Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (12⧸03⧸2017)

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 12, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:10:05

This Week in Stupid (12⧸03⧸2017)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 12th of March 2017 and this week these censorious bastards are on the march once again.
	But first, this.
	Call to boycott Tesco over endangered white men claim.
	Activists have called for shoppers to boycott Tesco after the supermarket's chairman claimed white men are becoming an endangered species in UK boardrooms.
	Well, fuck, I think we know exactly why that is.
	It would be all the- and I-I-I'm not saying this ironically, anti-white, anti-male prejudice that we see in our societies.
	Politicians, business experts, and women's groups have all spoken out against the comment made by John Allen during a speech at the Retail Week Live conference a day after International Women's Day.
	In a session for aspiring non-executive directors, Alan said, if you are female and from an ethnic background, and preferably both, you are in an extremely propitious period.
	For thousands of years, men have got most of these jobs.
	The pendulum has swung very significantly the other way and will do for the foreseeable future, I think.
	If you are a white male, tough.
	You're an endangered species.
	You are going to have to work twice as hard.
	He is saying what we are all seeing, and the exact people I would expect to complain about that are railing against him.
	I mean, look at this.
	Politicians, business experts, and women's groups.
	All people in the same ideological boat these days.
	And he knows, and he, his crime is just that he said honestly what's going on.
	He later claimed the comments meant to be humorous and that he was attempting to highlight the progress made in promoting BAME and female employees.
	Well, I mean, that is highlighting the progress, but it is also progress at the expense of people who worked hard for their position regardless of their gender and their race and anything else about them.
	Because they weren't hired on these bases.
	And yet, Yvette Cooper, Labour MP, says the man who chairs a board of 11, 8 of whom are white men!
	No words!
	Yet, what?
	Of course you don't know fucking words of it.
	What is wrong with them being white men?
	Nothing.
	The fact that it's not homogeneously white men just goes to show that they weren't fucking hired on the basis of their skin colour or their sex.
	They were probably hired on the basis of their CV, the previous work experience, the jobs that they had done.
	But that's the point.
	None of that matters now.
	All that matters is this white men.
	And as soon as you speak out about it, and you say, well, look, this is, I mean, they are literally being anti-white and anti-male, you get castigated.
	You are the one who is the bad person for pointing out what they do.
	I mean, there's...
	You listen to Nazis talk about Jews, and Neo-Nazis talk about Jews, and they will say something like, the Jew screams out in pain as he strikes you.
	And I'm sorry, but how is this not that?
	How is this not him going, well, they're attacking white men and there's really nothing white men can do.
	You're an endangered species.
	You're going to have to work twice as hard.
	But let's be fair, if anyone can deal with it, it's probably white men.
	But how is this not?
	And then them saying, oh no, oh, oh, how can you say this?
	We're speaking out against you, speaking out against us.
	Because we've sat here and decided that being a white man is now a defect.
	Activists have called for people to boycott Tesco in response.
	Why?
	Because he had an opinion.
	Sophie Walker, the leader of the Women's Equality Party, you know this is going to be an ideologically neutral party.
	They're very objective when it comes to things like gender equality and gender parity, said she would be shopping elsewhere.
	Nobody cares, Sophie.
	And that Alan was completely out of touch.
	Yeah, he's not a progressive, clearly.
	He's clearly someone who's just looking at the actual writing on the wall and thinking, well, shit, I can see where this train goes.
	That was an Auschwitz joke.
	So, far from being in a propitious position, any analysis of senior leadership roles in business will show the woeful underrepresentation of women and minority groups.
	Yes, because this is a country that is 87% white.
	So, you are going to have mostly white people, and most of the people who spend, and I'm not kidding, like 60-70 hours a week working their asses off to get to the top positions in major corporations just happen to be men.
	Most women don't do that.
	Now, don't get me wrong, most men don't do that either.
	But the proportion of people who are actually for some reason incentivized to do this, the majority of those people just happen to be men.
	She pointed to data by the Fawcett for Society this week that showed the pay gap was influenced by racial as well as gender inequalities.
	Total nonsense!
	That doesn't even make sense.
	The pay gap was influenced by racial as well as gender inequalities.
	You mean caused by?
	That's what you're claiming.
	Your assertion is that this is because of racism and sexism.
