Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - A Conversation with Secular Talk

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

03:08:11

A Conversation with Secular Talk

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everyone.
	I am talking to Kyle from Secular Talk.
	All the relevant links are in the description if you want to check out his channel and follow him on Twitter.
	And we're going to be discussing news, current events, and just shooting this shit, I guess.
	How's it going, man?
	It's going good, man.
	It's going great.
	How's everything with you?
	Yeah, really well.
	I have second stream in a day, so, and it's gone midnight now, or just coming up.
	So it's a busy day, man.
	We were talking about it right before we came on air here, but it was Gad Sod earlier today, right?
	Yeah, the guy was awesome.
	Really?
	Yeah, I'm going to, I'm kind of upset.
	I have to follow him.
	I feel pressure now.
	I'm going to do another stream with him in the near future because he's doing some research that should be particularly interesting to people who are possibly less convinced with the pure social constructivism argument.
	The pure social constructivism argument.
	Okay, so we already stumbled upon the first issue where I'll look like an idiot.
	Build that up for me.
	What exactly are we referring to here?
	Essentially, what we're referring to is the extremely far-left radical feminists who think that everything about human beings is a social construct.
	Yeah.
	See, okay, first of all, that's a super interesting topic already because so I did a segment recently where I had to talk some study on gender issues.
	And it's like, this is one of the main issues where I feel like my position pleases nobody because like when it comes to so what we're talking about here really is kind of nature versus nurture, right?
	Like how much of what gender roles are is really kind of just based on biology and who we are and how much of it is like a social construct and it's like all your culture and your environment and you're just raised to do X so you do X.
	And I think that I know it's a it's hard to speak so broadly about it, but I think broadly speaking, it's a really mixed issue.
	Like I think there are many things that really are just biological and just the hard genetic differences or whatever you want to call it.
	And there are some things that are really really are like cultural.
	Like just to give you one example here, I remember I did a story a while back which spoke about how like certain things that we would have guessed probably weren't culturally related, but they are.
	Like did you know that pink used to be the boy color, blue used to be the girl color?
	I didn't know.
	I didn't know.
	Yeah, now I'm the kind of idiot where like until I read that, I thought like, no, I genuinely thought like, wait, I thought maybe there would have been something in nature that would explain that.
	Like for whatever reason, women like think more and guys like blue more, but it turns out that's total social construction.
	High heels.
	I never knew that high heels were originally a male thing.
	And it started when I think it was Persian soldiers would ride their horses and they used their heels to stabilize themselves when they were archers, when they would shoot arrows.
	And then British men saw that and they thought it epitomized masculinity because they saw these Persian archers wearing them.
	So they started wearing them.
	And then eventually obviously that switched, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, and then that switched and then that switched to represent the feminine at some point.
	It became feminine at some point.
	So I think overall it's a really mixed issue.
	But yeah, I think the people who are kind of hard line on either side of that argument, I think they're both kind of silly.
	So the people who would say it's all nature, they're probably just all right-wing douchebags who were idiots.
	And the people who would say it's all nurture are probably left-wing assholes who kind of want to ignore some aspects of biology which are kind of undeniable.
	Absolutely.
	There's a very interesting documentary on that's going around YouTube.
	I don't think it's like, I mean, it is a proper documentary, but it's one of those ones where I think the people who made it were clearly okay with it being put on YouTube for whatever reasons.
	And it's called the gender equality paradox or something, or the Norwegian gender equality paradox, where basically Norway is, I think it's probably the, I think it was like the most equal or the second most equal country in the world, you know, for gender equality.
	And yet there's still the massive problem of they can't seem to get women to go into engineering fields and construction fields.
	No matter what they do, they just can't get a significant percentage of those jobs filled by women.
	And so effectively, you know, it kind of really undermines the everything's a social construct argument because, you know, if they say, okay, well, everything's a social construct, so let's encourage women to go into these fields and they just don't, it kind of makes it look like it's actually a biological imperative.
	Well, that gets kind of to the to the idea of like quotas or like mandatory, well, there needs to be 50-50.
	It needs to be representative of X amount of this minority group and this minority group.
	And I mean, it's almost like that's kind of inherently like anti-freedom.
	Like, I get the idea that you want to make sure that you don't have a really hard line anti-woman system or anti-minority system.
	Like, we could all conceive of like an apartheid state or something like that.
	Of course.
	Or, of course, or like a state that's truly patriarchal, right?
	But to have, to go to the opposite extreme, which is, you know, like quotas, like hard line, you need X amount.
	And if you don't reach it, you know, there's punishment.
	That's also too extreme, you know?
	Like, yeah.
	But I'm sorry, go ahead.
	Oh, no, I keep, I've been interrupting people today.
	No, you carry on.
	Sorry.
	No, I totally lost my thought anyway.
	So I totally agree.
	It's like there is clearly going to be some kind of middle ground where the truth is more likely to fall in this issue.
	There are going to be some things that are very much inspired by biology, and there are going to be some things like pink and blue.
	They're probably quite arbitrary and social, you know.
	So yeah, so basically he's doing research in certain areas to show that, well, frankly, we are human beings, we're biological creatures, we've had thousands of years of evolution, and this has had an effect on our psychology, as realistically you'd expect.
	And he's not a biological determinist.
	He's not saying that it will, if you know, there's no choice.
	He's saying this is kind of the initial impetus that people either choose to follow through with or not.
	He's not saying that they can't make a choice.
	But the thing is, to the sort of extreme radicals in academia that he has to deal with quite regularly, whose entire careers are built on the idea that everything is a social construct.
	Being heterosexual is a social construct.
	Honestly, I've seen them make that argument.
	Literally to that sort of extreme, absurd degree.
	He is an anathema.
	They hate him.
	And I can understand why, because he's actually doing the research that shows that they are talking of their asses.
	Well, it's always sort of a problem when you have people who would cling to a philosophy or an ideology above the evidence.
	Like they put that before the evidence.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, I need to find things that fit this thing I already believe.
	That's a huge problem.
	The way it's supposed to work is you got to kind of let the evidence pile up on itself and whatever direction it points in, it is what it is.
	And like you were saying, it's not like, I mean, it would be ridiculous if anybody would call for a ban on women in engineering or anything like that.
	But I think that's the point that nobody is.
	They're just saying that, you know, it might be the case that there's a slightly lesser number in the field, and that's fine.
	And it's not like that's not made up for in other areas.
	It's not like there aren't other areas where, you know, women would be better at something.
	Like when it comes to it, it's interesting.
	Like, if you talk about physical strength, everybody knows and everybody admits.
	So, yeah, of course, men are more physically strong.
	That's just a biological fact.
	There's more testosterone, more muscle mass, et cetera.
	It's not like, you know, that's not made up for in other areas.
	It's not like we're talking about something purely inferior versus purely superior.
	That would be ridiculous.
	But this is the point, though, isn't it?
	It's always for some reason couched in the sort of language of competition, as if there's a competition going on between men and women.
	I mean, women overwhelmingly go into nursing, and it's really, really hard to get guys to go into nursing.
	I mean, to be honest with you, it's probably that there's a giant social stigma attached to male nurses.
	Yeah, that could be a part of it, sure.
	You know, undoubtedly, I think that's a part of it.
	But I also think that a large part of it is that I suspect that women naturally enjoy doing that sort of job, whereas men naturally enjoy doing construction.
	And these are generalizations, obviously.
	You know, not every man enjoys it.
	Not every woman enjoys it.
	But if you just look at the numbers, it's always like, you know, 90 plus percent either way in each field.
	And so no matter what they do, and even with, you know, like quotas, they just can't fill them.
	And it's just, you know, all you can do at the end of the day is kind of shrug and go, well, I guess people are just like that.
	So would you say you fall like somewhere when it comes to gender issues?
	Are you somewhere on that spectrum as well?
	It's mixed between nature and nurture, how it really, really is issue specific.
	Like if you were to ask me, hey, is this more nurture or nature for X?
	Like you have to tell me what X is before I answer.
	You know what I mean?
	Like I can't.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	I'm not a determinist either.
	I think that even if even, I mean, I suspect that gender roles are informed by biological sex.
	I don't think there's no connection between gender roles and biological sex because gender roles are by and large quite similar the world over.
	It's always the man who's the provider.
	It's always the woman who's the nurturer.
	And the things I'm also kind of like the libertarian sort of guy.
	So I don't want to tell people, no, you have to do this or anything like this.
	See, that's where it's an issue.
	It only becomes an issue, in my opinion, when people take that next step and say that part, where they're like, because when I observe the world, it's more like this, where men are the provider and women aren't, therefore it needs to be, like, therefore it is correct, therefore it is proper.
	That's when it becomes an issue because it's like, well, no, you just made a leap there.
	You just described, it's the old is-ought problem.
	You know, like you just described what is.
	That doesn't mean it's what it ought to be.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	It's the nature fallacy.
	Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right.
	I mean, you know, and that, I mean, you get like feminists like Camille Palier, who you watch her talk and you watch the way she carries herself.
	There is no way she needs a man as a provider.
	But then she, you know, if you ask that, she knows that she's not like your average woman who ends up, you know, getting married and having kids and, you know, a more sort of traditional woman, you know.
	So, but like I said, I do agree.
	You know, when we, I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything really when it comes to like their own personal life and how they have their personal interactions with other people.
	I don't see how it's anyone else's business, really.
	And I think you probably agree with me, right, that like I think removing social stigmas is definitely a positive thing by and large for men and women.
	You know, like the idea that men should be shamed for whatever reason if they go into the field of nursing, or that women should be shamed if they take on the role of what would in the past have been referred to as traditionally a male thing, like being a provider or being a businesswoman or something like that.
	When it comes to employment, yeah, there's no reason that you should do that, really.
	At least I can't really think of a good one.
	Yeah, I think your libertarian impulse there is correct if the idea is like, well, there might be some natural inequalities in terms of the statistics and the numbers, but live and let live, let everybody do whatever the fuck they want to do.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, I always, my problem with a lot of this sort of thing is I always want to just say to people, where the hell do you get off telling other people how to live?
	You know, what makes you think you have that right, even if you're just being a busybody on the internet and you're just tweeting them or something, you know?
	Right.
	Yeah, I think this gets to an area where you and I might actually part overall, because I think there's more of that authoritarian impulse in the right than there is in the left.
	I mean, I would certainly agree with you that there are few, we can go online and you could point to a trillion third-wave feminists who are super extreme and they'll say ridiculous things and we'll all eye roll together.
	But I think, in my opinion, broadly speaking, the right wing kind of is more in that authoritarian crowd, and their authoritarianism scares me much more.
	Like, I think the kind of authoritarianism on the left is almost an understandable backlash from decades or generations of being put down, if you will.
	Like, I always said black pride is much more understandable than white pride because it's like a backlash against the white pride.
	You know what I mean?
	So I see that, especially with religious movements, like conservative religious movements, like that's like the heart of authoritarianism to me, whether it's fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist Christians and or just I think an ultra right-wing ideology in and of itself is kind of a version of fundamentalism like neoconservatism in the U.S. Like that's to me that's like fundamentalism in a way.
	Oh, Reiki.
	Okay, this is very interesting.
	I think that a very far-right government in America, at least, I mean, I think we can see from Bush, I think it's scarier for other countries.
	Internally, too.
	You wouldn't think it's scarier externally?
	No, no, that's true.
	I mean, he was the one who set up the NSA and the Patriot Act, wasn't he?
	That's right.
	It's not like, yeah.
	I mean, I think overall, the things Obama's been hardly any different.
	Well, I mean, yes and no.
	I mean, I think that whenever you go through, go over the policies with a fine-tooth comb, what you find is that, in my opinion, I think the Democrats are significantly better.
	But the problem is the bar is so fucking low to begin with that it's like, you know, the significantly better of a Democrat is still only 15% of what I want and what I would do to create a better society.
	Yeah, no, definitely on the same page.
	And yeah, I think that the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left are both just as scary as each other.
	I mean, if you, I mean, you know, we can look through history and look at authoritarian left governments, and by God, they're scary.
	Would you agree with me, though, that it actually becomes, like, I hear you, and I actually agree with you, but would you agree with me?
	It becomes a little bit, it's almost like a murky conversation to begin with, because if you look at, for example, like the Soviet Union, like, it's almost like, okay, they could say they're left-wing, but I mean, they are authoritarian, and isn't authoritarian almost by definition right-wing?
	Because it's now, I think this is the issue that I had when I was talking to Aiden Baldwin.
	When he said that George Bush was liberal, because in his mind, only liberals expand government, and they're authoritarian in his mind.
	And I think you've got the kind of impression there that only right-wingers are authoritarian.
	And I think you're probably thinking of George Bush and the neocons, right?
	And I know people could listen to this and say, Kyle is using the no true Scotsman fallacy.
	But it's almost like, here's my issue with that.
	I feel like the no-true Scotsman fallacy is only the case if you're talking about something that has an amorphous definition.
	And when you look at political ideologies, I feel like it's much less amorphous than a religion.
	A religion I feel like is genuinely amorphous because you can find good things or bad things in religious texts.
	But if you look at the principles laid out in whatever it is, social democracy versus communism versus fascism or whatever.
	If you don't meet those principles and you don't believe in those policies, then aren't you just not that thing?
	You know what I mean?
	So if somebody's basically restricting freedom of speech and arresting people and throwing them in a fucking gulag and doing all that stuff, isn't that all right-wing by definition?
	And I'm asking a question.
	I'm not posing that.
	No, no, no.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	The thing is, this is something I actually had to clarify for myself the other day as well.
	So believe me, it's not stupid or anything like that, or at least I don't think.
	What I think you're confusing there is the definition is authoritarian and libertarian with the sort of left and right-wing.
	So basically up or down versus left or right?
	Because it's about social freedom that you're talking about.
	So the libertarians, whether they're left or right, agree that they shouldn't dictate to others how they should live.
	Whereas the authoritarians obviously completely disagree.
	So Stalin would very much agree with, say, George Bush on how much influence he, the ruler, should have over the population.
	Whereas George Bush was never going to institute communism in America.
	Stalin was never going to open up a free market.
	So it's the left-right paradigm that they would split on that case.
	But when talking about how much influence the government should have, they would probably be very much on the same page.
	So it's you absolutely can have very authoritarian left-wing governments, and you can have very libertarian right-wing governments, and vice versa.
	Yeah, I think you're right.
	But it depends how you would look at the political spectrum.
	If you use the linear political spectrum, then I would say I'm right.
	But if you're using the more advanced graph political spectrum, then I think you're right.
	Exactly, because in that situation, like you said, up is authoritarian, down is libertarian, and then you have liberal and conservative left and right.
	If you use that political spectrum, then I think you're 100% right.
	But if you think of it more as a linear thing, then I do think that my argument becomes more tenable insofar as you could say, okay, somebody could be liberal, somebody could be left-wing, but on issues X, Y, and Z, they are doing right-wing actions insofar as authoritarianism is defined as right-wing.
	You see what I mean?
	But I hear you, and I think you're right.
	If you can graph spectrum.
	I see what you mean.
	I think that there probably was a point in time where that was true.
	But I think the political landscape has changed enough to necessitate a more advanced political compass.
	Would you agree with me, though, that it's also not like, I don't want to give them the fault, the misimpression here that there's like a false equivalence in the sense that, well, I guess you already disagreed with this.
	Like, I don't think the left and the right are like the most extreme elements of the left and the most extreme elements of the right are equal in absurdity or equal in numbers.
	I think on the right, it's much more vast.
	Well, that's an interesting question.
	I guess equal in absurdity is a bit subjective because obviously each individual will find something absurd that someone else doesn't find absurd.
	But I mean, personally, from my subjective view, I find them equally absurd.
	I've heard some absolute nonsense.
	So equally absurd, you're saying equally absurd in the sense of substance, that you think you've heard equally stupid things on both sides.
	And that may be true, and I may agree with you on that.
	But in terms of numbers, would you say that the number of crazy liberals is equal to the number of crazy conservatives?
	Because on that front, I say definitely not.
	I say I think the crazy liberals are a much smaller percentage and the crazier conservatives almost get to the point where they're the fucking majority, especially in my country.
	Yeah, now, okay, speaking specifically about America, then, a country I don't live in, so I really shouldn't be talking about, but I think I spend enough time reading American media and talking to Americans to let me, let me, let me lay.
	This is what I think right, I remember reading somewhere that most voters are not committed.
	You've got, I think it was someone like just below 30 or 30 percent that were Republican, 30 that were Democrat, and they, they always voted these sides consistently, and then you had about 40 that were swing voters, and about a month before the election is when they effectively decided, when they were, who they were going to vote for.
	And I think that the Republicans probably, I think that it's probably a case of the the right wing seems to have lost the culture war in America.
	They, they don't seem to have any good arguments in the public stage on social issues.
	Yeah, on social issues, very much right um, and they the the and, but not not only that kind of.
	On foreign policy as well.
	I mean George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
	I mean, what had that got to do with anything?
	Oh well, Saddam was gonna start trading OPEC oil in Euros or something.
	Well, there we go.
	You know, it's not, it's nothing to do Bin Laden, isn't?
	It's?
	No, of course actually, to be fair on that point, I think there are a fairly there's a decent number of non-interventionists on the right who are like populists.
	But but you're right in that the, the Republican establishment, is totally pro-war and it's crazy.
	And there is a bigger element of people who are pro-war on the right that I agree that there undoubtedly are, and but the thing is in the public dialogue and the sort of the you know in, in the, in the bars and stuff I in, and the, the sort of um, the vox populi that you see floating around the internet, Internet on social media and stuff.
	And this is, again, just my subjective impression, but it seems that in general, the arguments that come from the right to justify that have become very poor and very debunked.
	Whereas the arguments from the left are, at the moment, they stand.
	And it's not necessarily because they're good arguments.
	It's more because I think the people on the right are kind of in denial about why they've lost the public dialogue.
	And so you've got like Hillary Clinton, the worst possible presidential candidate I could pick from the left is Hillary Clinton.
	It's absurd.
	She's the most corporatist bullshit.
	That's right.
	Exactly.
	And yet she's going to get the feminist vote.
	She's going to get like thousands and thousands and thousands of people just because she was born a woman.
	And it's crazy.
	And it's going to be promoted.
	And she's suddenly she's all pro-gay.
	And it's like, yeah, except for the time she was anti-gay.
	She's just a politician.
	But the thing is, the arguments from the left, how can you be against love wins?
	You can't be against that.
	The propaganda is much better on the left.
	They've had a lot of time preparing for it because the right has always had the propaganda of fear.
	The neocons were all about fear.
	The terrorists are going to get you 9-11, 9-11, 9-11.
	That wears off.
	Whereas, undoubtedly, the propaganda of the left is going to wear off as well eventually.
	But at the moment, it's quite strong and it's quite persuasive.
	And nobody wants to be against it.
	There's a lot of social pressure not to be against it.
	And you see on social media all the time, people getting pilloried for being against the Christian bakeries who are like, look, we just don't want to, we don't want to print a gay marriage cake or something.
	And they're getting sued for $135,000.
	It's like, wow.
	Why shouldn't they be allowed to say, look, we just don't want to take that thing?
	It doesn't matter why they don't do it.
	No, see, that's interesting because I actually disagree with you on that.
	I think, yes, I think that there should be laws on arbitrary discrimination.
	So in America, we already have what's called protected classes because there's like a history of discrimination against African Americans, for example, and against certain religious groups.
	So they're part of what's called a protected class.
	And there are non-discrimination clauses which say you can't deny service solely based on X.
	And then I think it makes perfect sense.
	Now, we could argue over what kind of a punishment it should be.
	And I might agree with you.
	135,000 is too hefty and that's a little absurd.
	But in terms of should it be against the law to deny somebody based on their sexual orientation?
	Yeah, I think that's just as ridiculous as saying as somebody who comes into your store and they have red hair, get the fuck out because you have red hair.
	Well, it's not really something I'm necessarily on either side of, really.
	But it's the point, isn't it?
	This is the point.
	This is very much not the right-wing way.
