Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Old Media Attacks The New

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 30, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

41:54

The Old Media Attacks The New

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I don't know why the mainstream media continues to embarrass itself by producing obviously fake stories.
	Alt-right poison nearly turned me into a racist.
	By anonymous, because if I put my name to this, then you'll have someone to hold to account when it turns out that what I've said is total bullshit.
	Look at this tagline.
	It started with Sam Harris, moved on to Milo Yiannopoulos, and almost led to full-scale Islamophobia.
	If it can happen to a lifelong liberal, it could happen to anyone.
	I love the way that the author is presenting a category of arguments that are literally considered to be wrongthink.
	It's just wrong to consider Islam to be a bad thing.
	It's just wrong to consider listening to Sam Harris or Milo Yiannopoulos or anyone else in the skeptosphere which is tangentially referenced, because what they're saying might change your political persuasion.
	And that, for some reason, is the most important point, because this article is basically an appeal to tribalism.
	The article proper begins with an unlikely opening gambit.
	I am a happily married young white man.
	Not very likely.
	I grew up in a happy conservative household.
	Hmm.
	I spent my entire life, save the last four months, as a progressive liberal.
	As a contradiction in terms.
	All of my friends are very liberal or left-leaning centrists.
	I have always voted Liberal Democrat or Green.
	I voted Remain in the referendum.
	The thought of racism in any form has always been abhorrent to me.
	When Leave won, I was devastated.
	Basically, what I'm saying is that I am a progressive cliché.
	I am that annoying Ramona.
	I am that annoying Hillary voter.
	I'm a person who never had an original thought of my own in my entire life, and I rely on left-wing media outlets like The Guardian to inform me of what my own moral standards are.
	So if you think you sound like me, and there are many young, progressive, left-wing, politically engaged people whom this is going to appeal to, this article is for you.
	So unbelievably perfectly crafted for you, it's hard to believe it's not a propaganda piece.
	Which as we will see, it clearly is.
	They say, I was curious as to the motives of Leave voters.
	Surely they were not all racist, bigoted or hateful.
	Well, why would you even think they were?
	The only reason you would think they were is if all of your media diet consisted of left-wing propaganda, calling them racist to try and prevent you from considering any other arguments in any form of rational debate.
	This article is just another one in a long line of articles from outlets like The Guardian, designed to leave you with a one-sided worldview.
	A demented worldview in which you think half the country are raging KKK supporting racists.
	They continue by saying, I watched some debates on YouTube.
	Obvious points of concern about terrorism were brought up.
	A lever cited Sam Harris as a source.
	I looked him up.
	This intellectual free thinker was very critical of Islam.
	Naturally, my liberal knee-jerk reaction was to be shocked, but I listened to his concerns and some of his debates.
	If your liberal reaction was a knee-jerk to be shocked at criticism of Islam, that implies to me that you either don't understand Islam or you do not understand liberalism.
	Because these things are simply not compatible based on their basic principles of operation.
	The things that each ideology is striving for are mutually exclusive.
	So for a liberal to be surprised that there is liberal criticism of Islam sounds to me very much like a turkey being very surprised about hearing criticism of Christmas.
	This, I think, is where YouTube's suggested videos can lead you down a rabbit hole.
	Moving on from Harris, I unlocked a Pandora's box of it's not racist to criticize Islam content.
	The very fact that they mention this goes to demonstrate the kind of audience they are appealing to with this article.
	The kind of audience that actually believes criticism of a religion is a racist sentiment.
	Eventually, I was introduced by YouTube algorithms to Milo Yiannopoulos and various anti-SJW videos.
	SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is a pejorative directed at progressives.
	Hi there.
	They were shocking at first, but always presented as innocuous criticism from people claiming to be liberals themselves, or centrists, sometimes just a regular conservative, but never ever identifying as the dreaded alt-right.
	Our author has already demonstrated that they themselves are not a liberal.
	They are a progressive.
	Which is the very reason they are shocked at liberal critiques of things that they would think would be beyond criticism.
	The reason these people do not identify as alt-right is because it would not be an accurate description of what they believe.
	The alt-right has a spectrum of core values and goals, and these do not often align with what liberals, centrists, or just regular conservatives want themselves.
	If this person knew anything about the alt-right, they would know that there was a civil war going on in the alt-right as we speak.
	The factions are quite almost evenly split, and I honestly don't know what the result's going to be.