	And yet, every fucking study shows it's actually not about racism and sexism.
	It's about individual life choice and the economic circumstances you were born in.
	Now, the thing is, if we say that, then we can't say, well, it was influenced by racial and gender inequalities.
	I mean, I know this is kind of a nonsense.
	I mean, it doesn't even mean anything.
	But if we don't say that, then honestly, we're going to have to start taking responsibility for the fact that we're not where we think we should be.
	And if we're responsible for that, then that means we're going to have to do some fucking hard work.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	I'm so sorry.
	Maybe you should just victimize white men.
	They are the problem, after all, aren't they?
	Maybe you should get white men to just straight white men to walk around with a little gold star on their chest.
	Just in case you know they're not biracial or gay or bisexual or trans or something like that.
	No, no, no.
	The straight white men can just wear that little yellow star.
	Would that make you feel better?
	Just so everyone can know who the privileged people are.
	We are seeing a resurgence of feminist protest and activism against the kind of attitude Alan betrays with these comments.
	The attitude of someone who doesn't see why he should be victimized on his race and gender.
	Is that the reason?
	Is that the attitude?
	With him at the helm, Tesco not only risks missing out on female talent, but it will also alienate customers.
	Bullshit.
	He's literally saying that what's going to happen is gender and racial quotas, so white men should better get used to it because they are going to be the ones who, as he said, are going to have to work twice as hard because they were born wrong.
	And this is just the way of the future and is not going to let up any soon.
	Here's words.
	Not that this is going to keep women out of these jobs.
	No, women are going to be forced into these fucking jobs at the expense of men who had just worked hard.
	Okay?
	I love this.
	I plan on doing my shopping elsewhere this weekend.
	Nobody gives a fuck.
	And of course, Women's March London.
	Tesco board directors, all whites.
	8 out of 11 men.
	Women make majority of grocery purchases.
	Time to shop elsewhere.
	Yeah.
	Women make the majority of grocery purchases because they're the ones who don't do the majority of the work.
	More women than men are stay-at-home parents by such a phenomenal margin that it just beggars belief that you can't understand why things are as they are.
	But do you know what I like about The Guardian?
	The fact that they will take the time to go and speak to a spokeswoman, not a spokesperson, for the Women's March London Collective.
	Why would you want her opinion?
	Why would you want some fucking gender ideologue and presumably communist?
	Why would you want their fucking opinion on this?
	But I mean, they find Mr. Allen's comments extraordinary.
	Women are responsible for the majority of grocery purchases in the UK.
	Yeah, we've covered this.
	As consumers, we are a powerful force and exercise our freedom to shop elsewhere to support women and locally owned businesses.
	Tesco needs to urgently restructure its boards.
	Is there anyone?
	Anyone, Robin, who doesn't understand the concept of a culture war?
	These people will actively punish you using whatever methods that they have available because you do not agree with them.
	Women, obviously, are not a giant group, and these people do not speak for them, but they will claim they do to try and drum up support for their activism.
	This is what it is.
	This is what we repeatedly see, and I'm actually really sick of people going, yeah, but I mean, like, oh, it's not really a thing, is it?
	What do you think this is?
	You morons.
	In the private sector, women accounted for just 29% of directors appointed in the UK the last year, according to recruitment firm whatever.
	The lowest proportion says 2012.
	Weird, that's because that's roughly the same number of women who want to be MPs, and women who want to do other jobs that are difficult to achieve, like this.
	It just so happens it's about a third.
	I mean, I don't care.
	I don't care if it was 70%.
	But that's the point.
	They're not being prevented.
	They are making their own decisions.
	And honestly, if I were to speculate, I would say it's probably something to do with the fact that women have more life choices than men.
	They can either work, or they can get married, or they can do other things.
	And these are not things that men have the option of.
	They don't get the choice.
	I mean, most men don't have the choice of being just a stay-at-home parent while the wife works.
	I mean, that's something that most women don't want and most men do not want.
	So that it's simply not an option for them.
	But good for them if it is.
	But that's the point.
	We don't need to sit there and go, well, I mean, if everything isn't exactly equal, then things are wrong.
	No.
	We would expect a disparity in these numbers because people are different.
	And that is what you expect as the consequence of a liberal, free society.
	It's okay for things to be different.
