actual pressing real-world needs, men and women could even vaguely be the same.
	It's crazy.
	And so maybe this is something that literally is kind of a blind spot to men.
	Maybe they genuinely can't actually resist these things.
	In the same way that maybe if women just came up to your day offering you pussy, maybe you'd be like, yeah, it'd probably be quite hard to resist.
	If it was that sort of level of desire, and that's what they're trying to put across to us, then maybe there is something to what they're saying.
	I'm not saying that I'm now a feminist and believe in the patriarchy before anyone suggests that that's what I'm saying.
	But I'm just trying to understand what they believe because it's, and this is why I'd like to get Claudia Boleyn on, you know, to talk about the actual depth of it.
	You know, it's because that's the only way I can see it being true.
	And yet it seems absurd.
	I'd really like to hear some people's ideas behind all that sort of thing.
	I'm going to send her a message and see if she'll join us, possibly.
	Yeah, that'd be great.
	I don't want to attack her.
	That's the thing.
	I just want to understand because I really did spend a lot of time genuinely, and it was really hard.
	I imagine you probably spend a lot of time just thinking in general, you know, when you're on the bus or something.
	You know, just when you're bored, it's just something I think the most people who are fairly intelligent do tend to do that.
	And I mean, I never really encountered difficult thoughts like this because it was so hard to just drop everything that I was assuming about the situation and just taking them entirely at their word.
	You know, everything they say is correct, therefore, what must be true for this all to be correct, you know?
	And it was really hard to think about.
	And I think that's, I think that's a lot of things.
	I think that's what feminists believe that a lot of anti-feminists do.
	They believe that they just hate feminism.
	They think that we haven't thought about it, that we haven't considered their point, that we haven't observed the evidence that they present and come and researched it and just thought deeply about it, which we have.
	And I think this type of conversation with Claudia would be extremely productive because it would show that even though in our videos, which are primarily for entertainment purposes too, strongly bash feminism, we're not incapable of being open-minded, of hearing that point.
	Like Truth Sting says, even if that is the case, that's the result of capitalism and not patriarchy.
	I fully agree.
	I fully agree.
	But if you look at the world along gender lines, then if you're looking at it saying it's mostly men doing it and therefore the men must...
	That's the thing.
	I think the assumption is the men must know what they're doing.
	I think that the feminists assume that the men know what they're doing, and therefore, if they're doing it on purpose to make money and they're laughing in the face of the feminists who are saying, you can't keep doing this to us, this is horrible oppression.
	And they're laughing, you're not fucking oppressed, you're buying it willingly.
	And when in fact, they're not really buying it willingly.
	It's like a drug almost sort of thing.
	Then, you know, if they see it as just men doing it and it's a gender issue, then that is their argument for patriarchy, I think.
	You know, and I'd be really interested in exploring that.
	But I've gone as far as I can with that, I think, because I've got a bunch of assumptions that I need confirmed or denied.
	You know, so yeah, I mean, I don't know.
	I just thought it was something interesting to share because it was difficult.
	Really difficult.
	You said you were thinking about this on the bus.
	No, no.
	This was actually a couple of months ago when I was just on my own.
	I'm just picturing how people around you would look at you.
	Because your mind working in the feminist world.
	And, you know, I'm just wondering if people.
	I'm just trying to think if my mind tomorrow was to be completely in a feminist reality, how would I go about my daily life?
	It would be very strange.
	Yeah, it would be.
	It would be.
	But as a yeah, I mean, I don't think it's as terrifying as they make it out to be.
	And I don't think they think it's as terrifying as they make it out to be.
	Because I know feminists who do get along in life.
	I think it's more like the horror movie sort of thrill, you know?
	Hello.
	Oh, no, have you dropped again?
	Have I dropped?
	For the other people, I think it's that they know that it's not quite as scary as they make it out to be, that allows them to get through their usual lives, their daily lives.
	You know, um did you catch that mate?
	No, I actually just my app just closed.
	I just got back in.
	Yeah, no problem.
	Um yeah the the the I think that the um the feminists kind of see the the the statistics and think of it more like I think that they do get the like the thrill of being afraid in the same way a horror movie would give you it.
