Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Shooting the Shit with Skeptorr

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 9, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

02:05:53

Shooting the Shit with Skeptorr

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, just shooting the shit with Skeptor, just because I'm working on Necromancer at the moment and I thought it'd be nice for us to have a hangout and just talk about crap.
	It'd be good for the mangina crew to dig for some things that, oh my god, they said they support Hitler.
	Oh my god, they said the Holocaust wasn't real.
	Oh my god.
	So how's it going, man?
	Fine, how are you?
	Yeah, yeah, really good.
	It's going to be a crappy hangout, probably.
	Yeah, yeah, nothing special.
	Yeah, so how has it been?
	Yeah, all right, all right.
	Just busy, really?
	Yeah, doing necromancer.
	Yeah, yeah, I'm just that shit was supposed to be out by Christmas.
	I know, I know, I know.
	Don't even get me started.
	It's pissing me off more than anything.
	I just want it done at this point.
	But the thing is, everyone's like, oh, you've got to make it look good.
	And it's like, okay, well, that's true.
	I do have to make it look good.
	But the thing is, it's practically like a two-man operation.
	And so it takes a lot of time for me to do anything that looks good.
	And so that's what's delaying everything, really.
	Everything's practically done apart from just making it look nice.
	Well, that's important.
	But, you know, indie games are not supposed to be so polished as AAA games.
	It's not going to be as polished as a AAA game, Jesus.
	But hopefully it'll look okay.
	That's the dumbest.
	Yeah.
	So what's going on with you?
	Did you see the article about Reddit where they decided to ban all negotiations for salary?
	I haven't read it yet.
	I've heard of it.
	It's Ellen Powell or something.
	I can't remember, but they have a CEO.
	She's a woman.
	She decided to.
	I think it's her, she decided to cancel all negotiations so women and men would be more equal regarding salary.
	Yeah, who wins there?
	Yeah, which is.
	I find it to be very, very harmful for Reddit itself.
	I don't care that they decided to go that way, but I think it will.
	The only consequences would be bad for Reddit itself.
	If you think about it seriously for a second, when you are not allowing people to negotiate for salary, then if you pay less than average, good people will go away.
	Good people will leave you because they will have better offerings somewhere and they could get better salaries, but they cannot negotiate in Reddit.
	So, you know, it happened to me when I thought about leaving a certain workplace because of salary.
	I had a better offer somewhere and I just told my bosses, well, I'm going to leave because I got a better offer, and they raised my salary, and that actually made me stay.
	This actually annoys me for a couple of reasons.
	Because the only people who really win are also Reddit, though.
	Because one of the things, if only you're not allowed to try and barter and argue your salary, then everyone's just going to be getting the fucking minimum salary that the bosses of Reddit propose.
	No one's going to be paid what they might be worth, regardless of what it is.
	So what would happen?
	So what would be the consequences?
	good people will leave and crappy people will eventually stay.
	So Reddit will have...
	But Reddit's profit margins will be quite high because they don't have to worry about paying people what they might actually be worth.
	But that will reflect eventually on Reddit itself and they will lose business, I think.
	It's a slow process though, isn't it?
	That's the sort of thing that takes years to really come to light, I think.
	No, you know, bad personnel can really take a company down very, very quickly.
	But Reddit's pretty huge.
	That's true.
	I don't think it'd be too quick.
	I think it would be like a slow decline.
	You think?
	Maybe, maybe.
	I might be wrong, you know.
	Unless it will cause an exodus of all the good managers and technical people to leave.
	But let's say they won't go that way.
	Let's say they will try to be balanced.
	If they'll pay high salaries, that will to keep all the good people, you know, because their mindset would be we want to retain all the good personnel and we are not allowing them to negotiate for salary, so we'll just give them a better salary in advance.
	So that would be financially harmful for Reddit as well.
	So they'll try to keep it somewhere in the middle.
	But then a new problem starts.
	When you work in a certain place and you know your worth, let's say someone knows he's worth or is working much harder than someone else.
	Like in the communist system.
	And someone and other people are more slacking off.
	Other people are not as productive as you are.
	And you get paid the same.
	Many people would get pissed off by that, I think.
	It encourages people to do the bare minimum.
	Exactly.
	That's what that system does.
	Exactly.
	So it's like mini communism in that sense.
	In a place where it's very competitive, in a very capitalistic system, to have a very communist-like company.
	Like Reddit.
	It is.
	It's very counterproductive.
	Yeah.
	And ultimately, the only body that will suffer would be Reddit itself.
	So they're kind of, you know, I think what annoys me about it, though, in the short term, it's taking advantage of people.
	And in the short term, it's taking advantage of people for the advantage of Reddit.
	It's not for anyone else's advantage.
	It's just for theirs, really.
	That really bothers me.
	You think it's done from that point of view or because of ideological point of view that people should be paid equally?
	Now that is an interesting question because you could really apply it to all of feminism, couldn't you?
	How much of any of this is really done for ideological reasons and how much of any of this is done for self-interest?
	Because it's always people who have a remarkable amount of self-interest in, say, feminism who are the strongest advocates for feminism.
	So I'm a woman, therefore I need feminism, or whatever.
	And so I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I think it's probably a healthy dose of both.
	Yeah, it is.
	Probably.
	But yeah, it's an interesting thing, though.
	It's something that I have noticed that almost everyone who advocates for feminism directly benefits from feminism.
	It's amazing.
	It makes economical sense.
	It makes economical s.
	But you know, I don't know if Reddit is on the stock market.
	But if I would have Reddit shares, I would sell them by now.
	I would get rid of them.
	I honestly don't know whether it's on the stock market.
	To be honest, I I don't really know all that much about Reddit, frankly.
	Yeah, I seriously never went there, you know, never.
	I don't know what the big fuss is about.
	Well, it's just, it's kind of like the chan boards, except you've got accounts, as far as I can tell.
	You can just set up a board for anything, as far as I can tell, and it's just.
	You know, you can.
	It's just message boards.
	So yeah, I don't really, I don't really see the mass appeal.
	So what is the profit?
	Where do they profit?
	From advertisements, presumably.
	I never go there.
	I'm sure can someone in the chat explain how Reddit works to us, because I never, I never, I never go there.
	Diogenes is just like it sucks, that's it.
	I get a Kataka in action every now and again when something's gone on and I want to get more details.
	Whatever, it's a good, it's a good place for information like that.
	I suppose I went to Tumblr in action as well the other day.
	Oh man, that is funny shit.
	What did you find?
	Oh, it's just it's.
	It's just the.
	It's just the most hilarious things from Tumblr all amalgamated in this in one place.
	And so you, oh it's just, I can't even remember exactly any of them exactly.
	It was just I don't know.
	It's like being slapped in the face or something.
	A lot of it's just so dumb.
	You see this, I mean, these are actual people, human beings, who probably have jobs, who say this.
	So it's it's, it's some crazy shit.
	So I tried to make a video response video to Anna, whatever.
	Anna McCann yeah, and I scratched it because Elon Verinakulas made a great response with you know sensible answers, and I wanted to make a video without any sensible answers.
	I just wanted to go and say, you know give, because she gave you know very silly solutions how to solve, you know, the rape problem by assimilating to become a man, or you know, become a rapist yourself or whatever.
	And I just thought about going along with it and say, you know what?
	I'll give you some.
	You have some silly ideas.
	I can go along with that and give you some silly ideas of my own.
	And she said the best way to avoid rape was to assimilate yourself into men's society.
	And I said no, the best way is probably killing yourself.
	That's like a hundred percent.
	You know airtight not to get raped, and if you get raped after you're dead, probably you won't care.
	So yeah, the the therapy is probably quite cheap, isn't it?
	Yeah, you know, I thought her sketches a lot of sketches weren't bad, you know, they weren't entirely unfunny, but it was just like okay yeah, I mean, it kind of seemed like she was taking the piss out of the people who get their panties in a bunch over rape culture and stuff.
	You know, rape jokes and all that sort of stuff.
	And then she's just like yeah, women should not have to worry about protecting themselves.
	It should be men being caught not to rape.
	And it's like okay brilliant, that's just That will solve anything, everything.
	Putting your personal safety in the hands of your rapists.
	Yeah, and I just gave and I just also thought about a different silly solution.
	She later talked about how her parents conditioned her to protect herself and how to fight and have a pepper spray and all that shit.
	And I thought, you know, yeah, your parents are awful for doing so.
	They should have told you that rape is okay and when you get raped, it's normal and nothing bad happens.
	And, you know, then you won't be complaining so much.
	Well, I just can't imagine the level of entitlement that one has to have to walk around and go, you know what?
	I'm entitled to not even have to worry about defending myself.
	I think the world should be so fucking safe for me that I shouldn't have to do any kind of self-defense or even worry about walking around alone at night.
	I mean, I'm quite a big guy, and I still don't like walking around alone at night because, you know, it might be dangerous.
	I don't know that it is, but it's not like I walk around thinking, you know what, I'm fucking invincible.
	You know, there's no way someone could pull a knife on me and stab me or anything.
	It fucks me off.
	It's true, but even if it was possible, even if it was feasible to create a world where you are not required to protect yourself,
	if it was feasible to create a normal world where you can live in, because the only place where you can actually maintain that to a certain extent is like with complete crazy regimes like the Nazi regime or places like that where every crime is punishable by death.
	They just burn your entire family for doing the smallest thing.
	So people are so fucking afraid of doing anything.
	And still people would commit crime.
	But even if we were able to, you know, it was feasible to create a safe world, I would not object to that.
	But it's moronic to think you can even do it in a free society.
	Or in any society, really.
	I mean, even like I was talking to V the other day, and he was like, we're talking about Vlad the Impaler.
	And one of the stories from the reign of Vlad the Impaler is that you'd get like in the middle of the village, you'd get a golden cup put on a little podium or something, and people would be able to next to the well, and people would be able to drink from the well using this golden cup.
	And it wouldn't be stolen because people would be too scared to steal it because they know what the punishment would be if they were caught with it.
	It would be awful, obviously, it would be death and some grisly death.
	And so, you know, you hear stories from under the Mongols, how like, you know, you hear that a woman carrying a sack of valuables could walk the entire length of the Mongol Empire without fear and stuff like this.
	You think, okay, maybe, but that's because every punishment is just beheading.
	You know, it's the most horrific sort of just, you know, it just cheapens life in its entirety.