	In fact, it's desirable.
	And we know that women aren't being hedged out and prevented from being allowed to be appointed to these positions because a third of them are women.
	And look at this.
	Natalie Campbell, who is a non-executive board member and co-presenter of Talk Radio's badass women's hour, responded specifically to Alan's comments about women from minority ethnic backgrounds.
	Yes, John, I agree with you.
	Our brilliance shines through.
	I'll certainly have your job one day.
	We have a long way to go until there is even a remote risk of John Allen being endangered.
	But as more women realize they deserve to be at the top table, we will see a shift towards the representation he is referring to.
	Yes, you won't work harder to get there.
	You will use social pressure.
	You will use activism.
	You will not earn it.
	You will demand it as if you deserve it, which you don't.
	At least not on the basis that you are women or non-white.
	You deserve it when you have the work under your belt, when you are holding the diplomas and you have a great CV full of accomplishments that you can show and say, I am the best person for this job.
	You don't need to look at my skin colour and you don't need to look at my junk.
	You need to look at what it says on paper about me.
	What I have achieved.
	For the love of God, why is this such a difficult subject?
	Vicki Price, an economist, former government advisor and author of, wait for it.
	Why women need quotas.
	Ho ho!
	Here we go.
	Here is one of those race realists and gender realists I've heard so much about, where they say, well, you know what, it's just that women are naturally inferior.
	So what we're basically saying is that women need quotas.
	I mean, Margaret Thatcher never needed quotas.
	Theresa May never needed quotas.
	happenstance they just happen to be the two female prime ministers that we've had and they've both been conservatives didn't need any quotas owed nothing to women's lib but alan was right that men would have to work harder and that's a good thing Really?
	On the basis of what?
	The fact that they're men.
	It's fucking discriminatory, you cunt.
	Don't you understand?
	You are literally complaining that men are doing the thing that you want to do to men.
	You're not complaining that the thing is wrong.
	You are complaining that you are not the one holding the whip.
	There are so few women in senior positions.
	And for a woman to rise, they obviously have to prove they are really good.
	Yes, everyone has to do that.
	Often better than the man.
	No.
	You have to prove you are better than everyone.
	Just like the other men do.
	They have to prove they are better than their contemporaries.
	Regardless of their gender.
	Because I'm going to let you in a little secret.
	You can't actually know whether someone's good at something or not just because of their gender.
	You can take a guess and use stereotypes, which might be true for, I don't know, even most of the time.
	But you can't be sure until you check their fucking credentials.
	You fucking idiot.
	What we're really talking about is that people should be judged on merit.
	So having more women encouraged to stay and compete increases meritocracy rather than decreases it.
	Fucking boom.
	Mind blown.
	Can you believe it?
	In fact, you know what we should do?
	Have quotas for women.
	Why?
	Because that increases meritocracy.
	Words don't really mean anything anymore.
	Don't worry about the definition of these words.
	What we need are people who would otherwise have quit, you know, people without merit.
	And do not be fooled into thinking that mental strength and staying power is not part of this merit.
	Because it absolutely is.
	If you are going to be competing at the very highest levels in business, you need to be mentally strong.
	Regardless of whether you could be the most competent person on earth.
	But if you crumble under pressure, you're fucking useless and you're not suitable for the job.
	If you actually think women need to be encouraged and fostered, then they're not competent for it.
	And that's you saying it, not me.
	I don't think women need this at all.
	I think that the 30% of women who are there are there for a reason and should be there because they earned it.
	What you're saying is you want women there who didn't earn it and won't be able to keep up with the pace when they get it.
	But fuck it.
	Fuck it.
	It doesn't matter, does it?
	You know, the thing exists, therefore it must always exist.
	It's not that you need to continue doing the same things you were doing previously to keep it in existence or anything.
	So it of course goes on.
	I'll just skip to the end.
	Speaking to The Guardian, Alan said the audience had enjoyed his colourful turn of speech that he intended to be humorous and a bit hyperbolic.
	Yes, but it was also the truth.
	Don't apologize to these people because you spoke your mind on reality.
	It is true that the men will have to work harder.
	They have confirmed that the men will have to work harder.
	And the reason that men are now going to have to work harder is because they were born into the wrong sex.
	Let's not pretend that this is anything else.