	I'll probably make a video of it, but for now we'll just carry on.
	For three months, I watched this stuff grow steadily more fearful of Islam.
	Not Muslims, they would usually say.
	Individual Muslims are fine.
	But Islam was presented as a threat to Western civilization.
	Fear-mongering content was presented in a compelling way by charismatic people who distanced themselves from the very movement of which they were a part.
	So without explicitly saying it, you're saying that anyone who criticizes Islam must be a part of the alt-right.
	You are giving the alt-right way more credit than it deserves.
	The alt-right is actually not very big, and it's getting smaller.
	So let's calm down a bit.
	Let's remind ourselves that it's communist ideologues that see fascists around every corner.
	Let's remember that there is a direct threat to Western civilization in Islam.
	Because Islam is both a religion and a political ideology, and it has always been that way.
	There is a reason why women and homosexuals are second-class citizens in every single Muslim country that exists.
	If you think they are going to be open and tolerant, and they aren't instead going to be authoritarian right-wing theocrats, your ideology has blinded you.
	The fact that they are a different skin colour to you does not prevent them from acting in ways that you personally would find utterly intolerable if you were subjected to it.
	But you're not.
	You live in a secular Western country, and so you don't know what it's like.
	But the specific and very misguided beliefs of progressives have led them into thinking that Islam is some benign entity.
	My dear anonymous author, you are very wrong, and the people you are persuading will be known as useful idiots.
	You must stand up for your values, and Islam is a direct threat. to those values.
	They continue with, at the same time, the anti-SJW stuff also moved on to anti-feminism, men's rights activists, all that stuff.
	I followed a lot of these people on Twitter, but never shared any of it.
	I just passively consumed it, because deep down I knew I was ashamed of what I was doing.
	Yes, but why were you ashamed?
	There's nothing shameful about analyzing ideas.
	When someone is promoting an ideology, there is nothing shameful about analyzing it.
	Shame is context dependent.
	Your shame is directly linked to the opinions of people around you.
	Shame is dependent on the society in which you live.
	I am sure that there are Muslims who have read Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and are ashamed when they are caught by their Muslim friends.
	If you're ashamed to hear anti-feminist arguments, it is because the social water through which you swim during your life, all of the people around you, have declared that this type of thinking, the idea of even contemplating these arguments, is out of bounds.
	This is off limits.
	These are things you cannot think.
	What this author is saying is that they are now guilty of a thought crime, and they are ashamed of it.
	They continue by saying, I'd start to roll my eyes when my friends talked about liberal progressive things.
	What was wrong with them?
	Did they not understand what being a real liberal was?
	Well, just to say, I don't think they do.
	I honestly don't.
	The fact that you keep using liberal and progressive interchangeably makes me think you don't really understand the difference between the two.
	The important thing though is the way this is being written.
	Did they not understand what being a real liberal was?
	It sounds hyperbolic and unrealistic.
	No one's really going to say it like that.
	All my friends were just SJWs.
	Why would you say that?
	They're your friends.
	And it's important to note there is a very real difference between being an SJW and being a progressive.
	There are many, many, many people who are progressive, but few of them are actually SJWs.
	SJW refers to a kind of action as much as an ideology.
	The sort of social bullies who will go out of their way to take punitive actions against someone who has crossed them.
	Most people are not SJWs, even most regressives.
	They carry on by saying, they didn't know that free speech was under threat and that politically correct culture and censorship were the true problem.
	And this is the point, in my opinion, where you can really tell that this person is being utterly disingenuous.
	To suggest that there is only one problem in the West, and that all of the problems stem from political correctness or social justice warriors is just ridiculous.
	I mean, I can't imagine someone holding that opinion.
	The idea that there was just one problem and it was radical progressives is not true.
	There are many problems coming from many different areas, but radical progressives are the reason the left as a political movement is failing.
	In fact, they've failed completely and they don't even know it, and this article is one of many that is designed to try and claw as much ground that has been lost back.
	And it's not working.
	Nobody thinks this is real.
	In fact, the only person who thinks this is real was Glenn Greenwald when he tweeted it at Sam Harris, which Sam obviously just laughed at because this article is laughable.
	Political correctness is a threat to free speech.
	There is no doubting it.
	Political correctness is no platforming people.
	It is preventing them from being heard.
	It's probably also responsible for jailing people in Britain for things said on social media.