	You really don't want to live like that, you know?
	Yeah, the only way to actually control it to the maximum extent is by terror.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	And that's not a good option.
	It's not a better option than what we have today.
	I'd rather just be mugged, to be honest, and lose my wallet every now and again or something.
	I'd rather be raped than to live in such a culture.
	Yeah.
	It's pretty strong words.
	You know the Mangina Brigade are going to be like, oh my god, they're probably all over this right now.
	I imagine all of chat is probably Manginas Who Hate Us.
	It's the Howard Stern effect.
	Do you really care?
	But do you really care?
	I'm amazed at the audacity of it, to be honest.
	I am amazed at the audacity of it.
	I mean, like for the stream of me and V, we were joking around about the Nazis, and she took this clip and put it on her channel as if we were, I don't know, legitimately supporting the Nazis or something.
	And it was just, I mean, we were laughing through the clips.
	So it was just like, what?
	I mean, her own subscribers were like, yeah, this is a non-issue.
	This is they're clearly just joking, you know.
	But she, for some reason, thought that, I don't know, she was going to cause some trouble or something.
	Talking about Jenny, what are we talking about?
	Jenny McDermott.
	Yeah.
	She's, yeah.
	Yeah, I know.
	And yeah, it was just like as if she was going to cause some like serious trouble because we were joking about the Nazis.
	And it's just like, that's so weird.
	mean don't you have anything better to do you know oh my god look they had a joke about the nazis It's the worst world.
	You can flag her for being misrepresented like she did to the amazing atheist.
	I could, but I'm not going to.
	I know.
	We're not petty.
	No, no, no, we're not.
	Just going to mock you, Jenny.
	I love her videos.
	She's so unself-aware and just oblivious.
	I think she's a troll.
	She's basically an online troll with the channel.
	Trolls have got some class.
	A proper troll has real class and knows what they're doing.
	She's just an idiot.
	She's just an idiot, and it's just like, and she doesn't even know it, that's the thing.
	None of these idiots know how stupid they are.
	I love Captain Andy as well.
	Sorry, I'll stop talking about the Manginas.
	They crack me up.
	They really crack me up.
	Well, actually, on our last Hangout with Goodfella, we opened it for discussion for all people to join.
	And Captain Andy came on the call and didn't say anything.
	We couldn't hear him.
	And he just came back in and out again.
	And just left.
	Yeah, he did.
	Really?
	Yeah, but he didn't say anything.
	Well, we tried to talk to him.
	His microphone was muted.
	I don't know what happened.
	He just came in, came out, came in, came out, and he just left.
	So I messaged him and I told him, listen, man, I think it was the one with Alexandra Blue that we did.
	And I just messaged him and I said, would you like to join the Hangout with Goodfella and myself?
	And he said, thank you, but no.
	Well, I'm not surprised.
	I don't know what's going on with this guy.
	I'm not surprised that you did.
	I really don't see Andy being the type to kind of sack up like that.
	In fact, I'm actually just about to start uploading a video for Bob Chipman.
	This video, I was going to do the I did this little good, the bad, and the ugly thing because I was going to do it as an intro to it.
	But after five minutes longer, the video was, I thought, you know what, fuck it, I'll just put it up because it's a fun bit of mockery for Bob's channel.
	I think that a lot of people who don't know who Bob is were just like, what are you doing?
	It's like, yeah, you don't.
	You need to know who Bob Chipman is for this to be funny.
	But I thought it was fucking hilarious.
	Myself included, because that's how I found out about him.
	I watched your video there and I went to his channel.
	I saw a video that he made about Ghostbusters, which was actually very good commentary on Ghostbusters.
	This is actually, I think, almost everyone's problem with Bob, right?
	Is that he's not bad at what he does.
	He's really not bad.
	When it comes to actually talking objectively about movies or video games or whatever, he's genuinely quite good.
	But he just can't keep his fucking mouth shut when it comes to his politics, his annoying goddamn progressive politics that nobody else cares about.
	And it's so, Bob, if you just shut up and do your job without being such a dick, then it would be fine.
	Everything would be fine.
	And that's the thing.
	He's so fucking arrogant.
	And he's so categorically wrong on certain things as well.
	And it's just, oh, fucking hell, Bob.
	He's pissed me off.
	Yeah, so I watched a video he made about Gamergate.
	And I know what you mean.
	Maybe if he had a couple of channels, you know, one political and one about reviewing and commentary, that would probably be the best.
	Because he's entitled to say his opinion on politics, which even if he has crappy opinions.
	But I watched the video.
	Go ahead.
	You're right.
	He has completely entirely opinion on politics.
	But it's more the place for it.
	When he's doing theoretically video game and movie reviews, in trying to inject your own personal brand of extreme progressive politics into that, this isn't the time and place for it, Bob.
	We're meant to be talking about video games and the history of a video game franchise, like Zelda or something.
	I don't care about how effeminate Link is and how feminists love that or something like that.
	I just don't give a fuck.
	No one does, and it's not the time and place for it.
	But sorry, God.
	So, okay, so he made a video about Gamergate, how Gamergate is actually his fault because it's leftist self-blame on everything.
	And he claimed that because people like him fought in the 90s against the conservatives who tried to ban video games for being violent or full of sex or anything, that they ignored real sort of studies that actually showed some kind of link between playing video games to access, violent video games to excess, on how you perceive life and how you behave.
	So from his video, he claimed that because that's the tactics they used back then, you know, just taking down any criticism of video games, even if there were legitimate studies on the subject, then that's why now people are able to do what they do in Gamergate because they are just shutting down any opposition with the same sort of weapons.
	And of course, that's nonsensical argument as it can be, but I don't know how he got to that conclusion.
	It's like he doesn't really understand or ignores completely or transposes one thing into another in a very, very nonsensical way.
	Seriously.
	And yeah, I know that's how I found who Bob Chipman is.
	Well, do you know what?
	You know what?
	I've a very interesting point about Bob there.
	Bob doesn't really seem to understand what a principle is.
	He thinks that because it's I think that he's right.
	I mean, it is kind of like the principles that were being used against Jack Thompson are being used against the extreme progressive social justice warriors, but with good reason, because it's the same principle being violated, the principle of anti-censorship.
	He's fine, just fine, contesting the censorship of the right wing because he doesn't like the right wing.
	He really hates the right wing.
	And he thinks that there's some sort of fucking vast right-wing conspiracy to try and get into gaming.
	But he's a big fan of the left-wing.
	He is extremely progressive himself.
	And so he doesn't think that progressives can do anything wrong.
	And even when we see social media bullying campaigns like Shirtstorm, and then you've got the change the cover, you've got the National Cleavage Day with Lionhead, and you've got the GTA petition from Target to get petition to get pulled from Target.
	These are quantifiable acts.
	Just literally, this is absolutely provable acts of censorship.
	And Bob's like, well, that's not true censorship.
	It's like, no, Bob, that is true censorship.
	And so when you're like, well, they're just using the weapons that were used against Jack Thompson.
	It's like, yes, because principles work that way, Bob.
	It's wrong to fucking censor someone no matter who is doing it, you fat fuck.
	And I don't think I don't think people are using the same tactics today.
	He basically said, if to simplify, is in the 90s, we went to war, we used knife, we left knife on the floor, and now people in Gaming are using knife, and it's wrong.
	So basically, that's his entire argument, which is stupid.
	That is effectively his argument.
	But it's just dishonest.
	It's just dishonest because he knows that it's censorship.
	He knows that it is.
	I know that he knows that it is.
	But in his mind, it's like the whole, you can't be racist to white people and you can't be sexist to men.
	This is Bob's equivalent of that, where he's like, the only true censorship comes from government.
	It's like, no, it doesn't.
	Absolutely not.
	Censorship can come from anywhere that prevents a fucking unpopular opinion or piece of artwork or media from being publicly displayed or propagated.
	Anything that does that is censorship, Bob.
	It doesn't have to come from a fucking government.
	And yet, in Bob's mind, if he can convince himself that it does come from the government, then the progressive left wing are right and the authoritarian right wing are wrong.
	And in fact, they're both wrong.
	And they're both authoritarian.
	They are indeed.
	When you have laws that prevent people from speaking their mind, if it's called hate speech or anti-women speech or whatever, anti-someone speech, it's coming from the government.
	I don't know how we can defend that.
	Well, it's not just that.
	He's not defending that.
	What he's defending is the mob on Twitter.
	50,000, look with Internet Aristocrats thing with Dalhousie University.
	50,000 feminists from across the world sign a petition to get something done and they force it to be done.
	That doesn't mean it should have been done.
	That just means that there is a large mob who can coordinate and will coordinate on Twitter.
	It's not that there is a problem.
	People are getting fired where journalists are getting fired because they wrote a piece, an opinion.
	For example, the guy who wrote a piece that told fraternities not to allow teenage girls who are drinking into parties to protect the men from liability.
	And he was fired for writing such an article because feminist movements complain to the newspapers.
	What is there to fire him about there?
	That is a perfectly sensible argument.
	What would you fire anyone over there?
	I mean, what?
	Yeah, for trying to tell men how to protect themselves from libel.
	You would think that they would consider it to be them protecting young women from the frat parties as well, wouldn't you?
	No, I don't think they have any concern for women.
	If you ask me, seriously, it looks more and more like feminist movements genuinely are not concerned with women getting raped because everything they act upon is actually promoting rape in some way or another.
	If you are preventing a product that will help women to detect if their drink is spite, then you are de facto creating, you know, not preventing rape and thus allowing more rape to happen.
	So that's one point.
	When you're not telling women how to protect themselves or how to be responsible for their own safety, the fact that you are creating more cases of rape, it's simple.
	You don't need even to explain it.
	Act one way, there will be less rape.
	Act another way, more rape.
	They choose the latter.
	It's very bad.
	That's the thing, isn't it?
	I mean, realistically, there's more of a reason to have feminism if there is more rape occurring.
	Which, honestly, I wonder if they even know.
	This is what crashed me about Sweden.
	I can't remember who said it, but they showed me something that predicted that Sweden was going to be a third world country in like 30 years due to the amount of immigration.
	And needless to say, it's Muslim immigration.
	And coming along with this Muslim immigration are really, really, you know, almost exaggerated rape statistics.
	And I can just picture it.
	I can just picture this boardroom full of very white Swedish people.
	And the women there are looking at the stats going, well, this is awful.
