Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - (Another) Extended Interview from Louder with Crowder

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 29, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:05:44

(Another) Extended Interview from Louder with Crowder

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Result after result after result of feminists going, well, 30 women have come forward and accused him of he must have done every single one.
	And crickets, when it comes to Bill Clinton, not a word.
	They don't even mention it.
	They're not even interested because they're too busy talking about Hillary Clinton.
	It's already, it's okay.
	It's just okay.
	Just, you know, it's a double standard.
	That's all.
	I think she's a lesbian.
	I can only imagine.
	We've been syndicated in all these markets now and like it has to we have to be professional and hit these breaks, but you're you're good.
	You're in our channel territory.
	So for the people who are, if they're seeing this in your channel now or whatever, you're watching the WebExtendered version.
	We were talking about big banks and I was talking about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Sargon was making his point.
	My apologies, sir.
	So yeah, my point is that I think that the problem is, and I'm not an expert on these things in any way, shape, or form, but this is just how it appears from sort of an outsider point of view.
	It looks very much like you have giant multinational corporations with ridiculous budgets and they have the ability and it's not just like household names, but like you say, it's investment banks, it's oil companies, it's all the sorts of all these people.
	It is about regulation, but I think it's, and I would have to do some research to confirm this, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that it's not so much.
	I have read analyses, I can't remember exactly who by now, that have suggested that the problem isn't the fact that there is regulation.
	The problem is the kind of regulation.
	So this sort of regulation that specifically targets small businesses that would increase their tariffs, increase various taxes that they would have to pay.
	The massive corporations, they can afford this.
	So it's no problem.
	So they lobby directly for these things as a way of shutting down competitors before they even get off the ground.
	Right.
	You know, and I think that, I completely agree, is a problem.
	Right.
	And it is government enacting these things.
	But the reason that the government is enacting these things is because the politicians are puppets.
	They're bought and sold.
	And they are being basically paid to enact this legislation.
	I believe you're right.
	An analogy I use is a mouth guard, right?
	People love how a mouth guard works.
	It dissipates shock.
	So I will think it doesn't actually protect.
	What it does is instead of knocking out your front tooth, the shock is dissipated.
	And so it's like stepping on 500 nails versus one nail.
	The mouth guard for dissipating the damage that that can do is, let's say, starting off with politicians who don't believe government should be so massive to begin with.
	So we can argue, yeah, it's the wrong kind of regulation.
	I would argue that government tends to lean toward nefarious influences.
	It tends to, when it grows, tends to go in that direction.
	I don't believe it's inherently neutral.
	You're absolutely right.
	I mean, there is a natural tendency for power to accumulate upwards.
	Right.
	Without a doubt, in every sense.
	So my point is it is much more inherent, to take two extremes, it is much more altruistic for Ron Paul to say, I'm running for office because I don't think that office should have that power.
	And Bernie Sanders saying, I'm running for office because I think this office should have more power than ever before because I'll do it better than the businesses.
	I mean, that's, if he really comes down to it, Bernie Sanders, that's job security.
	The guy's never employed anybody.
	The guy's never had a real job in the private sector.
	He's never run a business.
	And so when you have someone going forward who has done those things, I tend to listen to the guy who hasn't always been on the government teat for job security.
	I think you're right.
	But everything you just...
	So you're a Trump voter then?
	No.
	Because Trump has been a big government crony for years.
	I knew that was coming.
	I couldn't help it.
	I get that he's entertaining to you people of the UK.
	This is our livelihood, so it's not as funny.
	Honestly, it's getting worryingly close to becoming a reality.
	Yeah, I know.
	Well, you have people like Milo out there.
	You know, and I understand the point.
	But again, this is a guy who's always been about Trump.
	And you said, I mean, you know, you probably thought Ted Cruz was an asshole before.
	And you mentioned you saw the interview.
	And the guy is very different than what a lot of people think.
	He's funny.
	He was actually, he was quite smart as well.
	And I don't know.
	Well, he has the highest IQ of any president ever if he wins.
	Not even close.
	He's like 160.
	I was genuinely surprised how quick in his feet he was because, I mean, you know.
	He doesn't strike me as the guy who's going to need a teleprompter to, you know, read the breakfast menu or something.
	You know?
	No.
	If it comes to substance, people understand that.
	You know, people go, oh, he sounds silly.
	I mean, my friend Brad Stein has a bit about this.
	A guy from the South could have the cure for cancer and no one would believe him just because of the way he says, I have the cure for cancer.
	Right.
	You hang on to that.
	That's really true.
	But Ted Cruz has the highest IQ, same position basically as Barack Obama.
	Everyone actually remembers him there at Harvard.
	And the professors who taught him, who are liberals, said he's the most brilliant student we've ever had.
	I've got no doubt.
	And I was genuinely impressed with his interview with you.
	But Donald Trump's going to take the nomination.
	Well, I don't know about that.
	There's no chance that I don't think he wins Iowa, maybe New Hampshire, and I don't think he wins South Carolina.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	But, you know, the reason I don't want Donald Trump, and this is his personal opinion, is if I wanted a dishonest Democrat, I would just vote for Hillary.
	But everything you just mentioned, though, where you talk about the power of business, right?
	All those things.
	Have you ever read Thomas Sowell?
	Be honest.
	Don't do that thing where you do the lie and say yes.
	I've watched a lot of videos and interviews with Thomas Sowell.
	I think you would like him.
	I already do like him.
	Okay.
	I'd say one of my favorite point of his is means testing.
	They're all like, oh, if you want to help black people, oh, well, then, you know, black people, the poor people.
	Well, no, if you want to help poor people, you'd just do it by means.
	You would just do it by financial income rather than by race.
	No, sorry, I'm a big fan.
	He's one of those people.
	I've got a big stack of books just off camera that I'm working my way through.
	With Thomas Sowell?
	So, not him specifically.
	I'm actually.
	John Stossel, you'd probably like too.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	He has that show.
	He was on 2020.
	He's the Fox guy, right?
	He was on 2020 for years.
	He was a consumer reporter.
	And he was a consumer reporter who did all these, like, you know, I don't know, toy has trace amounts of lead coming from China.
	And then he realized that the bigger problem was government.
	Regulation nearly always and invariably led to a lot of these problems.
	And it became like he's a hardcore libertarian, like heroin should be legal.
	So he's certainly not, and he's an atheist.
	But he wrote a book, Myth.
	I think it's Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.
	Get Out the Shovel, Why Everything You Know Is Wrong.
	It's a long title.
	But it's great.
	It's a great reference book for some of those things.
	Like a good point is you talk about oil.
	First off, oil doesn't have anywhere near the influence that's big unions in elections.
	So that's the big thing that bothers me about Bernie.
	Big unions have more money than everyone else combined, and you have to join these unions in a lot of these states.
	Basically, you're forced to join a union if you want to work at all in that state, and they give your money to Democrats and you have no say over it.
	It's far worse than working for a private company who, you know, they give on behalf of their.
	And I understand both sides of Citizens United, but it's always funny to me when leftists talk about big oil and turned a blind eye to big unions because it's far more corrosive.
	I'm not trying to turn a blind eye to anything.
	No, I'm not saying you, but Bernie Sanders is dishonest when he mentions that.
	Yeah, I know.
	And I'm not, I'm sure that, I mean, I'm not actually not that familiar with union activity in the United States, I'll be honest.
	So I can't really comment on it.
	But I am quite familiar with sort of international American corporation effects on various other countries.
	And they're pretty harsh.
	And it's one of those things where it honestly, I mean, like, just to take the example of Guatemala.
	You know, they used to call Chiquita the octopus because it owned everything in Guatemala.
	And one of the, and you've got people like Smedley Butler, who literally has written a book called War is a Racket, where the American military is basically used as an extension of corporate might to go in and ensure that American corporations have favorable conditions to basically buy out foreign governments and allow them to do what they want in their countries.
	Now, I'm not trying to blame Americans for this.
	This is one of the things that you have to, I hate, I hate talking to Americans about this because they'll just talk to the Canadian half.