	It's very left way.
	And it dominates the discourse.
	I think the left being good at messaging in America is a fairly recent phenomenon.
	I do.
	Because historically, go back to the Bush years.
	Early on in the Bush years, he got whatever the fuck he wanted.
	And he got whatever he wanted by being loud and aggressive.
	And what the Republicans have always done well is hammered home their message and doubled down and won based like only off of sheer force of will.
	And I think what you see from a lot of grassroots people on the left now is that.
	Unfortunately, I think the politicians are still too pro-corporatist and too, you know, just classic politicians.
	But I think the grassroots left has finally learned that, like, I mean, one of the things I think that's more inherent in liberal people is like this idea of you're more open to nuance, you're more open to other points of view, you'll hear people out, you'll have a conversation.
	And that almost by its nature is counterproductive in a political system because how are you going to get your fucking message out if you're questioning everything all the time?
	And if you're a philosophical thinker or something like that.
	So it's almost like built into being a liberal is this disadvantage when it comes to messaging and when it comes to marketing.
	But what you're finding is that some issues, like the ones you name, like gay rights, for example, it's almost like people are just so fucking fed up with the horse shit that they're finding like, okay, no, now we're going to make a fucking argument and you're going to listen and we're right and we're going to win.
	Well, I don't think you're wrong.
	But I would interpret it in a slightly different way.
	Now, I personally am in favor of gay rights and gays getting married.
	It's frankly just not an issue that affects me.
	So I'm happy to, you know, and I don't think it affects anyone else to any significant degree.
	The arguments against it seem to be about religion, as far as I can tell.
	So I'm not, I'm not as an atheist.
	I'm just like, well, that's not a good reason.
	That's not a good reason.
	So I'm very much on the side of that.
	But the left has made it a toxic environment to be against it.
	But don't you think in the grander scheme of things, it's actually good?
	Like, for example, being against interracial marriage now, if you're against interracial marriage, you're immediately labeled an idiot.
	And I think that makes perfect sense.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	But the thing is, that makes us bigots.
	No, I disagree, and I'll tell you why.
	You know what a pro-gay bigot would be?
	It would be somebody who says, not only do I want to have gay marriage, I want to ban straight marriage.
	I only want there to be gay marriage.
	That's a bigoted position.
	For liberals to be aggressive in their push for equality is just that.
	You're just being aggressive in your push for equality.
	The thing is, that's actually not strictly true, though.
	I mean, the definition of a bigot, if you get to the dictionary, is a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
	That's it.
	The word bigot, I think, has been overused a lot, but technically, we are bigots if we don't think they should be able to hold the opinion that gay marriage.
	I mean, to me, that's like saying, well, if you say two plus two equals four and you say it aggressively and you're unwavering on that position, you're a bigot when it comes to mathematics.
	Well, okay, then I'm a bigot when it comes to mathematics, but it's mathematics.
	We have an answer.
	We know what it is, and we shouldn't abandon it.
	But that's not an opinion, though.
	Well, that's not an opinion.
	But in terms of gay marriage, is it preferable to not having gay marriage?
	Well, insofar as you believe in equality and you believe in logic, then yeah, I think it's fairly clear, socially speaking, there is a right and wrong answer in terms of setting up a better society which fosters happiness for more people.
	But that's only because you don't believe that you're going to go to hell because God will curse you if you that's right.
	That's right.
	And I would argue that those people are incorrect and they have not met their burden of proof in saying my religious ideology is true.
	I agree.
	And that's why, and the general public agrees, and that's why it's become the law.
	But that doesn't mean that these people don't believe that.
	They still believe that.
	No, I know they believe that.
	Of course they do.
	And I think, but I think where we part a little bit is not only do I think it's okay to shame them, I think it's good.
	I think they should be shamed.
	I think just like people were shamed out of their interracial marriage opposition.
	And now if you say that, you're just immediately branded like, look at this fucking idiot.
	I think that makes perfect sense to do it with gay marriage.
	Certain things in society, in my opinion, are things that are just, like, if you're still debating them, you're just intellectually on a lower level compared to other people.
	And if you're still having that conversation about, I don't think we should let these AN words get married, well, you're a fucking child, and it's better that you either get with the program or kind of stay out of the political system.
	You know what I mean?
	And I don't think it's that's politically incorrect to say, but I think it's true.
	No, no, no, no.
	I'm not in disagreement with you at all.
	I completely agree that it's a ludicrous position, but the thing is, say 20 or 30 years ago, when sort of Hillary Clinton and Obama were on the side of anti-gay marriage, marriage being man and woman, that's exactly the same position you got from the right.
	So that doesn't make you any different to them.
	It's just the opinion you hold.
	But it's who can do the shaming is what's important.
	That's the thing.
	You being on the left, the left wing can do the shaming.
	That shows you who is in control of the dialogue in the public.
	The right can't shame you for wanting gays.
	Everyone in the public domain, if you look at Twitter, all of the millions of people who have the little rainbow flag icons and stuff, the public domain is owned by the left.
	The right are fully on the retreat.
	You guys won.
	So to say, oh, they've got much bigger numbers.
	It doesn't.
	I don't think it's true.
	And if it was.
	No, you're right.
	You're right.
	On the issue of gay.
	I hope I never said because it would be untrue.
	On the issue of gay marriage, no, you're right.
	The polls in America are clear.
	It's 61% now that are in favor of gay marriage.
	So on that one, no, it was a victory.
	And I think it was a victory because on some issues, specifically some social issues, the left said at a certain point, the grassroots left, the populace left, they were like, okay, we're going to win on this one.
	We're going to fight for this one.
	And also, money helps as well.
	And it got to the point in America where people who were pro-gay, the lobby that was pro-gay in America, had more money than the evangelical right-wing on that issue.
	So I think that's a big part of it as well, insofar as getting politicians to support it.
	Because in America, you don't get politicians to do dick unless you got some money backing up your position.
	Yeah, or, but I do think that it was a massively popular thing from a social perspective.
	The average person.
	It became that, though, is my point.
	It's not like it wasn't.
	If you look at the polls going back to 2008, 2007, it was the opposite.
	It was like, whatever it was, like 55% against gay marriage.
	Now, it's 60% in favor.
	But I think that's a victory in favor of the thing that I was talking about before, which is I like the idea of people with good ideas marrying those good ideas with that double-down, unapologetic, take-no-bullshit attitude that, in my opinion, was more prevalent on the right with neoconservatives.
	And it's almost like people on the right, going back, they were not afraid to just say what they believed.
	And then if you question them on it, they would just really have that mindset of like, fuck off.
	And I like marrying good ideas with that mentality because I think you get stuff done like that more often.
	You know what I mean?
	But it does become an issue.
	I agree with you that it becomes an issue when you have people who are idiots that think they're on the right side, but they're not and they're not deep thinkers.
	And they try to come up with their own, like shaming people who, like we were talking about before, who would say that there are some aspects of gender roles that are based on nature, based on biology.
	To shame somebody who says, I think it's nuanced, I think it's mixed.
	And like, oh, you're against us because you say it's not 100% social construct.
	That's where shaming gets tricky because the people who are shaming, in essence, are no different than the people on the right who used to shame on issues when they were wrong.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah, that's kind of my point.
	But the issue that I was really trying to address was you were saying that you were more worried about the right-wing authoritarians because they're scarier and they seem to have more numbers.
	They have more political power in the U.S. in terms of the establishment, the government, and the lobbyists and things like that.
	I think they did.
	No, they still do.
	In terms of economic policy, so we've been talking about social policy.
	If you want to talk about economic policy, it is nothing but right-wing in the U.S. There's not a single left-wing issue where the left has more political power in the establishment economically than the right.
	What's that?
	What about Obamacare?
	Wasn't that a question?
	Okay, so let me break this down because it gets pretty complicated.
	So Obamacare, the heart of the system is what's called the individual mandate, which is you force people to go to the private market and purchase health insurance.
	And that idea was first created.
	Richard Nixon proposed a version of it, the Republican president.
	And then much later on in the 1990s, early 1990s, you had the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks that wrote policy papers about how their policy and their preference economically was this individual mandate system.
	And over time, so that was their counter to a single-payer system, which is what the liberals are supposed to prefer.
	Then over time, what happened is the political spectrum in America shifted to the right on economic issues specifically.
	And as a result of that, now you have the Democrats were the ones who were arguing for an individual mandate system.
	And you had the Republican position was, let's do absolutely nothing, leave it exactly as it is.
	And you know how disastrous the American healthcare system is if you do nothing.
	I mean, we had 45,000 people dying every year because they didn't have access to basic health care.
	I mean, our system was a fucking international scandal.
	It was an embarrassment.
	Absolutely.
	So the right-wing position was, leave it like it is.
	And the left-wing position became what the right-wing position used to be.
	So to say that, like, oh, the left won on healthcare reform, not really.
	The establishment Democrats won on health care reform, and the establishment Democrats are what used to be called a Republican.
	So there is no real left on economic issues in America.
	Unions used to have political power in America.
	Now they don't, because from the early 1980s and onward, our Supreme Court basically ruled that money equals free speech.
	And then as a result of that, all the corporations, all the lobbyists rushed in, bought all the politicians, and the politicians only represent the corporations and the lobbyists and the rich.
	Everybody else gets fucked over.
	So in terms of institutional left-wing economic power in America, there really is none of it.
	I mean, we have our social safety net system is a piece of shit, and the debate we're having now is about cutting it.
	We're behind every other modern nation in terms of a social safety net, and they want to cut it.
	That's the debate they're having.
	So there's no left in America.
	We've just elected the right-wing party in Britain, and we're having very similar sorts of issues.
	They're very much interested in cutting wherever they can, which includes our National Health Service, which I'm not sure.
	And that's a problem.
	Yeah, I'm not impressed with that.
	That's an interesting thing that you say, because that makes me think that your economy is rather controlled by the corporate interest then.
	Oh, 100%.
	And the thing is, to get slightly conspiratorial, I guess you could say.
	Hey, go for it.
	I almost feel like the left continues to win on social issues because it's almost like the public is getting thrown a bone of like, okay, boy, go sit in the corner now and shut the fuck up because we're still robbing you blind economically.
	You know what I mean?
	Honestly, I think it's exactly what it is.
	I think that big corporations, big money, big business, the people who are...
	Let's be honest with ourselves.
	George Bush did not mastermind his own campaign.
	Well, of course.
	Carl Rohm said, I can make him president.
	That's what Carl Rohue said.
	Not, hey, that guy should be president.
	He said, I can make him president.
	But the point is, I do think that your presidents are figureheads.
	I mean, Obama comes out of the White House, he gives a speech, and then he fucks off and plays golf, you know.
	What was the – I can't remember the event off the top of my head, but it was some shooting or beheading or something like that.
	Something tragic has happened, and you think, well, shit, I would have at least stayed in the White House and made it look like I was busy.
	But no, he fucks off and plays golf with business buddies.
	Your presidents, I do think they're figureheads for the money, the powers behind the throne.
	And I do think that the social issues are encouraged a lot more because the economic issues are, like you said, you're being robbed blind behind.
	Exactly.
	100%.
	Absolutely.
	And this honestly, I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to describe the United States as a corporatocracy.
	Oh, I go further.
	I say oligarchy.
	I say kleptocracy.
	I really think it's very, very, very similar, believe it or not, to Russia.
	I remember I was watching some PBS documentary and they said something super fucking interesting.
	I don't remember the exact numbers, so forgive me for not knowing them, but they mentioned how, like, oh, Russia is an oligarchy, and the richest 99 people have X percent of the income in their economy.
	And then I'm like, wait a second, because doing what I do, I know some numbers in America.
	I'm like, hey, wait, I think ours is worse.
	And I looked it up and I was like, oh, my God, it is.
	Your Senate has got a higher re-election rate than the politicians of the Soviet Union.
	That's right.
	And that's directly because of money and politics.
	Because if you raise more money, you can run more ads, you can get your name out there more.
	The media takes you more seriously.
	People don't know the ins and outs and they don't realize this stuff.
	So they just vote for the names they see.
	And it always happens to be the people who were most bought off by the lobbyists and are least likely to do the things that are in your favor.
	And by the way, like, this is not, people might be listening to you and I now, and they think, oh, they're just giving opinion.
	No, no, it's not opinion.
	There was a Princeton study from about a year ago now, which found that there is a zero correlation between what the American people want and the policies we get.
	So, which is incredible.
	Think about it.
	It's not even like, hey, there's 12% of a connection or 52% of the time, which would still be a disaster.
	Only half the time you get what you want and what's supposed to be a representative democracy.
	That would be amazing.
	That would be incredible at this point.
	Oh, I know.
	I'd come on myself.
	Exactly.
	But this is exactly my point.
	And the social issues become magnified.
	It's like Noam Chomsky said.
	The political establishment allows a very lively spectrum, a very lively debate within a very narrow spectrum.
	So right.
	And I never heard Chomsky say that, but the way you framed it was perfect.
	That's so true.
	But once you step outside of what's called, that's the Overton window, as it's called.
	Once you step outside of that, then it's like you're just immediately dismissed.
	And I can't take that guy seriously.
	Exactly.
	Oh, this is going to sound conspiratorial.
	There's nothing conspiratorial about the politicians being effectively corporate frontmen.
	That's not conspiratorial.
	That's a fact.
	It's a fact in your country.
	It's a fact in my country.
	It's a fact in pretty much every fucking Western country.
	And yet we're afraid of being looked at like we're wearing tinfoil fucking hats.
	It's a fucking travesty that we are in the position we're in now.
	And it's the same across the Western world.
	And so basically what I was really trying to say is that I don't think you need to necessarily worry about the right because I think when it comes to social issues, the left have won and they've won hard.
	Oh, right.
	For sure.
	No, I agree with you.
	Fully on the retreat.
	And like you say, when it comes to economic policy, there really isn't a left right.
	There's just the corporate agenda.
	And I get a lot of people asking me to talk about the TPP and the TPIP.
	And I've actually, just so anyone listening, I've got a lot planned, but it's going to take me some time to put it together.
	But basically, I haven't done a huge amount of research at this point.
	But honestly, from what I've seen and heard, they look like they're going to be a modern-day Treaty of Westphalia for corporations.
	And holy shit, is that scary?
	Yeah, no.
	They're disconnected and they don't get it.
	When was the last time some fucking elite person went to fucking Detroit in the middle of the ghetto and saw what the fuck it's like now?
	They don't understand what they're getting themselves into.
	I mean, and this goes for Clinton, who's supposed to be, oh, Mr. You know, oh, I'm a liberal, I'm a Democrat.
	My ass you are.
	We saw what you did with fucking NAFTA.
	Look how many, how many American jobs were shipped overseas?
	How many were lost?
	And not only that, look at the trade deal with China.
	How many jobs did Americans lose and then it was picked up by Chinese toddlers in some factory using lead paint?
	I mean, for anybody to be anybody who says at this point that they're still in favor of any free trade deal.
	I love, like, some people on the left have this new thing that they say.
	They're like, no, I don't like this trade deal.
	I'm in favor of free trade.
	I'm just not in favor of this free trade deal as it's set up.
	No, look, I'm old school, man.
	I'm a protectionist.
	I believe in tariffs.
	I believe in actually, you know, having a system where people are incentivized to buy American because you create jobs here and you create income here.
	You have a higher standard of living.
	And by the way, this might sound like some sort of uber liberal rant I'm going on, but believe it or not, like if I was in, I always said this, if I was in Scandinavia somewhere, if I was in certain places in Europe, I probably would be voting for very centrist candidates over there.
	You know, it's, just that only in the U.S. Do I appear to be some sort of frothing-at-the-mouth progressive, because our spectrum has gone so far to the right economically that it's to be sane.
	That makes you look like you're some sort of you know, communist.
	No, I'm with you man, I'm totally with you, and it's it's it's, it's.
	But most people are just so illiterate on these issues.
	That's the problem that you, you're never, ever going to win an election on any of these issues.
	You're never going to persuade anyone.
	And I, I look at the social situation in America and the way people talk and what they talk about, and I can't see the I mean who like, coming up to your next elections?
	Right I, I think Hillary Clinton's gonna win it who, what do you think is gonna happen?
	I really, I really, I mean, I'll give you a tentative prediction, but I hate making predictions when I'm unsure.
	I'm totally unsure.
	I mean, if I had to guess right now, of course, smart money is Hillary Clinton for sure.
	But you know, in my opinion yeah, my dream scenario is the Bernie surge continues and he somehow, you know, gets through the primary and can win a general election.
	But you're, I mean, the issue is like we were talking about before.
	They're gonna throw everything they got at him.
	Man, big money will do anything to discredit Bernie Sanders.
	They're gonna do it.
	And people on the right I mean from the right, not that I would vote for any of them, but you know, Rand Paul is probably the most reasonable yeah, reasonable Republican, but that's not saying much, you know.
	It's almost like it's just disheartening to see how pro-corporate pro-establishment, anti-worker our politicians in America are.
	Yeah absolutely, and and that's from both sides of the aisle, you know it really is yeah yeah, I mean I can't imagine what kind of candidate the right would be able to present in the next election that would have a chance against Hillary Clinton and the PR machine she's going to have behind her.
	I mean The only person I can really see doing anything, and I know this is going to sound stupid, but Donald Trump, just on his I don't give a fuck attitude and his very much pro-America attitude.
	Donald Trump is ridiculous.
	Everything about Donald Trump is ridiculous.
	It's incredible.
	I've never seen it again, it's like a parody, it's like a fucking cartoon.
	Dude, do you have any idea as Americans, we look at him and we're like, shut the fuck up?
	He is the quintessential American.
	I know.
	He embodies every stereotype of America.
	He's like, Iggy capitalist narcissist.
	Yeah, he does.
	And it's hilarious to watch.
	Don't you write.
	And he's super wealthy.
	So it's just like, wow.
	But that is actually a real strength that he is super wealthy because he can't be bought out by a corporation.
	He doesn't need money.
	Holy shit.
	No one's going to buy him.
	That's so true that I don't even think you realize how true your own comment is because I spoke about it.
	I spoke about this.
	I covered his launch speech.
	And obviously 85% of my coverage was just me mocking and laughing at him and saying he's an idiot and all that stuff.
	But then there was one part in his speech where he mentions exactly what you're saying, where he's like, look, our entire system is run by the lobbyists.
	I know because I have lobbyists.
	I know how this works.
	And he said, what's going to happen is when I'm president, they're going to come in and they're going to say to me, we want you to do X. I'm going to say, no.
	And I'm going to do what I want.
	And that's the one part where I actually gave him credit.
	And I'm like, okay, no, that's true.
	Like, I think that's true.
	He's allegedly worth like eight or nine billion dollars.
	I don't believe that, by the way.
	But either way, I believe him when he says that part of it.
	The problem is he's so fucking erratic, he could nuke Botswana on a Wednesday.
	You know, you never know.
	I totally agree.
	He's, again, probably the last person you'd want, but he's in a position where he doesn't ask.
	I mean, this is one of the strengths of Vladimir Putin, of all things.
	He's fucking wealthy.
	When he came into power, he basically appropriated a lot of wealth off of the oligarchs in Russia.
	That's right.
	He then, that puts him completely out of the reach of the oligarchs.
	I mean, there's nothing they can bribe him with.
	And Donald Trump's going to be very much the same.
	So that would be, if you could find someone who was super wealthy and actually cared about the country, which Donald Trump, I think, genuinely does.
	I mean, that's at least his rhetoric.
	And I've got no reason to doubt it.
	Yeah, but he's half retarded, though.
	That's the problem.
	He absolutely is.
	Yeah.
	I said this on my show, man.
	Like, I'm convinced he may have some actual mental issues.
	No, but he says things that are just so disconnected from reality.
	Like, he was speaking about ISIS the other day, and he's like, somebody's like, what would you do about him?
	He's like, you know, not only would I hit them so fast and so hard, but you got to understand, I have such a brilliant plan.
	It's so great that I don't want to share it because if I share it, what happens?
	If somebody else wins the race and they implement my plan, I'm not going to get credit for the plan.