	You know that you're not actually going to get raped tomorrow, but when you're on Tumblr and everyone's talking about it, you know, it gets your sort of it gets your emotions up.
	And I think that it's the emotional high.
	Even though it's a bad emotion, I think it's the fact that of the feeling the emotion that seems to be the driving force.
	The triggering, you know, they get if this is all true and as they say, of course.
	Here's a question.
	Let's see.
	Well, let me just answer this one real quick.
	As atheists, are you on board with Atheism Plus?
	Like with Rebecca Watson and members?
	Are you?
	Oh, yeah, I'm a founding member of Atheism Plus.
	I've got membership card 002, in fact.
	Of course not.
	That's ludicrous.
	I think I could probably pull Rebecca.
	Actually, I think she's in my league, and I think I could, you know, because she's not very good looking.
	So I think I could go.
	We're about the same age, so...
	Uh-oh.
	Then I get accused of rape.
	Sargon and T, are you guys married together with someone?
	If so, what do your partners think about feminism?
	What about yourself?
	Say that again?
	What about you?
	Oh, no, I'm single.
	I haven't.
	I think I had a girlfriend last year.
	Wasn't really nothing serious.
	How old are you?
	I'm 19.
	You're 19?
	19?
	Yeah.
	I thought you were mid-twenties.
	Not that you look like mid-twenties, but it's hard to tell just by, you know, from someone young.
	But yeah, I tell you, you know a lot more than I would expect a 19-year-old to know.
	You're not your average person.
	Yeah, I know.
	Lucky me.
	I don't know what happened.
	I don't know where exactly I took the certain path, but whatever it was, awesome.
	Yeah, man.
	I'm 34, and it's taken me many years of the school of hard knocks and the University of Life, you know, to work all this stuff out.
	So I mean, I wish I knew all this sort of thing.
	I'd had half of this shit figured out when I was a kid.
	You know what I mean?
	Well, when I was a kid, I think of 19 as being a kid, you know.
	I was still playing video games and wasting my life.
	Yeah, but yeah, I've got to do it.
	I can do that on occasion, too.
	Okay.
	Yeah, just to answer the second half of the question for me.
	And I still do that too.
	Those week-long intermissions where I don't post any videos, that's just me wanting to get out of the intellectual world and just say, screw it.
	I'm about to play video games and eat cereal.
	See, for me, I, I tend to like need the break from doing what I'm doing at the moment, 'cause I'm I know, every Sargon.
	I think Sauron might have timed out, or maybe I timed out again.
	I don't know.
	Could you guys tell me if you guys can hear me?
	So I know if I need to reset this app, I guess it is me.
	Damn it YouTube.
	Google Plus.
	Google PLUS, Google Plus, I'm back.
	Okay, I'm not sure who who left?
	Hello yeah, it's Connected, clocking over.
	Yeah, so what was what was I saying?
	It kind of distracted me.
	Oh, the video game thing, wasn't it?
	Um yeah, so yeah, that's yeah yeah, so yeah.
	Basically, I um yeah, I um question that guy to you, what do you?
	What games do you play the most?
	Um, not many right now, because I recently sold my um PS3.
	I just needed the the money for something else.
	But when I do, I still play on my little brothers.
	Occasionally I play games like the last of us um Grand Theft Auto Battlefield, and that's about it.
	That's about all the games I have right now.
	I haven't bought any new games in a while.
	Kind of typical boys games though, aren't they?
	Not that's a bad thing.
	I just want to point out, you know.
	Yeah, fucking gender roles.
	Yeah.
	The feminists are going to be all over you for that.
	Hey, did you see Matt Binder and Paul Elam in that debate?
	I'll say that again.
	Did you see the Matt Binder Paul Elam debate?
	Oh, is that the guy from Sam Cedar show?
	Yeah, that's it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I've seen portions of it.
	I didn't see the whole thing.
	Yeah, I couldn't sit through the whole thing either.
	I'm not really a fan of either of them, so it was difficult.
	They said Paul had, it was very scripted.
	He was basically reading talking points.
	Yeah, that's exactly what he was doing.
	And I left a comment on the video saying that I really think that was to your detriment.
	And it really kind of bolstered Binder's position because it allowed him to respond flexibly to the new thing that Elam had said.