	Well, yeah, well, there we go.
	I mean, the thing is, it's like, look, you know, you guys have got very little control of your government and it allows your corporations to do these things.
	And this happens.
	And then you end up with Americans having the worst reputation on the planet.
	Everyone hates the Americans.
	And American citizens, they're lovely people.
	Individual Americans are so nice.
	And so they can never understand why people hate them.
	I don't think that's why most people hate them.
	I think most people hate them because they're jealous because they're not American.
	No, it's not that, man.
	It's not that.
	There are only a handful of decent countries on planet Earth.
	There are.
	There are not that many.
	I would not include Guatemala amongst them.
	No, I understand where you're coming from.
	That doesn't mean the United Fruit Company should be able to bribe out the government and buy half the land from under the country.
	Well, something else, though, that you're also missing as we go into these other countries, something that no other country, put it this way, any other country since the beginning of time, right, that's not the United States of America, if they were unopposed in the kind of superpower that we were, all of you are part of the extended United States of America.
	The fact that my country I was raised Canada is allowed to exist is proof as to the anti-empire the United States is.
	You know, we'll go into countries.
	A good example is Iraq.
	If anyone knows what a war for oil, I agree what you're talking about.
	Corruption, big government, corporate interests.
	And that's why if you simplify that tax code, people say it was silly when Carly Fiorina said it.
	Well, our tax code was three pages long for most of the history of our country so that none of these big corporations get loopholes.
	People pay the same rate.
	I completely agree with that.
	That's a conservative, libertarian idea.
	The idea of too big to fail, of big government, of big regulations, of more complex tax codes.
	Those are leftist ideas.
	And I agree with you.
	There's a lot of problem there.
	But what people don't recognize...
	Is too big to fail a leftist concept?
	Yes, it goes back to FDR and the New Deal.
	I mean, maybe in America.
	I mean, I'm not familiar with the original, the origins of that.
	The reason the Tea Party existed was Rick Santa.
	I mean, the modern one.
	Obviously, the original one, Boston Harbor.
	You know, we kind of screwed you guys.
	Honestly, it doesn't even come up in our history.
	No, I know, I know.
	You guys don't come up a whole bunch either.
	We've moved past.
	I think we would, though.
	Honestly, after like the War of 1812, America and Britain really haven't had anything to fight about.
	No, it's been way more profitable to actually just cooperate.
	So that's what we've done.
	And I think we both realized that I'm both, I think you guys realized you were kind of being dicks.
	And then we realized.
	I'm just saying, who's burned down whose capital?
	No, the White House.
	And that was Canada.
	We learned that in our history books, but it was before Canada was still a colony.
	It wasn't a country.
	It was.
	Yeah, it was you guys.
	It's just so much easier to hate the French, though, let's be honest.
	No one likes the French.
	No one likes them.
	No one likes them.
	You guys love the French.
	They helped you.
	If it wasn't for the Fringe, you guys wouldn't have...
	Sin is a worthless statue.
	We have to refurbish it every now and then.
	It goes back to tax dollars.
	We were talking about something like, yeah, too big to fail.
	So it's Rick Santelli was a rant on one of the financial networks talking about how horrible it was.
	And then, and those were the, the Tea Party was not a religious thing.
	Was not um, it wasn't even necessarily a Republican thing, though it was almost entire.
	It became a Republican movement to keep them accountable, kind of.
	From the outside it looked like a reaction to sort of the Neocons.
	Well, a lot of them would have been considered neocons because a lot of them were vets, but it was a reaction to big government.
	You know, they were just as much.
	Maybe I should qualify that the.
	I mean it's.
	It's very often obvious that under the Bush uh um, how do you administration, not regime?
	Um, that's what all the Amos do with Obama.
	The Obama regime.
	It's like, yeah, so under the Bush administration um, it's very obvious that government grew and it's very obvious that you had certain Neocon influences on Bush that were definitely trying to create a giant authoritarian state there's.
	Yeah, this is obvious, and so for again, just from the outside, it very much looked like the TEA Party was a reaction to that.
	Well, I don't think it's it's.
	It's that obvious when you compare, like the Bush tax cuts and how much it helped small businesses compared to how much this administration has deliberately targeted and harmed small businesses.
	So again, even though both sides are wrong, it's necessarily comparable to Obama's administration.
	I'm not defending Obama right, but I am saying there is a difference.
	So, even if you get mad and you hate Cheney and all that stuff, it's like okay, there still is a difference and there still is a reason that businesses were much bigger fans of Republicans and Democrats, people who actually contribute and employ.
	Um TARP is a good example right, and that was terrible and it was wrong.
	You're talking about bailouts, but the difference is, you know, that was paid back pretty quickly and there was a plan to it.
	It wasn't just a massive stimulus package um but, but yeah, I agree with you, and the TEA Party was rejection of that every bit as much, as you know what came to pass with Barack Obama after that?
	Yeah um, I tell you Obama, must.
	There must be a lot of people who loathe Obama because you can.
	You know, as they say, you can never really hate something until you've loved it first.
	Right, and I bet that, I mean I.
	I remember watching Obama come into power.
	I had just the messianic yeah, sort of uh feel.
	I mean he got a statue in Indonesia of him holding a butterfly.
	What the hell you know if you're holding a butterfly?
	You just killed a butterfly yeah, but no no, it's, it's perched on his thumb and it's just like what he's not Jesus, you know it's like.
	Well, some people think he is um yeah, I mean, there must be more and more people who are just totally disenchanted with him.
	I think so.
	I think, you know, the media does a lot of the heavy lifting with that and I know I don't want to sound like a conspiracy, but the media has had a toured love affair with Barack Obama.
	Oh yeah absolutely um, but you know, I think a lot, a lot of it's down to the fact that he's black.
	You know, I mean, like there's a huge segment of progressive media that are gonna hate black.
	Okay look, he is the whitest black guy on earth.
	But you know he.
	Look, you look at a photo of him.
	You don't know that?
	Look at a.
	Is he biracial?
	Like I always say, he's Abracrombie black.
	Like they'll put him on a poster to claim diversity but not scare white people.
	Exactly this is what was I even gonna say to that.
	You started thinking of the Abrombie uh ads with the Pube lines and you got distracted.
	We don't get those over here and I don't watch tv, so I wouldn't know about them.
	Well yeah, I guess you haven't gone to Abrocrombie recently.
	Uh, i'm not.
	I'm not good looking enough.
	Oh, how dare you look at you, your perfect teeth.
	You shatter every stereotype of English.
	My my, my teeth are not perfect.
	Um, i'm glad they look at it.
	Well then, you have one hell of a webcam, sir.
	Um, you're looking good from where i'm standing.
	Oh, thank you very much.
	Yeah, let me was on Barack Obama's side.
	That's what we're gonna say.
	Yes, go ahead, because I mean you will.
	One of the things I found very interesting, I caught a clip of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the Democratic debate and they were both um in competition for who supported Obama more, and I was just like, wow, that is just like the least relevant thing any of you could say at this.
	Right, why would?
	Why would anyone want to claim that?
	I don't know?
	I just don't like Obama, but I don't like it.
	I think it also shows the popularity of Obama among Democrats as opposed to Bush, who was wildly unpopular.
	His popularity didn't change that much with liberals.
	It changed with conservatives.
	So even to the point where during the primary, I'm not talking about a general, but in the primary, they were distancing themselves from Bush because they knew Republicans weren't a fan of the big government policies.
	Whereas with Obama in the primaries, they know the Democrats love the lowest job participation rate in decades.
	They love the increased tariff and the 58% increase in premiums because Barack Obama is great.
	Is great if you are a non-contributing unemployed loser who has no interest in changing that.
	That's where he's great.
	Free health care, you're on the plan.
	Our premiums go up 58%.
	Job participation rate is at an all-time low, but it's great for you because you're not looking anyway.
	That's the person who likes Barack Obama.
	You won't find, you'd be hard-pressed to find business owners.
	Okay, okay.
	There are people like that who do like Barack Obama.
	I've got no doubt.
	Yes.
	But what percentage of his supporters would you estimate those to be?