	Who says that?
	Who says that?
	You said you won't give away how to defeat ISIS.
	Obviously, you don't know how to do it, but assuming you did, I'm not going to give it away because I don't get the credit.
	Yeah, that's true.
	It's insanely egotistical, but it's not the wrong thing to say.
	It's not the wrong thing.
	That's a stupid person talking.
	Fuck yeah.
	But your country's used to stupid people talking.
	Jesus, George Bush could barely finish a sentence.
	Nah, but he makes George Bush look like fucking Richard Dawkins.
	Now, but Donald Trump, he's not thick.
	He's got, he's got, he probably jumps out.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Donald Trump, he's not dumb.
	He's just completely unself-aware, or he doesn't care what other people think of him.
	That's what I think it is.
	Dude, that definition is so deep.
	I couldn't trust it.
	I mean, but I think you're right on everything else you said.
	I think you're right insofar as he's, oh, he's not, he's out of the loop and out of the reach of the lobbyists for the same reason Putin is out of the reach of the oligarchs.
	I agree with that.
	I agree with that.
	Like, he would have, like, just give me eight more IQ points.
	Oh, I agree.
	I agree.
	Again, again, he's moronic.
	And this is, we're talking worst-case scenario in every, every conceivable way, but he would probably be better than the alternative.
	The alternative being Hillary?
	Yeah.
	Because the alternative means more poverty.
	No, the alternative means more poverty.
	It means the corporate agenda.
	It means more of the same.
	That's the thing.
	I don't think, but it's you know, I mean, Donald Trump.
	I'm going to go in and hit ISIS.
	Holy shit, you're going to have so much.
	That would be a great thing for a lot of people, you know, Muslims included.
	You know, you trust Donald Trump, whatever strategy he would come up with to go after ISIS.
	He's an idiot, but I think he would go after ISIS.
	You know him.
	Come on.
	No, wait, wait, wait.
	You know him, man.
	He would fucking drop a nuke.
	He would have all the generals saying, no, Donald, you can't use a nuke.
	We're going to kill 237,812 civilians.
	We know that this is not an option.
	Do it.
	I don't care.
	Where's the button?
	You know him, man.
	He was too dumb.
	He absolutely would.
	And in the end, I think his general would talk down and say, look, we'll just have a 500 million man fucking invasion force or something.
	And he'd be like, fine, fine, whatever.
	You know, just make it done.
	But the point is, I think he'd get the job done.
	this it would at least be a change to be affected because to be honest with you I think I can't Trump over Hillary I just can't.
	Look, trust me, I have zero love for Hillary.
	Me and my buddy were talking about it the other day.
	I don't think I'm one of these guys where I usually vote for the Democratic, the Democratic candidate gets a one vote from me.
	So like, I'll vote in my primary for whoever I think is the best.
	And then if I have to go to the general and vote for, like, I voted for Obama the first time, but the second time I didn't vote for him because I was disappointed with many things that he did.
	By the same token with Hillary, the original plan was, okay, so I try to vote for like Bernie in the primary if he's still in when it comes to me.
	But then if I have to vote for Hillary and the general, okay, hold my nose and vote for her.
	But I was talking to my buddy the other day.
	I don't even think that's a fucking option with Hillary Clinton.
	So I have zero love for Hillary Clinton.
	But to say that Donald Trump would be preferable in any way, no, no, I just can't, man.
	I don't expect you to agree.
	But my opinion is that I would rather have to deal with an idiot than someone who is malevolent.
	And I think Hillary Clinton and what she represents is actively malevolent.
	I think.
	Yeah, I put malevolence and idiocy on the same, they're equal to me.
	So then I have to defer to other things.
	And I think Hillary would be better with the Supreme Court.
	So I'd say, I gotta, okay, I gotta go Hillary.
	That's true.
	She probably would be.
	But believe me, I'm not pulling.
	Like I said, I don't live in America.
	I don't see myself pulling the lever.
	I don't see myself pulling that lever for Hillary.
	Oh, no, I wouldn't recommend it at all.
	And I, you know, I just fucking, you know, if people are worried, if they don't really know who to vote for, just don't or vote for someone else, whatever.
	But the point is, I would be more worried about Hillary Clinton because I really, I mean, I don't live in America, so I don't have to worry about Lillard, your Supreme Court.
	But it's just going to be more of the same.
	And if Hillary, it's really becoming a real issue.
	I mean, you've got Oxfam is saying like 1% of the world's population now and 50% of wealth.
	And I imagine a large proportion of that is in the United States.
	Of course.
	But you know what?
	I don't think Trump would fix that either, man.
	I really don't.
	I think you're being a little bit too kind of drunk on that.
	I don't think you'd fix it by any such imagination.
	But Hillary Clinton is supporting an agenda, I think, that is actively trying to increase that.
	I think Trump would at least be ambivalent to it because he doesn't have to worry about it.
	And then when you listen to a mind-blowing patriotism.
	But he might be so silly that he would do those policies out of his own free will.
	He might be like, oh, yeah.
	Maybe, but we know that Hillary's going to.
	She's going to keep drone striking.
	She's going to keep doing the stuff that's causing a lot of problems.
	And one thing that people never talk about, and it really pisses me off, is what does the CIA do all day?
	Oh, they fucking topple South American governments.
	What do you think?
	They haven't toppled the South American government in a while.
	Yeah, but they're plotting.
	Well, no, that's the thing.
	I have strong suspicions that the president, I think it was Dagestan, was right when he said that ISIS have been largely formed by the CIA.
	And I think the ISIS are taking on the sort of role that East Asia took on in 1984.
	They're a perpetual enemy that will perpetually pump out terrorists that therefore can justify all kinds of security measures.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	So I think that's slightly more conspiratorial than my position.
	But I would say that when it comes to ISIS, it's not like the Alex Jones theory of they purposely created them.
	I don't think that's true.
	What I think is true, though, is that the blunder of the Iraq war and the debatification of the Iraqi government, which was Sunni, they got rid of all the Sunnis.
	Then you have a bunch of pissed-off Sunnis out there with no jobs, and then the Shias come in and take power and repress the Sunnis.
	It was the perfect fucking storm to create a gigantic Sunni uprising, and it just so happened that that Sunni uprising was under the banner of ISIS, which is, of course, Wahhabiist, Salafist, extremist Islam.
	That is a factor.
	I think it's incompetence with neoconservative foreign policies and interventionism led to the, I want to say, the furthering of that ideology.
	Because sometimes I get shit from people who say, I blame too much on U.S. foreign policy.
	And I want to be clear, I'm not blaming the existence of Wahhabism or jihad on America.
	That's absurd.
	What I'm saying is their policies made it worse.
	Their policies made a better argument for the people in the Sunni community to say, we will protect you from the big, bad, crusading Americans.
	Just pick up a gun, say a prayer to Allah, and let's get to doing it.
	So I think it's more incompetence and just this failed imperialist ideology that led to the spreading of ISIS.
	And then I think you're right in the sense that, yeah, America always needs an enemy.
	I mean, look from World War II and on.
	It's okay, Hitler, be afraid.
	And that was good because it was real to fucking take out Hitler.
	And then it became, oh, the communists.
	Well, now we're getting, they're bad.
	They're real bad, but it's slightly less.
	Yeah, it's slightly less bad.
	And then you get to, you know, oh, Islamic fundamentalism is going to come to Nebraska.
	No, Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely fucking disgusting.
	I could not disagree with him more.
	It's horrendous.
	It's a scourge.
	But I'm not living in Fallujah.
	Why don't you go crusade against it over there?
	And I get it.
	I would actually do protecting the homeland.
	I would actually have a defensive military.
	I have no problem with a high-spending military budget.
	But the military actually has to do defense and not offense.
	So I would have been fine after 9-11 if they wanted to say, okay, we're going to send some special forces, or we're going to send some drones, or we're going to send some Fighter jets, and we're specifically going to take out this al-Qaeda sect and that al-Qaeda sect.
	And here's the plan.
	It's going to be done in a week and a half.
	The bombings, you know, bada bing, bada boom, get it through Congress, through the UN and NATO, go through, abide by international law, get it done, and then come home.
	I would have been fine with that.
	But of course, what did America do?
	Let's invade Afghanistan.
	Let's invade Iraq.
	Let's draw on everybody's grandma in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia.
	Let's do this.
	Let's do that.
	Let's take away all your civil liberties.
	Fuck the Constitution.
	And then that leaves us where we are right now.
	But this is the point, though.
	Now, I don't think it's as conspiratorial as one would possibly initially first think that the CIA has been very much involved with ISIS.
	I mean, I've got an article here from the New York Times that's titled CIA said to aid in steering arms to Syrian opposition.
	Oh, yeah, no, no, no.
	But okay, go ahead.
	That's right.
	Yeah, let me just finish.
	And then I've got another one from the Guardian that I'll tweak these out so people can read them.
	Basically, I don't, you know, I think it's quote unquote accidental that these things are finding their way into the hands of ISIS.
	I mean, I remember seeing Obama saying something like, we're not going to continue.
	We're not going to stop dropping in these AIDS or whatever.
	But they know that they're going into the hands of ISIS.
	So I don't think they're stupid.
	I think they're doing it on purpose to make sure there is a very well-armed terrorist state in the Middle East that will cause trouble that they don't have to personally do.
	I mean, they don't have to encourage ISIS to cause trouble.
	These guys want to cause trouble.
	What they have to do is give them the means of causing trouble.
	And saying, oh, yeah, no, this has accidentally fallen to the hands of ISIS.
	Yeah, fuck off.
	You know, nobody accidentally drops thousands of tons of fucking equipment, millions of dollars worth of equipment.
	And, you know, it's all like taken from various dumps that they happen to, you know, find undefended and all this sort of shit.
	It's not by accident.
	But it's not necessarily that they're directing ISIS or anything.
	I mean, they might be, but I can't prove that.
	But we can definitely prove that they're getting accidentally equipment that honestly anyone with any fucking sense would be able to prevent.
	I think you're half right, but I think you're actually underestimating how dumb the policymakers can be with their and how strictly they can adhere to the principles of imperialism.
	So what I mean by that is if you look back through the history of American imperialism, so post-World War II, and you take the 1980s, for example, Reagan armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union.
	We were so fervently anti-communist that we armed Islamic radicals because we thought the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and we're fighting a bigger war, he says, a proxy war for the bigger war of capitalism versus communism.
	So they funded them, and then, of course, later on, as everybody knows, the Mujahideen broke up into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and they had the weapons that we gave them, and they turned them against us.
	Okay, so that's one example of this imperialist mindset of we can micromanage everything in the world, backfiring, and fucking us over.
	Now, fast forward to today, I love the example you brought up.
	This is something I've spoken about on my show a lot.
	When it comes to Syria, the intervention in Syria, notice, at first, they wanted to take out Assad.
	Why did they want to take out Assad?
	They wanted to take out Assad because he's aligned with Russia and he's aligned with Iran, our enemies in the region.
	They didn't actually care about his humanitarian issues where he was killing civilians and stuff like that.
	They wanted to take him out because he's not on page with U.S. Empire.
	So they wanted to take him out for that reason.
	They played the game of, oh no, it's because of his humanitarian stuff.
	Then notice, a year later, they switched their position completely.
	And they said, no, no, no, we want to fight the people who are fighting Assad.
	We need to fight ISIS.
	And ISIS is against Assad.
	So they flipped sides in a war and tried to make, and the media didn't call it out.
	It's like nobody was paying attention.
	I was screaming, pulling my fucking hair out.
	Like, who just took sides in a war?
	Who does that?
	But there were some people who were saying that it's ridiculous that we are now allied with al-Qaeda.
	But then exactly, here's the thing.
	So they said, well, what we want to do is not fund ISIS and the jihadists, obviously not fund Assad because he's not with the American Empire.
	So what we're going to do is we'll fund these mythical, these magical, this third independent group called the FSA, the Free Syrian Army, also known as the so-called moderate Sunnis, who are on our side, and they'll topple Assad and put in a pro-U.S. Sunni government in the region.
	And the idea was, let's try to recreate another version of Saudi Arabia in Syria with a Sunni government that's repressive to their own people, but in favor of us.
	Now, the problem with that, of course, is all the fucking moderate Sunnis were out of Syria early on in the war.
	They fled to either Europe or Turkey.
	So there were nothing but jihadists versus Assad.
	We don't like either side, but we're still trying to get involved.
	Why are we trying to get involved?
	It all comes back to geopolitical strength and power and imperialism.
	We want to have more natural resources.
	We want to have more strength and a strategic position around the world in order to control stuff.
	So we felt like Syria was a vital region where it was ripe for, as they say, quote, regime change.
	Just like they did with Saddam.
	They feel like he's an actor.
	He's not an actor anymore who's on our paid.
	So get rid of him and try to put in somebody new.
	But I think what it comes down to is that imperialist mindset of we can micromanage everything and we can make it so that we maintain our power and our control and we can be the world police and we can continue to take the natural resources.
	So in other words, I don't think it's as conspiratorial, again, as like they're backing ISIS because they want to have an enemy all the time.
	I think it's more like it all comes back to, no, we run the world and we're going to try to continue to run the world and we have to make some moves that in their mind they think are chess moves.
	But in reality, these sons of bitches are playing checkers and they look like fucking idiots and they don't know what they're doing and they're creating more problems than they're solving.
	Okay, I think that I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying, all of it anyway.
	But that's not to say that I think anything you've said is necessarily silly or ridiculous or anything like that.
	I think that basically it's about interpretation of events that we can differ on here.
	Because the way I see it is slightly different, but not necessarily incompatible either, right?
	Okay, so.
	Let me concede something real quick and see if this changes your opinion.
	So I don't know if this is exactly what you were getting at, but if one of your overarching points here is that in the U.S., we have this military-industrial complex that makes a shitload of money from war, and they want to basically continue war because they get really fucking rich off of it.
	If your contention is that that plays a big role in it in the sense that they're much more likely to go to war all over the place because they want to make more money, if that's one of the main claims you're making, I agree with that 100%.
	I think they're much more likely to go to war.
	I'll start on that, in fact.
	That's a very interesting point.
	It is very much that there is a massive military-industrial complex in the United States, and they want to sell arms.
	There are a lot of people who benefit very much financially from having a rogue terrorist state in the Middle East.
	ISIS, I think I saw a report a while ago that said that ISIS tops about 30,000 armed soldiers.
	I can't believe that Syria are having a problem with them.
	You would think that any nation would be able to raise, say, 200,000 men, give them machine guns, and take these people out.
	They shouldn't be able to last.
	As far as I can tell, but then Syria is got more than enough problems to stand.
	The fact that we know that the American government or actors on behalf of the American government are dropping weapons into the Middle East that we know are finding their way into the hands of the Islamic State, and they know it's happening and they're not stopping is, I think, indicative of, like you were saying, like the army of the Muhajuddin.
	It was very easy to be open about that when it was very much against Russia.
	But I think now there is no political cover for it.
	It looks terrible.
	So it has to be an accident.
	You can't justify.
	You can't say, oh, we're fighting the Soviet Union.
	They say it's to fight Assad, the Shia leader who they say is the brutal, evil dictator, and that's why we're doing it.
	Again, I think they're partially right in that they're saying, you know, we don't like him for humanitarian reasons.
	The reality is they don't like him because he's not our ally.
	That's why they don't like him, and he's not going to bend to our will.
	Exactly.
	He's Russia's last sort of outpost other than Iran in the Middle East.
	But the thing is, Syria is piss poor.
	Britain has more oil than Syria.
	Syria's natural resources are fucking nothing.
	It's not even very strategic anymore.
	It used to be that it was a strategic location before the modern era because of where it was.
	Antioch was in Syria in the Middle Ages.
	It used to be a famously wealthy city because you're saying it doesn't make sense anyway for that reason.
	It wouldn't make sense either way.
	So you're saying.
	There's nothing there.
	It's pointless.
	Everyone goes through the Swedish Canal now.
	There's nothing there.
	There's no reason to, but it's useful if you want to have a source of constant contention and sectarian violence in the Middle East.
	And it's a good place to funnel weapons to your pet terrorist state that is going to continue causing headaches all across the Middle East.
	And don't forget, there was a terrorist attack in Texas that was taken credit for by ISIS.
	So it's not like, and again, I'm dubious about this sort of thing when they say this.
	I'm always like, well, hmm.
	But that's because I've read a lot about the CIA and I think that they've got a long and storied history of doing shit just like this.
	It completely fits the modus operandi of the CIA.
	So first of all, terrorist groups.
	So let me.
	Yeah, sorry.
	So basically, and as you say, there is a military industrial complex that wants to sell arms.
	Well, if you can keep the Middle East in turmoil without having your own forces there and having the various governments in the region say, hey, we want arms.
	You know, the Saudis are going to buy fucking arms.
	The Iraqi, the provisional Iraqi government are going to buy arms.
	Egypt, Lebanon, all of these places, they're going to want to buy arms.
	So you've got an industry right there.
	And so there are lots of people who have vested interests.
	And it's not really for a global power like the United States to drop a few million dollars worth of arms, you know, mysteriously disappears into ISIS pockets, it costs them nothing.
	It's no effort whatsoever.
	And it also Also creates the condition, say, hey, we need to take your civil liberties.
	You know, terrorists, PSA, the NSA, all these terrorists, it is such a perfect solution for all of the issues that an authoritarian government that was trying to amass power to itself would need to overcome.
	I can't believe that it is such a coincidence.
	I just, I can't believe it, especially 30,000 men is so weak.
	It's so weak.
	But don't you think that this need to continue to fight against an enemy, don't you think that that bar could be met with virtually any of the groups that already exist, like Boko Haram or Al-Shabaab, or I mean, there's all these different, you know, the Taliban, there's all these different groups that if you wanted to fearmonger over them and whip up fear, I mean, you could do it very easily without taking that extra step of purposefully giving this enemy group weapons.
	I hear you.
	I think you're right on all the almost every point.
	The only point where I disagree with you is I don't think there's, and you could correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of what you're saying here, but I don't think there's any smoke-filled back room where somebody's saying, hey, let's give ISIS weapons.
	I think that's, I don't think that's real.
	I think that's crazy.
	I think it's more incompetence and then all these other factors that are incentivizing the military-industrial complex to continue and endless war to continue and imperialism to continue.
	Okay, so why ISIS?
	Well, I mean, they're trying to set themselves up as the Islamic State.
	So, I mean, I don't know whether you've noticed, but a lot of people from Europe have, a lot of Muslims have been traveling from Europe, and I'm sure there have been from other countries with Australia, Muslim diaspora.
	They've been traveling to the Islamic State as some sort of religious duty or whatever.
	Literally hundreds of thousands, you know, well, not tens of thousands of them have been traveling there.
	And needless to say, you know, Westernized Muslims have been getting there and finding that it's shit.
	But, you know, that's another story.
	Because it's the caliphate.
	In Islam, all of Islam should be united under a caliphate.
	They should have a caliph who is effectively the pope of Islam, but they don't.
	That's the problem, you know.
	And that's what the guy styles himself as, Baghdadi.
	That's how he signs himself.
	And that's what they're trying to achieve.
	So it's, and I think they're being used, obviously, as fools to address the idea of a smoke-lit back room.
	Well, I mean, I can't prove it, obviously, but I don't see why.
	I mean, I wouldn't be smoke-lit.
	It would be just someone from Langley, isn't it?
	The CIA's thing.
	And I think it's important to remember that these people aren't Arch Machiavellian fiends.
	They're probably looking at it from, I suppose, yeah, the important thing to remember is these people will have some rationalization for what they're doing, if this is correct.
	I might be completely wrong, might be completely talking shit, but the thing is, I can't help but look at the situation and how it benefits so many people and think, well, and especially as, I mean, I think there's probably a conspiracy in the U.S. government.
	I think there probably is, right?
	And can I read you a quote from a Rockefeller to support this, or is that going to be too tinfoil?
	Do the Rockefellers have any power anymore?
	I think that there's only one Democratic congressman who's a Rockefeller.