	And it allowed him to point out that he was doing this and spot a hole in his presentation, which kind of it you know, it made it seem like his argument was it it needed so much preparation because it wasn't it wasn't it was kind of weak, you know.
	And I'm not saying that his argument was weak, but I you know, I really think it was the wrong thing to do.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I only mentioned a response video.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	It could have just been response videos.
	You know?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	There was there was no and Binder had obviously not been told about this four-minute thing either, so he had no preparation in the time slots.
	And so that, you know, just it just made it look a bit unfair.
	So it kind of, yeah.
	So, but again, to be honest with you, I'm not really, I don't know.
	I just I'm not like the biggest fan of either of them.
	So yeah.
	I mean, that's that's why I don't really call myself an MRA, even though I do believe in a lot of the things they're saying.
	You know, the evidence kind of supports that men are getting fucked and there is a complete lack of compassion for men.
	As a man, I have experienced this.
	So, you know, I'm very concerned with this, but I don't want a label.
	You know, and I think that labels are really something that people should try and strive away from.
	And I know they make the world simpler, but that might be the problem.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And I'm in the same boat.
	I support many movements from the MRA.
	But I don't, it's not even so much as a label for me personally.
	It's just that I'm not as passionate about men's issues as to in order to be an MRA.
	I'm more focused on individual rights, rights from government and stuff like that.
	I'm not solely focused on men's rights.
	And the thing, I just want to bring up this point.
	Usually a lot of feminists say that people hate feminism because they only focus on women's problems.
	Which, I mean, I guess people can see that as a problem and people can disagree with that, but I personally don't have a problem with people focusing on specific gender issues.
	It's just that the issues that feminism focuses on are so stupid.
	That's why I don't like it.
	Hey, I'm with you on that one.
	You know, I fully agree with that, right?
	I fully agree with it.
	There is nothing wrong with them attempting to solve women's issues.
	The problem I find is that they blame all men for it.
	It's just like, you know, when you're saying, oh, men as a monolith are just the problem, it's just like, well, men aren't a monolith.
	They're a demographic.
	They're not an organized group.
	They're not conspiring.
	What you're seeing is sort of natural forces at work.
	And, you know, they completely lose me.
	I don't disagree with most of the stuff they say on a principle basis.
	It's more the excuses they use to justify a lot of the things they want or claim that are just, I just can't get behind it.
	It's awful.
	You know, it's bigoted a lot of the time.
	I believe that feminism, like, I already believe this is a religion in sorts.
	But I think men are becoming the devil.
	And not even necessarily actual men.
	Just the men is just the figurehead.
	Men can be women against feminism.
	Men can be female politicians who are conservative.
	Men can be men can be anybody.
	It's just their mentality.
	Anyone against feminism is classified as men.
	I think that's what they're doing.
	Yeah, no, I agree.
	Nickless Goroff makes a really good point that I didn't mean to say, but I actually kind of forgot.
	Yeah, the feminists that attack the MRAs really piss me off.
	And again, not that I'm an MRA, but I'm just looking at a power imbalance and thinking that's fucking unfair.
	Yeah, sure, you can say, look, these are issues that we want addressed, but you can't say to other people that they don't have issues that they want addressed, you selfish cunt.
	That is Oscar Wilde's definition of selfishness.
	Fuck yourselves.
	It really pisses me off.
	And so that is my second major issue with feminism.
	And it does my head in.
	Absolutely does my head in.
	Let's see.
	Questions, questions, questions.
	So what do you think about MGTOW, like IT?
	Yeah, I just seen that one.
	You know, it's so-so.
	50-50.
	I agree with the core principles of MGTOW that they, you know, it's hard for me because personally, I'm so young, so I haven't been in that many relationships, so I haven't really gotten tired of it yet.
	So it's tough for me that some MGTOWs, they go on tangents about how relationships are bad, about how women are all in for the same reason.
	It's a lot of generalization, which I don't particularly enjoy.
	I get what they're trying to say by it, but it's just it gets kind of whiny after a certain point.
	Kind of like listening to feminists.
	Women are bad.
	Men are bad.
	They're doing this.
	Oh, women are bad.
	They're doing this.