	Well, you know, you have 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax, right?
	No.
	47.
	Yeah, 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax.
	But do they pay state income taxes or anything like that?
	I don't know.
	It depends on the state.
	There's some states with no income tax and they would pay sales tax.
	But that basically means super low compared to networks.
	Oh, yeah.
	Super, super low.
	Half the country pays no taxes, right?
	Income tax.
	And their vote still counts as much as the guy who pays income taxes and employs 20, 30, 40 people in a small business.
	And so are you suggesting that their vote perhaps shouldn't count for as much because they don't pay?
	No, I'm saying they're going to be a lot more satisfied with the guy who's given them free shit because they're not paying for it.
	so that's 47 percent and i think i need to i would need to check the numbers it's it's Believe me, trust me, just don't, it's widely accepted.
	People try and debunk why the number is not as high as people claim it is, but it's just, let's take my word for it here.
	47% pay no federal income tax.
	And that was a big thing where, you know, in the Romney campaign, he said that, and he basically implied those people were deadbeats.
	And that was a, they said he's part of the 1%.
	So even the left used of, well, these 47% actually are struggling.
	It's like, yeah, but you still pay no income tax.
	Like, that's still, that's bad.
	What sort of wage are they taking home?
	Is it means-based?
	Yeah, it's, I don't know the exact number.
	I want to say it's, it's something like if you're under 44,000 household income, you're not paying any income tax.
	So it's, it's not like absurd.
	No, but that's, that's a surprising amount of money.
	I mean, that's about, what, 30,000 pounds, something like that?
	Yeah.
	I think that's the average household income now in the United States.
	It's somewhere around 40,000.
	So yeah, and they don't pay any tax.
	No federal income tax when they get their deductions.
	And in some states, they pay a small amount of state tax.
	And some states don't pay.
	Like in Texas, for example, no state income tax, lowest unemployment rate, super high job creation rate, growth rate.
	And then you have places like New York or California where people can't get out fast enough because they have, what is it?
	What is it in New York?
	I think the highest maybe go.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	But I know Bernie Sanders wants all joint household incomes making $250,000 a year.
	His proposed plan, they'd be paying 52% in those marginal tax rates.
	So you add that state tax on top of it.
	I mean, you have families with $250,000 a year.
	Let's say in New York, that's not a lot for a family household income, paying well over 60% in taxes.
	That's extreme enough for me.
	Yeah, that is quite a lot.
	Yeah.
	But the too big to fail, sorry to go back, and then we'll go to feminism because that's always more fun.
	The too big to fail, you know, a great guy I know, actually, great investor.
	I recommend, he's not a plug, but he's a great investor, very conservative.
	I mean, across the board in his investment strategy, talked about too big to fail.
	And he said it to John Boehner on his show.
	He said, the West India Trading Company employed a fifth of population Earth.
	They went bankrupt.
	No company is too big to fail.
	He's like, no company is too big.
	We readjusted.
	The world was okay.
	And I thought, wow, that puts it in perspective because nothing we have is going to be as big as these empires at one point.
	And so I don't believe anything's too big to fail.
	When people say, so you just believe we shouldn't have bailed out the banks?
	No.
	Let them fail.
	I mean, if you look at Iceland as a perfect example, everyone else started bailing out their banks.
	What did Iceland do?
	They jailed their bankers.
	The Icelandic economy rebounded completely.
	It's just straight back on the growth.
	And everyone was looking at Iceland and going, okay, well, pretend they didn't do that.
	Just ignore them.
	Well, they're only like, how many people live in Iceland?
	It's only 300,000.
	It's not very many.
	But the thing is, you can't say that that won't, you know, I mean, why would you think that jailing the people who are responsible for trashing your economy wouldn't be a good idea?
	You know, let them fail.
	Well, my point is the politicians should be jailed just as much.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Well, yeah, I mean, they should.
	But this is actually something interesting I want to talk to you about.
	It's a very interesting historical position we found ourselves in in the West, where throughout all of history, the richest people in a country were the people in charge all the time.
	They were the kings, they were the senators.
	You know, they were people like Crassus and Pompey.
	They were people like Midas and Alexander, you know, they're the king of Persia.
	They were the guys with the wealth.
	They were the ones making the political decisions and they stood and fall.
	Their popularity rose and fell based on that, right?
	This encourages certain things.
	It encourages a certain degree of populism.
	It encourages a certain degree of moderation.
	It encourages you, in fact, to try and get on with as many people as possible because it's on your head.
	It's the sword of Damocles.
	But we are now in a position where the most wealthy people in our societies are not being publicly held responsible for the decisions that they're making because they're doing them by proxy through people who aren't really very powerful, really aren't very wealthy, and are really effectively being paid to do what they want, being paid to do what they're told.
	And so it's a very, very strange historical position we've found ourselves in, where no matter, and this is entirely what Donald Trump is about and Bernie Sanderson as well.
	It's we, you know, the public has become, the zeitgeist of the era has become, we know that our politicians are bought and sold, and therefore we are choosing politicians who are horrible politicians, horrible choices, and it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter because he's not being paid by Goldman Sachs.
	That's what people care about and they don't even know it, you know?
	I think it's fault against the system.
	That's what it is.
	It's interesting.
	I think your premise falls apart pretty quickly with numbers just because it absolves politicians of being as wealthy as they are.
	I'm not saying that politicians aren't wealthy, but they're not the 0.1%.
	Yes, they are.
	No, they're not.
	Well, how many billionaires are do you know what 1% actually constitutes in America?
	Oh, sorry, go on, gone.
	The highest is about 400,000 joint household income.
	Some people have it as low as 360.
	Let's go a little higher and say 420.
	Let's take a Republican example, Newt Gingrich.
	Not a huge fan.
	But these are not actually the wealthiest people in society.
	But they are.
	That's part of the 1%.
	To be part of the 0.1%.
	They are at the top.
	Well, you're talking about if it's a billionaire, I know them.
	I know their name, put it that way.
	There are so few billionaires on planet Earth I know their name.
	To be a point of 0.1%, you don't have to be a billionaire.
	You just have to be worth a couple million.
	So, Newt Gingrich goes into office.
	He's worth about $30,000.
	He leaves office.
	He's worth about $33 million because insider trading laws don't apply to politicians.
	So when you actually add up net worth and you prorate it to an income, I know their income is usually around $180,000, but you look at their investments outside of each other's salary.
	They're part of the 0.01%.
	They may well be, but they're still at the very, very bottom of that scale.
	But there's more of them.
	There are more people in the House than there are billionaires.
	There are more people in Congress than there are billionaires.
	So saying.
	There are more people in Congress or the Senate than there are billionaires on planet Earth.
	Yeah, but the point is that these people aren't.
	I mean, it's not about individual billionaires either.
	We're talking about mega corporations financing these people.
	We're talking about the, it's not necessarily the individual, although I did start that way.
	I probably shouldn't have done.
	No, no, no, I understand.
	I think your point is interesting.
	It's about the entity that's providing the direction and the finances for it.
	It used to be an individual who was particularly wealthy.
	Now it's a mega corporation and they're not even being held accountable for the things that they're doing because they pay politicians to make sure that and if everything then went wrong and this happened, it would be the politician that the public would be aware of.
	They're not going to know.
	They don't know who Monsanto are.
	They don't know.
	Well, who would be like a corporation then?
	Who would be like a corporation to use as an example who has bought and sold politics?
	Let's say.
	Oh, Goldman Sachs.
	Okay, Goldman Sachs.
	Who do you think is more likely to tell Goldman Sachs to go screw themselves in the lineup?
	Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz.
	Let's say Hillary Clinton.
	Well, certainly not Clinton.
	I mean, she's most of her campaign history has been financed by Goldman Sachs.
	So literally, if anybody's getting away from any of this.
	Or Donald Trump.
	Just don't vote for Hillary Clinton.
	She's just awful.
	I would wager it's the guy who stood before the government and basically said, I don't care about my job.
	I'm shutting you down because I think you're too big.
	Yeah.
	Now, I can't give anyone advice who would be the person to do it.