	Yeah, but they've got lots and lots of money.
	Really?
	They're still up there in the top whatever 100, 500?
	Well, either way, look, when it comes to, I think where we disagree is where it comes to motive.
	I don't think anybody thinks they're nefarious.
	You made a point there about rationalizations, where you said, like, maybe they have rationalizations, maybe they don't.
	No, no, I am heavily on the side of, oh, they have rationalizations.
	Believe me, everybody at the CIA wakes up every morning and they think we are saving civilization.
	Yeah.
	And that's not to say they're right, because they're certainly not.
	But when it comes to like, whether it's Stalin and when he woke up in the morning, oh, yes, I'm representing the proper ideology, I'm saving the world, fucking Hitler thought that, man.
	So this idea of like, because people know what ISIS is.
	They know what kind of ideology they represent.
	And to say, let's purposefully arm them, I don't think so.
	I mean, it's more incompetence than anything else.
	I'm sorry, go ahead.
	Sorry, just the people in ISIS think they're doing the right thing.
	Of course, of course.
	Exactly.
	No, that's exactly it.
	I mean, is there a conspiracy?
	Well, maybe.
	Is there a smoky battle room?
	Maybe.
	But I think there are people.
	I don't think there wouldn't be.
	Here's why.
	I'll tell you why.
	Because if you look at what the U.S. did during the Cold War, now, a lot of people, especially in America, don't really know the history of this.
	But if you study it, it's fucking fascinating.
	The U.S. was an insane imperialist power during the Cold War, where we would literally go to governments in South America, topple a democratic leader by force.
	The CIA would do this, and they would put in a dictator.
	And when they did that, they would say to everybody, no, no, we are the ones who are supporting freedom.
	We're the ones who are supporting democracy, and we just set up a government here, which will foster that.
	And I'm telling you, in their mind, they genuinely believed that the fascist dictatorships they set up were more free than what they viewed as, oh, communist countries that they were beforehand.
	Basically, anybody who wasn't in line with U.S. Empire was called a communist, basically.
	And we toppled their government and treated them like shit.
	But my point is that the entire time they're doing it, they have the same kind of mindset that the Roman Empire had, for example, or the Greek Empire or the Ottoman Empire, where when they conquered somebody, they're saying we are bringing these savages more enlightened values.
	So my point is to have the CIA say, let's actively arm ISIS.
	They're not doing that because that would be to admit, let's arm the people who we know are bad guys and who we don't agree with.
	So in their mind, it's much more along the lines of, no, no, what we need to do is micromanage the Middle East and put into power the right people in the right places.
	And in the process of attempting to do that, what they're doing is being incompetent, arming ISIS.
	And then I think you're right that it's so convenient because afterwards they get to say to everybody, well, what are we going to do?
	We have to go intervene now because the bad guys have weapons.
	It honestly could be that.
	It absolutely could be that.
	I guess I'm just a bit more cynical.
	Yeah, what I'm trying to say is it's not like a mathematical equation where like day one in 2003 of the Iraq war, George W. Bush was sitting there with Cheney and their conversation was, okay, it's good that we're doing this not only because we're getting rid of Saddam, but because maybe we'll create an insanely monstrous radical Sunni insurgency that we can then continue to fight for 30 years.
	I don't think that wouldn't the original plan.
	The original plan.
	Look, I think the heart of it all comes back to the military-industrial complex and this genuine imperialist impulse where when any nation's on top of the world militarily and otherwise, they say to themselves, like, no, no, no, we really have the right value system and we need to spread it.
	And if that means spread it by force, well, that's fine.
	And then we'll lie to ourselves and say, when we spread it by force, what we're really doing is just being so kind to the savages who don't get it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I don't want to necessarily assume their rationalizations.
	But the thing is, I agree that in almost every situation, you should always assume stupidity before malice.
	I completely agree.
	But I think that the CIA has been and the various actors involved with the CIA have been doing what they do for such a long time that there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that they're not incompetent.
	I mean, I read a massive, oh, I had an audio book of a book called The Bush Family of Secrets, I think it was called.
	Someone like Bush Family of Secrets, some of that.
	And Herbert Walker Bush is a very interesting character.
	And he was head of the CIA for a number of years.
	And then he was president.
	And he was very closely knit with a lot of people.
	There was very close ties.
	And he had a lot of influence over certain people in the government for various matters.
	I mean, it was quite a few.
	It was about five, six years ago.
	I read this book now, and it's a massive book.
	So I can't really remember the details.
	I just remember what I took away from it.
	But the thing is, I didn't take away from it that it was a bunch of idiots acting as a bit blind.
	These people seem to have a strategy.
	And it was a very, very well-researched book.
	It was so detailed, which is why I can't really remember any specific examples.
	But the CIA, they're professionals.
	That's the thing.
	They're not.
	I don't think they're incompetent.
	think these people are acting blind either and so I'm I'm not saying it's and I do genuinely think there are people who are conspiring and And I don't think that conspiracies are such an unrealistic thing.
	I mean, if I were to look for somewhere for a conspiracy, it would be in the government of the most powerful republic in the world.
	That would be the first place.
	Take the Roman Empire.
	Take the Roman Empire.
	When they were doing what they did, do you think they had some sort of, let's assume they just had some sort of like, you know, CIA-esque, like some special forces.
	Like, do you think they were standing there with each other and going like, let's arm our enemies to then go in there and rationalize attacking them?
	I don't think so.
	No, they absolutely did.
	No, no, they absolutely did.
	The Roman Empire was very...
	But wait, don't you think it all stems, though, from what I was saying before, which is just that imperialist impulse?
	Like, I don't think, like, I think you're saying that they're like crafting a cover story.
	I don't think they even bother.
	I think it's just we are the imperialists.
	We are the ones who have the right value system and we're going to spread it by force.
	And when it was against communism, the idea was, oh, yeah, okay, so communism is our enemy.
	Great.
	But we know we're right and we're going to spread our beliefs in our system by force.
	When it was against the Islamic fundamentalists.
	That's the difference.
	You can't really be the aggressor.
	Like with the Gulf of Tonkin incident before the conspiracy.
	That was 100% a conspiracy.
	Exactly.
	And that was the conspiracy to enter Vietnam, right?
	I'm remembering that correctly, aren't I?
	No, Bay of Pigs was Cuba.
	Right?
	Did you say Bay of Pigs?
	No, I said Gulf of Tonkin.
	Oh, Gulf of Tonkin.
	Yeah, Vietnam, yeah.
	So I'm just, yeah, yeah.
	Right.
	So, yeah, that was a conspiracy.
	Yeah, for sure.
	No, I'm not.
	By the way, I'm not saying no conspiracies are true.
	Of course, there are some that are true.
	Of course.
	But the thing is, what I'm saying is great powers can't just be belligerent because it looks bad.
	No one likes it.
	It's immoral.
	Everyone looks at it and goes, well, that's bad.
	And this straight, Rome is a great example of this.
	The Roman government was riddled with conspiracies.
	I mean, Julius Caesar was part of conspiracy.
	Catiline exposed various conspiracies.
	There were conspiracies all the time.
	And they had to justify doing what they did.
	And they always, always justified it, that they were attacked first.
	So there would always be some kind of setup.
	And that would be the, you know, then the senator would go to the Senate.
	He'd drum up support and then they'd vote.
	You know, so no, again, I don't disagree with you.
	All I'm saying is for the specific issue that we had brought up before with the Islamic State and how they were arming the Islamic State.
	All I'm saying is on that specific issue, there was no, I don't think there was, you know, beforehand they went, let's arm the Islamic State.
	I think it was very similar to the Mujahideen situation with Reagan, where they really thought, like, no, these guys are better than the communists.
	So here's weapons, go attack the communists.
	And when it comes to arming ISIS in Syria, the actual goal was, hey, let's try to get the FSA, the moderate Sunnis, armed them, and then they just don't understand the Middle East.
	So they didn't realize that, oh, by arming the FSA, you're really arming ISIS because they kind of had a truce at that point, and there were very few moderates left in Syria.
	So all I'm saying is in that specific instance, it wasn't they're trying to arm the enemy.
	The idea was for imperialist reasons, they wanted control of the region and they armed people who they thought were something when they weren't that.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Yeah, I think that is definitely a possibility, without a doubt.
	But the issue I have is that they continued arming them after they knew that the arms were going to ISIS.
	Why would you continue doing that?
	I mean, all we have to do, I don't even know why we're focusing just on this region, because look at Saudi Arabia.
	Look at Saudi Arabia.
	Saudi Arabia is a Sharia state.
	They're as Sharia as it gets.
	And they're fucking one of our top allies in the region.
	You know what I mean?
	So it's not like the idea is not, hey, we have an ideological enemy that we must oppose.
	You know what I mean?
	That's not the main concern.
	The main concern is, again, I sound like a broken record, but it's about geopolitical power and strength and natural resources and continuing to be the world policeman and keeping the world order as it is right now.
	So if that means you're a brutally repressive regime, but you're our friend, okay, well, then you get to be a brutally repressive regime.
	But that actually, I think that supports my argument for this being deliberate because it's exactly as you say.
	It's not about ISIS being bad guys.
	I think, fucking hell, I can't imagine your government would shed a tear.
	You know, the amount of drone strikes Obama has signed off on, you know, I don't think he sheds a tear from an ISIS.
	But I think that it's politically useful, exactly as you say.
	And that's the thing.
	It is politically useful.
	So, I mean, again, I don't know.
	Maybe it's not a conspiracy.
	Maybe it's incompetence.
	Well, you've got to remember, ISIS got a lot of their weapons from the original Iraq invasion when we toppled the government, debathified it, and then left weapons in Iraq and then withdrew.
	And ISIS had, you know, came into Iraq and just picked up the weapons that were left behind.
	So the army kept running away.
	Right.
	And to my original point is that I don't think Cheney and Bush were sitting there in 03 saying we need to create an enemy that we're going to fight for 30 years.
	Right.
	So, but like that's, but it was from that invasion that the weapons were left behind that ISIS came and took them.
	So it's almost like you're admitting I'm right when you say, well, they didn't think it back then.
	Well, then a lot of those weapons were the ones that got to ISIS.
	So it's not like a grand conspiracy.
	I agree conspiracies exist, but it's much more great delineation.
	Yes, it's not a grand conspiracy.
	That is it.
	That's exactly.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Because everyone always pictures, right, okay, some lizard alien puppeteer of the U.S. government or something.
	No, that's exactly it.
	I don't think it's that.
	What I think it is, it's individual actors with influence and power in certain stations inside and outside of the U.S. government.
	So it'll be someone in the military-industrial complex who has influence with a particular senator or congressman or something like that.
	And that is exactly it.
	It's not the entire government, which is why you need a conspiracy.
	Okay, right.
	Then we're in agreement completely.
	That's exactly.
	I mean, I don't even know if conspiracy is the right term for it, really.
	Well, yeah, it has such a negative connotation to it.
	It is probably.
	Right, and like I said, I want everybody listening to understand, the conspiracy issue is a lot like the nature-nurture issue for me, in that it's very, you have to look at each individual case and see what's going on.
	And it just so happens that some conspiracies are just factual.
	Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods or whatever the fuck it's called.
	The Tuskegee experiments.
	Oh, horrendous and appearances.
	Yeah, like that all that stuff is all real.
	And it's funny.
	It's almost like so many people fall into either one camp or the other camp, and they drive me fucking crazy.
	You're either like full-on Alex Jones, David Ick or Ike or however the fuck you pronounce his name.
	You're either full-on like, you know, all systems go balls to the wall, giving my tinfoil hat status, or you're somebody who's, oh, there's never been a conspiracy ever.
	When we went into Iraq, we were trying to liberate them.
	Thanks, Anne Bolton.
	I think both and cheers are ridiculous on that one.
	I think it's a mix.
	Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.
	Yeah, you know, I really get pissed off with Alex Jones and David Icke because I enjoy watching the conspiracy videos on YouTube because they're like science fiction.
	Alien lizards are controlling the American government through whatever various means and the British monarchy.
	Fucking come on.
	Dude, some are really creative.
	I enjoyed watching them because I enjoyed watching the 9-11 ones because I would watch them and go, oh, this is really creative.
	A lot of time went into this.
	But yeah, I agree.
	I don't think they had the sort of skill, really.
	But maybe they did.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	On that one, I'm pretty strongly in the it's not a conspiracy camp, but I will concede that I don't know what the fuck happened to Building 7.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	I actually think that it probably was a conspiracy, you know, but I don't think it was...
	I mean, you've got these ones where I don't think there was a plane or it was holographic and stuff.
	It's like, yeah, no, people saw the plane.
	What are you talking about?
	Yeah, you know, but that's the thing.
	I think they ruin the thing because you can't then talk about things that are legitimate conspiracies.
	That's right, actual things that have actually happened.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's totally true.
	Yeah, it's a real pain.
	Dude, we just beat that topic to death.
	There are people listening right now going, shut the fuck up about ISIS and foreign policy assholes.
	Definitely.
	There are a thousand of them watching something, though.
	That's right, yeah.
	So that was an interesting little thing.
	It's nice to be able to talk with someone who's informed about this sort of thing as well, because a lot of people have trouble understanding that the U.S. is an imperial power.
	I mean, those fucking people are out to lunch, man.
	That's crazy.
	We're not an imperial power.
	Are you serious?
	Exactly.
	You can't have a thousand military bases around the world and not be an imperial power.
	It's crazy.
	By the way, let me ask you, because this actually gets to a really interesting issue, one that I often hear Sam Harris debate with people who are probably to the left of him on this issue.
	But the idea of, so what is the ideal foreign policy?
	You know, like, I'm a fairly committed non-interventionist, but there are some, like, the only time I think forces justify for an individual nation is in self-defense.
	But, here's the caveat to that, though.
	But, if there's an instance of not a civil war going on somewhere, but like a clear genocide happening somewhere, in that case, I support international action where you have some sort of international body where all the nations attack the problem together.
	And the reason why that's important is because anytime you have one nation that's above other nations, they're going to abuse that power when it comes to foreign policy, and they're going to be an imperialist power.
	So, you have to make it so that if there's a genocide somewhere and if you do something about it, it has to be an international effort and it has to be all together.
	And you obviously have to coincide with international law and get proper approval through your respective sovereign governments, etc.
	So, let me ask you, though.
	So, that's my idea of the ideal foreign policy.
	I'm a pretty strong non-interventionist, with the only exception of a clear genocide.
	Internationally, the community can act.
	What would you say?
	Oh, right.
	Just say you agree with me because my position is genius.
	I don't disagree.
	I mean, there's nothing about that.
	If that were the policy, I wouldn't be offended by it.
	But I think the nature of power demands to be used.
	You can't be powerful and expect to keep your power if you don't exercise it.
	I think that power is, I mean, power is very much a zero-sum game as well.
	If you're not being powerful, then someone else will be powerful in your stead.
	So, you can't just sit on your laurels.
	And I don't think the American system would broach the from what I've seen various sort of military documents and stuff from the American military.
	And they have this idea of full-spectrum dominance and the idea that they won't ever let another power rise to challenge America.
	They'll nip it in the bud.
	Because honestly, I think that there are forces within your country, business forces and whatnot, that honestly are thinking to take over the world.
	I honestly think that's their idea.
	Now, I don't mean necessarily that, you know, and everyone thinks, well, my God, you know, are you saying that America's going to invade every nation?
	No, they don't need to.
	That is, in fact, the genius of the American imperial system is it's broadly a financial system, which means they don't need to puppeteer anything, really.
	They just need to be.
	I think you're 100% right.
	And so, and I do think you hear Henry Kissinger and all his cronies just Google the amount of politicians who say the phrase new world order.
	They go on about it all the time.
	And then you've got David Rockefeller, who, in his memoirs, I've got right here, this is why there's a conspiracy where he literally says, I'm part of a conspiracy to bring in a global government, deal with it.
	I think it's a good thing.
	Look at the good we've done.
	And it's like, well, okay, but that is you saying you're a part of a conspiracy to be a global government.
	I mean, Alex Jones is right if this is what you're saying is true.
	So he goes to FEMA camps and he makes shit up.
	Exactly.
	He makes a lot of shit up, but he does say that, you know, they're globalists and they want one more government.
	And it's hard to believe that we won't end up with a single world government.
	Now that the world has become so small, the travel is so easy.
	It's very affordable.
	We've got the internet.
	I can talk to you.
	When you have this sort of amount of communication and trade, it really does shrink the size of the world into a more manageable as a state now.
	Yeah, I think they're so naive to think that'll work.
	Oh, I agree.
	I think it's, I, I mean, I, I, it's not going to be easy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think there will be a world government at some point.
	I'm not saying it's necessarily going to be my lifetime, but there are, I think there are definitely forces within the U.S. government and probably within European governments and probably in various other countries that are that are working towards having global governance.
	And it doesn't necessarily have to be, you know, the American president becomes president of the world or anything like that.
	But you dislike that, right?
	So what would your ideal foreign policy be?
	Are you a non-interventionist or no?
	Well, it's not, I mean, personally, yeah, I think everyone should just stick within their borders.
	The thing is, I think that there's no option to not be an interventionist.
	There's never going to be a time where the system and the place that we find ourselves in, that this is ever going to be an option.
	The American empire is never just going to willingly roll itself back.
	It will fall like every empire will.
	Every empire falls.
	Well, it does, but you don't know when it'll fall.
	Of course, you don't know when, but it is going to fall without question.
	True, but we don't know that it won't take over the world beforehand.
	That's the thing.
	It's got a very, hey, No, no, no, man.
	Have you heard of derivatives?
	Yeah, yeah, I have.
	That shit's going to tank the economy before we're done with this interview.
	But it's going to tank everyone's economy.
	That's the thing.
	That is true.
	That's the thing.
	So you're more up in the air than me on this because you're more up in the air than me on this.
	Because I am fairly, like I said, I'm a fairly committed non-interventionist.
	See, the problem, in my opinion, with intervention, broadly speaking, is that if you're not using force in self-defense, then it's almost like your force is already wrong.
	Like if you're the one that's initiating the force, and so it's almost like if we are willing to accept the premise that you are what you do, okay, and your actions define who you are as a country, well, then if you ever violate that principle of like, I'm going to fight and it's going to be an offensive war, well, then you're the bad guy.
	It doesn't matter what other, like you might have better principles in terms of internally speaking, domestically speaking, and you're attacking somebody who has worse internal domestic policy or whatever, but that's irrelevant to the broader question of the conflict that was just started.
	And you're wrong if you initiate it.
	So it's almost like to just like casually accept this idea that we should or we're going to have some sort of one world government, it's almost like that's an admission of a moral defeat for the world, you know?
	And that's not to say that, you know, a U.S. was that?
	That's a very interesting thing to say.
	I think that you've just, I think now you understand why there are terrorists.
	Nobody can reasonably expect to fight the United States in a conventional war and win.
	The only thing that can happen is asymmetrical warfare, which is what bin Laden was doing.
	He fully understood this.
	There was no way that he could conduct a conventional war against the United States.
	It's way too powerful.
	But now you know why people sign up to be terrorists.
	Of course, yeah.
	That's exactly.
	I don't necessarily agree with the idea of a one-world government because I think it'll be implemented by corporations and businessmen for corporations and businesses.
	Oh, 100%.
	And I think the people who are going to implement it are going to really not shed a tear for the people they exploit and whose lives are going to be the way.
	No question.
	But I do think it's inevitable.
	I do think it's going to happen.
	I think there's a political zeitgeist for it in a lot of the most powerful countries in the world.
	I think that they are working towards actively on a daily basis, I think, when they do this.
	And so the more time we spend worrying about gay marriage, fucking hell, they don't care.
	They do not care about gay marriage.
	They don't give a damn.
	I think you might be slightly underestimating the hatred that the broader public in America has for all the interventions we do.
	Well, yeah, I mean, you get to the interventions.
	My problem with interventions is that when you've got a really powerful military and part of the intervention is bombing things, the civilian casualties just messy.
	And so, I mean, I'm sure that they're necessary and all the sort of thing, but it's hard to be enthusiastic about them.