	Rapes are up by 300%.
	And they're just looking accusingly at the Swedish men in the room who are just shuffling their feet and looking down and going, oh, God, I don't know what to do about this exactly.
	It's not you, is it?
	But this, it just completely, and then they're using this obviously as a mandate.
	Well, we need to be even more feminist, don't we, Swedish men?
	Because you're apparently raping a lot, aren't you?
	And, you know.
	It's like Swedish men.
	It's mostly Swedish immigrants.
	It started when...
	Exactly. Yeah.
	And did you see the movie, the Swedish movie The Gender Wars?
	It's on YouTube.
	I don't think I have, actually.
	It's quite upsetting, I must say.
	What happened in Sweden is that they have this radical feminist movement over there, which became very powerful because they managed to get a member of parliament, a woman, that support their cause deep inside the parliament.
	And what happened is that they are like scum.
	They think all men are animals.
	They think that men who are violent, like in domestic violence or rape, they're just acting on their normal.
	It's just normal for all men.
	It's not something which is something that you need to take care of or try to heal or you know or so they're typical feminists basically.
	So no, it's it's really really scary and and if you watch that that video.
	And what happened was that the Swedish Parliament wanted to know what to do with domestic violence.
	So they had a committee sent to Norway and Canada and the United States and they found that Norway implemented a very successful program that allows men, violent men and men and women and their counterparts to go into therapy.
	And they developed a very certain way of therapy that reduced domestic violence.
	And when this committee went back to Sweden and showed the results, the feminist lobby in the parliament took that down and didn't allow that to happen.
	And instead, all they did is just took all the money that was given to dealing with domestic violence and just to build more women's shelters.
	And there's one point in the video where this woman is, the video starts with a woman that was in these shelters and got very hurt by the shelters because she was in a camp, in some sort of a feminist camp when she was a teenager, and they treated her very badly.
	And she wanted them to admit that they wronged her.
	And so this entire movie is, by the way, is done by a woman, the woman who did that documentary.
	And she went to interview women in that women's shelters, in women's shelter.
	And she asked them, do you know about the case with that girl who said she was hurt by you?
	And the woman from the women's shelter did not want to answer.
	And then she was pressing the matter for a bit.
	And so the woman said, you know, if you're going to continue that, you're going to hurt a woman and this interview is done.
	And she just stopped the interview and then she continued on filming.
	That's the funny bit, because she continued on filming.
	And you can hear in the background a woman says, if you ever get in trouble, don't bother coming to us for help.
	That's the price for betraying us.
	And she said, what happens if I'm a victim of violence?
	What happens if I'm raped?
	And then she said, then manage by yourself.
	We're not going to take care of you.
	Just because you betrayed us right now.
	They are very, very horrible people, aren't they?
	I just can't get over it.
	I have to do like a little clip of something.
	Because I've heard a bunch of feminists just you know, they've said like the off the cuff remark, don't bite the hand that feeds you.
	And I tell you what, that is a fucking that is a horrible.
	If I were a woman, I would be terrified of feminism setting themselves up.
	Feminists have set themselves up as my de facto overlords just because they claim to be fighting for women's rights.
	Fuck me.
	Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
	Jesus Christ.
	You know, I honestly I found them quite scary.
	I I would say the m it's more appropriate for them to say don't bite the hand that beats you when it comes to feminism.
	Because you know, p when I th one of my grievances with feminism, whenever people say why are you so anti-feminist?
	And my first response is I'm anti-feminist because every time I say I'm anti-feminist, someone asks me why do you hate women?
	And this is a mindset, and this is a mindset that feminists have managed to instill in people's minds, in the general public.
	If you're anti-feminist, if you're anti-feminist, then you're anti-women.
	You have something against women.
	And I said, I'm anti-feminist because I respect and love women and wish them all the best.
	I worry about feminism.
	It seems to clearly be doing damage to certain individuals.
	I've met people.
	I mean, look at Tumblr.
	Just look at all of Tumblr.
	Trigger warnings and all this sort of shit.
	They're just infantile, absolutely emotionally retarded.
	And it's not because of conservativism, is it?
	It's because of feminism.
	It's entirely because of feminism.
	Because it's been indulged in a little fucking hug box.
	And it's absurd.
	It's just absurd.
	It's not doing them any good as individuals, as human beings.
	They're breeding a whole new generation of mentally impaired people, basically.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think they absolutely are.
	And honestly, I really do think it's worrying.
	Yeah, it is.
	So you want to share the clip?
	Oh, yes.
	Can you do it?
	What?
	Can I what?
	What clip are you talking about?
	You wanted to share a clip earlier on.
	Oh, no, no, I don't have it to hand or anything like that.
	I was just saying I should do at some point.
	I should find.
	I see.
	So, yeah, what else has been going on?
	Tell me about your political hangout.
	Oh, it was great.
	Yeah, who did you have on there?
	I didn't have anyone famous YouTuber on, mostly only subscribers.
	And they were from all over the place.
	I got one from South Africa and Australia and the United States, the UK, a Scottish guy, an Irish guy.
	And it was quite good.
	It was actually like four hours and 20 minutes, and I can't believe I lasted so long.
	And probably if it was not like 1 a.m. in the morning, I'd probably continue on doing that.
	Many people missed it and said they wanted to join.
	But we talked about a lot of, you know, it was a fairly civil discussion about Israel and with Palestinians and all that stuff.
	And people found it interesting.
	Even if we didn't read.
	What were the general sort of themes that were talked about?
	So people actually mostly ask questions from my perspective on how do I see the occupied territories, the history, who owns, really owns the land, all that stuff.
	That was mainly the conversation.
	It's a pity that you.
	Yeah, because I'm quite a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to Palestine.
	Yeah, I didn't get too much opposition over there.
	I wish I did.
	I wish I did.
	Really?
	Well, we've been through it, so but um okay, so um what what they're giant walls, are they not?
	They're what?
	They are quite there are quite large walls around parts of Pala uh parts of the Gaza Strip, they're not.
	Not the Gaza Strip, um uh on the West Bank.
	You're talking about uh West Bank, is it?
	So it's uh mostly the Israeli Gaza barrier I'm talking about, I think.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay.
	Um it's funny.
	I'll just I'm gonna tweet it just so people can see what I'm looking at.
	Um but yeah, so sorry, go on.
	Go on.
	It's uh yes.
	The thing is, a lot of settlements close to Gaza are actually having very high walls to protect them from rockets.
	And there is a fence, of course.
	But if you're talking about the if you talk try to talk about the wall in the West Bank, so you have places where you have like tall concrete walls and you have most but most people.
	I'm just going to share my screen a second because I've got a few images up.
	This is I think everyone's major problem, really.
	I mean can you see like this sort of stuff?
	Do you everyone see this?
	I hope they can see this.
	But like, you know, and we're not I'm not there, so I don't know what the circumstance is, but it's kind of hard to think of a circumstance that isn't reasonably bad for Palestinians in Gaza when you see these sort of things.
	Well, I talked about it in the Hangout.
	It's very difficult, and I understand why for someone who lives in Europe or in Canada or a peaceful place to see such a picture and not be cringed a bit, cringe a bit, because it looks bad.
	It looks bad for people who are living in, you know, in peaceful places.
	And these walls didn't just come to be by themselves for no reason.
	There was a very, very good reason to build them.
	Now, people might claim that this is because Israel has this thing for occupation and wants to get more and more land.
	You don't get more and more land just by building tall walls.
	And these walls are very, it's not like all over the place.
	It's not like Gaza is surrounded by such a wall.
	It's just only specific areas.
	Now, Gaza is controlled by a terrorist organization.
	People say they were elected democratically, but that was 2005.
	then it became a completely totalitarian regime, and a very violent one.
	And if you want all the facts... I don't think that's under debate.
	Yeah, so you can take the devil's advocate on that one and be my guest.
	I don't think there's anything to advocate against.
	There's no doubt that Hamas is pretty nefarious.
	I've seen quite a lot of media from people who have been in the Gaza Strip.
	And it doesn't paint Hamas in a particular good light.
	No, they enforce Sharia law.
	Enforced, actually, not even asked.
	They enforced Sharia law on the Gazans.
	They had a secular government before that.
	And now they're burning books.
	They are closing cafes and they're not allowing music in public.
	They're not allowing men and women to associate in public.
	It's gone pretty bad over there.
	And of course, they are terrorizing their own people and they are terrorizing Israeli civilians.
	And they have army camps inside civilian areas.
	So the problem is very, very complex.
	And you cannot just handle it with simple or regular means like negotiating with them or just setting a border or a fence or something.
	Sometimes to get to extreme measures in extreme situations.
	And that's why we have these walls.
	The wall in the West Bank, for example, was erected after the Second Intifada, where every day people just came from the territories into Israel.
	They just walked through or drove a car into Israel and bombs, you know, and cafes exploded and shops and whatever.
	And when you have sporadic and when you have sporadic cases like that, like we have actually today from time to time we get someone going into a car and just driving and running over people in the middle of the street.
	Or yeah, it happened like a few months ago for five times, four, three, five times, I can't remember how many times.
	Or a guy just taking a knife and just stabbing.
	There were two stabbing cases just this week.
	So when you have sporadic acts like that, it's not like a military versus a military, then you need to find a way to prevent it.
	So there are two ways to do that.
	Either you do it in a defensive mode by barricading yourself, or you do it in an offensive mode, and that's going into villages and trying to look for people who might be terrorists.
	I mean, Israel does both, doesn't it?
	Yeah, in the West Bank, it does both.
	Not in Gaza.
	Israel is not, except what happened in the summer with operations.
	It did go into Gaza recently, didn't it?
	In the summer.
	Yeah, in the summer.
	But you don't have Israeli presence, a military presence in Gaza.
	We do have Israeli military presence in areas B and C in the West Bank, but that's with full coordination with the Palestinian Authority.
	They have also huge interest for us to be there because they don't want to what happened in Gaza where Hamas took over very violently and took down the Fatah government by force, by shooting them actually, and throwing them off roofs.
	They don't want that.
	They don't wish for that to happen in the West Bank.
	And there's a lot of Hamas presence in the West Bank.
	And it's moderated with Israeli intelligence and Israeli special forces.
	So that's why they are cooperating with us on that one very much.
	There's a lot of cooperation between the FACH forces and the Israeli forces.