	People have to be exceptionally careful with what they say because literally a tweet can send you to jail.
	So you can't say that these things aren't a problem and no one is saying that they are the only problem.
	But they are a major problem that affect some people and when they talk about those problems, it's totally legitimate for them to be heard.
	But the entire point of delivering this article in such a cringeworthy way, they're not real liberals, this is the true problem.
	This is designed inherently to discredit the arguments without them even really being heard.
	Because at no point has this person broken down the difference between liberals and progressives and why liberals are finding themselves in opposition to progressives before they even get out of the starting gate.
	While so far I am reasonably convinced that this entire article is total nonsense, made up whole cloth from someone who is absolutely indoctrinated into their political position.
	This is where I really become certain of that.
	They say, on one occasion I even, I am ashamed to admit, very diplomatically expressed negative sentiments on Islam to my wife.
	Nothing overtly racist, just some of the innocuous type of things that YouTubers had presented.
	Islam isn't compatible with Western civilization.
	Honestly, I have to stop myself laughing at this frankly adorable attempt at preserving ideological orthodoxy.
	But it's the wife's reported response to this statement that I find most interesting.
	She was taken aback.
	Isn't that a bit right-wing?
	This is an amazing response for many reasons.
	I mean, the first thing that springs to mind is defending one's own values, in this woman's opinion, must be a right-wing thing to do.
	If this had been framed in any other context other than Islam is incompatible with Western values, then maybe I wouldn't be able to infer that.
	But because she thinks that that is a right-wing position, what she is saying is that the progressive thing to do is to submit to Islam.
	These people have an image of Islam in their heads as being some kind of unquestionable good.
	Whereas if you just break down Islam into its component ideas, the things that it will advocate for in a society, there is no way a progressive would ever agree to any of these things if they were being demanded by someone with white skin.
	His purported response was of course, brilliant.
	I justified it.
	Well, I'm more of a left-leaning centrist, as in copying the political position that people who criticise social justice often hold, because they are the ones most closely exposed to it.
	When they go onto left-leaning websites or left-leaning blogs or comment sections, and they get told that they are racist simply because they don't agree with the principles of Islam, you can see why they would feel the need to delineate and distinguish themselves from it.
	But anyway, PC culture has gone too far.
	We should be able to discuss things without shutting down the conversation by calling people racists or bigots.
	That's a perfectly rational and reasonable statement.
	There is absolutely nothing gained by shutting down a conversation by calling people a bigot.
	It doesn't change their mind.
	It doesn't solve the issue to anyone watching.
	It's not in any way persuasive.
	It in fact ring fences people out of the conversation.
	And the problem that the progressives are having right now is that they have ring-fenced too many people outside of the conversation by declaring them to be bigots.
	As you'll remember earlier on, this person was apparently under the impression that more than half of the country were racist.
	So no wonder they lost if all the racists are talking amongst themselves and you refuse to engage with them.
	You can't change their minds, you can't persuade them of anything, and they don't care what you have to say.
	This is why the left is losing.
	And the author thinks that this absolutely pertinent point of not shutting down the conversation by slapping a label on someone means the indoctrination was complete.
	I don't want to just label everything about this article ironic, but everything laid out thus far was a demonstrable struggle against indoctrination.
	The forbidden fruit of exploring ideas that one is apparently not meant to tolerate, and then the shame of thinking, well, maybe there's something to them, and then the humiliation of being told that these were right-wing ideas by one's wife.
	The idea that this person thinks they were not previously indoctrinated is a joke, and anyone who doesn't already agree with this position will see it as such.
	About a week before the US election, I heard one of these YouTubers use the phrase red-pilled, a term from the film Matrix, in reference to people being awakened to the truth about the world and SJWs.
	I suddenly thought, this is exactly like a cult.
	What am I doing?
	I'm turning into an asshole.
	I don't think that what we are doing here on YouTube is like a cult.
	We are not the people who ban discussion of our ideas.
	We are not the people who turn off ratings.
	We are not the people who tell people if they think differently, they are bad people.
	I did a video about cults a while ago, and I'll put it in the description so you can go through it for yourself.
	But here is a screencap of what exactly makes a cult.
	According to Dr. Arthur Diekman, a man who spent 30 years studying cults and was in them himself, the characteristics of cult behaviour are 1. Compliance with a group.