	Yeah, but it's so, I don't know if I'm necessary.
	I do think there's going to be some sort of corporate business connection worldwide.
	You can call it a one-world government if you want or whatever.
	Again, I kind of like to try to avoid that term because I feel like it's automatically labeled pinfoil hat if you say something like that.
	But I totally with you on that one.
	I don't know.
	See, I think that imperialists always think that like, oh, no, no, we got this shit.
	But they never do.
	They never do.
	I mean, it always happened.
	I mean, every single empire, you go back to the fucking, like I said, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Malian Empire.
	Every single fucking empire ever was like, no, no, no, we got this shit.
	No, you don't.
	No, you don't.
	Every time they think they have it, they overextend.
	They collapse because of some sort of internal problem or external problem or a mix of both.
	And I think that an attempt to create some sort of corporate, you know, governance of the world.
	Right, that's so indifferent, like you were saying, to what we want and what we believe, people are going to fucking, at some point, they'll say, no, just no, not going to happen.
	I'm a bit of a history buff, so I can actually tell you exactly what the cycle of empires are.
	You get a very rough and tough, edgy, hungry group of people, and they want something, and they go and they achieve it.
	And then they keep conquering because they become very good at what they do.
	They form an empire.
	And then over generations, a couple of generations, they become wealthy, fat, lazy, and cowardly.
	And the barbarians on the edge of their empire look at them hungrily and think, we're hungry, we're ragged, we've got nothing to lose.
	We're going to invade their empire.
	And that's what happens.
	And that is the cycle of empire.
	It just keeps going and going.
	When you have a world empire, there are no more borders.
	You've got no more barbarians on the outside looking to invade.
	everyone's on the inside.
	So it wouldn't, I think empire would be the wrong term.
	That's the thing.
	And I agree with it.
	You know, it sounds tinful.
	I don't think it's going to be like Alex Jones style or anything like that.
	I think it's going to happen without people even knowing.
	It's going to be like the TTP and TPP and TPIP.
	It's going to be stuff that's done in secret.
	They want the minimum impact on people's lives.
	They don't want people to know.
	For the average person, how is it important?
	How does it affect their lives?
	Some guy gets up and he's like, oh, I've got to go stack shelves in a supermarket.
	He doesn't give a fuck about world government.
	He barely gives a fuck about his own regional government.
	I think that it'll just be, you know, it'll be effectively taken above and away from the plebs, you know, and I think that, again, I don't think they're nefarious.
	I don't think they're looking to eradicate humanity or anything like that.
	I mean, that's the thing.
	Nobody thinks they're nefarious, like we were saying before.
	And I don't know, man.
	It's a tricky issue.
	I always, whenever I hear, like when you were describing, making that good description of the way empires rise and fall stuff, like thoughts always occur to me where I'm like, why can't we just stop that cycle and not stop it because we changed to some sort of corporatocracy worldwide?
	But why can't we just stop it and make it so that individual nation states are just comfortable in their own borders and they can provide for their own people?
	You know what I'm saying?
	Yeah, I think the problem is just scarcity of resources in a lot of areas.
	That might have something to do with it.
	But do you think human nature is a part of it too?
	Or no?
	I've got no doubt.
	I've got no doubt human nature is entirely a part of this.
	So, are you like Hobbesian in your human nature view where you think people are by and large like kind of just savage barbarians and there's like this thin veneer of civility and society that's kind of masking our more primitive impulses?
	Because that was Hobbs, right?
	Hobbes, who thought, like, you know, any kind of system is better than no system, like any kind of authoritarianism is preferable to nothing because if it's nothing, it's every man for himself, then we're no different than you know.
	Yeah, I'm just assessing I think um, I think that it's easy to worry about that sort of thing when you have all of your needs met.
	As soon as you're going hungry or thirsty or your life is in danger, these priorities become a lot lower.
	And so, um, but basically, I think I think that the people who would like to institute some sort of worldwide corporate system are thinking of doing it for the I think they probably think that they are trying to end the cycle of empire.
	I think they probably think by creating the biggest one exactly by saying, well, there are no empires.
	Everyone is the empire now.
	That's the thing, isn't it?
	Yeah, and so it would break this cycle.
	It would be the first time in human history that this cycle was broken, and it would be a very interesting thing to see.
	But the thing is, I also don't trust them because they've got to do all this in secret.
	And maybe they're doing it for the, you know, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but maybe they're not.
	Maybe they're, maybe all of this conspiracy stuff is true.
	Maybe they're like, yeah, you know what?
	What we can do is reduce the world's population to like 500 million people and shit like that.
	And you think, well, I mean, maybe that's a risk.
	You know, it might be crazy.
	I'm sure it's crazy.
	I'm sure it's not.
	But I'd just like everything to be done out in the open so we can at least see what's going on, you know?
	Yeah.
	I mean, they could just press the red buttons if they wanted to do that.
	I mean, all it would take is Russia, the US, Germany, just all the big nations get together, you know, at some sort of summit, and they learn, okay, look, the natural resources, we're running out, son.
	We got maybe 8% left of what we used to have that only lasts us for 120 more years with the population as big as it is, and the population is continuing to grow, yada, yada.
	All right, implement the plan.
	And they press the button, then we're all fucked.
	If it were to come to that, the idea that we need to limit the population size, I think it would be so swift and so quick.
	There are no FEMA camps and long-term, none of that shit.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I don't think necessarily nuke or anything because they've got to live on the planet too.
	Right, but you know what I mean.
	Maybe a virus that they have the antidote for or something, you know.
	Yeah, man, we're getting way off into conspiracy land now.
	It's just all hypothetical nonsense, isn't it?
	Yeah, we're talking out of our mouth a little bit.
	Yeah, we are.
	We are completely talking out of the tinfoil hat firmly on.
	But again, I'm sure that's not the case.
	But the thing is, I'm not happy with secrecy.
	Oh, no, I despise it too.
	Yeah, And the secrecy regarding the TPP and the TPIP, I think I'm pronouncing that.
	I think that's right.
	And what you've had senators and stuff say, look, if you guys knew what was in this, you'd be going fucking mental.
	And it's just like, well, don't you think you should tell us then?
	I mean, just the fact that that's what you're saying kind of a lot of them don't even know because they only got to hear about it for like a you know, whatever, like 30 minutes or an hour, and it was like talking about it or something crazy.
	Yeah, it really is like people don't really get just how deep this corporate stranglehold goes on our government.
	But I think, but I do think that there is a solution, and I'm proud to, I'm very happy and proud to say I'm part of the network where the main show is kind of working on this.
	But Wolfpack, there's this group called Wolfpack where they're trying to get money out of the political system in America and do it with a constitutional amendment.
	And you can do that by going, you don't need the Senate.
	You go around the Senate.
	You go state by state.
	And I think you need, what, three-fifths or three-fourths or whatever it is of the states.
	And so if you get the amendment, and the amendment can say, hey, no more private money in politics.
	No more corporate money.
	Corporate personhood is gone.
	The amendment says that basically.
	And then you have clean elections.
	Clean elections is not some sort of pie-in-the-sky, crazy, uber-liberal idea that doesn't exist.
	I mean, I wrote my fucking college thesis about it in whatever it was, 2010.
	And it's a well-known thing, and it works great.
	I mean, what you're doing is you're making, if you set up a system where you have clean elections, public financing of elections, you make it so the politicians are much more likely to represent the people.
	And is there still going to be some sort of bribery?
	Is there still going to be some sort of corruption?
	Absolutely, but it's going to be so much less.
	It won't be institutional.
	Because effectively what you guys have is institutionalized bribery.
	That's right.
	It's built into the system.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	We have it here as well.
	But the thing is, what happens here is largely irrelevant.
	So there's no point talking about what happens here.
	But tell me more about this Wolfpack thing.
	Yeah, no, I mean, honestly, that's pretty much it.
	I just summed it up.
	It's just, I mean, the.
	But how's it doing?
	Okay, so I don't, I'm not really in all the details of it, but I think they have, I don't know how many states they have now.
	I think they're still in single digits, maybe three or four different states that they've gotten so far.
	But the thing that's really, you know, should put a smile on everybody's face is that it's starting to happen pretty quickly.
	Like there's a snowball effect, and it's because liberals and conservatives agree.
	You know, you get together, and it's 80 to 90 percent of the American people who say, okay, we might not agree on abortion, we might not agree on gay rights, we might not agree on this issue or that issue, but one area where we can agree is we don't want private interests, corporate interests, billionaires on the left or the right to be able to give money to the politicians and then they just do their bidding.
	So I don't think, like, the thing is, people always feel like change is inevitable until it happens.
	Like, if you were to talk to somebody in Mississippi in 1958 and say, hey, is there going to be segregation here?
	But in 1965, is it still going to exist?
	Are black people still officially going to be second-class citizens?
	They would have been like, of course.
	What do you mean?
	There's no doubt it's going to continue.
	And then it just didn't.
	In the mid-1960s, you got the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
	And granted, it was a slow transformation even after you got it on paper, but there was a transformation.
	We're still not all the way to having equal rights, but on paper and in reality, it's come a long way from where it was.
	Nobody can deny that.
	By the same token, women's suffrage.
	If you asked them before that, hey, are women ever going to be able to vote?
	They would have laughed at you.
	And they were able to vote.
	So, you know, if good people put in the hard work, if good people fight, then they can win.
	Look, it's a matter of numbers, okay?
	If you have, you know, you have about the same number of subscribers I do, we have about like 150,000.
	Dude, that's 150 fucking thousand people.
	If you, out of some, you know, for whatever reason, you decided one day, you know what?
	I don't like this thing about my government.
	And you somehow convinced everybody, all right, look, on Wednesday of this month, we're all getting together at this time and we're going to fucking change this, okay?
	We're going to do it.
	I don't want any fucking excuses.
	Come on, come help, make a difference here.
	Yeah.
	Even if half them showed up, you would make a fucking difference, man.
	You think people in the government are going to look out the window and see that, you know, 70,000 people.
	There you go.
	You know, 80,000 people, you know, and go, oh, I'm going to go eat some lunch.
	No, they're going to be like, what the fuck?
	And they're going to have, you know, things, the government will respond to pressure.
	We know they have entrenched, you know, financial disincentives, if you will, where they're pushed in the wrong direction time and time again.
	But, you know, history has shown us on many issues, if you fight hard enough and long enough, you're going to win.
	And every step of the way, they're going to tell you, you're not making a difference.
	You're not making a difference.
	You're not making a difference.
	You keep fucking chipping away and watch how big of a difference you make, man.
	When I started doing my show, just to pivot here, I mean, I had zero people listening to me.
	Zero fucking people.
	I was an idiot talking to myself.
	Okay?
	And I kept doing the same.
	I was exactly.
	You know, you have the exact same story.
	So I just kept doing it.
	I don't give a fuck if nobody's listening.
	I'm doing it for the sake of doing it because I know the action in and of itself is something I like and something that I think is noble.
	So I'm just going to keep doing it.
	Keep doing it.
	And then eventually, build and they shall come.
	And they fucking came.
	The same thing can happen with the government.
	I'm on exactly the same page.
	Honestly, before I started my YouTube channel, I would lay in bed awake and think, I can't believe I saw X on TV today or I read X in the newspaper.
	I can't believe there is no one complaining about it.
	Why am I seeing this erosion of civil liberties?
	Why am I seeing one of the things that very, very much bothered me when I first started was it was the NSA and the spy.
	I can't believe it.
	And everyone's like, well, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
	It's like, no, no, fuck you.
	That's completely unfortunate.
	I have nothing to hide that you don't need to look.
	And if you haven't got any reason to fucking think that I might have something to hide, then you can fucking take a hike.
	You don't need to look.
	It's the presumption of guilt.
	It presumes that you're probably guilty.
	You just have to be caught.
	And not only that, man, the slippery slope was true.
	The slippery slope fucking happened because we know I was covering stories about a year ago where they were talking about how the NSA was giving information behind the scenes to the fucking DEA who would then take that information and bust people for drug crimes.
	And the whole argument from day one was you can't even allow it to say, hey, let's go after terrorists without getting a warrant because then eventually it's going to be looking at your fucking grandma's internet search without the amount of terrorist legislation that was used for non-terrorist activities is insane in your country and in mine I'm sure as well.
	The FISA court, which is the court that's supposed to, hey, we do get a warrant.
	We go through the FISA court.
	Why the fuck would you have to set up a special court system to get approval if you got nothing to hide and you're not the ones doing fucked up shit?
	Just go through the system as it was before was perfect.
	They acted like the system we had beforehand.
	You're not allowed to look at terrorists even if you have good evidence that they're terrorists.
	Bullshit.
	All you got to do is present the evidence to a judge and the judge will say, oh, you get a warrant and then you go and look.
	But they didn't want that.
	They wanted to be able to see what everybody's doing at all times.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	So that they could use that information against them if need be.
	Yep.
	Elliot Spitzer.
	I'm convinced.
	Do you know who Elliot Spitzer is?
	Not off the top of my head.
	I'm convinced.
	Elliot Spitzer was a politician from New York, and he was called the sheriff of Wall Street.
	He actually cracked down on Wall Street in many ways and stopped fraud and abuse and all the horseshit that goes on over there.
	Well, a few years ago, they stumbled across the fact that he went to hookers.
	Okay, now understand.
	He actually is a hypocrite because when he was in power, he passed some anti-prostitution law or something.
	So I have no love for him on that issue.
	He is a fucking hypocrite, and that's a problem, right?
	But there's no doubt.
	You know how they said they came across his information?
	They were like, oh, no, no, you don't get it.
	We were looking at some other case, and we stumbled across his credit card number.
	So you memorized his credit card number?
	How did you know his fucking credit card number?
	What do you mean?
	See everything that everyone does, you see?
	So we can came on the giant database.
	Exactly.
	What really happens is you and I both know they fucking purposefully looked for him and what he was doing to try to catch him on something because they didn't want him to have further political ambitions because God forbid a guy like that gets into power and becomes the next FDR and actually takes some power away from the elites.
	They can't have that.
	Exactly.
	So all, you know, the NSA, all that horse shit, directly gets involved in people's private lives and alters the course of history for the negative.
	There's no doubt about it.
	Yeah, and that's the thing, isn't it?
	This is one of the reasons that I'm really bothered about the TPP.
	It's rather Orwellian in almost every sense.
	And I mean, it seems like they are constructing Orwell's nightmare, you know, an all-seeing state that can see everything that you do.
	The fact that they call it free trade, that's Orwellian.
	Exactly.
	They call it free trade because it's being free.
	It's free trade.
	It's like, no, they should just call it outsourcing.
	Call it what it is.
	Take all good jobs here and ship them overseas and fuck you.
	Get to the unemployment line.
	Well, we'll give you not enough money to survive.
	Here's some food, Sam.
	Shut the fuck up.
	Let us continue to construct our corporatocracy.
	Exactly.
	And this is the thing.
	You've got that.
	You've got, again, ISIS will just be a perpetual enemy in the East.
	And the Middle East will become this fucking, you know, horrible battleground that will just degenerate into a giant fucking cesspool of various fractious sects and cults and whatnot, all killing each other for fucking, for the foreseeable future.
	It's not fucking ending anytime soon.
	So there we go.
	Perpetual war.
	Oh, there are always terrorists.
	Of course, there are always going to be fucking terrorists.
	Look at them.
	Oh, that's it.
	We need to spy on everything.
	Goodbye your civil liberties.
	Goodbye your rights.
	Goodbye everything.
	Well, they were jealous of our freedoms.
	Well, you've fucking won that, haven't they?
	This idea that terrorists need to be fought militarily is highly absurd.
	I don't know.
	Look at in Vietnam, another perfect example.
	It was guerrilla warfare versus an occupying force.
	How the fuck did that work out for the occupying force?
	It didn't work out too well, did it?
	By the way, what are you going to do if you're fighting the U.S. is essentially attempting, or so they say, to fight an ideology.
	Like, okay, let's fight radical Islam.
	Let's fight jihad.
	Well, motherfucker, that's, I mean, that's, you're fighting an idea.
	And oftentimes, the more, you know, if you kill one innocent civilian in the region, which we know you do, what's going to happen?
	You just took that person's brother or, you know, their dad or whatever the case is, and you just made them say, fuck you, give me a gun.
	I'm joining them now.
	Honestly, it's exactly how that is.
	And it's stupid.
	Everything's stupid.
	I mean, maybe the entire world's stupid, but there are people who benefit.
	That's the thing.
	When you ask Kibono, there are people who benefit.
	And so I've got to be suspicious of these people.
	If people are benefiting from these, what would otherwise be ridiculously dumb things that are happening, maybe it's not as dumb as it looks?
	Maybe it's malevolent.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Yeah, I certainly think it's for money, greed, profit.
	When people are on top, they want to stay on top.
	There's no doubt about that.
	But I want to go back to the People Are Stupid point.
	Yeah.
	Generally.
	So I'm actually, believe it or not, I'm a little bit mixed on that.
	And I'm actually going to only talk here about the U.S. because that's the only population I actually know a decent amount about.
	But I always found, I always, I have this weird term that I use.
	I call the American people politically schizophrenic because half the time they're fucking brilliant.
	The other half the time they're idiots.
	And when I say they're idiots, what I'm referring to is they don't know historical facts.
	They don't know historical facts.
	They don't know anything that's actually going on empirically in the world.
	In that respect, they're idiots.
	Or actually, it's fair to say they're ignorant.
	They're incredibly ignorant.
	They're actually smart in the sense that when you ask them issue for issue, hey, what do you feel about this?
	What do you feel about that?
	They're actually spot on in the sense that they're not masochistic.
	They're not like, yay, more losing of our jobs and taking away of our civil liberties and restricting social freedoms.
	They actually say, okay, yeah, raise the minimum wage, for example.
	Let's increase unionization.
	Let's stop all the wars overseas.
	Let's have a universal healthcare system.
	So whenever I always find it interesting, I've kind of generalized my view of the U.S. outwards in the sense that I have this kind of bipolar view of the intelligence of people in the sense that I think people are like, in some ways, usually people are great.
	Like, they're not trying to hurt themselves or other people most of the time.
	But in other ways, I think it's not just the U.S.
	I think probably a lot of people just don't know dick about history or any of that.
	So we're kind of doomed to repeat it in that sense.
	Yeah, I mean, a person is smart, a group is stupid, aren't they?
	That's the eternal.
	Exactly.
	The individual is smart, but the group is stupid.
	And it's exactly the same.
	I mean, they don't know anything about history.
	So they really, they don't help themselves.
	And a lot of times people don't care.
	They've got busy lives.
	They've got a lot going on.
	Someone on the news is like, oh, terrorism.
	Oh, fucking hell, Jesus.
	I don't want any of that.
	They just want to enjoy their life.
	Do you think it could be engineered to make people be more politically involved in a way that you don't feel like you're kind of forcing them to do it?
	You know what I mean?
	Hmm.
	I don't even know what I'm getting at, but I don't know.
	Community centers or I know some countries have mandatory voting.
	I don't know.
	I mean, are there any ideas where, because I think there is this general apathy in many places where it's like, well, politics has nothing to do with me.
	But isn't it the case that, what was it, back during the Greek days or the Roman days, the term idiot was meant like you're not involved in politics, right?
	There's that legend or something.
	Yeah, I don't know if that's true.
	Don't quote me on that, guys, but I think it might be true.
	And yeah, like, do you think there's a way to get people more involved in politics?
	Or do you think it could naturally arise if we had a better system?
	Like, do you think if we had a system that more was meeting people's needs, that they would say, I want to be involved in this.
	Like you said earlier in the conversation, with like what people vote for, 0% of what they're asking for translates into what actually becomes policy.
	So it's no wonder they feel disenfranchised.
	They are disenfranchised.
	It's self-evident.
	So I, you know, did you ever watch the film Starship Troopers?
	I did, yes.
	Yeah.
	Can you remember the political system that they operated under?
	Wait, is Starship Troopers?
	Is that the one with the bugs?
	It is.