	I think the main issue that I think a lot of people have, though, is that the things that Israel has done legitimizes the arguments of Hamas in the minds of the people that they're talking to, I think.
	And I think it's one of the things about Islamic terrorism, isn't it?
	If if people weren't blowing up Muslims, then there'd probably be a lot less Muslim terrorists?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so, but I do accept the fact that people have criticism over Israel, and I have criticism over the Israeli government on the West Bank and the settlements and all that thing.
	It doesn't legitimize Hamas in any way, and that's the wrong thing that happens, that people are so critical of what Israel is doing that they are willing to vindicate a group like Hamas.
	I meant specifically in the minds of Muslims who are being victimized.
	Not being victimized, that's the wrong wrong.
	Look, someone gets a family member blown up in an airstrike or something like that, right?
	They're going to want to take some sort of retribution.
	And if Hamas is the only organization around saying, hey, look, we're trying to fight Israel and no one else is, then that's where they're going to go, isn't it?
	I can say that if you look into it more carefully, people, the Palestinians are much more critical of their own government, the Palestinian Authority, than they are critical of Israel.
	And they blame them for a lot of their misfortune.
	Not because of the way they manage the peace process or anything.
	It's just because of internal matters.
	And the reason Hamas took over in Gaza is because people were more frustrated about their own day-by-day lives and internal matters than the situation with Israel.
	So this is something that many people don't really understand.
	If you go into I think I'd have to speak to someone from there on that, really.
	It's not that I think that you're wrong or that you're trying to deceive me or anything like that, but I think that it's a case of being on the outside.
	And I think that people on the outside of things looking in often have different viewpoints to those on the inside looking out.
	And so I think I would need to speak to someone from Palestine.
	But I've seen a lot of footage, you know, Israeli reporters going to Gaza and interview people from Gaza.
	And sometimes they are bold enough to say what they think on camera, even though they are not fearing Hamas's retaliation.
	Sometimes they are pixelated, sometimes they are not.
	And they are very, very critical.
	In the West Bank, they can be critical of the Palestinian Authority because they would not be any retribution.
	So they are saying it openly.
	They're not afraid of saying it.
	They say on quite more than one occasion I've seen such interviews of people from Palestine saying that.
	Now I don't know if that's the general case but that's how it's reported, at least in our media.
	That's my point really, because I've found myself less and less inclined to trust the media.
	Any media at all, frankly.
	It's nothing to do with them being Israeli media.
	It's just it's the word media that I'm having trouble with.
	Yeah, so if anyone can put me in contact with anyone from Palestine, well, you know, from one of these occupied territories or anything like that, I would love to speak to them because Just ask them questions really and let them express their opinions.
	And and not because I'm trying to attack anyone or anything like that.
	I just want to hear from as many sides as possible.
	And I get the feeling there's it's probably there's probably a lot of not not dissension.
	That's the wrong word.
	Deception implies malicious intent.
	I guess accidental or like maybe from my I don't know, maybe like from like a nationalist perspective or something where people find themselves slightly biased or fairly biased without even realizing that they are, you know?
	Yeah.
	Unlike the social justice borrowers who know that they're biased and happy with it.
	Well, I guess that it would be very hard to find such a person.
	I would love to find such a person and have a civil and to the point discussion with such a person.
	But what I've seen on YouTube, and that's from only my personal experience, is people like the Syrian girl, if you know her.
	I do, actually.
	I'm supposed to set up a hangout with her so we can have a discussion at some point.
	The thing is, she lives in Australia, so she's not directly witnessing any of this.
	And she has a very strong opinion about Israel.
	But if you yeah, she does, and she made a couple of videos.
	And I saw that even if I wanted to have a discussion with her, the basic premises that both of us are coming from are so far away, it's like an atheist trying to talk to the most orthodox religious person out there.
	And it would be like, you know, deaf deaf conversation?
	A deaf conversation.
	Yeah, that's how we.
	Yeah, it's like two deaf people trying to talk to each other.
	Right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I think you'd end up talking past each other quite a lot.
	Yeah, because, you know, we are not actually recognizing one is saying something and the other one doesn't even recognize it as something to be true on a very, very basic level.
	For example, the fact that Jews ever lived in the area up until the 20th century, which is not true, but you know, go and argue with that.
	Or that Palestinians, Arab Palestinians have been there from day one, which is not the case, but you cannot argue with that.
	Arabs have been in Palestine for quite some time.
	Since the sixth century.
	Yeah, that's quite a long time.
	I would have thought 1,400 or so years would be enough to legitimize them.
	Because if it's not, then the English don't belong in England, you know, because the English have been in England for about the same amount of time.
	So this is something that I've talked about in the conversation.
	What is the criteria for saying we've been here long enough to say that it's ours?
	And what were the circumstances that we took over the place?
	Do they factor in in some way?
	Because Arabs did not just stroll here.
	I agree.
	It was like the army of Muhammad and they came and they did exactly what I see maybe even more worse, what ICE is doing.
	That's no different.
	That's no different to anyone else.
	I mean, it's no different to when the Jews arrived in the Holy Land, is it?
	I disagree.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, you're talking about ancient Hebrews.
	Yeah, that's correct.
	Exactly.
	So it's exactly.
	It's exactly the same every time.
	So I don't think it's very reasonable to say, oh, thousands of years ago someone did something bad and therefore that delegitimizes what you're claiming here and now.
	So yeah, I wouldn't stand for that argument being applied to Jews or Palestinians.
	I think to say that they weren't there for a significant period of time is disingenuous, obviously.
	They've been there for well over a thousand years.
	So I don't see the right to just turf them off.
	I can agree with that.
	And what I'm trying to say is that saying that a land is rightfully owned by X or Y is an illusion.
	If you think about it.
	Because no one has really a moral high ground to come and say what is considered to be mine or yours.
	You can say it about Americans that have been there for like two and a half centuries.
	So is America owned by the white people?
	Get out of America.
	Exactly.
	So what is the point?
	How much time do we need to wait until people would say, okay, this land is owned by Israelis?
	Let's say just for the sake of argument that Israel completely takes over the entire West Bank and Gaza and completely takes, you know, and even and just for the sake of argument drives all the Palestinians to other countries, for example.
	And then 500 years pass.
	And then you can say this land is rightfully owned by the Jews in that point of time.
	Because that's what happened in Arabs in Palestine and that what's happened in America.
	I think that is what they would say.
	I think that would absolutely be the argument for not displacing or not allowing to be displaced the sort of future Israelis.
	Not only displace, but say they are the rightful owners of that land.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That would absolutely be the argument.
	And the thing is, it would probably be a legitimate argument as well, because you can't really just erase 500 years of history and of occupation.
	And the thing is, I think what everyone pushes around, and I know that nobody wants it to be this way.
	And no one wants this to be true, but I'm fucking s might makes right.
	I'm sick of what everyone says.
	I know it's wrong.
	It's immoral.
	It's deeply, deeply immoral.
	But at the end of the day, things happen because people are strong enough to make them happen.
	And I'm not saying that it's right, but it's the way it is.
	Everyone wants to put this sort of fig leaf over it, going, oh, well, it's about other things.
	It's about strength.
	And owning land is an illusion.
	Even if you live in a country and you have a deed to a certain piece of land, it's an illusion.
	The state can confiscate that piece of land, even if you bought it with money.
	Yeah, yeah, I think illusions may be a bit too strong.
	I think it's tenuous.
	That's the issue.
	I think that I think even I mean, for example, like when the barbarians, the German barbarians came in and pillaged, well what we thought was pillaged the Western Roman Empire, there are some interesting historical oddities from that time period.
	I haven't got the proof to hand, so you have to take my word for it.
	I remember reading about how Italian nobles, Roman nobles, would end up receiving money from the Ostrogoths or one of the German tribes along with notes saying things like, you know, I have taken this piece of land.
	This is what I think is a fair value for this piece of land.
	So I'm giving you the money for it.
	And so it wasn't necessarily just rampant stealing.
	But ultimately, there was no right of return for the Roman noble.
	He couldn't exactly argue the toss.
	So it was really just the barbarian being surprisingly honourable about it.
	Yeah.
	And I think that dwelling on the past is stupid.
	If the reasons are right or wrong, we need to deal practically with the current situation.
	And to come from a state of mind that says, sometimes I hear it from feminists, and sometimes I even hear it from my wife.
	And she said, men in the past did this and that to women.
	And I'm saying, well, how is it related to what is happening right now?
	If men ever, you know, 100 and 200 years ago were very much more authoritarian to women and they were much more, I don't know, held women under a boot or something, why is it concerning you and me right now?
	Because if the situation now is very different, how can you make this an argument?
	It's not a valid argument.
	I don't care what happened 50 years ago.
	Should I treat all Germans as evil people just because what happened 70 years ago?
	It's idiotic.
	It's not a valid argument.
	And if Israel was on the wrong 70 years ago, let's just concede that point for a second.
	People did wrong 70 years ago, but now we are having a current situation.
	We cannot say, you know, this is what happened.
	Now Israelis need to fuck off, you know, leave the area and give it back to the Arabs.
	The thing is, would you be saying that if you were a Palestinian?
	It depends what kind of Palestinian I would be if I was a very practical one.
	If I was a practical one, I think Palestinians are practical enough to understand, many of them to understand that they cannot drive Jews from Israel completely and take over the entire place.
	That's the manifest of Hamas.
	If you read the manifest of Hamas, it's written in their manifesto.
	We shall fight the Jews until we completely remove them from the entire area of Palestine.
	But I don't think that's the mindset of many Palestinians or the practical leaders in the less radical movements.
	I don't think that anyone expects Israel to be wiped out.
	Anyone reasonable, sorry.
	I mean, obviously, you can have the extreme fringe who are like, oh, we have to get rid of Israel.
	But to the point of what you were asking, you're asking a very interesting question because you said, what would you think if you were a Palestinian?
	Then I would think that because I would be in a much worse place than I am right now, then I would probably approach this from a different mindset.
	I would probably approach it from an emotional maybe or not a rational mindset.
	No, no, it's not just that.
	I think it's completely rational, actually.
	That's the thing.
	And I'm not attacking anyone or anything like that.
	I'm just someone who's not part of this discussion, really, looking at both sides.
	And I guess that it's easy to say, oh, we should just forget the past if forgetting the past kind of favors you and the present.
	But if the past, the immediate past, and we're not talking about very long in the past, this is less than 100 years.