	Right.
	I just think it's important.
	But my point is the ideology.
	It would be the ideology of the group who says.
	Honestly, I would have probably said something like Ron Paul, but he's obviously too old.
	Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, they're all in that lineup as far as government shutdown.
	I would have to spend a bit of time looking into their campaign histories to be aware.
	I've only looked into the select few that I'm talking about because they're the ones who I think are going to win.
	I don't think the other guy's going to win.
	So I don't think it's going to be.
	I wouldn't be surprised if it's a Cruz versus Sanders.
	I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't be surprised.
	I think Hillary Clinton is kind of the Jeb Bush of the Democrat Party, where everyone in the Republicans know it's not going to be Jeb Bush.
	But the left just think it's going to be Jeb Bush.
	And I think Republicans just think it's going to be Hillary.
	I don't think they realize how much ground Bernie Sanders has gained.
	What is wrong with Jeb Bush?
	He looks weird.
	He acts weird.
	He just likes to smile.
	I liked to smile though.
	I smile.
	He's weird and creepy, man.
	You know, that's a hard Thanksgiving table.
	Hillary Clinton looks like one of David Icke's lizard people.
	She looks like she's wearing the skin of a human over a bloody.
	No, I just know.
	Hillary Clinton, no.
	Jeb Bush, no.
	I don't think the public's going for them anyway.
	I think that Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to court the feminist votes.
	Oh, vote for Hillary because she's a woman.
	It's 2016.
	It's time.
	Rape cover-ups notwithstanding.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	It's time for a woman with a sex pest as a husband to be the feminist.
	Look at Bill Clinton.
	He is literally in the same position as Bill Cosby.
	Doesn't exactly sex offender, sex offender, sex offender.
	And Bill Cosby is getting the hell, and Bill Clinton is getting cover-ups effectively, getting no one to do.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, you know, we have a list.
	There's obviously the affairs.
	I mean, the ones we know about.
	Then there's the list of sexual assaults.
	Yeah.
	Well, then there's a list of actual, he raped me, right?
	If there is only a fifth of this list that is truthful, that is still more than everyone in this room on this phone call to have been raped by Bill Clinton.
	Just to give you context.
	And the thing's, it's the hypocrisy of it that drives me crazy.
	It's like, you know, Bill Cosby.
	If you look at like, if you just Google feminism Bill Cosby, you'll see result after result after result of feminists going, well, 30 women have come forward and accused him of rape.
	He must have done every single one.
	And crickets, when it comes to Bill Clinton, not a word.
	They don't even mention it.
	They're not even interested because they're too busy talking about Hillary Clinton.
	It's like, already, it's okay.
	It's just okay.
	Just, you know, it's a double standard.
	That's all.
	I think she's a lesbian.
	I can only imagine that she would be a lesbian.
	I mean, like, put it this way.
	If she's not a lesbian, she's the only non-lesbian who looks that much like a lesbian.
	Honestly, I think she's gone full tumbler and gone asexual.
	I think so too.
	I think after years of being pestered by Bill Clinton, she's probably just like, you know, I'm sewing it up.
	Close and shout.
	Yeah.
	Well, it's well known that it was always a relationship of convenience.
	Okay, so that brings us full circle to the feminism thing.
	You and I talked about this.
	And again, I feel like there's, and I know I'm going to get flack for this, but there are people who go far the other way.
	You're married, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And so am I.
	And I wrote this column a long time ago and I reposted it.
	And it was just like, losers, stop badmouthing your wives because I guys all the time are like, oh, I hate the wife.
	And I don't relate to it.
	And in my interpretation, it makes guys who always bitch about their wives.
	The piece is, and the same thing with wives and husbands.
	My wife came on the show and talked about that.
	She hates it.
	It's like, I wrote about how it just makes you seem like a moron for picking somebody who you think is an idiot.
	You have to go home to every night.
	And then there's this backlash of people like, you're a stepford husband.
	I thought you were an anti-feminist.
	I'm never going to get married.
	It's like, but marriage is good.
	Marriage is good if you do it right.
	Yeah.
	I don't know about you.
	I hate feminists because I actually love women.
	I love my wife.
	And I think more men would do well to find a good wife as opposed to being a little.
	It's very interesting.
	When you come across people's motivations for being opposed to feminism, it's actually really interesting.
	Personally, I'm opposed to it because it's illiberal.
	There are all these liberal principles I hold very dear.
	And feminism seems determined to stamp on every single goddamn one.
	And so I have to oppose this.
	I can't oppose quotas.
	I can't oppose being sexist towards men.
	I can't oppose, you know, and just on the principle of, it's wrong to judge people based on anything of the merit.
	It's wrong to do all these things.
	And so, and that's interesting because, you know, I mean, for someone who doesn't necessarily have these same principles, it's obviously a different reason.
	No, for me, it's the same principles as you.
	That's hate feminism for the same reasons.
	But I think, again, that pendulum is kind of kind of like we were talking about MLK earlier, people watching.
	Yeah, it's, I think there are some men out there who have gone too far, and some of them actually hate women.
	And so feminists point to those guys and go, see, and you have some of them here on YouTube.
	Like the Vichy, I had someone text me about Pan, I don't know, in Australia.
	I don't know if you know the story.
	I don't know.
	Sorry, what was that?
	Pan was the hashtag P-A-N.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	He was like basically advocating the execution of women because you're doing the Lord's work.
	And I was like, but it's not that far out there because there were a substantial amount of people like agreeing, calling me a cuck.
	And I'm like, I mean, come on, don't I have enough of a track record here where I'm clearly anti-feminist?
	I just think it's kind of pathetic for guys to bitch and moan about their wives.
	To me, it's like, I have a man cave.
	It's like, you're a pussy.
	You've been relegated to the man cave.
	And no wonder you're complaining about your wife.
	You picked horribly.
	I don't relate.
	My wife is hot.
	We have lots of sex and we get along.
	I don't get it.
	Honestly, I think you're one of the lucky few.
	You found a unicorn, man.
	Great.
	Well, I tell you what, I don't think so.
	And this comes back to the, I hate to say it, my worldview, both of us as Christians.
	Like, we went through premarital counseling, all of that.
	My parents, 30 years, her parents, 45 years, her grandparents, 75 years.
	Her grandmother at 90 when her grandfather was crazy Alzheimer's, like she was bemoaning the fact that they couldn't get busy throughout their entire lives.
	And I just think a lot of people now, I guess maybe you can say whether it's secularizing the institution or just telling people it's just a contract, there's no expectations at all anymore.
	Like, it's going to be tough, but you don't have to be an asshole.
	Yeah, I mean, I think the tradition of men moaning about their wives is well, it's a tradition, it's long-standing.
	I mean, you know, Married with Children wasn't one of the most popular shows ever.
	I mean, for what, 19 seasons or something?
	I love that show.
	I think it's hilarious.
	I think it's terrible.
	This is the quintessential laugh track.
	Turn it down.
	It's freaking.
	I think here's what it's just because it actually pisses off feminists so much.
	Yeah.
	The no-man shirts just, I think that's brilliant.
	But yeah, I think that I think a lot of men just do anything for a quiet life.
	And you're right.
	It's their own fault that they turn around and say, well, you know, I'll just say yes.
	I'll just give it that.
	Whatever.
	And they don't set any boundaries and say, no, this is, you know, this is where I'm going to stand.
	And you can just, you know, you can come up against me.
	And that's it.
	You know, you can nag, but the answer is always going to be no.
	So just stop now.
	Right.
	And, you know, people, people lose respect for people who don't hold their ground.
	And it's not necessarily a male or female thing.
	Anyone, you know, anyone at all who doesn't stand by their principles, you lose respect for them, obviously.
	And so I think a lot of men really do themselves a disservice by just going, well, you know, I'll just, I'll just deal with it.
	I'll just deal with it.
	And then they go and they bitch to me.
	And it's like, listen, I don't need to ask my wife for a guy's night.
	We're having a couple of beers.
	This is your one guy's night.
	And you're bitching about your wife.