	You don't need to apologize.
	You've done nothing wrong.
	These people are fucking cancer.
	And you know it, Mr. Alan.
	I know it.
	The people listening to us know it.
	And we don't want a society like this.
	And these people are trying to make society this way because, frankly, it's easier than doing the hard work.
	And you and I both fucking know it.
	And this article is very much the same, but for race rather than gender.
	Whites-only group explores its racist superiority at MIT.
	Do you know what MIT is?
	The Massachusetts Institute of Technology?
	You know, one of the world's most prestigious universities that has now been utterly corrupted by this intersectional social justice cockery?
	Yes.
	This is where they think that they, the white people, are superior to those pesky non-whites.
	I'm not even making this up, right?
	So, MIT now has a white person's accountability group because white people are accountable.
	No one else is.
	I mean, you know, if we held non-white people accountable, then that means we would be treating them like white people.
	And in the minds of these people, that would be unfair.
	Which must mean, by definition, these people think they're carrying the white man's burden on the over the fucking inferior brown savages.
	That's their opinion by having this as a thing.
	I would never condescend to non-white people like this.
	Ever.
	And same with women.
	I would never suggest that women needed diversity quotas, because that is an insulting thing to say.
	Same with this and white people.
	How dare you?
	And yet this is just carried on as if it's normal.
	And there are brown people all over the place going, yeah, yeah, well, you know what?
	I mean, the white person is superior to me.
	Who the fuck puts that in someone else's head?
	That someone else of a racial group is superior and therefore they are deserving special treatment based on the colour of their skin and that white people are just inherently superior.
	Who the fuck puts that kind of idea in someone else's head?
	It's irresponsible.
	It's fucking immoral.
	Anyway, according to a copy of the group's mission statement, it was formed in reaction to the notorious white privilege conference, during which a mixed race group of MIT community members realized how different their experience had been at the white privilege conference space and that there was a lot they could do with other white people to dismantle internal and structural racism.
	Okay, if we can identify some structural racism, that would be good.
	I mean, the fact that there are non-white people at MIT going, hmm, I feel that there's a lot of structural racism here is very telling, isn't it?
	Because if it was structurally racist, how many black people do you think would be there?
	How many, how many fucking, how many black grand dragons are there in the KKK?
	Have been.
	Zero, because it's structurally racist.
	Unless, of course, and again, I have to keep bringing back to this, if you think that non-white people are just somehow inferior, possibly based on their genes, then you would say, well, you know, if we carry on operating like this and expecting everyone to be able to perform to these standards, then that's a form of racism because, frankly, the darkies just can't manage it.
	And again, I stress that's your opinion, not mine.
	This is why I'm against all of this.
	No quotas, no fucking handholding.
	If they succeed, they succeed.
	If they fail, they fail because they are accountable for their own actions and they are just as accountable and competent and aware as anyone else.
	They're not fucking children.
	They're not inferior.
	Stop treating them that way.
	But instead, no, you have to drag down white people because if you don't, everyone's racist.
	And again, it's on the basis of them being white.
	So, drawing on that experience, white members of the group began holding monthly meetings to hold one another accountable to advancing racial justice in their own personal, institutional, and societal spheres.
	The group has also sought to engage with community, with the school community more broadly, recently hosting a campus-wide event called, But I'm Not Racist, because you probably are racist, for white people to engage with their own identities.
	I can see why the alt-right is growing.
	I can see why there is a white identitarian movement and it's gaining traction.
	This is something you are creating.
	If you want to put the idea of a white identity into the individualist white people that populate the Western world, then good job.
	You're doing it.
	I mean, it's regressive.
	It's fucking retrograde.
	But, you know, you're the one making it happen.
	And then when they say, well, you know what?
	We don't think we should be victimized just because we're white.
	We have our own identity.
	We are, you know, we're a class just like you people.
	And then the majority, how can you possibly win?
	The only way you can win is by enforcing your rules on them like some form of aristocracy.
	And again, how is that just?
	Why would they consent to this?
	No, you're going to end up with the actual systematic institutionalized oppression of non-white people because white people are in the majority.
	And you made it so that this is the case.
	Not me.
	I don't want any of this.
	I want people to have the freedom to do what they want, but you are anti-that.
	I mean, look at this, right?