	So it's not very long ago.
	And if that is an argument that would favor you as, say, a Palestinian a lot more strongly, I can understand why they would be far less inclined to forget the past.
	That may be true, and I don't argue with that.
	I'm just arguing that what favors me might also be a very rational explanation or a very rational conclusion to make.
	You cannot just read of the state of Israel just because you can prove in some way that what happened 70 years ago was wrong.
	I agree.
	So I know it favors me as an Israeli.
	I understand that and I accept it.
	But it also makes very sense.
	You know, it makes sense.
	It's very irrational.
	So it's not fair.
	It might not be fair to say or to hear or to think, but it's like that.
	That I think is ultimately it, isn't it?
	The fact is, it's not irrational for you to hold this position, but it's not irrational for a Palestinian to be very concerned about the immediate past.
	And ultimately, I don't think anything that's going to happen is going to be particularly fair to the Palestinians.
	And that's not necessarily from like, you know, anyone, that's not necessarily your fault.
	I mean, this, like you said, it's happened, what, 40 years ago, something like that now?
	70.
	You're talking about the occupation.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	67.
	So it's 50 years, let's say.
	50 years ago, yeah.
	So, I mean, and you're not even 40, are you?
	You're just about 40.
	So it could, you know, already 40, yeah.
	Oh, sorry, are you?
	I'm sorry.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry, my as well.
	It's hardly your fault, you know.
	And the people whose fault it was are probably dead by now.
	And that's just to for the sake of arguments, say it's our fault.
	You know, I can give a lot of good arguments for what the people who formed Israel did.
	It's not as simple as saying you were on the wrong, they were on the right, or we were on the right, they were on the wrong, and it's just very simple as that.
	It's much more complex than that.
	Every side has its own good arguments.
	Every side has its own, you know.
	Yeah, no, no, I know what you mean.
	I know what you mean.
	That's basically the issue, though, isn't it?
	You know, I think there are rational claims on either side.
	And I think that the argument, let's forget it, is just because not just because, but it definitely is in the advantage of Israel to do that.
	Since the chats have been going crazy because we're talking about Jews and Arabs, I assume that they're just being facetious.
	How do you feel about American Jews?
	Well, I don't, you know, it's not like I feel very close to them in any way.
	Just because they are Jewish and I'm Jewish, same way I'm not, you know, It's not like we are how to call it, like one body split into two halves or something.
	There are Jewish people in America.
	Most of them, by the way, are left or far left, most of them.
	And they vote 75%, I think, vote Obama, or 80% vote Obama.
	Whereas Israel, how I mean, you've got a right-wing party in power in Israel at the moment, don't you?
	Yeah, we do.
	I mean, you don't think for a second that a lot of the liberal Jews from the American media, for instance, would vote for Netanyahu, do you?
	No, I don't think so.
	But even the local media mostly would not vote for Netanyahu.
	The media here is quite left as well.
	What happened in Israel is very, very interesting.
	Israel used to be a very centralist state when it came to the public opinion.
	Even to the point in the 90s where we voted the Labour Party, which is considered a left-wing party that started the peace process with the Palestinians and all that.
	But we used to be very centralist, and I think after the second Intifada, a lot of Israelis just went a little bit more right, and the left became much more stronger left.
	The Labour Party, we had two parties that could have been leading parties.
	And now we have just one.
	For the last 60 years, maybe 50 years of Israel, the Labour Party and the Likud Party have been going at each other and competing for the parliament.
	And they were actually 50-50 in terms of size.
	Now it's much more divergent than that.
	The Labour Party went left, much more left, so they have very few people voting for them, and they're not really an option anymore.
	And we have the right-wing party, the Likud Party, which can now do whatever it wants because no one challenges them.
	And that's a real problem.
	That's a real, real problem in our democracy.
	Yeah, because you're not a fan of Netanyahu at all, are you?
	No, not at all.
	Not at all.
	To understate.
	But the problem is that we are unable to replace them.
	We are unable to replace the Likud party because there is no alternative.
	That's really a problem.
	And that is a consequence of what happened here for the last 15, 20 years.
	Right, and what was happening exactly?
	Okay, so in 1994, I'll try to say it as briefly as I can because I'm a guy that sort of rambles.
	If you Haven't noticed yet.
	So in 1992, we voted in a left-wing party to start a peace process with the Palestinians.
	That was after the first intifada.
	So the Israeli government took a terrorist organization called the PLO and legitimized it for negotiations.
	The PLO then became the Palestinian Authority.
	And we made an initial agreement with them that we'll start to remove our forces from the West Bank and Gaza and they would take over, form an autonomy, and gradually retreat to the 67 borders or roughly, roughly, to the 67 borders, and they would take over.
	And then when they would declare a state, a sovereign state, we would sign a final peace treaty, and that would end the conflict between Jews and Arabs.
	And they would accept us, and we will accept them, etc.
	And it went well, seemingly, for five, six years.
	The West Bank was very peaceful.
	Israelis could go over there into the territories, into the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods, go to restaurants, buy, shop, do everything.
	Except for the fact that Hamas at that time wanted to undermine that process.
	So they had all the suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, in buses, cafes, etc.
	That didn't stop the process.
	Then Robin was shot and murdered.
	That was the first time that Netanyahu took over.
	And he was prime minister for like two or three years.
	And he didn't completely stop the process.
	He just, you know, just went along with it, but didn't do anything.
	And then we replaced him back with a left-wing government.
	The successor of Robin was called Ewud Barak, and he continued Rabin's way.
	So in 2000, Barak wanted to finalize the agreement with the Palestinians, offering them like 90 or 90 somewhat percent of the territories back.
	And so they would have declare a sovereign state, and the conflict would come to an end and there would be peace.
	So they went to Camp David, Arafat, Barak, and President Clinton.
	And basically, Arafat killed it completely.
	And even Clinton said that it's all the fault of Yasser Arafats that the negotiations failed.
	And he came back to Gaza.
	Arafat came back to Gaza and started the second Intifada.
	Now, the second Intifada, unlike the first Intifada, was not something like very domestic and local, just kids throwing rocks or people throwing rocks or molt of cocktails.
	They actually took it into Israel and we had like two, three years.
	Every day you had someone shooting vehicles, just driving in roads near the territories, or you had discotheques full of teenagers exploding, killing 20, 25 people and cafes.
	And that was a horrible, horrible, terrible time.
	And Barak was removed and we elected Alec Sharon for being prime minister.
	And after a few months that Sharon was in power, there was a few days of very, very bad cases of terrorist attacks.
	Went into a hotel inside Israel, somewhere near Tel Aviv, and a suicide bomber killed a couple, couple of dozens of families, and that was it.
	You know, that was the last straw.
	And then Israel retaliated very, very roughly and harshly.
	We sent military into Gaza, we sent military into the West Bank and, just you know, went ape shit over there.
	And then Sharon decided to bring up the wall to prevent, you know, Palestinians going through the border so easily.
	And since then we elected one more centralist party leader, which was the.
	The Omert was the prime minister and he tried to go with Mahmoud Abbas and re finish what Barak was trying to do with the Arafat.
	That also failed.
	Abbas refused the offer that Israel has made and since then nothing much changed right, and we became more and more pessimistic.
	And we became more and more pessimistic that we can ever solve this.
	Now, what?
	What made us more pessimistic is the fact that Omert and Sharon withdrew from Gaza unilaterally.
	They just took all the people Jews that lived there in, you know, on the border.
	They we had settlements on the border similar to what we have in the West Bank today.
	They just put them all in trucks, took them out of there, you know, just displaced a whole lot of people that lived there for a couple of decades and removed all presence of the military and very quickly, Hamas took over that place.
	No yeah, they didn't have no opposition.
	We we controlled the border between Egypt and and Gaza at that point and when we removed it it was like an open gate and they could smuggle in weapons and do everything they wanted to do.
	That's how they took over and since then you know what happens now in Israel and Gaza.
	It's not.
	It's not the best case situation.
	You know and mostly Israelis fear that this would happen also in the West Bank that if we, the military presence that Israel has in the West Bank would cause even more radical groups like ISIS or Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran or whatever to come into the West Bank.
	And if you look at the West Bank, the West Bank actually is very tightly coupled with Israel.
	It has a very long border.
	It's on high grounds.
	The West Bank is on high grounds.
	And that would be very, very problematic in terms of security if it falls to the wrong hands.
	And if you ask any Israeli what is their worst fear regarding security, it's not Iran, it's not Gaza.
	It's that if we get out of the West Bank, that's what will happen.
	And you can see it in Syria and you can see it in Arabic.
	Terrorists coming in from the West Bank is the yeah.
	Yeah, that would the place will fall to the wrong hands and will bring ISIS just in our back l backyard, to our backyard.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	I mean okay.
	So is there a lot of fear of ISIS in Israel or what?
	Not right now, because they are a little bit far away, you know, they it's not like they are in our backyard.
	Uh the situation in Syria is quite contained to Syria.
	They have like five different groups over there fighting each other.
	So they're not really, you know, have their eyes on us right now.
	We are concerned, but we are not, you know, really concerned with the situation.
	Okay.
	Okay, that's cool.
	See, now, I think that ISIS is a paper tiger.
	They have somewhere 30,000 or 40,000 people, actual militant fighters.
	And so I can't help but feel that it's a deliberate failing on the part of the international community.
	What do you think?
	I think, first of all, they have a lot of money.
	They have a lot of resources.
	That really helps their cause.
	Because they took over banks and oil fields and they sell this oil and people buy it.
	China is buying it.
	They don't give a shit.
	And it helps them expand.
	It helps them expand.
	Now, they are meeting opposition from the Kurdish side and from Iran.
	But ultimately, there is a huge vacuum of power in Iraq.
	Just to explain to people, I think I'm just checking that I'm right here as well.
	A lot of people seem to have failed to understand the difference between Sunni and Shia, don't they?
	Okay.
	So the difference is they're both Muslims of two sects and they hate each other more than they hate Jews more than they hate Jews and Israelis, basically.
	I don't mean to laugh, but it's just funny, isn't it?
	They're very similar to each other because they're both Muslims, but they can't stand each other more than their mortal enemies.
	Yeah, so this is a lot of people...
	It's an ideological battle or war between two sects that really, really have it for each other.
	Seriously, have it for each other.
	And you can see it now in Iran versus Saudi in Yemen.