	When I'd much rather see them take things at a more broad issue, more broad perspective than just women are a problem.
	Let's talk about women a problem.
	It's just, I just don't really like it that much, I guess.
	Yeah, and I understand where you're coming from.
	have called myself a MGTOW and I probably would, but I'm not like...
	Technically, I'm probably not.
	I'm not married, so it's not that.
	I don't know, I'm not so much I don't want to say purple pill either which is something they I think they would probably want to ascribe to me It's Yeah, it's It's more that it's too extreme.
	Again, I don't want any MGTOWs listening to think that I'm against your position.
	It's a completely logical reaction to the circumstances of the world.
	That's the thing.
	And that's what drew me to it.
	It was just like, you know what?
	What is my best option?
	Not to play.
	But again, it's quite an extreme reaction.
	And I think it's necessary.
	I think something like that has to happen, like the men on strike thing, the book that basically was like, men aren't getting married and they're not growing up, basically, and women are responsible for this.
	And I think that's true.
	They're not giving them any incentives.
	And I think the MGTOW thing is a completely logical response to the court system and just society in general, how it demonizes men.
	But the thing is, on the other side of that, you've got like be the change you want to see.
	I actually would like to see a return to more nuclear families.
	I really think the breakup of the family has been really damaging for society.
	And so if you want society to fix itself or become better, on the other side, I think that you've got, you know, if you're not going to be part of that solution, then how you're just doing what the feminists do and you're wishing someone else would do that for you, but not ever doing it yourself.
	And I'm probably losing a lot of MGTOWs here, but, you know, I'm guilty of this as much as anyone, and I get called up on it all the time by my commenters, which is fantastic.
	Otherwise, I would be going off the fucking rails.
	But, you know, you can't just blanket term everyone in the same way.
	Because that's what the feminists do ultimately.
	And that's what we're criticizing them for.
	And so, you know, I don't think I'm a very big believer in not all women like that.
	Even though I know that there are going to be a lot of MGTOWs who are like, all women are like that.
	And they do have a good case.
	So I guess I'm an optimist.
	Yeah.
	And same.
	I prescribe to the basic definition of MGTOW.
	Pretty much before I knew what MGTOW was.
	I never bended over backwards.
	Please a woman.
	And I've experienced a lot of things that MGTOWs complain about, such as one of my friends, I believe it was back in early high school.
	He just got, I don't even think it was his girlfriend.
	It was his girlfriend.
	It was his girlfriend.
	And we were at the lunch table.
	And he would always talk down on me personally, just talk shit.
	Basically, in an effort to increase his self-worth just to make himself feel better.
	Well, because you didn't have a girlfriend.
	And he did.
	No, no, no.
	No, just because he did have a girlfriend and he wanted to impress his girlfriend.
	Right.
	So.
	So.
	What things would he say?
	Basically things.
	Just like, for instance, if we were in line and there was a girl behind me and he would instigate the conversation saying, hey, T, you think this girl is pretty?
	And I would be like, sure, yeah, she's pretty nice.
	She would reply, oh, thanks.
	You're pretty handsome, too.
	And I would be like, thanks.
	And that would be the end of it.
	And she would be like, oh, why are you being such a bitch, man?
	Go talk to her.
	Go get her number.
	I'm like, I'm not interested.
	And just different situations like that, putting me on the spot and then calling me out when I didn't react the way he would want, I guess.
	Yeah, I think he's using it as a way of validating his own decisions, isn't he?
	If he's excessively concerned with female attention and you're not excessively concerned with female attention, then that kind of implies that you know something he doesn't.
	Yeah, I think so.
	You know, so he, I think in his opinion, he'd probably want you to get interested in female attention.
	Whenever his relationship ended, he got over it.
	He was back to normal.
	So I get the idea of MGTOW saying that guys who get like this just when they get a female, the power that a female has on influencing a guy's behavior.
	And it's crazy.
	Yeah, it really is.
	I get annoyed with feminists when they say women have got no power.
	That's one of the things that my family are full of matriarchs.
	They're all in charge.
	There's no doubting it.
	There's no getting around it.
	And it's just like, I'm looking at the women in my family, my extended family, and thinking there is no way these women are oppressed.