	The white person's accountability group is not seeking recruits, however, explaining that it has been intentionally kept small since its purpose is for participants to share personal experience and build relationships and accountability with one another.
	Instead, members of the group are encouraging their peers to start similar organizations, even providing guidelines on building an effective white caucus.
	Racial caucuses, the document explains, are forums where people of colour and white people, because people of colour are all the same, there's no difference between them.
	They are either the glorious white ubermensch or they are the inferior, dirty brown people.
	These are not my opinions either.
	That's the thing.
	If you can just say people of colour, then you don't see any difference between any of them.
	You can't discriminate between them.
	They are just the people of colour.
	They are the Negroes or the Browns, whatever you want to call them, the people of colour.
	The disgusting darkies.
	They're not the glorious white people who are so unbelievably amazing that they in fact need to kneel slightly, bend down, come down from those clouds where the brown people just can't reach because of their genetic inferiority, I presume.
	But then I'm not part of a white caucus.
	What would I know?
	With the white caucus having the intended purpose of helping white people uncover the depths of their internalized racist superiority.
	I am seeing a fuckload of internalized racist superiority coming from these white people.
	So maybe, just maybe, we've identified the racists.
	They are actually very progressive democratic voters.
	Somehow they're in control of universities and somehow they have remarkable social pressure.
	But I think we can identify the people who are the problem.
	They actually think they have internalized racist superiority and then they treat all brown people as if they're fucking inferior.
	Yes, I think you might be.
	I find this really amusing as well.
	Right.
	So the document suggests that the caucus members seek out a group of people of colour to which they can make their reports.
	Like they're a fucking hive mind.
	Oh, oh, look, there's a group of people of colour over there.
	Maybe we should go and talk to them about how we're white and superior to them.
	And therefore, we need to kind of shed ourselves of some of this original sin.
	Take away some of our white privilege.
	Maybe we can hand it over to them.
	What do you think?
	If we're like vouching for them, do you think that'll work?
	In fact, I've seen that before from regressives.
	But anyway, it should not be.
	The white caucus should never discuss issues about people of colour, but rather should focus on white people's issues.
	Because we're the superior ones and we're the ones who need to change.
	It's not that they need to improve.
	It's that we need to degrade.
	Recommending that members practice feeling and dealing with feelings associated with dismantling racism.
	Fear, shame, guilt, anger, depression, joy, relief, connection.
	Okay, while developing a sense of anger about racism.
	Yeah, but you're going to teach these people to hate themselves.
	That's what you're doing.
	These people are obviously not racists, or at least overt, neo-Nazi style racists.
	These people are the sort of condescending left-wing do-gooders who can't help but condescend to black people and brown people and whoever because it's just the whitey is so amazing.
	And the thing is, the irony of this is that the white man isn't.
	Asians always do better in white societies because they're meritocratic and Asians work hard.
	Very Orientals.
	Same with Jews.
	Meritocratic societies.
	Everyone wonders, oh my god, there are Jews ever at the top, the highest echelons of society.
	Why?
	Oh look, Jews happen to have really high IQs as well.
	Well, they've also got a strident work ethic where they work all the time, just like Asians or Orientals.
	Why do these people end up at the top of our societies?
	I think we can see why.
	My next favourite thing that's happening in universities, and this is in Britain, in Southeast Wales, Cardiff Metropolitan Uni bans gender stereotype words.
	Now, there's nothing more encouraging than when a university starts banning words.
	That is the step towards intellectual honesty, and a really free and open debate is about to occur.
	According to the well, the university is accused of restricting students' freedom of speech by banning words such as housewife and manpower.
	Of course, it has.
	Cardiff Metropolitan University's code of practice on using inclusive language.
	See, this is what I'm talking about.
	They control this university now.
	They don't care about the things you do that are outside of their purview.
	But if you were to say the wrong word, you'd be in trouble.
	You need to use gender-neutral terms.
	Whereas Dr. Joanna Williams said they were unnecessary and authoritarian.
	Well, I can see who's not a diversity hire here, Dr. Williams.
	The university said it was committed to providing an environment where everyone is valued.
	That's nonsense.
	Why would you want that?
	I don't want that.
	I would not want to be in an environment where everyone treated me exactly the same as everyone else.
	That would be horrible.