	The big crickets things, right?
	Yeah.
	No, I don't remember.
	It was like some sort of dictatorship, no?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I think it was a republic, but you had two classes, two tiers of citizens.
	Well, you had civilians and citizens, and citizens were the ones who were active in government.
	They were the ones who made policy for the state.
	They could vote, they could do various other things.
	They had lots of privileges.
	But civilians, they were just normal private citizens.
	They were just like people now, effectively.
	But they didn't have an active role in government.
	They just got on with their lives.
	A lot of the time they were very wealthy.
	I mean, Rico, the main character, very wealthy family, had a holiday home, went on holidays, stuff like this.
	So it's not like they were oppressed by the ruling body or anything like that, because anyone could join the ruling body.
	You just had to earn it.
	That was the difference.
	You had to do something to earn your position as a citizen to be able to then interact and vote and take part in government.
	And I mean, you know, it's a very interesting idea.
	I'm not saying it's perfect.
	It's probably horrible.
	It would definitely be exploited for sure.
	Yeah, maybe, maybe.
	But the thing is, if you've got to earn it, then it kind of noblisse oblige, you know, the sort of obligations of the mobility.
	But then the biggest question becomes: well, who makes the test?
	And is the test truly objective?
	And the answer would almost certainly be fuck no.
	You know, I mean, that was kind of the reasoning with, you know, I mean, not that you're making this comparison.
	I know you're not, but that was like, that was part of the reasoning that went into poll tests in the South.
	The argument was, well, you don't get it.
	The black people just are not as fucking smart as us.
	So here, we're going to give them a test, make them take a test, and then maybe they'll be able to vote if they pass it.
	And by the way, we're going to make it super fucking hard so that none of the white people can pass it.
	But you make it, you're just, the whole point of it became, oh, exclude them because we don't fucking like them.
	I almost think there's too many issues with classism, tribalism, racism, religious and ethnic differences that would make it so that you could never have a two-tiered system that would function properly.
	You probably couldn't.
	You probably couldn't.
	But the thing is, the system we've got at the moment is really shit.
	You know, it's funny.
	I'm actually, believe it or not, I'm a little bit more optimistic than you are on that point because I always point it, I always look at Scandinavia as the hope of the world.
	Because, like I said, man, I'm really, really, people think I'm some sort of uber progressive.
	I'm really fucking not.
	Because I would be a conservative in Scandinavia in this sense that if I'm living there and I look around, I'd say, no, okay, we're good.
	We got it here.
	So what do I want?
	What I want is very simple.
	I want a universal health care system.
	I think it's a scandal that if you're, you know, you can go bankrupt for fucking medical bills.
	It's insanity.
	I want a universal health care.
	I want a universal education system, you know, a good infrastructure, something like some sort of social insurance program, some sort of decent minimum wage where the floor, even like in some unemployment system where the floor is not all that low, and when you're in trouble, society is not going to totally tell you to fuck off.
	Something like that.
	But within the framework of a society like that, that in my opinion really gives you an equal opportunity, once I'm in that system, then I become a capitalist.
	And I'm like, okay, just make sure you have good, like, efficient regulations here, you know, to make sure nobody's getting fucked over.
	And then let's have that competitive aspect of human beings take over.
	And let's try to create a better system through technology and through competition and through that mindset and that approach.
	You know what I mean?
	And that's why I always say I'm like a centrist.
	I think in world government, I'm only a socialist if you look at the spectrum of socialism and you look at the far right of the spectrum of socialism.
	That's why I always call myself a social democrat, which is like I say the last train stop before you get to socialism.
	So it's like a heavily subsidized, regulated version of capitalism with good social safety nets and certain things off the table like healthcare and education and stuff like that.
	I think if a system like that existed in individual nation states around the world, I don't think it's a fucking coincidence that when you look at the studies, some places in Scandinavia say they self-report being the happiest places in the world in terms of middle-class economics and how they do on that front.
	They're beating the rest of the Western world in terms of how good their healthcare system is.
	There's so many different areas where they are empirically a lot.
	Effective life.
	Exactly.
	It's just better.
	It's just better.
	And I'm not.
	I always say I don't believe in a utopia.
	I don't think it's possible.
	But I believe in close to a utopia.
	I think we can get to the fucking doorstep.
	You can never walk through that door because certain things and shortcomings in human nature will stop you.
	You can get fucking close to it, man.
	And if you had a system like that set up in individual nation states around the world, I think what you would see is a really big decrease in all the things that you and I probably agree are shitty things, like tribalism, like religious fundamentalism, like interesting on that point, right?
	One thing that I've seen a few discussions about recently is a basic living wage just for existing.
	I actually don't like that, believe it or not.
	I like a negative income tax.
	I'm sorry, finish up.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, I mean, I'm not committed to the idea.
	I'm not going to go and pick at it and petition for it tomorrow.
	But it's something interesting I would be interested in discussing more with people just because, I mean, it would solve a lot of society's problems.
	Because, I mean, a vast amount of crime is because of poverty.
	Right.
	And so if you can just, you can just erase that completely.
	There's no more welfare state.
	You know, all the, you know, it's going to obviously cost more than a welfare state would cost, but you can take any money that you're going to spend on a welfare state to spend on it.
	You don't have to worry about unemployment.
	You don't have to worry about poverty, particularly because there's always going to be a minimum threshold.
	And if I was like, well, where's the money going to come from?
	Well, frankly, the richest people in society are going to pay for it.
	If I were the dictator, well, that's too bad.
	We've earned that money.
	It's like, yeah, no, yeah, no.
	No, you haven't.
	Nobody is worth $90 billion or whatever Bill Gates is.
	That's right.
	It's not.
	There is nothing a human being can do that means they're worth millions of dollars an hour.
	I'm sorry.
	That's totally true.
	Yeah, you're right.
	You have not cured cancer.
	You have sold computers.
	And even then, 500 million.
	You'll be okay.
	Exactly.
	Go have a yacht.
	Drink.
	Go to the beach.
	Enjoy yourself.
	You don't make billions of millions.
	I think a system that produces billionaires is a bad system.
	It's hoarding wealth.
	You don't need people to be so wealthy.
	I know they're going to be right when people are going, well, they earned it.
	Well, I don't care.
	But they didn't.
	That's the thing.
	They can't logically explain to you how the person earned it.
	All they'll say, they'll start using economic terms for you.
	They'll say, well, the productivity that he, and what it comes down to is.
	Well, yeah, the terms is what you were saying.
	They'll say, well, you're saying that they should work for, you know, 50% of their labour should get...
	They're not doing any fucking labour.
	They're not doing any labor.
	They're not fucking cleaning out skips or anything.
	They're sat in an office saying, yeah, sell 500 million stocks or whatever.
	Here's what it comes down to.
	You ready?
	Your market value is not equal to your human value.
	Those are different things.
	But I feel like the real hardcore libertarians sometimes conflate those things.
	They can't stand this argument.
	And I know I'm going to get people going, ah, you're so wrong.
	Okay, I accept that you think I'm wrong on that.
	But I'm sorry.
	I don't.
	Yeah, no, like I said, I respect libertarians.
	But on that point, I think they're out to lunch because a market value is not the same as a human value.
	You can't tell me that my grandmother was worth how much less than Donald fucking Trump.
	No, that doesn't mean he's a better person.
	That doesn't mean he's a better human.
	That doesn't mean he's more intelligent.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	It just means that he made more money in a system that's arbitrary because it was set up not with objectivity in mind or equality in mind or any principles of justice or philosophical underpinnings.
	It was just a system set up that it's not like everybody started at a certain point.
	Somebody shot a gun and we all ran.
	And oh, look, Donald Trump got to the 100-yard line first, and my grandma was stuck at line, you know, that 20 yards.
	It's not the way it works.
	It's fairly arbitrary the way the system works right now.
	So you can't say that, oh, he's worth that much because he has that much.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	It's also like there was, wasn't there a study done?
	I'll find it.
	There was a study where after, say, I think it was about like $700 million or something.
	When people have got that much money and more, there's no increase in happiness.
	The quality of what they're doing.
	No, no.
	You know what number it is?
	Wait, wait, wait.
	I'm going to blow your mind.
	You know what number that is?
	70,000.
	The number was 70,000.
	I thought it was 700 million.
	No, because 70,000, I guess they calculated that that can basically pay for a decent life pretty much anywhere, you know, like maybe some of the most expensive counties in the US and in the UK or whatever.
	Like maybe not there, but like that's basically the number where if you make above that, you're just playing around.
	I don't mind if it was a bit higher than that, because that is a really low number, realistically.
	No, no, but like, so what they did, though, was just science.
	So, you know, far be it from us to disagree with it.
	But I'm not saying that, you know, you should ban if somebody makes over 80 grand.
	No, the state has to come and take it.
	That's absurd.
	I agree with you that, you know, you can have, like, I'm a big fan of marginal tax rates.
	A lot of people don't know what marginal tax rates are, but they like to talk about them anyway because they're fucking idiots.
	And a marginal tax rate is you tax money made over a certain number at a higher percentage.
	So like you might, let's say somebody makes $50,000 a year, right?
	They might get taxed at, okay, 15% is your tax rate.
	Or somebody makes $70,000 a year.
	Okay, 25% is your tax rate.
	A marginal tax rate means like, let's say, your first $2 million is taxed at a lower rate.
	So like 30%, maybe 35% or something like that.
	But everything over that, whatever number, $3 million that you make, everything over that is taxed at 70% or something like that.
	So the idea is you're stopping the outliers of extreme wealth from having enough money to buy your whole fucking society through everybody.
	Exactly.
	And these people would be.
	And the thing is, you know, if you want to carry on earning wealth, then, man, that would be a massive mark of charity.
	Holy shit.
	I would be like, yeah, put this man's fucking, yeah, what happened?
	Well, you know, Bill Gates, he earned $90 billion.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, under the system, well, he actually lost about $89.5 billion.
	Well, okay, what did we do with that 89.5 billion?
	Well, we built fucking schools.
	Great.
	Bill Gates school there, Bill Gates school there, Bill Gates Hospital.
	Put his fucking name all over it.
	You know, he is charitably doing this now.
	Yeah, okay.
	He doesn't have a fucking choice, but he doesn't need 90 billion fucking dollars.
	It doesn't.
	You don't need over a billion.
	You don't.
	Nobody ever, ever, ever needed over a billion dollars.
	You just don't.
	Bill Gates, if he dropped a million dollars, it wouldn't be worth his fucking time to pick it up.
	So it's just this is a ridiculous system, and it has to change.
	It can't go on like this, you know?
	That's right.
	And by the way, just to get back to your living wage point, I just want to explain why I disagree with it for people.
	Yeah, yeah, go for it.
	So I get so many questions on this issue where they ask me, hey, living wage, you forward or against it.
	The only reason I'm against it is I do think that you'd run into some just issues empirically and it won't work in that you have inflation problems and then some price fixing could go on that you basically wipe out the fact that somebody got a living wage to begin with.
	So what I favor much more is something called a negative income tax, which is so you're basically making different scales for different people.
	So instead of having a basic income for everybody and then Bill Gates and Donald Trump also get a check in the mail every month or whatever it is, $1,500 or whatever, instead of that happening, you make it part of the progressive tax rate.
	So if you make $10,000 or less a year, $20,000 all the way up to whatever it is, $60,000, $80,000 a year, you're going to get that by virtue of the tax bracket you're in.
	So I'm in favor of a negative 5% tax bracket or negative 10% tax bracket or whatever it is to start off.
	And then as you go up, as you make more money, it obviously gets to the point where the state's not paying you.
	You're paying the state.
	If you're Donald Trump, Bill Gates, you name it.
	So I just think that system would actually get the best results.
	And it kind of achieves the goal that the living wage people are trying to achieve.
	But I think that the way they go about it would actually be more counterproductive and it wouldn't work as well as they think it would.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's two in the morning here.
	So go through it a bit.
	So if you were below a certain amount of money, say like $10,000 or whatever, the state would give you money to top.
	But if you were over, say, $50,000, the state would start taxing you.
	Well, in my system, if you make about $50,000, you're still going to get money back from the state.
	Well, however much.
	Yeah, it's however you craft it.
	So, you know, whatever it is, around $80,000, $90,000, that's when you start paying taxes, you know, and obviously the higher you get, the more the rates go up, and then the more the marginal rate kicks in.
	Okay.
	Again, very interesting idea.
	You know, it's an interesting variant on the same sort of theme, isn't it?
	But the point is, you know, that everyone on a certain wage has a certain standard of living that's getting together.
	That's right.
	I just want the floor to be reasonable.
	I don't think the floor is reasonable right now.
	As soon as the floor becomes reasonable and as soon as I think a reasonable person could say, no, you have an equal opportunity, I want to get to the point where I can blame somebody individually when they don't make it.
	That's what I want to get to.
	I want to get to the point where if you don't make it in the society we crafted, well, it's on you.
	And I want to genuinely be able to say that to somebody.
	No, no, it's on you.
	You fucked up.
	You didn't make it.
	So it's on you.
	But we're not at that point yet.
	We're at the point where there's a trillion legitimate excuses if somebody didn't make it.
	If you're black in America, fuck, you have it significantly harder than I do.
	White privilege.
	No, no, look, don't get it tied up with ridiculous examples of people that take it too far.
	You know, this is one of those issues where you have to, there's legitimate evidence, data, statistics on the side that in America, white people have it significantly better than black people do.
	But that doesn't then therefore mean that every criticism ever made where people say white privilege is the problem here, that that is the problem.
	You see what I'm saying?
	I think the problem with white privilege is that it's the wrong way to approach a problem like this.
	I watched David Packman's interview with Tim Wise, was it?
	He was any racism activist, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And basically, I can't remember exactly what the quote was, but he what he what white privilege is, is doing to white people what they think has been done to black people.
	Two wrongs don't make a right.
	That's the problem.
	That's why everybody's.
	No, no, but I disagree with that.
	Well, no, no, I know what you're saying.
	I know what you're saying.
	Like, black people, statistically, they do have issues in the United States.
	There's no getting around it.
	But to then turn around to white people and point the finger, say, this is your fault because you're white privileged, blah, blah, blah.
	No, no, but you only point the finger at white people when you should.
	There are plenty of issues where you shouldn't, but there are plenty where you should.
	Well, okay, when should you?
	So I can give a few examples, but like one that comes to mind, we did a study on my show a while back.
	We reported on it where in America, if you have the exact same resume, one has a white-sounding name, one has a black-sounding name, the black-sounding name gets 50% less hits.
	In that situation, the only variable is the race that's typically associated with the name.
	So when you look at something like that, you just go, oh, okay, no, see, that's a problem with the perception of society where they say, well, I'd rather go with the white person, all things being equal.
	Yeah, stereotyping.
	Right.
	And then there's other ones where there's a good YouTube clip that went viral of this guy who decided to do this little experiment where he kind of took one of those hanger things and broke into his own car to see the reaction that he would get from people around him.
	I think it was in LA midday.
	And when he did it, he's a white guy.
	When he did it, nobody fucking batted an eyelash.
	A cop literally drove by when he did it and didn't fucking stop or anything.
	Then he had his black friend go do it.
	Immediately the cops were called.
	The cop was rough with him, threw him against the wall, and all that stuff.
	Now, granted, that's an anecdotal example.
	I take the point.
	But the point I'm making, though, is that this isn't the fault of white people at large.
	And I know that that sounds counterintuitive.
	Well, because white people are society at large, it's still an issue.
	I'm not saying it's not an issue, but the solution.
	To then turn around to white people and say, right, you're all privileged, so now I'm about to start wagging my finger and you're going to start doing as we say, because black people, or whoever, are being marginalized and they're the victim of negative stereotypes and all this sort of thing is it's.
	It's a wrong and it's trying to solve a wrong with another wrong.
	I just think they're saying, acknowledge it, that's it.
	I think people are saying, hey look man, there are these problems, we have these problems, and if you acknowledge these problems, if you know they exist, you're much less likely to actually partake in them.
	I well, from what?
	From what I've seen, it's I.
	It would be nice if it were that benign, And if it were that benign, then it probably would be fine.
	But I mean, MTV have recently released trailers for a program where they make white people cry for being white.
	Yeah, but I mean, look, that's just goofy.
	Like, that's just silly.
	But that doesn't mean that there's not an underlying problem there that should be discussed.
	I mean, let me give you another example because there are hardcore facts on this.
	So black people are four times more likely to get arrested for doing drugs when white people and black people do drugs at a similar rate.
	Now, a lot of that has to do with the fact that when white people are doing drugs, they're in the fucking suburbs and they're not in plain view of any police and their neighborhoods aren't nearly as heavily policed.
	And when black people oftentimes are doing drugs, they're living in downtown and sometimes they've got to sneak out on the porch in order to do it.
	And sometimes you've got cops patrol those areas much more heavily.
	So when you have a system like that where two races of people are doing something that's supposedly negative, I think you and I agree we should legalize it, but they're doing it at the same rate and then one group gets arrested more.
	That's something that needs to be addressed.
	I'm not saying that you make a goofy MTV documentary that caricatures the problem, but it's certainly a problem that should be addressed.
	My point is the people crying in the documentary didn't cause the problem.
	They're not responsible in any way for the problem.
	They didn't, as individuals, do anything wrong.
	And yet there's a massive burden of guilt being placed on them to the point where they're breaking down in tears and people all around the world are looking at them and feeling sorry for them, I assume.
	And that's wrong.
	That person didn't do any of this.
	They didn't create the system.
	Of course.
	They're not fucking southern slave owners.
	Of course, they're ridiculous to think they are.
	But acknowledging the system.
	No, no, but that's the thing.
	I'm not saying we don't acknowledge that black people have problems in America.
	Of course they do.
	Look at the statistics.
	It's ludicrous.
	Single-parent households, crime, fucking illiteracy, and all this sort of stuff.
	It's so much higher in the black communities.
	But that doesn't mean that it's the fault of any individual white person.
	And so to turn around to an individual white person and say, you're the recipient of white privilege is absolutely wrong.
	But my point is, I think that you think more people are doing that than there actually are.
	And speaking as somebody who's basically associated and affiliated with what you would call the left in America, I know that in the circles I run in and the people I talk to, the idea is more, let's get some systemic reform.
	Let's go about this in an intelligent, policy-driven way.
	And then the only other thing that's coupled along with that is just trying to raise the consciousness about it to get people to acknowledge that there's an issue.
	I agree with you.
	If the entire fucking movement was people trying to get dumbass white people on TV to cry because their fucking great-great-great-grandparents were slaves, like Ben Affleck or slave owners like Ben Affleck or some shit, that's fucking stupid.
	It's counterproductive.
	You're not doing anything to actually fix a problem.
	You're just exploiting a real issue for ratings.
	So that's the problem.
	But in terms of who's right when it comes to policy, I think it's almost 100% liberals who are trying to get a real universal health care system, trying to get a better social safety net, trying to get a higher minimum wage, trying to increase humanization.
	I'm not arguing with policy.
	I think that's exactly the right thing to say.
	But I think you're turned off by the tone.
	That's what I think it is.
	I think that you look.
	See, I think that it's almost like you're being distracted by the most irrelevant part because the most relevant part is the fundamental and systemic wrongdoings that are occurring every day within the system.
	So it's almost like don't get distracted by that.
	Let's all focus on the things that matter here and try to, number one, fix the system.
	Number two, just get people who are beneficiaries of a system that they did not take part in creating it to make it wrong.
	Just have them say, look, I get it.
	Okay, I think that's the word, beneficiaries.
	You're not benefiting.
	Me compared.
	No, no, no, but I am in the sense that if you take me and compare me to somebody who's black who went to the exact same school as I did, lived in the exact same city as I did, there's no denying that simply as a result of my skin color, I had it easier than he did.
	I think to deny that.
	I don't think you're drinking anything from him.
	I'm not saying I did.
	I'm not saying I did.
	I know, but there are people who are effectively saying this.
	The problem with them is they're going slightly too far.
	That's the issue with them, and I don't think...
	Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way arguing against the legislative angle.