	There is just no way.
	And so, yeah, when they're always going on about women having no power in this, I know they've got a lot of influence, though.
	A lot of influence.
	And that's in a lot of ways better than power because you're not responsible, ultimately, for the things that happen.
	Although you may have been the one that caused them to happen.
	So, yeah, that's my opinion on that.
	Yeah, and I've seen a lot of comments talking about marriage.
	Just so you guys know, I've never really had any ideas to get married.
	I don't really believe in marriage, at least in the institutional sense.
	Getting married, pick advanced, blah, blah, blah.
	I don't really believe in that, but who knows?
	My opinion might change later down the line.
	But right now, I'm not one of those young teens who have the epiphany dream of one day finding the perfect women proposing in the Hawaii beach under the sunset and getting married and living out my life until my shit pension retirement funds.
	Yeah.
	Good luck.
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	I've got a.
	Do you mind if I respond to a few comments?
	How about our thing?
	So, Marco DeSilva asks, Are you telling men to essentially play Russian roulette with their lives?
	No, no, I'm not.
	With Russian roulette, you've got no control over when the bullet comes out.
	You know, it's random.
	You're not in charge of it.
	It's like the MM's thing, man.
	You know, I don't want feminists saying that all 10% of men are poison sort of thing.
	So it's not like the feminists can't differentiate between men.
	And I do think that there are women who aren't like that.
	I saw this video of this blonde woman who, the young lady who did an hour and a half-long video on her critique of feminism.
	And it was really insightful.
	It was really well thought out.
	It was really balanced because she had empathy for men.
	So when feminism was doing this, that, and the other to men, she was looking at it thinking, well, Christ, if that were me or a man I know, then I wouldn't be happy with that.
	So it's not like there aren't women out there.
	So I'm getting a bit of feedback through the thing.
	Am I in?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I know it's gone now.
	I know it's back.
	God damn it.
	I'm going to go get a soda really quick and I'll be right back.
	Yeah, okay.
	Between Americans and the British, we drink soda while you guys drink tea.
	Just to say this real quick, someone said T and Sargon, approve you're reading these comments.
	Say titty sprinkles.
	I just said it, sir.
	I'll be right back.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so I think that it's this kind of extreme feminist position of Russian roulette.
	I think it's too far, like all things.
	I don't like the extremes.
	Jugnaut Captain says MGTOW is just a philosophical subculture, subculture.
	We care better about ourselves.
	Now, this I agree with.
	I'm still getting this feedback.
	Let's make it really distracting.
	Right, hopefully I can't really hear it now.
	Yeah, I really, this is something that really strikes me.
	And this is something I really first became aware of listening to Girl Rights Watts videos.
	So it's very gratifying that she comments on my videos and likes them.
	Because I found this definitely hit me in a way that I wasn't really expecting because I'd never really thought about it like that, that men are just conditioned and expected to self-sacrifice.
	And in the culture we live in now, there's absolutely no need for it.
	There's no necessity for men's self-sacrifice for women.
	And indeed, if we're equals, why the hell should we?
	You know, I don't, and I've been raised very much to see men and women as equals.
	So this is probably one of the things about feminism I just can't stand.
	I don't think women should be pandered to and given special exception for.
	So, yeah, I fully agree with the fact that men need to start taking care of themselves a bit better and standing up for themselves, frankly.
	Yeah, Turkman, the notion that you're not a real man if you don't have a woman in your life is what drew you to MGTOW.
	Absolutely.
	The thing is, I often have a woman in my life, and it's not that I don't like having women in my life, but this actually brings me on to something that I've been talking a lot about with my friends in real life.
	I don't know any men who are happy in their relationships.
	I don't know a single one.
	Well, maybe one or two.
	And this, and I think it's entirely because of obligation.
	And I hope feminists hear this and go, oh my fucking God, did he just say that men are entitled to sex for women?
	And in a roundabout way, that is what I'm saying.
	Because all of the guys I know who are really unhappy in the long-term relationships are unhappy because their wives aren't interested in sex or their girlfriends aren't interested in sex.
	And ultimately, I don't think these women know how close to leaving them these guys are.