	You know, Yemen is under war right now because Saudis have sent troops, Iranians have sent troops, and Yemen is right in the middle.
	And they are just having their little proxy war over there.
	And they have the little proxy war over in Syria where the Saudis are funding al-Qaeda and the Iranians are funding Hezbollah and ISIS.
	And sorry, not ISIS.
	Jabbat al-Nusra, I think.
	This is the problem that I think most people have understanding Middle Eastern politics.
	It's a huge cluster fuck.
	It is a huge clusterfuck.
	But that's the thing.
	The Muslim world is as divided as anything else.
	So I don't know if they're a paper tiger right now.
	They are meeting strong opposition, but they are not very strong when they are settled.
	Honestly, I really think that they're being given license to operate rather than forcing people's hands.
	You are right, but to take them down.
	I mean, to take them down, you need very huge forces.
	It's not like you can do it with a small army or something.
	Well, that's true.
	You would need a significant force.
	But I mean, you know, I'm pretty sure that the Iranians could deal with ISIS if they were given a mandate to.
	I'm pretty sure that Israel could deal with ISIS.
	It's not like there aren't powers in the region who can do it.
	And frankly, I think the Americans are the ones who should be dealing with ISIS because they created the conditions for ISIS to flourish in.
	And frankly, the CIA has probably funnelled a lot of weapons to them.
	So it's one of those things where it's like, you know, it's not difficult to stop, really.
	I mean, it's, you know, I would say it's stoppable, but it is difficult to stop.
	You need to invade the entire area, take control of it completely, then remove by force all the elements of ISIS.
	And not in a very nice way, by the way.
	Yeah, that's what I was trying to get to, in fact.
	It's not the conquest of it that's difficult.
	It's the winning the peace that's difficult, I think.
	Because, like you say, they're going to be everywhere there.
	Exactly.
	Exactly, and how much energy and effort the U.S. went through to remove Saddam Hussein's regime, which was very centralized, they had an army and a political party in the middle of Iraq.
	So it was very centralized, very easy to target.
	Now you have an organization spread all over the place with an ideology.
	It's completely different.
	It's much more difficult to tackle.
	And I don't think no one in the Western world wants to deal with it.
	It's far from sight, and we don't care what happens over there.
	America is becoming more and more independent when it comes to oil.
	They are not dependent on Middle Eastern oil as much as they used to be.
	And that's why you see Obama is less and less interested in what happens in the Middle East.
	And he's shifting the focus to other places.
	And now you have Rand Paul running for the Conservative Party, in the United States.
	Yeah, and that's the same mindset that he holds as well.
	He thinks that America should meddle less and less in foreign politics and what happens in the Middle East or wherever and focus internally.
	So you got even the Republicans, at least one of their candidates, thinking like that.
	And you have the Democrats thinking like that.
	I tell you what, very interesting about Rand Paul, isn't it?
	I watched his second half of his announcement speech on Russia Today, in fact.
	And yeah, what do you make of it?
	I think I don't know if he genuinely thinks he can, if, let's say, for example, he would be elected, that this would be a viable way to go with things, because eventually the power that the United States has, their power,
	a lot of their how to call it, let's say just power they have as a state, as a country, comes from foreign politics.
	they are able to get away with so much, so much stuff.
	One thing that I think...
	Just because they are...
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Well, that's the thing, one thing that I really think that they've got, I mean, I don't know how much American politicians really understand this.
	Because it seems to be like The people like the Tranatoral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and all that, they seem to be the people who are controlling American foreign policy.
	And they are the people who very definitely understand that the dollar hegemony on oil is the most important thing that the Americans have to do.
	They are able to do a whole series of nasty things and get away with it.
	They can lend billions of dollars from all over the world.
	Exactly.
	The thing that makes the American economy so strong is the fact that all oil is traded in dollars.
	And so this is the thing about Ram Paul saying, oh, we're going to become more isolationist or something like that, whatever he was saying.
	That's not an option.
	Yeah, it's not practical, exactly.
	It's not an option for America.
	It's not an option.
	It's not an option.
	But they would become Greece if that happened.
	It would be massive financial collapse.
	But the thing is, it'd be a huge world financial collapse, probably.
	And so it's one of those things where it's like, I mean, I'm sure that what he's going to say is going to be popular with the average American voter, because I don't think the average American voter knows about the petrodollar.
	There's no reason they would.
	They've not been educated in it.
	These things I think are deliberately kept from the public, so they don't know what to criticize and who to criticize.
	Well, it's not just the petrodollar.
	It's not just the petrodollar.
	It's also the fact that they owe the world, especially China, billions of dollars.
	It's the fact that every dollar that they are making by themselves, they spend like $10.
	Yeah, every dollar is printed with debt, isn't it?
	Yeah, and so it is one of those things that's, you know, Americans need to know how their system works.
	And they don't.
	And yeah, so it's one of those things where I think what Ram Paul is saying is will be very popular.
	I think a lot of Americans would probably get behind it.
	And that would be...
	And say he did.
	Say, I mean, and the thing is, I can't understand why Americans weren't more behind Ron Paul, his dad.
	I swear to God, do you listen to Ron Paul talking?
	You think, well, that's a really reasonable guy, and he seems really nice, and he seems to know what he's talking about.
	But again, he's not really thinking of the petrodollar, you know, and the American hegemony.
	But other than that, I can't see why Americans didn't really get behind him.
	And I think it's something to do with the media.
	Basically, not conspiring, but they're just being a zeitgeist of keeping him out of the limelight because he seems to have had a lot of grassroots support.
	And I suspect that his son probably will if he goes down the same route.
	And so, I mean, you know, it's not interesting.
	Well, I must say that the son is much more charismatic than the father.
	He's much less less comes out as more extremist like his father.
	And you can say the same thing for Le Pen in France.
	You know, the father was very, very extremist when he talked.
	And Le Pen and his daughter seem much more, respectively, much more not extreme, much more moderate.
	And maybe that would help him, but on the long run, I think that people would not stand behind them.
	The majority of people would not stand behind them.
	And I don't think it's just the media.
	I think that it's also the fact that no, I think that most Americans are not Republican.
	That's how I think.
	I'm not sure, but that's how I think.
	No, no, I think that's I think that's a good point, but I think that's the problem, isn't it?
	Because it's not really about Democrat and Republican when you come to foreign policy, you know, i or when you come to like this sort of issue.
	It's more about sort of um the the people versus the corporations that are kind of puppeteering the government, you know?
	Yeah.
	Um and that and that's the thing.
	I it you know, I'm not expecting Ron Rand Paul to win or anything like that, but I could because the thing is in America you've got I I watched a program and I can't remember what it was now, it was ages ago, but um that they were basically saying look it's about a third Republican, about third Democrat, and then the rest is about another third of swing voters who vote on the issues and aren't just committed to an individual party.
	So, I mean, you know, I might be wrong, you know, that that might be wrong information, I might be completely wrong, but I suspect that there's probably some truth to it.
	And there's there's probably quite a large block of people who are swing voters who you know this is this is why they go between Democrat and Republican governments.
	Otherwise it'd just be one or the other, wouldn't it?
	So I mean I don't think it's unrealistic that Ram Paul, I mean it's probably never gonna happen, probably never gonna happen, but say he did get in wildly.
	He would, I think, be suddenly presented with people like Zigne Brzezinski and, you know, Hillary Clinton, all those sort of people who would suddenly turn around and go yeah, those things that you want to do, they're not gonna happen.
	They're not gonna happen.
	We're not going to be pulling out of the Middle East, we're not going to be, you know.
	You know ceasing all foreign aid or whatever else he wants.
	You know it it that they're simply not going to happen.
	And he'll find himself presented with, like the inner workings and the machinations of the American government, and I think he'll end up going very white, very grey-haired, like every other American president, I think there's.
	I think they just dye their hair before they go into office and then just stop after they do, because it happens to Israeli politicians as well.
	All the time they look very young when before they are elected, then they look very old after they get elected.
	That's, that's the thing, isn't it?
	You know I, I really um, I think that the, the American presidents get confronted with the the, they.
	I think they end up figuring out on their own, probably how, how the American system is actually working, and they think shit, but they can't.
	Well actually actually, if you think about it for a second, you do see a different type of of what, what is the word?
	The way they act, fuck it.
	I'll just open Google Translate.
	My brain is just, you know, collapsed on itself for a second.
	How do you call it?
	Policy policy policy, so you can see a different policy.
	If you look Bush and Obama, you can say see very different policies being being implemented, especially in the Middle East.
	Well yeah, but that wow, I mean Obama really has been quite a disappointment for a lot of people on the left, because his policies really weren't all that different.
	Well, you know what he did with the way he with the Arab Spring, how he handled the crisis in in Syria, or in now in ISIS, and you know, or how he handles things.
	I think you wouldn't find it wouldn't be the same if there was like, a Republican.
	What was the name of the other guy that was not elected?
	No, that was not elected in the first round the army guy?
	Oh um uh the, The guy who ran with the crazy woman.
	Yeah, Sarah Palin and Sarah Penin and I can't remember his name.
	Yeah, someone in the chat will get a funny-shaped face.
	He was captured in Vietnam.
	I can't remember his fucking name now.
	I was right on the tip of my tongue as well.
	But someone's...
	Just a second.
	I'll find him.
	I'll find him.
	Yeah, in...
	In the meantime, though, I tell you what, I reckon that all of this, all of what we're saying, is a moot point, right?
	Because John McCain, that's it.
	Thank you, Michael.
	Thank you, chat.
	I fucking knew that as well.
	But I think all of this is a moot point, right?
	Because I think ultimately Hillary Clinton's going to win.
	She's going to run.
	You think?
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Because she's going to run.
	And because she represents corporate interests, she will have the media behind her.
	Because she is a woman, she will have the feminists behind her.
	And because she's a Democrat, she will have the left wing in general behind her.
	Even though I think Hillary is just the worst.
	She's fucking awful.
	She is just corporate all over.
	She is literally the corporate candidate.
	And if people had any sense, they would probably vote for Rand, but they're not going to, because she'll be more.
	No, I'm not sure she would be able to be the first candidate for the Democratic Party.
	I'm not even sure of that.
	Really?
	Why?
	And what makes you think that?
	I think there are still large forces here that would not like her specifically to be running as candidate for it.
	Not because she's a woman, but I don't think they trust her enough.