	I am a unique individual, as is everyone else, and we should be treated as such on our individual merits.
	Christ, I swear to God, most of my life has just been a struggle not to be the same as other people.
	Why the fuck would you want to be?
	A sheep?
	But if we make everyone the same as everyone else, then they're a lot easier to control, aren't they?
	Let's be honest.
	The university recognized language can be a contentious issue and developed its code of practice to promote fairness and equality.
	Why don't you just treat people the same under the rules?
	You don't have to do anything socially with them.
	You can just say we have one set of rules.
	They apply to everyone without exception.
	And outside of this set of rules, it's not our business.
	That's the best way to do it.
	Then everyone knows what the rules are, and then they are the ones responsible for managing and regulating and maintaining their own social interactions.
	Now, that's something that I think we in the, and I mean, we're called reactionaries all the time, but that's a very reactionary concept called personal responsibility and being an adult.
	Is that too much to ask?
	I mean, I know it is.
	Hyperbolically, I ask.
	Of course, it's too much to fucking ask.
	It's recommended using gender-neutral terms and avoiding generalizations or assumptions based on stereotypes, unless it's for white men.
	The university checklist makes alternative suggestions.
	This is the new speak from the university: best man for the job, best person for the job, fireman, firefighter, housewife, I love this, shopper, consumer, or homemaker.
	Say, housewife manpower, human resources, labor force, staff personnel workers, tax man, a tax inspector.
	Sportsmanship, yeah.
	Fairness, good humor, sense of fair play yes, these are synonyms for sportsmanship.
	Gentleman's agreement, oh, my god, that's a colloquialism, is that really?
	Oh, it's an unwritten agreement.
	An agreement based on trust, yes, thank you, mr Dictionary, for making that a longer thing to say than it already was.
	Dr or Dr Williams, author of academic freedom in an age of conformity, told BBC Whales that the guidelines were very authoritarian and universities should trust academics to be able to communicate with each other without being permanently offended.
	Wow, i'm really liking dr Williams and i'm so glad she exists.
	And that's a horrible thing, I have to say, really isn't it?
	I am just glad academics who are willing to point out that look, this is bullshit actually exists still, because it could have been that we, this all stuff.
	It could have been that we discovered this too late.
	You know, it could have been that we discovered this far too late and so there wasn't any speaking out.
	She said, language changes and evolves and that many of the words on the university's checklist were falling out of fashion.
	If you look at their origins, they are not really based on an exclusionary idea.
	The words have come to encompass more than just men.
	They are more general.
	Yes, so if you say manpower, what you are really saying is human power, not male power.
	But doesn't matter what difference that makes.
	It's kind of well.
	Yeah, but the word man also means just males, not women, and therefore x of 115 universities surveyed this is the great bit 63 were found to actively censor speech and 30 were found to stifle speech through excessive, excessive regulation.
	This is Britain in the 21st century, where most of our universities actively censor speech.
	This is what we live in.
	And then there are cunts going.
	Yeah, but you don't want to fight the culture?
	Well because no, fuck off, just fuck off.
	I have no time for you.
	I'm not interested in your fucking opinion because it's pointless.
	You are cons.
	You are condoning this being the case.
	If you're like well, you shouldn't push back against that?
	Yes, we should.
	With everything that we can do letter writing campaigns, online activism protests, if possible you should do everything to protest this and to push back against this.
	This is not acceptable at all.
	And if you think it's acceptable, then well done.
	You're on the other side of the culture war to me.
	I'm i'm interested in people's freedoms.
	You are not.
	This is simple.
	It's cut and dried at this point, but I like this a lot.
	I like it when they come out and say exactly what they mean.
	A spokeswoman for Cardiff Metropolitan University said it makes an unequivocal commitment to providing an environment where everyone is as valued as is valued as an individual and where students can and staff can work learn, flourish and develop their skills and knowledge in an atmosphere of dignity and respect, not where they're.
	They're not saying that they're interested in promoting people's ability to actually express themselves.
	They're not saying they're interested in promoting free speech or just personal freedom in any way.
	That's not their concern.
	Their concern is control over you, and that means every individual.
	They want control over everyone.
	They are not even pulling the punches these days.
	And of course, we have another example of a relatively innocuous academic figure who is protested and prevented and no platformed at a college in America.