	2. Dependence on a leader.
	3. Devaluing the outsider.
	4. Avoiding dissent.
	Simply reading these points aloud is probably enough for the average person to understand exactly why this article itself sounds like it was written by a cult member.
	But I'll go through it in detail.
	Number 1. Compliance with a group.
	This is the frame of the entire article.
	A person who can't understand why Brexit lost and needs to go outside of their group to try and understand and apparently suffer the resulting shame from being non-compliant with their group.
	The next one I'll talk about is devaluing the outsider.
	His wife specifically says yes, but isn't that a bit right-wing?
	And that in itself is the devaluation of the outsider.
	And the purpose of doing that is to avoid dissent.
	So all you need to do is find the leader that these people are dependent on, and you could accurately term this kind of person as a cult member.
	Now, as I don't think that he has a specific leader that he is dependent on, I don't think we can say that the person who wrote this article is formally part of a cult.
	However, they do exhibit three out of four cult behaviours and frankly look primed for their own Anita Sarkeesian to come around and occupy that vacant position.
	They continue with, I unsubscribed and unfollowed from everything.
	And I told myself outright, you're becoming a racist.
	What you're doing is turning you into a terrible, hateful person.
	He is reinforcing the orthodoxy.
	Or at least, he would be if this article even vaguely resembled reality.
	But this is the kind of feeling that the person is trying to bring up within the progressive reading list.
	The progressive that has been having doubts about whether maybe Sam Harris has a point.
	Maybe there is something to this anti-feminism stuff.
	Maybe, maybe we've gone too far.
	But this is the redrawing of those lines of circumvolation.
	No, no, no.
	These are the ideas we find politically correct.
	These are the acceptable thoughts.
	And everything out of this line of demarcation is the evil alt-right.
	Until that moment, I haven't even realised that alt-right was what I was becoming.
	I just thought I was a more open-minded person for tolerating these views.
	It's not necessarily about toleration.
	It's about investigation.
	But more importantly, this person has not approached anything like the alt-right.
	They haven't mentioned the Jews.
	They haven't mentioned a white nationalist homeland.
	They haven't mentioned anything about cultural Marxism.
	They are just talking about real issues that affect real people on the left.
	This person is so afraid about going out of their progressive echo chamber bubble that they have taken one step into exploring the problems in the left and they think they're part of the alt-right.
	The actual sort of white nationalist side of politics.
	They actually think they've entered that.
	It hit me like a ton of bricks.
	Online radicalization of young men.
	It's here.
	It's serious.
	And I was lucky to be able to snap out of it when I did.
	And if it can get somebody like me to swallow it, a lifelong liberal, I can't imagine the damage it's doing overall.
	Now that is one of the most enjoyable things I've ever read.
	To suggest that people who are interested in getting down to the brass tacks of liberalism are in fact dangerous radicals that threaten to overthrow the existing progressive order is very heartening.
	And if you're a progressive, if you're an SJW, if you're one of those people who thinks that there are areas of reality that must not even be entertained because it falls outside of the limited spectrum of your ideological positions, I want you to consider me to be a dangerous radical.
	And we're presented with a form of confession.
	I haven't yet told my wife that this happened, and I honestly don't know how to.
	I need to apologise for what I said and tell her that I certainly don't believe it.
	It is going to be a tough conversation and I'm not looking forward to it.
	I didn't think that this could happen to me, but it did and will haunt me for a long time to come.
	This is what I would expect a Catholic who had gay sex to say.
	This is what I would expect a Muslim who drank alcohol to say.
	This is as Slavoj Zizek might say, pure ideology.
	This guy's done nothing wrong by encouraging himself to interrogate new beliefs and then rejecting them.
	He doesn't have to agree with any of this.
	And he's totally free.
	So you know what?
	I'm not, I just don't believe in this.
	That's his choice.
	He's entirely free to make it.
	He's done nothing wrong.
	And yet he feels as if he has done something wrong.
	And I love the way The Guardian are brave enough to tell us that the author was not paid a fee for this piece.
	Well, I should fucking hope not.
	Because if Godfrey Alfwick, notorious Twitter troll, is to be believed, this piece was something he made up and somehow sold to The Guardian.
	Now, I don't actually believe that, I'm afraid, Godfrey.
	I think that you would need to provide me some evidence that and that The Guardian had agreed to publish it.
	Something like an email chain, give me the names of the contact details so I can verify this myself as a third party.
	Until then, I'm going to assume you didn't.