	I understand.
	I completely agree that these are definitely issues.
	And I really do feel a lot of sympathy for these communities.
	One thing I sometimes talk to people, there is a poverty trap.
	When you find yourself in poverty, it's all you can do just to make sure that your rent is paid.
	You've got food on the table.
	You can't think about raising yourself out of it because you spend all of your processing power trying to maintain the level you're at.
	And by the way, free trade is the biggest culprit for the destruction of African Americans in America.
	I mean, people, that's why I fucking can't stand the conservatives who try to literally just point their fingers at black people and say, it's you, and it's because of your blackness, which happens.
	In America, that fucking happens.
	And, you know, the reality is you're talking about a society that until fucking 1964, 1965, which was not that long ago, they were officially second-class citizens.
	Then, to even get them equal on paper does not mean that they're equal yet in reality, empirically, with how the society treats them and whatnot, and what kind of economic opportunities they have.
	But even then, they were able to dig their way out of that situation quite a bit up until about 1975 or 1980.
	And then everything fucking tanked because you had all these money came into politics.
	You had all these free trade deals and all these things.
	So the point I always try to make to conservative white people in America is this.
	If you flipped the racial histories in America, and it was black people who owned white people and the white people were the slaves and we were the victims of Jim Crow and we were the victims of segregation and we in 1965 got equal rights and all that stuff.
	If you flip the racial situation, I submit to them that the crime statistics in the white community would be exactly the same as in the black community and everything would be the same.
	I think people are entirely, almost entirely, a product of their environment in this sort of situation.
	But my issue really is, I mean, like the conversation with Professor Saad, he comes from academia.
	He speaks to these people and he knows that there is a prevailing attitude amongst the intelligentsia that this is the case.
	Yeah, what's the case?
	The case is that white people have unfair privileges because they're not being victimized.
	And it's very much the sort of master-slave dichotomy.
	If you're not holding the whip, then you're the one being whipped.
	I mean, you can't just be the one observing the person being whipped.
	Do you really think we're on the edge of the dynamic being flipped and black people will have their boot on the neck of white people?
	No, no, no, no.
	God, no.
	I don't think that black people are going to have their neck on the boot of white people.
	I think that white people are going to have their boot on your neck.
	These progressives, these extreme progressives, there's an MTV show where white people cry for being white, man.
	That's what I'm saying.
	No, no, no.
	But this goes back to my backlash theory, man.
	I don't know if you remember, I said at the beginning of the show at some point that it's almost like I viewed black pride as more understandable than white pride because black pride was a backlash to the white pride.
	Now, that doesn't mean that everything every person who was in favor of black pride said is true.
	It doesn't mean that they're correct.
	It just means it's objectively, it's more understandable because you were the ones who were fucked over for so long that it's like, okay, you're pissed.
	I get it.
	You know what I mean?
	By the same token, by the same token, I see that with the extreme progressives.
	Like, I agree with you.
	And this is why I always say I'm an international centrist because I think I really am a centrist.
	Like, I see some people on the left might go too far with how they frame those things and how they talk about those things and stuff like that.
	But I don't think that that extreme is something that's going to be around very long, and I don't think it makes much of a difference.
	I think it's just a backlash to a system that was so fucked up in the other direction for so long that it's this temporary thing where a couple people look fucking goofy as shit on MTV.
	Now, I wish that were the case.
	I really don't think that that's the case.
	That's the problem.
	I guess I'm cynical about that.
	Where does it lead?
	Because I just said before, do you think black people are going to have their neck on the poo-to-white people?
	So where does it lead?
	I don't see any negative.
	I mean, again, I think it's goofy, and I laugh at it, but do I think it's going to have some sort of deep societal impact where the policy will be fucked up in a different direction?
	No, because I think by and large, those ultra-progressives that you and I might disagree with on some smaller points, I think that they're also kind of pushing for the right things politically.
	I think they'll be right next to you calling for a universal healthcare system and better unions and shit like that.
	Well, yeah, but they'll be telling me that I'm not allowed to speak based on the color of my skin.
	See, okay, but that's the thing.
	Like, I think you're right to be pissed off by those people.
	Like, what's the person who suey something or other?
	Suey Punk.
	Yeah, who said some shit to the Huffington Post live guy who's like, you're white, so you can't talk.
	Like, yeah, that's a dumb person.
	Like, we're talking about a ridiculous human being.
	No, but that's a university-educated person.
	That's the sort of person that universities are pumping out by their thousands every year.
	I don't know.
	We just disagree on the size of that issue.
	I think she's a silly person.
	I don't think, I think everybody, you know how you roll your eyes when she talks?
	I roll my eyes when she talks.
	Everybody I know rolls their eyes when she talks.
	We're talking about somebody here who's not only wrong, but ridiculous, and it's inconsequential in the greater scheme of things in terms of the things that really matter, which you already said you agree with me on, which is the policy.
	I mean, all this comes down to policy in my mind, because that's what politics really comes down to, policy.
	What are we doing to try to make people's lives better?
	What are we trying to do to get equal opportunity for people, make people happier and shit like that?
	I think that the people you're talking about are ridiculous, but they're a tiny, tiny fraction of the people in the conversation, and they're irrelevant.
	I would like, I mean, they're not, they're not, well, see, this is.
	So we just have a disagreement to the size.
	That's what it comes down to.
	We do, but the thing is, they're definitely on the increase.
	There are more and more of these people every year, and they become more and more visible in the public discourse with social media.
	They're very good at using social media to get to do what they want.
	And you're just more immersed in it than me, because I do a progressive show, and I don't know these people.
	No, I probably am.
	I read this sort of stuff.
	But this is why Professor Saad was on my show, because he deals with them on a daily basis, because he's in universities.
	And the MTV, the BuzzFeed, all this sort of stuff, these are the results of what these people learned.
	This is the...
	And don't get me wrong, it is silly, but in 10 years' time, when you've got another generation of kids who have been indoctrinated in this way, it's going to look less silly and more like the norm.
	And then in 20 years' time, it's going to look even more like norm.
	And so this is the issue that I have with the left and the right, really.
	The extreme left and the extreme right.
	The extreme right is scary, but the extreme left is insidious.
	And so.
	Oh, I totally disagree with that.
	Hey, I'm happy.
	I think the extreme right, first of all, gave us all the gigantic problems we've been talking about for the majority of the show.
	They're the ones that gave us the imperialism.
	They're the ones that were always against equal rights for everybody, every single step of the way.
	They're dead wrong on every single social issue.
	They're dead wrong on every single economic issue.
	They're the people that are preventing universal health here in America.
	They're the people that are preventing an increase in the minimum wage.
	They're the people that didn't regulate Wall Street.
	They're the people that are going to bring us the next economic crash.
	I don't think anybody's necessarily insidious, but I think the right has more extremists, and those extremists affect our lives in a much more negative way.
	I think the left-wing extremists are borderline irrelevant.
	And I don't think they're as numerous.
	I think the left-wing extremists are Sue Park, who she goes on a HuffPost live show, makes a fucking ass of herself.
	I mean, think about it, man.
	She was part of this Cancel Colbert movement.
	It was about a tweet that Stephen Colbert didn't even write.
	He didn't even write the tweet.
	And the tweet was to mock racism.
	But of course, ironic racism is not okay to some people.
	That's part of racism, even though it's literally not, because it's mocking racism.
	Okay, so you have it so that Huffington Post, which is a liberal outlet, or some people would say it's liberal outlet, the host of the Huffington Post show, got into it with Sue Park and disagreed with her.
	So the liberal outlet disagrees with her.
	Stephen Colbert, who's progressive, disagrees with her.
	I, who run a progressive show, disagree with her.
	I just don't see this massive problem.
	She's younger than all of you people.
	She is way younger than all of you people.
	This is what your universities are producing.
	This is your next generation.
	This is the thing.
	She's a kid.
	She's like 20.
	I'm sorry, man.
	I just don't.
	Look, I mean, what it really comes down to is an empirical question.
	It's an empirical question.
	It's an empirical question, and there is an answer out there.
	But until you have somebody do some sort of a poll, you and I are not going to know what the answer is in terms of who knows.
	You may be right.
	It may be the case that here I am naively thinking that we're dealing with a tiny percentage of the progressive movement that are irrelevant anyway.
	Meanwhile, a poll could come out and say, whatever it is, 54% of the progressive movement are fucking batshit, anti-white pricks.
	But let me just say, if that is the case, I would be super surprised.
	Because insofar as I can tell, doing what I do and going to the sources I go to and stuff, when you have Colbert, a liberal show, when you have HuffPost Live, liberal, and myself, liberal, disagreeing with this person who thinks they're coming from the left of us, Sue Park, that person becomes a fucking caricature of a human being.
	They do.
	I've done segments mocking.
	Let me give you another good example.
	Joke outrage.
	Joke outrage.
	Yeah.
	Like joke outrage is one of those things.
	I've never, ever seen a joke outrage issue where I didn't side with the comedian and go, everybody shut the fuck up.
	It's a joke, right?
	Of course.
	So now, is there a dis in the progressive community?
	Is there disagreement?
	Absolutely, there's disagreement.
	It is progressives who get mad when Bill Maher makes a joke about Muslims or Islam, and I think they're wrong to get mad about that, right?
	But I don't think the consequences of that, I think, are so irrelevant because they're not going to repeal the First Amendment, nor can they.
	So all you have is the fucking peanut gallery, make a little noise for a week and a half, then I slap them down with a scathing segment, and then we move on with our lives.
	That's the left-wing problem.
	Now, the right-wing problem, on the other hand, is a bunch of jackasses destroy the economy and take away our civil liberties.
	That's a bigger problem.
	Yeah, but they're not in power at the moment.
	It's the left that's in power.
	No, no, but we no, no, no, but we hold on.
	We agreed that when it comes to economics, there is no left in America.
	So whether it's Obama or whether it's the right ones.
	Yeah, but we're talking about social issues at the moment.
	That's the thing.
	And I mean, the thing is, I mean, do you know who Tim Hunt is?
	No, I don't.
	Right.
	He's a Nobel laureate scientist who was accused of making a rude or off-color joke.
	Not even off-colour.
	He was accused of making a joke in a forum.
	He was giving an address.
	And he made the joke that his problem with women in laboratories was that they fall in love with you or they cry when they criticize.
	And then he was like, okay, but I was just kidding.
	Now, seriously, and yet he is now fired.
	He's left.
	That's horrendous.
	These people have power.
	That's a Nobel laureate scientist.
	Yeah, no, in that case, you're right.
	That's a problem.
	And that needs to be stopped.
	But that's the point.
	These people aren't waxing, waning, they're waxing.
	Well, I mean, maybe.
	But the point is, there are more and more people being produced with this kind of mindset every year because there is a deep rot in universities at the moment.
	Well, look, I agree.
	It's extreme progressivism.
	And it does have power.
	It's not legislative, but it's not trying to be.
	But I think the way that we beat that back, though, is to do exactly what we're doing, which is you have people who I would fancy myself somebody who in America is an actual liberal or progressive.
	Like I said, internationally, I'm a centrist, but in America, I'm a liberal or progressive.
	It takes people like myself going out there and saying, no, no, no, you guys don't get it.
	You're not actually being liberal.
	You're not actually being progressive.
	You're authoritarian.
	That's what you're being.
	And that's wrong.
	And you talk about that and you hammer that idea home.
	And then hopefully over time, we win that battle.
	I agree with you now.
	That's a huge problem.
	And that guy should not have been fired.
	And that should be remedied immediately.
	But that's the answer.
	The solution is to do exactly what we're doing right now, which is to say that to actually stand up for these values that you guys say you care about means to be always on the side of free speech.
	It does.
	It does.
	But this is the issue that, I mean, it's bad that this happened, but if it continues like this, and I think it's something that we've got to recognize, that there's going to be a point where you want to stand up to say something and people will say, hey, you're white, you can't talk.
	I don't know what you mean when you say that, though.
	You can give me a specific example like you just did.
	And in that specific example, I agree with you.
	That's a problem, and we need to fight back against it.
	But the idea that, number one, in America, it will never rise to the government level in terms of restricting free speech at the government level because we have the First Amendment, and that's actually one of the few things I'm super proud of.
	It'll be social.
	It will be social.
	It'll be social pressure that will see, in that case, it's almost like just fight back.
	The only answer is fight back against that.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, that's my answer.
	But at the same time, what I also would want to do, though, is I just want to make sure everybody understands the perspective, though, and the scope of the problem, which is, yes, even if I concede to you, and I do, that there is an issue when it comes to joke outrage and silly restrictions, social restrictions of free speech, I agree with you on that.
	But all I'm saying is keep everything in perspective and that, yes, we can fight back against that and speak out against that.
	But at the same time, we need to understand that the biggest threat politically in the country in terms of actual substantive policy is from the right, and it will continue to be from the right.
	Because in America, historically, they've been wrong every step of the way.
	I mean, if you look at, just take the economy, for example.
	If you look at in the 19 teens and the 1920s, what did the U.S. do?
	They did Reaganomics, deregulation, trickle-on economics.
	What happened?
	1929, stock market crash, Great Depression.
	Then we have to have FDR come in, fucking fix everything, do the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson later on, war on poverty, stuff like that.
	So we had some liberals who actually did some liberal shit.
	So the economy was stable until money came into politics, and then Reagan came in.
	So late 1970s, early 1980s.
	Then boom, everything went downhill.
	What happened right when Reagan left office and he implemented Reaganomics?
	A tremendous recession.
	Boom.
	There's two examples right there of right-wing economics fucking everybody over.
	Then fast forward to the Bush years, and actually the end of Clinton years too, because he didn't have to.
	He also did deregulation.
	He did shitty welfare reform.
	What happens at the end of Bush's term after he implemented right-wing economics?
	Same thing.
	You had subprime mortgage prices, great recession.
	But every step of the way.
	Economics, because like you just said, Clinton did the same thing.
	Obama's probably doing the same thing.
	Well, and I would argue Clinton on many economic issues was right-wing.
	Like to be pro-free trade, I hate calling it that, pro-outsourcing, in favor of deregulation.
	I just categorize that broadly as right-wing.
	Yeah, but do you think that if, say, Ron Paul or Rand Paul had got into the position where they were able to change things, would they do the same thing?
	Because I think really the better description, like you said, with outsourcing rather than free trade, I think the better description is corporate economics rather than right-wing economics.
	Don't be wrong.
	I mean, the new economy is a problem.
	I think there's a real ideology there, though.
	Like, I think that there are people, you got to understand, libertarian economics is very, I mean, a lot of people love it.
	Austrian economics is actually referred to as.
	You know, a lot of people really abide by that, and it's almost like a pseudo-religion in many ways.
	But I'm just using that term broadly.
	Okay, but if you want to use that term, that's fine.
	So every time they get into power and implement corporate economics, we get fucked.
	So what I'm trying to say is just I want everybody to keep everything in perspective and understand.
	Because what I'm afraid of is this.
	People look at the things that you're talking about, which are certainly legitimate issues and ones I agree with you on.
	But they look at stuff like that and they get so scared of the left that they start lumping in, you know, reasonable fucking people like Bernie Sanders into that movement.
	And they say, I won't vote for him.
	I'm going to vote for fucking Rick Santorum instead.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't want people to lose perspective and to say, because some idiots on the left are ridiculous, like Sue Park, that means that I'm not going to vote for liberal people anymore because they're all the same.
	Hey, I agree.
	I get this.
	Whenever I deal with right-wing people, they're like, oh, liberals.
	And I'm like, well, I'm a liberal and I don't agree with what you just said.
	But the thing is, these people, I think, are very eager to restrict free speech.
	They're very, very eager to do public censoring.
	And I think they will be used as useful idiots for the people who wants to employ these sorts of corporate economic policies to continue screwing everyone.
	So while you want to make a big deal of the corporate economic policies, you might find yourself on the receiving end of a Suey Park, but you may find yourself on the receiving end because now it's gone beyond Sue Park.
	Sue Park was a couple of years ago now.
	It's worse.
	I mean, we're now sort of like Tim Hunt.
	Nobel laureates get fired from their universities because someone takes issue with a joke that they told.
	It's absurd.
	And so it's one of those things where it's like, wow, that is actually a slap in the face to anyone, any kind of free expression.
	You know, you, you, if you can't even tell a joke without your career being tanked and you are a Nobel prize winner, I mean, motherfucker, that is insane.
	That is insane.
	It is insane.
	And so what you might be saying, look, I want to talk about the government TCPIP.
	And someone's like, yeah, but you're a white man.
	You're privileged.
	What are you talking about?
	And you'd be like, well, I don't want to talk about that.
	I don't care.
	Now thousands of people on Twitter are shouting you down and all that sort of stuff.
	Dude, I come back to my numbers point, man.
	I agree that the people you're talking about are a huge problem.
	However, I just think they're a smaller number than you think they are.
	I mean, I don't think we're not going to get around that because I just, it's an empirical question.
	There is a percentage out there.
	We just don't know what it is.
	And again, I agree with you.
	That's a huge fucking problem.
	You can see I've done endless segments about, you know, fucking Jimmy Fallon, who's the least controversial comedian ever, told a joke about Hillary Clinton's blouse, and people were like, how about we never talk about a woman's clothing ever?
	Okay, thanks.
	And I did say this.
	It was enough where there were articles written about it and shit.
	So I did segments where I'm like, you're ridiculous.
	So I hear you, and I've spoken up on these issues time and time and time again.
	I'm not saying that you're not.
	No, and I know.
	I know you're not saying that.
	But all I'm saying is I just want, you know, the number is the issue here.
	What percentage of the people on the left, you know, make this up is the issue here.
	And then the other issue which I added on top of it is just this idea of make sure you keep things in perspective.
	Because I actually, like you mentioned in there that, you know, the Suey Parks of the World and this crowd is going to be used as useful idiots.
	That I actually disagree with because I think that those people will accidentally vote for people who are better.
	I think that those people are going to vote for Democrats, but not because they're actually intelligent people and they have a smart philosophy.
	They'll just go to the polls and vote for Democrats who are better on the issues, but they're right in who they're voting for by accident.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Yeah, no, I mean, I, well, I, the thing is, I, I'm very familiar with the way they think and they're going to vote for people based on what they are.
	So they're going to vote for Hillary Clinton based on the fact that she is a left-in-in-one.
	Yeah, no, you're right.
	That's probably true.
	And I will be very upset that they don't vote for Bernie Sanders.
	Yeah, my overall point is that.
	They're not going to vote for him.
	My overall point is be afraid of be more afraid of the Tea Party crowd and the, oh my God, God forbid the day that fucking Ted Cruz happens to slip into office because liberals get complacent and that fucking maniac takes over.
	I don't think you're in any danger of that, to be honest.
	Yeah, well, I hope so too.
	But then again, Trump is leading in one poll, and if he can lead in a poll, good googly moogly, what have we gotten ourselves into?
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I just, maybe, like I said, maybe it's just that I am more in contact with it, and so it worries me more.
	I can't really see the right really culturally taking over again.
	And I think, and honestly, I think if so, I think if you replace the extreme left with the extreme right, I think the extreme right would be worse.
	I mean, we see what's happening with the extreme right in places like Saudi Arabia.
	Those people who restrict free speech and whip people who are atheists and do fucking sorcery.
	That's the extreme right.
	That's the theocratic extreme right.
	In America, I mean, people like fucking John Hagee and Pat Robertson, they've now gone out of style and gone out of fashion.
	They peaked in the 1980s.
	They're idiots back then.
	They're idiots now.
	But, you know, there was a time when these guys had their day, and when they had their day, it was much worse.
	Because, God forbid, you're gay in America.
	You get, you know, beaten up and left on the side of the road, and people think that's a moral thing to do.
	I'm more afraid of the extreme right than I am of the extreme left.
	And that's with me agreeing with every point you made about the restriction of free speech on the left and the joke outrage and shit.
	Like, yes, it's all fucking ridiculous.
	But God forbid, if the extreme right replaces it, we're in for a world of trouble, not just economically, which is a given, but also socially, because they're more along the lines of let's fucking implement anti-gay policies.