	And then you're going to tell me how I'm a stepford.
	No, I just have a happy marriage.
	Like, I didn't need to ask permission to come out.
	No, no, no.
	I'm totally with you.
	My wife is annoyed because I don't have to ask her.
	I just tell her what I'm doing.
	And she has to, you know, on the flip side, most of the time, because I genuinely enjoy her company more than most people.
	And that was what the column was about.
	Like, if you picked someone whose company you don't enjoy, you've screwed up.
	And the manly thing to do, if we're going to not like that feminists let women off the hook is put guys in the hook.
	Listen, fix it.
	It's not just your wife a lot of the time either.
	So there's quite a lot going on, though.
	I mean, like, yes.
	The problem is, in America and Britain, most children are raised in a single-parent household now.
	It's terrible.
	That's a scary statistic, isn't it?
	But most, most young men.
	Sorry?
	It's the fault of you heathens.
	Look, I'm not saying that this is what, but you know, no, no, so I'm joking.
	But yeah, so honestly, I do wonder how much of it is basically young men who are raised with women, raised by a mother, a single mother.
	And don't be wrong, I've got no doubt raising raising a child on your own.
	I mean, I've got kids, and I would hate to have to raise these children on my own.
	That would be awful.
	There would be so much work and so damn difficult.
	And so I can understand why young men who haven't been raised by a strong father figure don't really know how to not necessarily conduct themselves as men, but draw boundaries against women.
	Yeah.
	Because I'm not trying to sound anti-woman in any way.
	No, no, I understand.
	It's one of those things, you know, women, in my experience, they will try and get, you know, like test you and see how far they can push before you push back.
	And I think the sooner you sort of establish your boundaries and say, no, this is the point where you have to stop.
	And you have to deal with it.
	It's like any person, really.
	They'll do what they can.
	But I think it's also really, you know, this is what happens.
	Sargon comes on.
	We finally say contrarian viewpoints, even though we're both like our biggest videos are anti-feminist videos.
	People are like, Steven's a cock.
	But what it is, is I think if you're still, if you're, okay, you're raised by women and so you get married and you're still a pussy.
	In my opinion, like it's like, you're still a pussy.
	Fix your marriage.
	And I don't want it to be on pipe night.
	I don't want to hear your bitching.
	Yeah.
	It just gets annoying.
	Well, one of the things I think is important to remember that there are a group of people.
	And sorry, but I have to do this.
	Right.
	The men's rights activists actually have a point, right?
	They genuinely do.
	If you look at if you look at a lot of the laws in the West, like divorce laws, stuff like that, you know, we live in reasonably egalitarian societies.
	Women get equal pay mandated under the law.
	They can do any job.
	It's illegal to discriminate against women.
	So women now have every opportunity to go and have exactly the same careers and exactly the same success as men.
	And in a lot of fields, they do.
	Yeah.
	You know?
	My wife is in the next room right now, managing a multi-million dollar company.
	There we go.
	And now, if you guys divorced tomorrow, it wouldn't be fair for her to be able to basically take you to the cleaners and take every, you know, almost everything that you have at your expense.
	You know, it just wouldn't be fair.
	And it's the sort of thing that has to change because it's still possible for her to do this.
	Sure.
	And, you know, the MRAs genuinely have a point when it comes to things like that.
	And that's, you know, it is a legitimate thing that actually has to change.
	But there's, there's men like women.
	Men want to protect women.
	They always have.
	They always will.
	And it's, it's really difficult to get anything like that changed because it sounds like you're attacking women.
	Right.
	When you say, well, come on, you know, we're in a society where it's an egalitarian society.
	Everyone has the same opportunities.
	So now we should probably do a means-based divorce settlement or something like that.
	You know, whereas, well, even worse, you know, we had, well, I'm sure I think you've had, have you had Karen Strawn on?
	I have.
	Okay.
	So we talked about that.
	Domestic abuse, parental abuse.
	It's much more likely to occur at the hands of women.
	Yeah, I agree with all that, but I think people take that and then they become just as authoritarian in your personal worldview.
	Well, therefore, your personal worldview should be anti-marriage.
	And it's just not.
	I'm not mixed marriage.
	No, no.
	Well, not gay Jared is there.
	He knows.
	You've been there when my wife and I have had some dust-ups.
	Yeah, this is always the highlight of my work week.
	Yeah.
	He even mediated once with not gay advice.
	Yep.
	Well, she like, well, that was a good example.
	We talked about this.
	We had her on the show.
	She does a month book, like a month book review at the end of the month.
	She'll read like four or five books a month.
	She's just an avid reader.
	Remember, that's probably her biggest argument.
	Like, I'm a movie guy.
	She's a book person.
	So I'd be like, why don't you sit with me and watch a movie?
	Because for me, you know, I'll work a 14-hour day.
	That's the way I shut my brain off.
	I'm reading news all day.
	She'll be like, I want to go read my Kindle.
	I'm like, ah, and I'll get mad.
	That's about the extent of a lot of our arguments.
	But are you laughing?
	Or is that him?
	How dare he?
	The nerve.
	I think he's cute.
	No, no, we've had knockdown drag out problems.
	She swatted me once.
	Now, I talked about this and we had her on the show and we had a laugh about it, right?
	And then we had the men's rights people going like, how dare you?
	You know, you're just you're perpetuating double sin.
	I'm like, no, here's the thing: I get it.
	It is a double standard, and I'm okay with it because at no point was my safety in danger.
	She punched me on the shoulder.
	If I do it, she's going through the window.
	I get it.
	And her dad is on the phone and the cops, as they should be.
	It's not acceptable.
	But come on, let's not try and be the victim class on the other side.
	I was also being an ass.
	That's true.
	But the things, I mean, like, if a woman is abusing a man and he phones the police, the police are going to turn up and arrest him.
	Right.
	You know, and that's not right, is it?
	Come on, let's.
	No, it's not right.
	Yeah.
	But the point is, because of the law, people go, therefore, you should hold this view personally.
	No, like, I had to do my best to stop from laughing.
	And I milked it.
	I milked it so much.
	I made her feel guilty.
	I left.
	I went to the local pub.
	And she was already.
	I just can't even talk to you right now, hang up.
	Laughing with the guys.
	Give me a new beer.
	Yeah.
	So you've got to use it if you can.
	But the thing is, though, this is different, isn't it?
	This is just your individual relationship with your wife, which lucky for you is good.
	You know, she's obviously a decent person.
	But some guys don't realize that they're getting taken.
	And then they find themselves in a relationship with like an emotional abuser or someone who is really with them for their money.
	They're with them for a few years.
	They take the money.
	They can't see their kids.
	They get screwed over, screwed over.
	And, you know, these are laws that genuinely have to change.
	You know, they are absolutely awful.
	And they are genuinely destroying lives, you know?
	And so you can't.
	There are a lot of people who need to take responsibility for their own actions.
	Where they say, well, I married her.
	I allowed this to happen.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But conversely, things change.
	Things aren't always the same in a relationship.
	So, you know, it might have started out good and then she may have become bitter or something.
	Or you may have become bitter.
	And, you know, things become, you know, they.
	And that's where you would, like Dennis Prager, put his book on there.
	It is your moral obligation to be happy.
	And that's a great argument that he makes.
	That's an interesting.
	It's a very interesting argument, but you know, it talks about the ramifications of people around you and the way it affects your relationships and your neurology.
	Have you ever seen Prager University?
	Well, Chris, Christina Summers.
	I'm subscribed to them on YouTube, actually.
	One of the few channels of Craigslist.
	I don't agree with everything.
	No.
	One of the few quality channels out there.
	They do really good stuff.
	They're not bad.
	I'm tempted to do a kind of few videos about some of the stuff I've seen on there, actually.
	Some of it I don't agree with at all.
	Okay, give me an example.
	I actually don't have one off the top of my head.
	I would have to go through and find it.
	But the thing is, it's not I disagree with it because it's bad, though.
	It's not like it was done by a social justice warrior.
	It's not like it's the Young Turks.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But weren't you a fan of the Young Turks at one point?
	Kind of.