	But it does not matter.
	What matters is the reaction to this piece.
	Not only did The Guardian have the temerity to publish this, but liberal activists and journalists like Glenn Greenwald decided to tweet it out and tag Sam Harris, accusing him of being able to radicalize people into full-scale hate-mongering, sorry, hater-mongering, against Muslims.
	Glenn, this piece is obvious nonsense.
	And if it's not obvious nonsense, it is an obvious demonstration of the sickness in the left.
	It is a demonstration of how these people simply don't comprehend the world correctly.
	They don't comprehend it accurately.
	They view it through the prism of their ideology, and anything that is just even vaguely on the cusp of breaking through that kind of indoctrination is dismissed as being right-wing in principle.
	It's no wonder that these people don't really know what's going on, and it's the mainstream media, media outlets like The Guardian, like The Intercept, that will happily continue to fulfil these delusions.
	And it's these delusions as to why the left is failing.
	I'll finish up with a quick look at a Vice article that was a hit piece against me and several other people in the independent media.
	Yes, that is a particularly unflattering screen grab of me that is being used as the lead image for this article.
	Now, I don't know whether I should be flattered.
	I mean, does this mean I'm famous?
	Does this mean that I have some kind of power that they feel they need to push back against?
	I'm just going to pull out the parts that are relevant to me.
	There's a certain type of British man who has become enamoured with America, its social politics, and its machinations, and wishes to become an intellectual authority on it.
	So I'm going to have to say something rather heretical and will probably get me a huge amount of hate in the comments.
	But I don't really like America.
	I don't really find it very impressive.
	I like Americans.
	Every American I've met, and I've met many because I used to live on REF bases, often living cheek to jowl with Americans on the same camp.
	All the Americans that I've met have been very nice people, as individuals.
	They've been very polite, very courteous, very respectful, and very respectable.
	But what I see coming out of American culture, I don't respect.
	I don't like it.
	I don't think it's very good.
	I mean, you're lucky that you do good movies, because otherwise I probably would have no interaction with American culture at all, because I find it too lowbrow.
	And I know I sound like a terribly pretentious arsehole when I say this, but I'm just trying to be honest.
	You know, most of the time, I wouldn't consider American media to be superior to any other kind of media.
	I certainly don't consider American journalism superior to any other kind of journalism.
	In fact, if anything, I do often consider it to be inferior.
	And again, I'm making broad generalizations, but this is generally how I feel.
	The problem is that America is a very big and very powerful place, and it has some very fundamental problems with its political process.
	And as an outsider, I think I can see them a lot more clearly than people from within the system.
	I would rather not talk about America.
	However, because America is a large and important place, what happens there does not stay there.
	And this, if you're an American and you've ever said, well, you're a foreigner, you don't get the right to talk, honestly, that's a position I have absolutely no respect for.
	America is such a large and influential country that to say that foreigners shouldn't have the right to voice their input into the process, just as a matter of opinion or observation, is a position so unbelievably intolerant that I've simply got no more time to waste on that person.
	I'm more interested in talking about someone who is capable of a rational discussion and detaching themselves personally from the issues.
	But after setting up, well, what is obviously a straw man, the author carries on to say, and to a lot of these guys, intellectual authority means reducing any and all subject matter to a kind of hyper-rationality.
	I will never apologize for being rational, or considering that to be more important than ideology.
	I will never apologise for being concerned most with sound logical arguments, rather than indulging people's feelings.
	I'm really sorry.
	One of the biggest proponents of this style is Sargon of Akkad, real name Carl Benjamin, also known as the man who tweeted Labour MP Jess Phillips after she wrote that people talking about raping me isn't fun, but it has become somewhat par for the course, in which he said he wouldn't even rape her.
	And I still won't, Jess.
	You have still not earned the right for me to sully my moral standards by raping you.
	It will never happen.
	And I'm just trying to reassure you, Jess, because I would hate for you to go on, oh, I don't know, Victoria Live and say something like this.
	The number of tweets and then the retweets and those people piling in, dogpiling as you call it, mean there have been something like 5,000 tweets.
	Yeah, right.
	Pretty much referring to raping you or not raping you.
	Yeah, I mean, their level of discourse is that they're saying that they don't want to rape me as if raping is something that they'd do to someone they liked.
	Not only is that just the funniest thing I think I've ever heard anyone say on TV, they put it alongside the caption, rape threats to MP.