	Let's literally implement anti-woman policies and things like that.
	Well, I mean, I'm happy for us to agree to disagree.
	I think that the numbers are less relevant with the advent of the Internet because I think it amplifies what's appeared to be a more...
	I've seen from experience, it makes them look like they're a more cohesive group.
	And I hear you, man.
	Look, I hear you.
	Maybe I am overblowing it.
	Maybe I am.
	Maybe I'm talking about that most ridiculous sort of extreme version of what could happen.
	Let me give you an example to kind of try to make a parallel here because I think I hear what you're saying.
	And so Jenk, for example, of TYT.
	So he may, you know, he's come out kind of swinging hard in this whole new atheist versus progressive debate.
	And he's more on the progressive side than the new atheist side when it comes to the question of Islam.
	And so he kind of fell into this trap of he would repeatedly attack new atheists.
	And like he would talk about, and then the new atheists believe X.
	And he would make these kind of sweeping generalized comments about new atheists.
	And so I had to do a segment where I kind of disagreed with him.
	And I said, look, man, are there people online, are there new atheists who believe the things that you're saying they believe?
	For sure.
	So for example, people who are new atheists who think like, no, the problem is all the Muslims.
	The Muslims are significantly worse.
	And in the Israel-Palestine situation, the Palestinians have no grievance whatsoever.
	Nothing's legitimate.
	100% Israel's right.
	And that's the end of the conversation.
	Are there some that believe that?
	Of course.
	But what you're doing when you say something like, well, these new atheists, the problem with them is X, is you're taking a lot of people who agree with you and you're isolating them.
	And now they're fucking pissed at you because you just lumped them in with a group that they don't belong to.
	So I had to do a segment where I say, you're not being specific enough with your terms.
	The problem is not all new atheists.
	The problem is a small percentage of new atheists.
	And that's ironically the same argument that he's trying to make when it comes to Muslims.
	He's like, no, it's not all Muslims.
	It's some Muslims, right?
	So he's making that same, you know, too broad of a generalized comment about new atheists.
	So I had to come out and protect new atheists.
	By the same token, I think that when you talk about this problem on the left, on the left, on the left, a lot of people on the left go, oh, look at this fucking right-wing bastard saying the things he's saying again.
	When meanwhile, I know you don't, I know that's not what you mean.
	I know that you don't mean I fucking heart Rick Santorum, I heart fucking Mike Huckabee because I'm upset with these extreme liberals.
	So I think it comes to, I think honestly, what it comes down to is phrasing and terminology.
	And that's super important.
	And what I've noticed from doing my show is that people online, they really fucking respect it if you can just phrase whatever you're trying to say properly and be as specific as possible.
	So whenever I talk about like a group of atheists that might piss me off, I would say, well, you know, this group of whatever, neocons who are atheists or something like that.
	Or, yeah, you know what I mean.
	Or if I'm talking about feminists that piss me off, I don't say these feminists piss me off.
	I say I refer to them as neo-feminists, but another word for that is third-wave feminism.
	So these third-wave feminists piss me off because X.
	And I basically, I think the more specific we are with our terms, the more people online go, oh, okay, okay.
	So I thought he was attacking me and my group, but he's really not.
	He's attacking this segment, which we all agree is stupid.
	You are right.
	I was using it as a shorthand to mean extreme progressives.
	You know, because it's, it's, you know, it's an interesting, I don't think progressives are liberal.
	I, I've yeah, you know, that's such an amorphous term that everybody uses.
	I use them interchangeably.
	And if anything, I've recently come to use progressive to mean like slightly more liberal than liberals.
	Yeah, I find them more authoritarian than liberals, you know, and so they find them more controlling.
	You know, and so I better change my banner on my YouTube channel.
	Because I think my banner says progressive talk radio show.
	I think it might say that.
	You know, I'm looking at it now.
	It actually does.
	I'm sure it's just the irrelevant nuance of the word.
	But the more I've been dealing with people who are very staunch and they say, you know, we're progressives.
	Okay.
	And then they're like, we're liberal.
	I was like, okay.
	And they're like, we want you to censor comic books.
	Or we want you to censor video games.
	And they're like, that's that's actually not very liberal.
	Yeah, no, I agree with you.
	And I've said this so many times, man.
	Like, it drives me crazy that anybody on the left side of the spectrum or and people who would self-describe themselves say I'm feminist.
	It drives me crazy that they're focusing on things like video games.
	And because you just delegitimized your entire thing, like you just made it so you made that a dirty word when it wasn't a dirty word and it shouldn't be a dirty word, but now you've made it so the term feminist to a lot of reasonable people is poisoned.
	And that really fucking upsets me because I'm one who believes, I think maybe a little bit more than you do, that I still think there are battles to be won on the for on race, for example.
	No, I agree.
	I agree.
	I mean, like the stats are irrefutable.
	You know, black people in America have they do have a real set of challenges that it is true that white people don't necessarily have, or in the majority probably don't have.
	I just the problem I think is that you've got a strain of person in academia who is able to pass their thoughts on and their opinions on to the young, impressionable college students that go there.
	And they are weird, man.
	They are just people that you would raise eyebrows and go, right, I don't want to talk to them.
	I don't want to be stuck near them at a party, you know?
	Look, man, honestly, I think I know it sounds ridiculous and self-aggrandizing to say it, but I think that's where I come in and you come in and other people online come in.
	Because, I mean, the idea that we're not in some way, shape, or form, teachers, I think is silly because we are to a certain extent.
	You know, people watch us for entertainment.
	They watch us for a variety of different reasons.
	But, I mean, you're talking about some serious issues oftentimes.
	I'm talking about them.
	I'm trying to cover the news.
	And granted, I give my opinion, but I tell everybody I'm giving them my opinion and stuff.
	But this is something where I think you have to have these counter-influences to all types of extremism.
	And, you know, you just hope that at the end of the day, you were able to take somebody who may have been whatever, some sort of extreme third-wave feminist or some sort of Christian right crazy person or some sort of Muslim fundamentalist or just anybody of any kind of white supremacist ideology and just chip away at their fucking silliness, you know?
	Just trying to.
	I'm trying to get through.
	Let's see.
	Just keep watching and we'll see what we can do.
	No, I totally agree.
	And I find myself trying to have, I don't know, I'm just trying to find, like, I'm just trying to have conversations with people on my YouTube channel, like this one now, with the sorts of more moderate, rational people and help promote their voices, you know, because it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
	You know, it's always the most crazy, extreme motherfucker who manages to get on TV and get on the papers and get their stupid, like Sue Park.
	You know, she's a perfect example.
	How the hell was she given any airtime whatsoever?
	You know, why are we?
	Yeah, no, I agree.
	And you know what?
	That's why this actually goes back to one of the things I said earlier on where my philosophy has always been, and I talk about this all the time on my show, is that the people who have the ideas that are lined up with science and reason and logic and good things, those people typically, by their nature, are much more quiet because they're willing to learn from other people.
	They don't think they're right necessarily.
	They're willing to be exactly.
	So I said, marry a little bit of bravado, marry a little bit of, you know, in your face, obnoxious, unapologetic attitude.
	Marry that with your decent ideas and let's talk, man.
	Then hopefully, you know, you're charismatic enough to outdo the squeakiest wheel, as you called them, the person who's loud and wrong.
	And I think, and I might be a little too naive and optimistic on this, but I think that that's a battle that's winnable, man.
	I think that, you know, I got to tell you, like, my audience, I fucking love my audience, man.
	And I'm not just sucking up to them either.
	They're people who'll correct me when I'm wrong about something or they'll have some disagreements with me and whatnot.
	And it's always fairly reasonable disagreements.
	And it's just like, oh, okay.
	So what we're doing here, it makes sense.
	Like, what we're doing here is we are trying to gather a whole group of people that are fair-minded and trying to make some sort of a difference and try to inspire in some kind of way.
	And that's all you got to do.
	Just keep chipping away and then see where it goes.
	Man, I tell you what, I can't tell you the amount of times I've said exactly the same thing about my audience.
	I read all my comments on my videos because there are always times, always times where someone's like, hey, by the way, you missed this or you got that wrong or here's a link that you needed sort of thing.
	And I'll put it in the description with an update of my video.
	Being like, hey, you know, this was something I didn't know.
	Someone from my audience has corrected me.
	And they do it all the time.
	And I'm fucking glad they do because I don't know everything.
	I don't think I know a thing.
	I don't pretend I know a thing.
	And fuck me.
	I have got a really intelligent audience and they're often putting me to shame.
	So, you know, I am completely, I know exactly how you feel.
	I'm fucking privileged to have the audience I fucking have.
	I can't believe I have managed to get so many goddamn smart people to tell me how fucking wrong I am.
	Yeah, no, you know, it sounds a little bit cliche to say or whatever, but they made it possible.
	It's not like, like I said, I just went out there and spoke and kept speaking and kept speaking and kept speaking and kept speaking.
	And I was talking to myself for the longest time, but then they came.
	And if not for them, I'd just still be talking to myself.
	And I'd borderline need antipsychotic medications.
	But they showed up and there was some interaction and everything and they made it fucking possible.
	One of the things I love about my fucking channel is that I look back to what I knew when I started.
	And man, I knew shit when I started.
	Oh, yeah, no.
	I have ideas that are constantly evolving.
	I had my principles.
	I knew what I stood for, but I didn't know half as much about things, about what I needed to know, as I fucking know now.
	And I look back and think, Jesus, and it's almost entirely thanks to my audience.
	It's almost like where they're telling me you're wrong here, you're wrong here, you're wrong here, you're wrong here.
	And here's why.
	And it's, if it weren't for those guys, I'd be fucking, I'd be fucked.
	I'd be an idiot.
	No, I don't know about you, man.
	I cannot watch my old stuff.
	Like, I have, you know, Lilith runs my Facebook page.
	I don't know if she's watching now, but if she is, hey, Lilith, what's up?
	She has a great job.
	She runs my Facebook page and stuff.
	And every once in a while, she'll put up an older clip from Secular Talk.
	And I think she sent it to me one day and she's like, I love this clip.
	This is like my all-time favorite secular talk clip.
	It was like, I don't know, a year and a half ago, maybe longer, something like that.
	I'm fatter.
	The set is weirder.
	The points I make are dumber.
	And I look at it and I have to come to terms with the fact that what I'm seeing when I watch that is not the same thing that she sees when she watches it and not the same thing as other people might see when they're watching it.
	And I'm fucking tired of hearing myself talk, dude.
	I mean, every day, like, I have to edit my stuff every day.
	And I'm just like, I don't know how anybody can listen to this obnoxious motherfucker.
	Listen, I just sound, my voice is fucking, I don't know.
	I just hate every aspect of it.
	But people are willing to listen, and they have a different perspective when they watch me, old me, saying stuff.
	But I can't watch my stuff with a smile on my face.
	Very rarely do I go, you know, I really did nail that upon watching it a second time or a third time.
	I usually watch 33 seconds of it and go, Man, I cannot tell you how much I have thought that.
	Just it literally, you are just speaking my thoughts back to me with that.
	I know exactly how you feel.
	I go back to my old videos and I'm just like, man, I am fucking stupid.
	The quality of them is awful.
	What I'm saying is almost universally dumb.
	And I'm just like...
	Universally dumb!
	Nice term.
	Yeah, why did anyone pay any attention to what I had to fucking say?
	Why would they do this?
	That's why I say we're lucky.
	That's why I say we're lucky.
	Because you did put in the work.
	Like, you showed up and you did it, right?
	But, you know, we're lucky because they showed up after we showed up, you know?
	Like, it's not.
	People ask me, like, a lot of sometimes I get Twitter questions and people ask me, somebody did the other day, how do I do what you do?
	And my answer is just like, you think I know what the fuck I'm doing?
	Again, I don't know.
	People look at my YouTube numbers and they're like, oh, so he figured out he's got a formula.
	Like, he's got like a fucking magic spell or something.
	I don't have anything.
	I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.
	I'm waking up every day reading and talking and just hoping it all fucking works out.
	And you guys are the ones that make it possible if you listen to my dumbass.
	I was just really concerned about the things I was talking about.
	You know what I mean?
	And I was just trying to present the information in as concise and informative of a way as possible.
	And that's my formula.
	I don't even know, like, you know, I don't really have a structure.
	I don't have anything really.
	I just kind of, I have something to say about what I'm reading or what I'm looking at.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	Just be genuine.
	I think that's all it comes down.
	That's all anybody can do is be genuine.
	Because the second, the internet can smell bullshit from a mile away, man.
	If there's anything about the way you present a story or the way you present an argument or if there's anything off with your facts, the internet is going to take a shit on your face.
	You're just going to go, wrong.
	So you have to make sure.
	So you just have to be, like, if you make a genuine effort to understand a topic, you read the proper articles.
	So just have your facts, have your information, and then just be genuine.
	And that's all that you can ask for.
	That's all they can ask for.
	And, you know, there will be times where if you're wrong about something, but they know you're coming from a genuine place, then it's almost like they're more likely to correct you in a pleasant way.
	But if you're somebody who's, you know, wrong and douchey about it, and you're wrong because you didn't bother to do any work to get the right answer, well, then they're going to fucking destroy you, and you probably should be destroyed.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this reminds me of a quote from the guy who made the PC game platform Steam.
	This guy called Gabe Newell.
	He's got this quote in his crazy.
	Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet because they will catch you.
	They will deconstruct your spin.
	They will remember everything you say for eternity.
	No, but you know what's amazing?
	So the opposite is true, too.
	So no, the more genuine you are, guaranteed the more upvotes you'll get on a video.
	100%.
	Like the other day, I admitted something the other day.
	Honestly, I was a little bit embarrassed to admit it.
	So there was, you know, the story.
	Oh, I don't know.
	You're probably too intelligent to know of this story because this story is so stupid that I'm angry I know it.
	So Ariana Grande licked a donut.
	And then after she licked the donut, like they took the tray away and said, you know, she said, I hate America or something.
	Right.
	So Fox News blamed Obama somehow.
	That's what the story was.
	So I covered the story and reported that.
	But then at the end of the story, I felt compelled to be honest about my initial thought when seeing the story.
	And my initial thought was...
	Maybe it was a bad thought.
	No, my initial thought was watching her lick the donut was a little hot.
	So I admitted that.
	Again, embarrassed because when I first saw it, I didn't even know how fucking old she was.
	For all I know, she could be fucking like 16 licking a donut, and here I am, Purvy Pedo Wannabe, saying, Oh, yeah, lick the donut.
	It's not, it's not something a normal person should say, but I said it because I really thought it.
	And then, loan, you know, I got a bunch of upvotes on that video.
	It's not just because I'm a weirdo who said I enjoyed her licking the donut, but I think it has more to do with the fact that it was a genuine moment where I was like, No, seriously, that was my thought.
	I saw her lick a donut.
	I'm one of roughly six people in the world who saw this girl lick a donut and say, Oh, yeah, lick it some more.
	You know, and then by the way, just side note for all the viewers, she's 22 years old, so I'm not a creepy pedophile.
	But you know, I think being a genuine person, I can't imagine trying to pretend to be something on the internet, it would be so much hard work.
	I wouldn't be able to keep it up, you know.
	Nobody could keep up a facade, man.
	How can anybody keep up a facade?
	It's impossible.
	Think about, I mean, I know it's a kind of a harsh comparison, but think about people who try to live in the closet.
	They just always comes out in weird ways.
	Like, Republican politicians who are anti-gay, but then they blow a dude in a New Jersey turnpike bathroom.
	It's like they just can't wait to let that fucking lion out of the cage.
	They're like, Please, somebody give me a fucking bucket of dicks and leave me alone with it.
	Yeah, I kind of feel bad for those sort of people.
	I don't, I'm more, I'm more primitive on that.
	I really fucking despise those people.
	Anybody, like, I don't know why, man, but I have this big thing where hypocrites get me.
	Oh, yeah, hypocrites get me on a whole nother level.
	Where it's just, I don't get why you're why are you a hypocrite?
	Like, why?
	So, okay, you're anti-gay, but you suck dick.
	Why would you bother to put up that whole fucking facade?
	Why would you run as a Republican, run as a Democrat, be honest with yourself, be a happier person?
	Why are you fucking putting yourself through this shit?
	It's just stupid.
	Well, then you can't stand.
	Yeah, no, I totally agree.
	I do despise hypocrisy.
	And if ever I'm caught, like, if someone's like, Oh, you're being a hypocrite about something, I take it so fucking seriously.
	You know, I'm just being a hypocrite, or are they just being a dick?
	You know, it's like the fastest way to get my attention about a subject, you know.
	But with these people, I feel bad because this is one of those things where, you know, I guess that they're in a social setting where being gay isn't appropriate and they would be ostracized.
	I don't think being gay is a choice.
	So, no, it's definitely not.
	And I guess, I mean, you're right.
	It's almost like kind of obnoxious of me as like a straight dude who's totally comfortable with my own sexuality to bark at somebody who's gay and in the closet and obviously struggling with it and the social situation to just tell them, like, dude, just come out.
	You're right.
	It's much harder to be in their shoes.
	It's a totally different scenario.
	But I don't know.
	It just, it always gets me.
	It always fucking rubs me the wrong way.
	And I guess it's just because I kind of, the only thing I pride myself on is just trying to tell the truth and be as honest as I possibly can all the time.
	So I guess when I see people who don't do that, it's almost like a threat to my existence and the way I live.
	You know what I mean?
	It's just a direct insult, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's just a totally different operating system that they have going on in their mind, and I struggle to understand it.
	And because I don't understand it, it's like I lash out against it.
	Yeah, I mean, it's okay to be wrong, but it's not okay to deliberately deceive people.
	Yeah, and it's not okay to be arrogantly wrong.
	I really dislike that, too.
	Yeah.
	You know, that gets me.
	Like, it's one thing if you're, you know, like you're kind of a simple person, but you know, you're a simple person.
	And it's like, okay, I'm listening to other people because what the fuck do I know?
	Like, that's one thing.
	But it's another thing if you're fucking Rick Santorum and you're out there giving speeches like you know everything.
	Meanwhile, you know Dickie McGee Sax.
	Okay.
	You don't know anything.
	Right.
	It's three in the morning here, so I think I'm going to have to go, man.
	Yeah, I'm sorry, man.
	I kept you this whole time.
	I feel like a dick.
	No, no, no, not at all.
	If I wanted to go earlier, I would have gone earlier, man.
	Honestly, I've had a really, really good time talking to you.
	I've been really lucky today.
	I've had two really, really cool conversations with two very different people, but equally interesting people.
	It's been really cool.
	Thanks, man.
	I really appreciate it.
	I had a great time too.
	It was a fantastic conversation.
	And like I said, I love having conversations with people where we don't agree on 100% of things.
	We just don't.
	But yeah, why would we want to?
	I think it's good that we disagree on certain things, and it's good that we can have that kind of dialogue.
	And I think that that's something that people should do more often.
	And I really enjoyed it.
	Well, this is what I'm saying earlier.
	I find myself talking more to the rational center where people, you know, they're on the left or on the right, but they're concerned more with the facts.
	And it's about interpretation of the facts.
	And, you know, rather than sticking rigidly to ideological perspectives.
	I'm really lucky that I've managed to talk to some really interesting people and the conversations, even though, like you said, we haven't necessarily always agreed, it's been, you know, it's been good.
	It's been a good conversation.
	I really appreciate it, man.
	Yeah, no, it was absolutely fantastic.
	And we'll definitely do it again at some point.
	For sure.
	Absolutely.
	I've got loads of people I need to have other conversations with.
	Yeah, please take your time.
	Do your thing.
	We're both busy people.
	Some point down the road, we'll do it again for sure.
	No, we definitely will, man.
	Definitely will.
	Cool.
	Okay.
	Well, thanks a lot for joining me.
	And thanks a lot, everyone, for listening.
	We'll talk to you later.
	I've left all the links to Kyle's channel, Secular Talk.
	Do check it out if you're interested.
	I'm sure it'll be right up your street.

▲