	And it's not that they're that they were presented, they were sold the dream, you know, like you were saying, like of a happy life, a happy marriage, you'll get all you need, you'll meet her needs, and it'll be, you know, you both do the work.
	It seems that they're doing the work and the women aren't reciprocating this effort.
	And so they are very disillusioned with all this and just basically on the verge of packing it in.
	And so, yeah, it's yeah, it just seems to me that these women don't seem to understand that this is the expectation of men going into these relationships, and they think they can shirk it.
	And ultimately, that's not going to create a happy relationship.
	Whether they're forced to have sex with someone or not is not the case.
	It's more, are you willing to put effort in to please your partner?
	And I think women are, by and large, told they don't have to by feminism, really.
	And the ones that the guys I know that do have a happy relationship are the ones who have got women who reciprocate their needs.
	Because men and women's needs are different.
	You know, I mean, the thing I always love is, you know, blowjobs are the equivalent of flowers for men.
	It's fucking true.
	You know, I've had girlfriends when I've presented them flowers, they've had the same sort of reaction as when they've presented me with a blowjob.
	So, you know.
	But yeah, anyway, that's my ramble on that.
	I was doing okay.
	Oh, I was just saying that none of the guys I know are happy in their relationships.
	None of them.
	And I think it's due to a lack of obligation on women's part.
	I actually can't think of any that I know either, particularly, except for maybe the older people.
	But in my age group, I can't think of any.
	I know people who are, I guess, acceptant in their relationship.
	You know, just like it is what it is.
	It's not bad enough to where I want to leave, but it's not good enough to where I want to shout to the people who talk about it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, I'm wondering if it's something to do with me being 15 years older than you as well.
	You know, it's the sort of thing that's.
	I'm not saying that you can't see it or anything like that, but I guess they see it a lot more deeply because I've kind of been in that situation and sorry, I'm getting feedback.
	I can still hear myself coming through.
	All right, let me see.
	It's really distracting.
	Sorry.
	Let me okay.
	I know why I believe my um cool is it going uh yes brilliant.
	Okay.
	Oh, no, it's black.
	Jesus is about second delay.
	Two second delay.
	Two seconds.
	Damn it.
	Still there.
	I'll find out in a minute.
	Yeah, I can still myself.
	This is what's just what's changed.
	What's changed?
	I'm not sure.
	I don't think I did anything.
	Have you got it coming through your headphones or not?
	Yeah, I'm talking through my headset.
	Are you getting the sound through the earphones though?
	Speaker wire.
	Yeah, I'm getting the sound through the headphones too.
	Right.
	That's weird.
	I shouldn't be able to hear me even.
	I don't have any explanation.
	And it's still there?
	It seems to be.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it is.
	Okay, I'll just mute while you talk.
	So let me know if you can hear it now.
	Okay.
	I can't remember what I was saying now, though.
	I've gone so totally off topic.
	What was I saying?
	Oh, just something about being older, wasn't it?
	About how just I've seen it, and I guess it kind of affects me a lot more.
	And I don't know.
	It's just it really seems that women don't seem to want to fulfill their or just don't think they have to fulfill their obligations.
	You know?
	Maybe it's just me.
	I don't know.
	Yeah.
	I've stopped getting comments online for some reason.
	The comments have stopped going up.
	I'm not getting on.
	Most of them are talking about bacon beer, pretty much.
	I don't know what happened, but there's a lot of bacon going on.
	Yes, bacon.
	Okay, well, maybe we should call it a night there then, because it's half one here and I'm getting a bit tired.
	Yes, I'm having a few technical issues, so now seems to be a good time.
	But I mean, if you'd like to do this again in the future, I'd be more than happy to do this.
	Yeah, most definitely.
	Cool.
	Hopefully we can get Goodfella on next time as well, because I think that'd be an interesting conversation.
	Yeah, Goodfella, again, if you're watching this, make a video before your tooth heels.
	Do it for your fans.
	Definitely.
	Absolutely.
	I want to hear it.
	Well, alright, then Sargon.
	This is fantastic.
	Thank you.
	I've really enjoyed myself you'd like to talk us out Talk us out.
	Yeah.
	Fuck feminism.
	That could be the closing statement.
	Except for you, Claudia.

▲