	And that was exactly my point.
	Nothing that I said or anyone else said by Jess's own admission was anywhere near tantamount to a rape threat and yet this was how it was presented to the general public at large.
	You are liars.
	This is why people call you fake news.
	So our author Wikipedia the real Sargon of Akkad and found that he was an emperor who ruled over Mesopotamia in the 24th century BC.
	So the links between him and a man with a YouTube account who sounds like he's from Swindon.
	Well now, hang on.
	If our author had ever been to Swindon, they would know that I don't sound like I'm from Swindon.
	Because I'm not from Swindon.
	I moved here after I left university.
	However, our author has clearly googled me and found that I currently live in Swindon, and therefore inferred that I must be from Swindon.
	I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not something that I would be particularly eager to say to people because of the reputation Swindon has.
	But this is my point.
	Everything about this is just a smear job.
	The point is to just make me sound bad.
	I mean, he's impugned the idea of being rational, and will continue to do so.
	Carl of Akad, which is actually a name I really like, much like the rest of them, seems to pride himself on a sense of purest thinking and a logic before all attitude, to which I say guilty is charged.
	Now I'm just a man, I make mistakes, and I realize that I won't always embody these values, but these are the values that I think are more important than simply being an emotional wreck and allowing oneself to be led by the nose by dog whistle words, which is what you're trying to do in this article.
	Problem is, when you're speaking on issues of a social nature that cannot be boiled down to textbook definitions of words, it's not really an approach that works particularly well.
	Oh well, that's me refuted.
	That's everything I've ever said refuted.
	Don't even bother.
	I mean, it's just an approach that doesn't work particularly well.
	I don't need to give specifics.
	This is just my opinion.
	And let's not even get into whether we're talking about textbook definitions of words, Mr. Regressive Leftist.
	Or we'll start having to define racism, sexism, and just the concept of social justice and liberalism themselves.
	Unfortunately, definitions matter.
	And when you try to simply co-opt and redefine words, that matters.
	But hey, it's an approach that doesn't work particularly well.
	I mean, I haven't really been very successful.
	My YouTube channel's tiny, and for some reason, this vice article guy is writing this article because he wanted to find a tiny little YouTuber and punch down at them.
	Which is the progressive thing to do.
	An alternative dissenting theory is that the reach of my YouTube channel has become so great that you feel the need to try and publicly address me and try to poison the well against me.
	So anyone who reads your article will think, well, I won't even try with this guy.
	It's a very honest way of doing things.
	Still, it hasn't stopped men like Carl and IdInfoWars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson from becoming the right-wing commentators of the digital age.
	While I'm happy to agree that Paul Joseph Watson probably identifies himself as being a right-winger, I personally don't.
	But when you're so far left, I suppose everything seems right-wing.
	Gone are the days when your Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's screeching about the desecration of the American flag and the war on drugs.
	No, I don't care about the desecration of the American flag, and I'm against the war on drugs, just as a matter of interest, was enough to rile up conservatives.
	Now something more nuanced is needed, and arrives strangely in the form of young-ish British men.
	Well, maybe it's because we can see what the problem is.
	Maybe it's because we're not part of your team.
	Maybe it's because there are genuine structural problems in the left, and you refuse to accept or identify them, or even name that there is a problem.
	Where Fox News prided itself on the extremities of playing devil's advocate and browbeating guests, the new wave are staring dead-eyed into the camera and explaining to you via their massively superior intellect why the SJWs are wrong.
	Well, I don't stare dead-eyed into a camera, but I don't disagree with the rest of it.
	Intellectualism and quote-unquote logic is the greatest currency among these types, though they often willfully choose to ignore the nuances of many of their subjects.
	Well, you just said that we were nuanced, so which one is it?
	This happens especially when it comes to matters of race, racial biases, discrimination, etc.
	Yes, we do not agree with your ideological opinion.
	We have our reasons, and there are hundreds of thousands of people who agree with us.
	Who the hell is this guy anyway?
	Issues that have hundreds of different permutations and considerations must be taken into account and are often just reduced to their dictionary definitions.
	No!
	That's what you do.
	That's what your side does.
	You are the ones who roll out new versions of definitions or just go back to the dictionary if that's a more convenient definition.
	The definition of racism, for instance, will be used to discredit people insinuating that maybe, just maybe, a great deal of white people have been conditioned into being racist.