	I think a lot of people were kind of fans of the Young Turks until the Young Turks actually had to deal with something that required a traditional liberal perspective.
	And then the Young Turks just went straight out of the window.
	And I mean, like, this thing with Cologne.
	I mean, oh my God, I couldn't believe it.
	We start talking about Muslim gangs of men who decide that they're going to enjoy a game of Tahrish, which I'm sure you are aware is a kind of...
	Sorry, no, I didn't hear you because Jared, not gay Jared, was coughing.
	He needs to be fired very promptly.
	Go ahead again.
	I'm sorry.
	There's this game in the Arab world called Taharush.
	Have you ever heard of it?
	Kind of a rapey version of the knockout game.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's my synopsis.
	I'm like, it's kind of rapey knockout game.
	No, no, no.
	If I was going to explain it to a Brit, I'd call it a rapey version of British Bulldog.
	Okay.
	And yeah.
	Wait, what's British Bulldog in Britain?
	Because in the United States, it's a line that you don't cross.
	And then it's like, yeah, guys.
	And then you kind of, you've got to get bundled to the ground.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, yeah, but instead it's with rape.
	Yes.
	Lots of cock.
	And yeah, and so instead of talking about how there are some serious moral failings with people who are who think this is just a game that you can play.
	Right.
	The young Turks started talking about Catholic priests.
	It's just like, and they started talking about America.
	And they started talking about anything that was not, you know, the attacks taking place in Germany.
	And it was just, I mean, the video that they were doing, and it's got something like 13,000.
	Oh, you know what?
	Yeah, that's right.
	I was going to do a rebuttal and then I sent it out to the team.
	I'm like, hey, I'm going to prep to do a rebuttal.
	And then I was like, oh, Sargon did it.
	So I didn't do it.
	But you should still do it.
	Seriously, because I never want to be the guy who steps on someone's toes or like if you did, and you did it so well, I didn't think I could add anything.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, that's just sometimes where I'm like, if I'm not going to, if there's no value added, why do it?
	I was angry with you, but proud.
	No, no, yeah, so I do remember this.
	Yeah, you know, I go through so much news every day with the set.
	You know what I mean?
	So I just forget.
	But yeah, I remember that.
	And I remember watching your rebuttal.
	And yeah, that is.
	Why were you talking about anything other than these Muslim guys?
	And it's, you know, no one's saying it's all Muslims.
	No one's saying that every Muslim agrees that they're doing it.
	It's probably something reviled in the Muslim world, which is why they only do it in mass demonstrations where there are huge crowds, you know, where they can get away with it.
	You know, it's probably something that's reviled over there.
	But I would disagree with that.
	It's not that reviled in the Muslim world.
	Yeah, I know it probably isn't.
	It happens all the time.
	You just gotta say, like, you're about 45% of relationships in the Arab world are incestuous.
	How many?
	I know you're not going to believe me.
	So just Google it.
	That's surely too hard.
	No, it's not.
	It's not.
	I mean, if it's reviled, like, let's be honest.
	Like, we talked about this last time.
	I know you love Muhammad as this great historical figure, blah, blah, blah.
	You have a statue of him at your Chinese restaurant.
	Muhammad, let's use the jumping off point compared to any other prophet or deity.
	Six, nine-year-old wife, you know, consummated.
	Like, it's not that far of a stretch.
	All I'm saying is, Muhammad is the most real of the prophets.
	He's the one who most likely actually existed.
	And what did he do?
	He screwed a nine-year-old.
	So, you know, I mean, well, she might have been six.
	Well, I guess I would assume you don't believe in Alexander the Great or Socrates then, because if we're going to hold a different standard with Muhammad and Jesus, we can get in this and then it gets sidetracked, and then we don't combine forces on the feminism.
	Yeah, okay.
	Yeah, no, that's true.
	But that is fair.
	If you're going to, if you're going to like Muhammad and Jesus, like, well, okay, we still have more with Jesus than Alexander the Great as far as historical documentation outside of just about.
	The question is, which Jesus?
	Because Jesus wasn't an uncommon name, and the people claiming that they were...
	Not the guy who weed-waxed my lawn.
	Hey, man, back in the first century AD, there were people who claimed they were prophets for a dime a dozen.
	They were all over the place.
	So why your particular Jesus?
	Yes.
	Well, I would say, obviously, the historical impact.
	The historical impact.
	And for me, the accounts of people who were rebutting, for me, rebutting the idea of Christ were most convincing.
	Because the easiest thing that was widely accepted to rebut, and this is just, again, opinion if we're talking about this.
	And I know you'll get, you must have been surprised at some of the hate in the comments section based on how reasonable our last conversation was and how angry.
	I think it's more that you have a bit of a reputation.
	Yes.
	This is true.
	And people get angry for me for talking to you.
	And I'm like, yeah, but I don't hate him.
	I mean, like, I talk to people who I don't agree with all the time, you know, and I'm kind of tired of this.
	Oh, well, you know, one time five years ago, he did something I didn't agree with.
	Maybe it wasn't very nice.
	And now forever after, I have to condemn this person.
	It's like, you know, are we SJWs?
	Can we not fucking forgive anyone?
	Well, those same people don't want to accept the fact that I hated the young Turks before it was cool.
	Before any of you or Milo or people came along, you go back.
	I was the only voice fighting them on YouTube.
	And these kids were fans of them when they were slandering me.
	And now they won't even acknowledge me when I do a rebuttal because they don't want to get into that firefight.
	But I was starting out as a lone kid and there was no Sargon for backup.
	Young Turks was putting all canons on me.
	Anyways, we got to, well, we'll put Jesus in for another day.
	No, my thing was, I was going to say with the Jesus thing was the easiest way, obviously, is to rebut us the empty tomb, right?
	Because the reason people followed, the reason it was such a historical was because people believed that.
	And the easiest way to do that is to trot out a body or push out the conspiracy.
	Hey, there was no empty tomb.
	Here was a body.
	Or these people were the one who lied about it.
	It's the easiest, most convincing argument to make.
	And they didn't.
	If you look at the earliest historical accounts, a lot of them basically trying to quell the sort of Christian uprising was, okay, well, maybe this happened and he was crucified.
	And we don't have evidence of the body because down the list.
	And for me, I go, well, hold on a second.
	Why even give them that ground?
	It would be like you saying, well, feminism is valid and it needed to happen and there is a pay gap.
	But the reason that's not the case when you know that's not true.
	So for me, I'm just saying personally, for me, that was where I said, okay.
	And that was what I wasn't a guy who started speaking in tongues walking down the aisle, hallelujah.
	And I think there are reasonable atheists and reasonable Christians and fewer reasonable Muslims.
	Matter of fact, I would say now with the Trump wagon, probably more reasonable atheists than Christians in 2016.
	You know, I mean, the thing is, right, it's not so much, it's not so much the details of Jesus' life that are the real issue for, I think, people who don't believe in Christianity.
	Sure.
	I mean, miracles aside, because I don't believe miracles happen.
	You know, they're probably that beard notwithstanding.
	My beard notwithstanding.
	There might well be some sort of historical truth to Pontius Pilate being given a random Jewish person who says, hey, I'm the son of God, and being told by the Pharisees to execute him.
	You know, there may well be historical truth to that story, but I'm afraid I just can't accept that this guy was actually a son of God and performed miracles.
	Sure.
	You know, I can't accept that.
	And so, and the thing is, I don't think that's necessarily the thing that people really get.
	I mean, I suppose that probably is for a lot of people, but for me, it's the fact that the Bible is not only inconsistent, but it's obviously taken from other sources that were deeply, deeply pagan.
	And, you know, I mean, it's been so brazenly appropriated in places that in the beginning of the Bible, it often uses the plural for gods because they used to transcribe it, you know, verbatim.
	And you can, and the thing is, if you look at the history of the Jews, you can see exactly where this happened.
	It's all Babylonian mythology, and they must have taken it from Babylon when the Assyrians carted them off to Babylon.
	I mean, it's just obvious where all of this has come from.