	This is.
	And this is from the Wall Street Journal, McCarthyism at Middlebury.
	The silencing of Charles Murray is a major event in the annals of free speech.
	Yes, I mean, you probably saw the Berkeley College protesters burning a free speech flag, but I mean, this isn't anything queer or anything.
	It's not weird.
	It's not bizarre.
	This is just what we've come to expect from students who literally do not care about other people's speech.
	They care that they are the ones able to express themselves, and they don't want you to be able to do it for yourself.
	If you're not in their club, you have no fucking rights as far as they're concerned.
	Do you understand where this is going?
	So, violence committed against Charles Murray and others at Middlebury College is a significant event in the annals of free speech.
	Since the day the founding fathers planted the three words freedom of speech into the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Americans and their institutions have had to contend with attempts to suppress speech.
	The right to speak freely has survived not merely because of many eloquent Supreme Court decisions, but also because America's political and institutional leadership, whatever else their difference is, has stood together to defend this right, but maybe not any longer.
	Yes, these people don't care about your rights.
	If they're willing to infringe them and will go on active campaigns against them, you don't have rights in their opinion.
	I will complain when my enemies are silenced.
	They shouldn't be silenced, at least not by some sort of authoritarian method.
	If people happen to laugh at them every time they open their stupid fucking mouths, that's a different story.
	American campuses have been in the grip of creeping McCarthyism for years.
	Now, in fact, I'll let him explain this before I point out something I find very amusing about this.
	McCarthyism, the word, stands for the extreme repression of ideas and silencing of speech.
	In the 1950s, Republican Senator Jen McCarthy, we did nothing wrong with that!
	Just kidding, turned his name into a word of generalized disrepute by using the threat of communism, which was real, to ruin innocent individuals' careers and reputations.
	Today, polite liberals, quote-unquote, in politics, academia, and media arts, watch in silent assent as McCarthyist radicals hound, repress, and attack conservatives like Charles Murray for what they think right and say.
	Now, as far as I'm aware, Charles Murray, I'm not really very familiar with him, but I'm aware that he's a libertarian philosopher.
	Probably not a Nazi.
	But I find this very, very interesting because the communists are using McCarthyist tactics against the conservatives and liberals now.
	The people who want to talk are being repressed in McCarthyist fashion by communists.
	Oh, the irony.
	I mean, you'd think, you would think they would have learned and would have been like, you know what, we didn't like it when it happened to us.
	It was a bad thing.
	But it's okay if we do it to you.
	I love how everything comes back around.
	It's always the same pressures and social attitudes that end up creating the same environments, regardless of your ideology, right?
	One of the first politicians to speak against the mood in 1950 was Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.
	Whoa!
	How was a woman in the Senate in the 50s?
	I was told, I'm just kidding, come on.
	In her speech, The Declaration of Conscience, Senator Smith said, the American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as communists or fascists by their opponents.
	Well, what's fucking new?
	Except this time the communists actually have the right banners.
	They're holding them loud and clear and they're proudly proclaiming, I hate you because you are not a communist.
	So thankfully now, we can actually identify them.
	We don't even need to mislabel someone as a communist.
	They are open and out with it.
	Which is great for me because I've just opened a helicopter business.
	I'm expecting many, many, many paid rides, probably through crowdfunding.
	Seriously, though, these people have to be stopped.
	They actually have to be stopped in the same way that McCarthy and his witch hunt had to be stopped as well.
	You just can't allow this to control your dialogue because otherwise you end up in a position where, like in the 50s, people are afraid to speak out.
	Very much similar to what's been happening in Sweden with Tim Poole, which is a video I'll probably do next week.
	Because it's just one of those things where it's unconscionable.
	And then the people who are revealing this get smeared in return.
	But anyway, I think this is quite important.
	Let's recognize the failure to oppose McCarthyist creep from the left is also consuming liberal reputations.
	A key event here is what happened at two Yale professors, Erika and Nicholas Christakis, who were made to resign their positions last May of the infamous 2015 Halloween costumes incident.
	That would be um I'll get the clip.
	Hang on.
	Here's Nicholas Christakis, and here he is dealing with the students.
	This is what they have to say.
	Exception is because other people have rights too, not just.
	Walk away.
	Walk away.