	Well, you say that, but the thing is, I think there's enough propaganda that can be spun from Hillary Clinton.
	I mean, think about it, right?
	You've got she's experienced.
	She is genuinely experienced with the workings of the U.S. government and the political system.
	She's been in it for quite some time as either the first lady or a politician in her own right.
	And Bill Clinton's a likable guy.
	There's no getting around it.
	When Bill Clinton interviews, he's nice.
	People like him.
	And he'll be fighting in her corner.
	And he's got some pull, especially as the worst he did is get a blowjob, for fuck's sake.
	That's really not bad.
	That's not that bad.
	I don't see the point of impeaching someone for getting their dick sucked.
	But hey, I'm not American.
	I don't know who are the other candidates for the Democratic Party.
	I don't think there's any point in considering them because it'll be Hillary Clinton.
	Because think about what can be spun out of Hillary Clinton.
	First female president.
	That'll be what it is.
	We've had the first black president, and that'll be first female president.
	Oh, this is historic.
	And the feminists will just cream themselves.
	I know, but they're not the majority, and I don't think...
	They're not the majority, but they control a lot of the media.
	And still, I think that people are not voting according to the media.
	Just from experience in my country for the last 20 years, the media has been pushing left-wing politicians, putting them in a good light, and putting right-wing politicians in a very bad light.
	And the right is just keep on winning again and again and again and again.
	And the reason is that people eventually vote for different reasons.
	It's not just what the media is telling them.
	They will, but what I mean is there are a lot of angles.
	The thing is, the media does have a huge influence on who gets support because most people aren't politically informed.
	That's the problem.
	And so, you know, they see like half an hour of news a day, you know, when they're what when they're eating dinner or something, when they're waiting for the soaps to start and shit like that.
	And, you know, half of that will be, oh, there was a murder locally or something like that.
	You know, which I murders aren't fucking news.
	You know, half of that will be taken up with there was a murder.
	And then they'll see like five minutes or two minutes of Hillary Clinton and it'll be something like, oh, yeah, Hillary Clinton's Democratic nomination.
	She's going on a World War I tour, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And she's running as the first female presidential candidate or something like that.
	And they will spin that up and people are like, yeah, I'm progressive.
	I think it's right that there should be a woman.
	This is the 21st century.
	God damn it.
	We can't just have white men doing that.
	So I don't think people vote from that standpoint unless no, but I think the main motive of people that vote is they vote for two main reasons.
	One is they vote from a place of what they are most fearful from.
	If you are fearful from a certain situation, you'll probably vote for the guy who is more louder and speaks more loud about the situation in your favor.
	And people vote out of fear, and people vote for someone who can inspire hope when they are feeling hopeless.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	That's how most tyrants came to power.
	That's how most political, even in Greece.
	Take a look at Greece right now.
	They voted for a very left-wing party, Marxist, openly Marxist.
	Marxist party that said that they would disconnect from the European Union.
	Just because they gave them hope, just because they are so fearful of the economic situation and they were inspired by what that party told them.
	And now it's starting to see that what they were promised is not exactly what they would get from that party.
	But so that's the main motives.
	Now, what are Americans fear the most right now?
	Probably an economic situation.
	I think they fear economics more than they relate to gender issues or equality issues or whatever.
	So I think the next election that should be in two years, maybe there will be some sort of, I don't know, economic crisis by then.
	Let's say that, for example, one year from now we'll be in economic crisis, a serious one.
	I think, hang on, I agree with you.
	I think that Americans are far more concerned with economics than they are gender politics.
	But I also think they don't understand gender politics.
	Most people don't, obviously.
	And so your average American won't either.
	But there is a lot of media that is focused on gender politics.
	A lot of it.
	I mean, just look at it.
	It is.
	It is.
	But that's not what will motivate people to vote for a standard.
	It's from candidate or another.
	What it really is, what we're really talking about is exposure to candidates.
	That's what it is.
	Because it's about how familiar people are with them.
	And if people, I mean, like with Ron Paul, he completely got cut out of debates and stuff like that.
	So the average person didn't really know who he was.
	And then just, you know, literally a tiny amount of media attention could paint him as a kook or something like that.
	And therefore, you know, the average person doesn't know anything about him really, and can, you know, all they know really is, oh, that media source called him a kook, so he's probably a kook.
	And they'll be saying really good things about Hillary Clinton because ultimately...
	You know what?
	I don't know if that matters.
	Take, for example, how Reagan was replaced by how Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1980.
	Jimmy Carter had a long period of bad economic crisis.
	That was a year before he was removed from office is the year that we had the worldwide energy crisis beginning.
	And people in America, I watched a documentary, people in America were completely in a bad place personally because of that crisis.
	And they voted in for Reagan, and suddenly there was this new hope.
	And America flourished from 1981 to 1985.
	You can see songs becoming more optimistic.
	It actually influenced the media in some way.
	No, no, I agree.
	I agree.
	But wasn't a part of Reagan's sort of success just effectively just helping Americans get out of the sort of depression left by the Vietnam War as well.
	Exactly.
	But the thing is, historically, Carter's administration was responsible for 95% of removing themselves from the war.
	And Reagan just came in and just, you know, claimed victory, exactly.
	And now, for example, if you have an economic crisis that will begin in a year from now, and in two years there would be elections, I would say that in that case, Hillary Clinton would probably be on an inferior position.
	Because you probably had the politicians that would go and explain how to fix the economy and what he would do.
	And he would probably be more convincing and give more hope to people.
	And he would have more chance of winning.
	I think that if all things were equal, that would be the case.
	But I think what's actually going to happen is that Hillary Clinton, being the corporate candidate, is going to get so much media support.
	And I really think you're downplaying the importance of the media.
	Honestly, I really do.
	I think Clinton is going to get so much media support that it will be just on.
	She'll get so much money spent on her.
	You know what happened in Israel in the last elections here, like two months ago?
	The polls showed that the Labour Party are going to win.
	The Labour Party were supposed to get 25 seats and the Likud Party was supposed to get 20 seats.
	What happened is that Likud Party received and they were like all the polls showed for a long period of time that Likud Party is going to get 20 seats.
	The Likud Party took 30 seats.
	Not 20, 30, and the Labour Party took 24.
	That happened because a lot of what happened here in Israel, there was a lot of attack, personal attack against Netanyahu in the media.
	And we had organized movements that attacked him personally on Facebook, on the news, everywhere.
	And that backlashed completely.
	And many people said they voted Netanyahu just because what they saw in the media.
	If the media would be extremely biased for Hillary Clinton and extremely biased against the Republican candidate, that might cause some backlash.
	And so if Hillary Clinton would be able to go on media and explain and convince people that she can take the United States out of an economic crisis, I don't think she is perceived in the public right now as one who is very experienced with economics or knows how to handle economics.
	I don't think that she personally does, but I think she's definitely in with a group of people and advisors and whatnot who do and who will be perceived as doing so.
	I really think that Israel is probably a different country and a different situation to America.
	A lot of people in the chat are making this point as well.
	And I think I agree with them.
	I really suspect.
	I'm not comparing.
	I'm just saying that once you attack someone personally, a lot of people will think it's too much and go the other way around.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Yeah, maybe.
	But the thing is, I think it's more characteristic of American politics and the way the American media works.
	And I really think that Hillary will just have such phenomenal financial backing.
	Someone in the chat was like, apparently, according to studies, men generally aren't swing voters.
	It's generally women who are swing voters.
	Men's political positions are usually quite fixed.
	And I could believe that being the case.
	And if you're going to get all the feminists and everyone saying, oh, Hillary's the woman's candidate and whatnot, I can see that being swinging in her favour.
	I really can.
	She'll talk shit.
	She'll tell everyone what they want to hear.
	It'll be bullshit.
	Because she's a politician.
	And yeah, honestly, I really, really think it'll be Hillary.
	Well, we'll probably do a hangout somewhere in two years and discuss it and listen to what we're saying right now and say, wow, we were so fucking dumb.
	But yeah, I don't think it's going to be Rand Paul at all, which is a shame because I'm sure he's probably the best man for the job.
	Maybe they will come up with different candidates for the Republican and the Democratic parties.
	We don't know what would happen in one year.
	Seriously, then.
	That's true.
	I think Hillary was supposed to be the candidate last time, but then Obama came from nowhere and just took over.
	I've never heard of Obama before.
	He ran for president for the first time.
	But I did hear about Hillary quite a lot before.
	Honestly, that's kind of.
	The thing is, Obama was a corporate man.
	And that's how you can tell.
	Because these fucking people get so much backing out of nowhere.
	You think, who the fuck are these people?
	And yet, you know, lo and behold, suddenly...
	And the thing is, Obama's very...
	Honestly, whoever masterminded that campaign, it was brilliant.
	Absolutely brilliant.
	I mean, he went out there and spoke like the constitutional scholar that he is, and then didn't do any of the shit that he claimed he was going to do.
	And it was just like, yeah, and now, are you going to criticize him?
	Well, you're a fucking racist.
	It's like, oh, my God.
	That is just masterful.
	And I think what they'll do is they'll try and do the same thing with Hillary Clinton.
	Oh, you're criticizing Hillary Clinton.
	You must be a misogynist.
	That's what I reckon they're going to do.
	I think people that would cause a backlash.
	If they'll go that way, that would cause a serious backlash and that will explode in their faces.
	That's what I think.
	Because 80% of people are not feminists.
	And if it would become very ugly, it would certainly get all the people who are not feminists crowded together against that.
	It's basically what happened in Gamergate.
	Yeah, no, no, I agree.
	I think the feminists have kind of outstayed their welcome with the general public now as well.
	So it's one of those things that I think it could backfire completely.
	But I think that the amount of money and the amount of reach that Clinton will get behind her is just going to be too big.
	I think it'll be too much.
	And she'll get it.
	I reckon.
	Okay.
	So we're willing to make a bet for, let's say, a dollar.
	Yeah, okay.
	I bet you a dollar that it's Clinton.
	Who do you bet it is?
	I bet it's not Clinton.
	No, no, choose someone.
	No, but I don't know the candidates.
	I need to know the candidates.
	I don't know if the name.
	That's fine.
	I'm confident enough that it will be Clinton.
	Okay, so someone wrote in the comment section up there, I'll run for the Democratic Party, you can run for the Conservative Party, and we'll just take over.
	Oh, no, sorry, I've just got to grab something.