	And so, well, it's, you know, it's one thing to say that, but also to not inform your audience that archaeologists use the Bible to figure out lineages and where to dig.
	You know, a great example is David, right?
	An absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
	So a great example is, you know, atheists, their biggest argument for years, I think until 93 and then 07, was King David.
	If David existed, if the Bible means that you should have proof of David, there's no proof of David at all.
	He did this huge influential guy.
	And they found the proof.
	Yeah, and then there was another one in 2007.
	And so, especially when you look at, I mean, the Dead Sea Scrolls are for a long time.
	I know all the conspiracy, Nine Level is an Inside Job.
	When you look at it, you're going, actually, it really just sort of provides some information on sort of a sect of Judaism, but corroborates a lot of what we found in the Bible, where really there wouldn't have been a lot of points of contact.
	I understand, yeah, there are inconsistencies.
	But the thing is, the thing is, the Bible isn't a reliable historical document.
	That's the thing.
	I mean, the classic.
	You can say that, but you can't disavow the fact that it's one of the most widely used historical documents in fields like archaeology and for history and for reference.
	And the Smithsonian has said it is as reputable as any historical document we have today that's in the Smithsonian right now.
	I'm sure that it is, but there are also, I mean, you know, many historical documents aren't all that reputable.
	You know, I mean, right.
	Okay, but my point is, it's not fair to say, well, okay, Muhammad, and then say that about the Bible if you're going to say there are many disreputable.
	Well, that's fine.
	Then let's just say that all of historical documents are disreputable.
	And this is fine.
	I actually think that Napoleon was right that history is a set of lies agreed upon.
	It is.
	But I mean, like, okay, take this example.
	But he was short.
	You can never trust him.
	He was pissed about everybody.
	He wasn't that short.
	He wasn't.
	The French, no, no, the French actually had different measurements to the British.
	And so our inches were longer than French inches or something like that.
	So when the French were like, oh, yeah, he's five foot three or something, we were like, fucking hell, he's a midget.
	That's actually like five, seven, which was average height for the time or something.
	Although the French, I mean, and actually in French Canada, where I'm from, there's two different demographics, and the French Canadians are much shorter than the non-French Canadians.
	Yeah, they're a small people.
	Okay, stop changing the subject, right?
	Look, you've got the siege of Jerusalem in about, I don't know, 700 BC.
	I can't remember the exact rule.
	The king of Assyria comes down, Sennacherib, comes down with 185,000 men or 200,000 men, something like that.
	And he besieges Jerusalem because King Hezekiah, king of the Jews, refuses to pay his tribute.
	I know you told me about this.
	And then the other document says that the guy paid his tribute.
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	And for every example like that, you can find other examples where there are things that are corroborated in the Bible.
	And so my point is that you have to throw out all of history, which you seem to be willing to do.
	And that's, I think, a valid argument.
	Come on, come on.
	Or selectively.
	Starting earnest.
	Well, you've got to say, yeah, you do have to selectively throw out the bits that are wrong and keep the bits that are right.
	Now, I agree with you that there probably was some sort of kingdom of Israel under the house of David that had significant political power around 800 or 900 BC.
	That's not something that's not supported by historical record.
	There's nothing, as far as I'm aware, in other historical texts that obviously would discount the fact.
	It doesn't require divine interference.
	No, no, it doesn't.
	That's the case.
	No, it doesn't.
	So you are right in a lot of ways to say that there are things in the Bible that probably aren't historically true.
	Well, that wasn't my argument.
	My argument was you saying I don't believe Muhammad's probably the only one who existed.
	My point is if you're going to say that and Jesus wasn't a historical figure, you have to throw out Alexander the Great.
	You have to throw out Socrates.
	You have to throw out a lot of great historical figures where there's far less historical evidence.
	Okay, hang on, you don't, right?
	There are a few reasons.
	A, the genealogy of the Macedonian kingdom isn't in doubt.
	We know who Alexander was.
	We know who his father was.
	We know he was a family.
	We have far fewer historical accounts of Alexander the Great.
	Yeah, but that doesn't mean the historical accounts that we have aren't solid and verifiable.
	Sure.
	So.
	Yeah, and there are plenty of historical accounts we just acknowledge, especially if the Smithsonian says so with the Bible.
	So my point is this.
	My point is this.
	To deny the historical figure, let's say, of Jesus Christ versus Muhammad, because I don't deny the historical figure that is Muhammad.
	I just think it was a bad one.
	Yeah.
	No, I think Muhammad probably existed.
	Yeah.
	I believe Muhammad existed.
	I believe Jesus existed.
	To deny the historical figure is a different argument than to say, you know, you don't make the leap of the requirement of divinity.
	And I agree.
	I don't honestly think that, and that's why I don't spend a lot of time.
	Like when I was on Joe Rogan, listen, I'm in a tough position, right?
	There aren't a lot of Christians who will have this conversation.
	There aren't a lot of Christians who'll go on with Joe Rogan.
	People going, why don't you send me apologetics books?
	I'm going, well, Joe Rogan believes that the burning bush was a vision from hallucinogenic mushrooms that Moses was on.
	Like at that point, what's the point to the conversation?
	Okay, like there's no point to arguing those details.
	And so it's tough to get, you have to get that from both sides.
	But I do think there's a difference between saying, and it's disingenuous for people to say there's no historical accounts or act like this.
	The Bible is, you know, the comparisons of spaghetti monster, my little pony.
	When the Smithsonians are as valid of a historical text that we have, as accurate of a historical text that we have, widely acknowledged by many scholars and historians, I think it undercuts the atheist argument, which I think is a very strong argument.
	And I think it's going to be stronger going next few years to deny any kind of historical significance as opposed to the divinity.
	I think that's an easier argument.
	Okay, well, I don't think it's fair to downplay the historical significance of the Bible because there is a lot in the Bible that is, as you say, very valuable to our understanding of the ancient Near East, especially the sort of Assyrian time timeline.
	It genuinely is important, you know, and it genuinely does describe certain historical accounts, like, you know, like the wars with the Moabites and stuff like that.
	It's stuff that we would otherwise have no idea about, and probably is, to a degree, true.
	I mean, there is probably at least some truth to it.
	You know, the wars with the Philistines, all this sort of thing.
	But the thing is, it becomes very hairy when you get to the New Testament.
	Because, I mean, look at Jesus Barabbas.
	He's like the quintessential example.
	Jesus Barabbas means son of the father, which is obviously another name for the Son of God.
	And then you've got Jesus the Anointed One, who is also claiming to be the Son of God.
	One of them is released from Roman custody through popular acclaim, and the other one isn't.
	And it's the one called Jesus Barabbas, who was released from Roman custody.
	Why did the crowd cheer for him?
	Well, let me ask you this.
	Let's say right now.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, don't ask me another question.
	Why did the crowd cheer for him?
	Let me answer your question.
	Do you think if, let's say, someone who claims to be a prophet and that Muhammad was wrong right now in the Middle East, that Muhammad was a liar and called out the entire Islamic movement, let's say the entire Islamic hierarchy, I guess what do you call it?
	Church, with Catholics, you would say the Vatican.
	What would you say with Islam?
	What's the central?
	Well, they don't really have one.
	That's the problem.
	Let's say Mecca.
	Pissed on Mecca.
	Who do you think will be more likely to be released from custody?
	The guy who said Muhammad was a false prophet who worshipped a moon god and spoke to a devil in the sand?
	Or the guy who raped women in Cologne?
	Yeah, but I think taking that historical, it's not really fair to take a historical context.
	Yeah, it is.
	The I am was a big deal to the Jews at that point.
	They would be really pissed off about that.
	It makes perfect sense as far as that's my point.
	You can deny the divinity.
	Say it doesn't make sense that Jews going, this guy's claiming that we're wrong, and he's saying the I am, and this challenges everything we believe.
	All right, let's let the guy with a few parking tickets go.
	Well, no, they were both claiming to be divine.
	They were both claiming to be the son of God.
	Why choose one over the other?
	Yeah, they weren't the same claim.
	And that's the big difference between this comes into the divine argument.
	Muhammad didn't do this.