	You mean the definition of the word racism excludes most people from having been conditioned into being racist.
	Which is why you are so concerned about these definitions, because now you must change the definition of racism.
	So you can say, well, turns out that all white people have been conditioned into being racist.
	How do I know?
	Well, I have this brand new definition of the word racism.
	And according to that definition, that's correct.
	Well, I'm sorry, but I reject your new definition.
	I reject that most people are racist.
	And the reason I do this is because most people don't want to be considered racists.
	The people who are racists just shrug.
	They don't care if you call them a racist, because they don't see it to be some sort of morally indefensible position.
	But most people do because it is.
	More importantly, making a blanket accusation against a group of people, in this case determined based on their race, is a form of prejudice.
	And racism is prejudice based on race.
	So when you say the assumption about white people and the way they think would itself be racist or so the thinking goes, that's only because this is a firm line of logic.
	Prejudice against a group of people based on their race is racism.
	Accusing everyone of being bigoted just because of their race is prejudice against that race.
	Therefore, that is a racist statement.
	I don't really know how much more I can explain this, how much more clearly I can explain this, but you say it's a kind of blustering myopia expressed with an unwarranted air of cerebral authority that appeals to mostly men who feel ostracized for just being too damn smart for the world.
	Well, the problem is the world seems to have been taken over by morons.
	For some reason, they're given jobs at Vice magazine, and apparently, at least according to them, they're paid an awful lot of money to be propagandists for a particular ideology that doesn't really accurately model reality.
	And I'm not just saying that these people are being paid a large sum of money.
	Joe Bish, the author of this article, said so himself.
	Because apparently I will do the opposite of what the mainstream media is doing.
	And I will actually contact the subjects that I will discuss.
	I want their input.
	Often they don't want to give it, but the option is always there.
	He finishes with this.
	Either way, if you have an annoyingly precocious teen in your charge, and you catch them watching Sagan of a CAD or Paul Joseph Watson or the irate bear, put your arm around them and tell them it's okay to be empathetic sometimes.
	That's a great piece of advice, Joe.
	Maybe, maybe, that advice can go for the people also who are talking to these precocious teenagers.
	Have you considered being empathetic to them?
	Just out of interest.
	I mean, I actually do genuinely encourage my audience to be empathetic.
	I will do videos specifically to show people that an individual such as, oh, I don't know, Black Hitler, isn't actually the reprehensible monster he might seem.
	He's actually a very damaged individual.
	And that's something that I really think is a courtesy you could, on your side of the aisle, try attempting to extend to others.
	If you fancy it.
	I mean, you might not want to.
	You might consider them white male oppressors, these precocious teenagers, to be terribly oppressive.
	They're oppressing women all over social media, no doubt.
	So I can understand if you don't want to, Bish.
	But I'm willing to be empathetic to people, regardless.
	I know this video has gone off quite a long time, but I really have to cover just this one last thing.
	Last week, Donald Trump had a media summit, and it didn't go well for the mainstream media.
	It was like a fucking firing squad, one source said of the encounter.
	Trump started with CNN chief Jeff Zucker and said, I hate your network.
	Everyone at CNN is a liar, and you should be ashamed.
	Trump kept saying, We're in a room full of liars, deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.
	The meeting took place in a big boardroom, and there were around 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks.
	Trump didn't say Katie Toe by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, and then referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost, who hosted a debate, which was Martha Radatz, who was also in the room.
	The meeting was off the record, meaning the participants agreed not to talk about the substance of the conversations, but apparently they couldn't resist writing this article.
	The hour-long session included top execs from networking cable news channels.
	The hour-long session included top execs from networking cable news channels.
	I just had to say that as someone who deals with the constant stream of lies coming from the mainstream media on a daily basis and someone who is infrequently personally attacked by them, Trump's victory was totally worth it.
	Just for this.
	Just for this.
	I would have paid anything to have been a fly on the wall of that meeting.
	This was a widely reported story.
	Most mainstream media outlets did some variant of this story.
	And nobody cared.
	Nobody gave a shit that Donald Trump effectively verbally shot you all when you had no choice but to sit there and take it.
	There was no outcry against Trump for this.
	There was no sympathy for the media from this.
	Because everyone knows that you fucking earned it.
	Donald Trump was telling the truth when he said that he was in a room full of liars.
	Professional, paid liars.
	Slanderers and manipulators of the public.

▲