	Someone said Clinton isn't going to play the feminist card any more than Obama played the race card during the primaries of the general election.
	Now, that is absolutely true.
	It's not Hillary playing the feminist card, it's feminists playing the Hillary card.
	That's what's going to happen.
	They will not stop fucking talking about her.
	They will go on about her constantly, blah, blah, blah.
	Hillary, first woman president, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	That's what they'll talk about constantly.
	Hillary won't need to mention it.
	That's true.
	I completely agree.
	And this reminds me when I talked to Janet Bloomfeld.
	She told me, what do you think?
	Do you hope for that feminists will be less extreme next year?
	And I said, no, I hope they'll be much more extreme than they are today and speak much more harshly because that's the way people would start to see through their bullshit.
	And if they'll go completely full Macintosh in the next elections and try to push it too hard, it will...
	And I hope they do.
	And that will explode in their face.
	I'm actually really encouraged by Gamergate because the social justice warriors doubled down on everything.
	And look how many of them have been fired.
	Look how many of them have been fired from their position.
	Everyone's like, oh, well, they keep wanting to talk about Brownabu and fucking Zoeko and all that.
	I don't care about them.
	Just look at the number of journalists who have been fired from their jobs.
	Educate me.
	I'm not.
	Jim Sterling, Bob Chipman, gone.
	It's just fucking, these are the big names who are causing issues.
	And they're fucking gone.
	And it's just like, and so it's, you know, there's been a lot of backlash.
	But the thing is, this in itself worries me because I'm worried that they're going to learn a lesson from this.
	Not that I really think they will, but they might.
	I don't think they will.
	People with an ideology, you know, it's a funny thing because after the election here, you know, the Labour Party lost, and you look in hindsight and you're telling yourself, okay, why did they lose?
	And I wrote a comment somewhere in Facebook and I said, you know, they lost because they're not a centralist party anymore.
	They used to be a centralist party back like two decades ago, three decades ago, maybe.
	But since then, they became much more and more left.
	And they think they are still viable replacement for the major as a major party, like a major party that can take over.
	And they're not.
	They're not.
	They're like, you know, they have maybe 20%, 30% of the population supporting them, tops.
	I mean, they're camp, not just, you know, it's like camps.
	We have the right camp and left camp.
	And 60-70% of Israelis are on the right camp.
	They actually are centralists.
	Most Israelis are centralists.
	But if they need to choose between the right camp and the extreme left camp that we have here, they go right.
	In 2003, L5, we had elections and we had the centralist party and they got all the votes.
	All the votes.
	They were like, you know, if Delhi could now 30 seats, they got like 42 seats, almost a majority.
	So after what happened, after they failed miserably in the last elections, you would think that they would, you know, look in retrospect and see where they went wrong.
	Yeah, and you know, I'm talking about the leaders of that party, you know, the number one, number two, number three.
	And I heard number two say something like, we need to go back to our ideology, which means become much more left, you know, become even more left.
	Because they like shifted for center just for the elections, just to be a little bit sound a little bit more centralist, just to gain some more votes.
	And they failed, and their conclusion was that they should go back to ideology.
	They're not ideological enough, sort of thing.
	And they still think they can do that and remain a party that could replace the current government, and they have no fucking idea what they are talking about.
	Well, I mean, someone in the chat pointed out a good point.
	The social justice warriors aren't really in it for their ideology.
	They're in it for themselves.
	And that's a good point.
	They're in it to get what they can get out of it.
	So it is a fair point that they probably won't learn.
	And I hope they don't.
	I really, really hope they don't.
	Because if they just carry on as they are now, they're going to just completely alienate everyone.
	It's going to be brilliant.
	Well, you would think that if they would be reasonable enough to understand what they went wrong, how they were wrong and how to fix it, they would be reasonable enough not to be social justice warriors.
	Well, that's the point.
	If they were reasonable, they probably wouldn't be SJWs.
	To the extent that they are, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I guess we're quite lucky in a lot of regards with that.
	Yeah, that's the thing, isn't it, actually?
	You want to think about it?
	They are just one-trick ponies.
	And they're propaganda.
	As soon as you see through it, then it becomes worthless.
	And the more, more and more, every day, more people fucking are getting sick of this bullshit.
	So I do think it'll eventually just become meaningless.
	And I think Milo Yiannopoulos said on Twitter the other day, he wants it to be like, so it said, oh, they're openly social justice and stuff like that.
	And this is like, yeah, I agree.
	I think that that would be the ideal way to go.
	Be like being openly fucking fascist.
	You know?
	Yeah.
	These people openly social justice.
	But we are scoring some success recently, at least on YouTube.
	I was able to have two people take down their videos after I made a response, and it happened to Tildir just the other day.
	If you've seen the last Tildir is very good, it's actually one of his best as far as I'm concerned.
	He explained equality and feminism so well in that video.
	Even though we've heard it a million times, it still did a phenomenal job on that one.
	He just responded to this girl making a video and she removed her video from YouTube as a result of his response because he made a very good response.
	And we just need to keep on doing more responses and have all that crap removed from the web.
	Actually, I made a video, my last video that I made responding.
	The girl who made that video removed her.
	They're choosing to remove the video themselves, right?
	Yeah, they do.
	Sometimes because they just don't want to have the backlash or comments or whatever.
	But, however, on my last video, the girl that made a video, I responded to her.
	She replied in my video, I removed it just a bit here because I don't agree with my video anymore.
	That's really cool.
	Yeah.
	That's the important thing, isn't it?
	It's changing minds is the important thing, really.
	It's all well and good to make people look foolish.
	And don't get wrong, it's quite fun a lot of the time.
	And I only regret the fact that she didn't leave that video and made a response video for herself saying that she doesn't think that's true anymore.
	She just left the subject altogether.
	But that would be the optimal situation, I think.
	Well, that's good to have an actual identifiable effect, isn't it?
	Exactly.
	I hate to kill this conversation, but it's Passover Eve.
	Oh, you've got Jewish things to do, haven't you?
	Yeah, I've got Jewish things to do.
	I need to drive to Jerusalem, fight traffic, and drive to Jerusalem right now.
	And I'll go and conspire with my fellow Zionists.
	On that note, actually, someone in the chat was asking, how do you feel about Zionism?
	Well, there is a lot of aspects to Zionism.
	There is atheist Zionism, which does not think that we belong here just because God said so, and think that's all bullcrap.
	And atheist Zionism is basically saying that Jews should have their own country and they should have their own agency and responsible for their own lives in their own place.
	And that's what I'm for.
	Basically, I'm thinking that we should have our country as a nation, not as a religion, because of all what happened in the past.
	And I don't think that the concept of having a Jewish state so tiny and so small, a little speck somewhere on the planet should really get people too butthurt about it.
	I understand how we have the problem with the territories and the Palestinians, but if that is solved, they have their own state in the territories.
	I don't see any problems that we'll have a national Jewish state here in Israel.
	And people don't like that.
	Many people don't like this concept because the word national has a very negative association to a lot of people.
	But I don't see a problem with that.
	I don't see a problem where you have countries that are nationally based.
	You have a certain nation that is the predominant group in that nation.
	They control it and they have, you know, they own it, basically.
	I don't see any problem with that.
	I don't think we should all mix everyone with everyone and think it will be dandy.
	I don't think it works.
	It's not practical in my eyes.
	No, I'm against religious Zionism.
	The ones that says that we should take over the territories because God gave us the land and stuff.
	I think it's counterproductive and stupid and impractical.
	And that's what I think.
	You know, when people are writing comments in Hebrew on my channel, people say, stop conspiring, you Zionists.
	And so we just enjoy it, just writing comments in Hebrew to just fuck people, fuck with people.
	Fair enough.
	Okay, well, there we go.
	Yeah.
	So that's Skepto's opinion on Zionism for people who are curious.
	Yeah.
	Okay, cool.
	Well, thanks for joining me, man.
	I've had fun just talking shit, really.
	Yeah, I too, I too.
	It was great.
	It's been too long.
	I think it's the second time we're doing a Hangout since our first Hangout.
	Yeah, yeah.
	A year and somewhat ago, more than a year ago.
	Yeah, man, I must have been a tiny channel back then.
	I think 5,000, 5,000 subscribers.
	You're a fucking monster right now.
	Oh, man.
	I don't even know where it's all coming from, man.
	I don't even know what's going on.
	I think it's the British accent.
	Probably.
	Probably.
	It's just fortune of circumstance, I'm sure.
	And a great avatar, I must say.
	You have a Jewish nose in your avatar because.
	He doesn't have a Jewish nose.
	It's semite.
	Sorghum is semite.
	He was a semite.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	His nose is perfectly reasonable.
	Look at it.
	It's perfectly Caucasian.
	No, no, no.
	Jesus Christ.
	Yeah, we're going to get Paul all worked up at this point.
	Yeah, I've seen a few people in the chat.
	So just before we go, I'm just going to share my screen so people can see how I've been working in the background.
	I'm sure everyone can see this, but this is the level I've been working on in the background.
	So basically, I've been kind of painting terrain and arranging things.
	So I've got a nice little suburban sort of map to run around killing zombies on.
	Looks great.
	I don't know what you're complaining about.
	I like old-style graphics, by the way.
	I like 16-bit, 8-bit games.
	I don't care.
	I'm not too fussy about graphics either, but the thing is, it's got to look reasonable.
	We've only just really started getting it looking fairly reasonable.
	I'm content with Day of the Tentacle graphics.
	I haven't played that in years.
	Christ.
	It's quite boring.
	I tried to play it like a year ago.
	Yeah, and they just keep on.
	You're not playing so much.
	It's like more you watching a story and they talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk.
	And then you need to do something and then they talk and talk and talk.
	It never ends.
	So I kinda quit in the middle of it.
	Even though I finished it when I was a teenager.
	I always get disappointed with games that don't stand up over time because one of my favorite games is UFO, Enemy Unknown.
	And my goodness, it still stands up.
	I got it on Steam a while ago, and it's still a fucking great game.
	Unbelievably good, actually.
	I haven't played that one.
	I don't know.
	It's like three pounds or something on Steam.
	You should definitely grab it.
	Okay, maybe I will.
	Yeah, no, you should.
	It's a really good turn-based strategy.
	But anyway, I'll let you go, and thanks for joining me, and thanks, everyone, for watching.
	Thank you, everyone.

▲