	Buddha didn't do this.
	Barabbas didn't do this.
	Didn't say, I am.
	There is no intermediary.
	I am the only one who is.
	The true name is the son of the father.
	So, I mean, that is the claim in itself.
	You wouldn't call yourself that if you didn't walk around and claim that.
	Yes, and that's why there's a big historical account of Jesus.
	That's the big difference.
	That's the reason why we're even arguing this topic.
	That's the reason of the influence compared to other religions.
	You don't have to like it, but to say that it's comparable to someone else who was a criminal, who really, if you get into historical accounts.
	Jesus was a criminal.
	Jesus Christ.
	Yeah, he was a criminal.
	But I'm telling someone else who says, it's very different.
	The crime of I am God, me, and you're wrong.
	That's much bigger than anything else.
	And basically, you're not, you can't receive the Father except through me.
	That's different.
	You don't have to accept it, but it's not comparable.
	It's actually not a particularly unique thing for prophets to say that prophets say that kind of thing all the time.
	You name me, I guess, one other prophet.
	And, you know, since we're talking about this, we're talking about this timeline, right?
	Let's talk about the biblical timeline.
	Between the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the Quran, Hadith.
	Let's take that.
	Any other prophet there who said, I am God in the flesh.
	I'm the guy who discerns whether you go to heaven.
	I'm not a prophet for God.
	I would honestly have to do a bit of Googling, but this is not an uncommon claim.
	No, there are.
	Not Muhammad, not Moses.
	What's Apollionus Apollinus, I think is?
	Well, see, now we're even getting further.
	See, this isn't fair.
	You're changing the subject, too.
	You asked me Jesus and Barabbas.
	This is a guy who probably met Jesus.
	He's not in the Bible, though.
	I didn't hear what you said.
	We were talking about Barabbas.
	Yeah, but no, but Barabbas was just an example because he had the same name as Jesus.
	Right.
	And he happens to basically have the same epithet.
	I understand.
	But you gave me a very literal example and asked me to choose.
	There are a lot of people wandering around, not only called Jesus, but a lot of people wandering around saying, look, I'm not only the son of God, I'm the prophet, I'm the holy one.
	You guys should follow me.
	Why Jesus?
	Why choose that particular one?
	And the thing is, what you're saying is contingent on the propaganda in favor of Jesus being true.
	Right.
	Whereas, you know, but that's a different argument for me and my belief.
	Yeah, but if you had hold of Barabbas's followers, holy book, and that was the holy book that we were, you know, that had become the Christian.
	It's not even close.
	It's not even close.
	And you'd have to deny all the martyrs afterward who were willing to.
	You'd have to make a leap that these people were in on it, knew it was a fake, knew it was a phony.
	Okay, so you don't deny the historical account of martyrs after Jesus, right?
	You certainly don't.
	Yeah, of course.
	So how many of them for Barabbas after Jesus?
	How many of them made that historical impact?
	How many of them would be corroborated from other books who died because they believed Barabbas was God?
	Barabbas.
	Because you asked me about Jesus versus Barabbas.
	I know Jesus, Barabbas, Jesus, Barabbas, but you asked me about those two.
	So I want to go back to that.
	I think what I gave you was a valid answer as to why they'd be more pissed off with one than the other.
	Yeah, but the thing is, right, your answer is contextual.
	it's entirely reliant on the idea that what's in the bible is true whereas but your question was It kind of, yeah.
	So that's why I was answering it that way.
	If you're going to say my question was hypothetical and his name could have been Barry, then I would have answered it differently.
	But, okay, the point I'm trying to make is that no matter what you, no matter what you get from the Bible, you're always going to get that Jesus was the Son of God.
	Sure.
	Whether he was or wasn't, right?
	And if you go to, say, you know, Barabbas or Apollonius of Tyre or any other prophet that you want to name from the time their followers, you know, Mithridates, no, Mithras, sorry, they would have all said the same thing.
	You know, us all the same truth.
	And it just so happens that you have like, I think it was Constantine the Great who decided Christianity was the right religion for him, apparently through divine sign.
	But again, it's all just contingent on.
	And I would agree with, by the way, I would agree that a lot of those decisions were not divine.
	They were politically motivated.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I'm not an illogical person.
	Yeah, but this is the thing.
	I know that comment section.
	You said I'm not an illogical person.
	Fuck a Christian idiot.
	You're going to get those.
	There is still logic within the context.
	Yeah, but my point is this.
	I was answering a very literal question.
	You even said, don't ask me a question, answer it.
	And so I gave you a very literal answer.
	And I gave you a very specific answer.
	So what I don't want people to take away, dodging.
	I did say, how many other people in that biblical timeline, since that's what we're talking about, claimed to be God in the flesh, the only one.
	And that's fine.
	You can Google it because it's not, as far as any major religions and followers.
	Now you can have the guy at the copier who's insane or Jeffrey Dahmer.
	They're going to claim to be Jesus.
	I get that.
	But you also, like you said, you throw out some of history because you go, okay, who had this greatest historical impact?
	So Muhammad's impact, Buddha's impact, Moses' impact, Jesus' impact.
	Any of the main religions, there's a big difference between why one, with his claim sitting before Pontius Pilate, would piss people off.
	And I was trying to give a very specific answer because with that historical context, he was the only one to do it.
	And that perks some ears up because you're going to deal with some shit.
	But okay, well, I could have probably formed my question better.
	But the point I'm trying to make was, you know, you're always going to get the one answer if you're using the Bible as the reference source.
	Sure.
	And you would get the same answer if you're using Barabbas' text and so on and so on.
	So, and it's this subjectivity that really turns me off of religion, especially as I know the Bible has so many flaws.
	You know, it really does.
	I understand that.
	So many inconsistencies.
	And I'm not trying to take away your faith or anything like that.
	And I'm not trying.
	And this is the thing, right?
	No, no, of course not.
	I really don't mind if people go, you know what?
	You know, it could be that this, you know, these are the things, but I think it's this one for whatever reasons I want.
	So, you know, go ahead.
	You know, it's your choice.
	Sure.
	You know, how, you know, I would never try and take that away from people.
	But I mean, you know, and I want the commenters to understand that nobody's necessarily trying to convert each other here.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's just like it's nice to have a Christian actually who will actually discuss this as well.
	Sure.
	Because like with feminism, so few people will discuss like these things that they profess that they say, oh, I actually believe this.
	It's like, okay, well, let's talk about that now.
	Well, but you asked a fair question.
	And that's different, like I was saying, like with on the Rogan podcast, where like you're going to get into hallucinogenic shrooms and stuff.
	It's like, okay.
	Yeah, well, okay.
	Just like I'm not going to argue revelations with anybody because it's very, you know, you're talking about dream interpretation.
	So I, but if someone asks a very literal question about Barabbas, okay, I believe that that's an answer that we can give this answer and you can take it or leave it.
	But there, you know, there are different arguments as far as a historical context, as far as the validity of the Bible, as far as the divinity.
	And I think the hardest one, obviously, is to make that reach.
	And then, like I say, you know, as far as me, what a big part of it.
	And I know people are like, if you need the Bible to tell you how to act, you're a piece of shit as they smoke their weed and comment the most horrendous things on YouTube.
	It has been a big definer for me and how I live my life.
	You know, a good example, marriage, right?
	Let's talk about that.
	Going back to that.
	You know, people who don't have a worldview, it doesn't have to be necessarily the Christian worldview.
	Like Donald Trump is a good example.
	But someone's 60-something and they go, I was a liberal my whole life and I just changed it.
	I go, okay, either it's political expediency or what were you doing your whole life?
	How can you not?
	What was that?
	You can tell, by the way, the very first friend came on my life.
	Looks like Sargon's channel's been taken over by the Westboro Baptists.
	They know nothing.
	Click this box where he's all crazy and you can barely see him to subscribe to Sargon's channel.
	I don't know if this video is on Sargon's channel or my channel because sometimes we swap the extended versions.
	But either way, click my face to go to my site.
	And I think there's another video playing in the box.
	We're sorry, Sargon.

▲