	International groups that you listen to.
	Be quiet!
	For all humans too.
	Do you understand that?
	As your position as master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students that live in Silman.
	You have not done that.
	By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master.
	Do you understand that?
	Thank you.
	Oh, I do not agree with that.
	Then why the fuck did you accept the position?
	Why the fuck hired you?
	I have a different view.
	You should stick down!
	If that is what you think about being a fan, you should step down!
	It is not about creating an intellectual space!
	It is not!
	Do you understand that?
	It's about creating a home here!
	And that's basically it.
	It's not about creating an intellectual space, it's about creating a home here.
	And can you fucking imagine when, if you're if you're as old as I am, I can't imagine talking to one of my fucking professors or deans or whoever in that sort of manner.
	Fucking the arrogance.
	Be quiet.
	Jesus Christ.
	I would have been like, right, I'm going to expel you.
	You don't talk to the professors that way.
	You show them a basic level of respect that you would expect from any other people.
	But anyway, that's who Nicholas Christakis and his wife Erika.
	And this was over an email about Halloween costumes and how they're just Halloween costumes.
	But Erika Christakis wrote later the experiences for the Washington Post, and there was one unforgettable passage.
	Few of her colleagues spoke up.
	And who can blame them?
	I can hear that fucking ice cream van again.
	Numerous professors, including those at Yale's top-rated law school, contacted us personally to say that it was too risky to speak their minds.
	Others who generously supported us publicly were admonished by colleagues for vouching for our characters.
	That is McCarthyism at Yale.
	Yes, it is.
	I mean, I only made videos about this two years ago when it was happening because it was important and you weren't around there, weren't you, Washington Post?
	Or was this the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal?
	Wall Street Journal, sorry.
	You weren't around then, but it's nice that you finally caught up.
	You know, I guess it's tough being ahead of the curve, but it's nice to finally have you saying precisely what I was saying.
	But there is a backlash for me.
	A few days after the Murray incident, something extraordinary happened.
	Some 40 Middlebury professors, many from many discipline, from many disciplines, signed a strong statement supporting the free inquiry on campus.
	It was published Tuesday on this newspaper's op-ed page.
	By late Wednesday, the number had grown to more than 80 signers.
	Good.
	Literally everyone who is not trying to censor people should be signing this.
	And the more people who sign it, the less problem there will be for people after it.
	If only a few people do it, these radicals and these activists will bully them.
	They will go out of their way to try and damage and hurt them in some way.
	But the more people who sign it, the less power they have.
	So you need to speak up in a defense of the people who are being attacked.
	You have to do this.
	The thing is, I wouldn't really mind so much if it was just confined to universities.
	I would still be totally opposed to it, and I would think it was one of the terrible tragedies of our time.
	But it's not just there.
	extends into popular culture and that's again just this is where it really starts with Really starts affecting the general public.
	And this is where the genuine backlash to all of this is really going to come from.
	For example, Women's Festival at Southbank Centre, London drops a controversial event with rapist after protests.
	Holy fuck, I can only imagine at a women's fucking festival.
	But this is actually quite an interesting case where this controversial talk by a rape survivor and the man who raped her has been removed from the schedule of a women's festival following protests.
	Icelandic writer Thordis Elva was set to speak at the Women of the World Festival at the Southbank Centre in London at the weekend with Australian Tom Stranger, who raped her when she was 16 years old with his name and was his then girlfriend.
	Stranger was 18 years old at the time and living in Iceland as an exchange student.
	Elva Evla, sorry, wait, Thordis Elva or Evla?
	You fucked up, independent.
	Contacted him eight years after the incident to tell him how she'd been affected, after which an email correspondence and face-to-face meeting formed the basis of a new book, Elva South of Forgiveness.
	Now, this is the sort of thing that could be genuinely helpful to rape victims, because I'm honestly of the opinion that because most rapes are between people who know each other, they are not actually expressions of power and dominance.
	I suspect they're probably expressions of lust.
	And I think that the women involved and the men involved both have strange, conflicting, and they need help.
	I mean, do you think this guy is doing this because he enjoys the fact that he raped someone?
	Do you think that, I mean, I cannot imagine for a second that she thinks of him as a monster.
	And obviously he committed a crime, and I'm sure he's been punished for it.
	I should have looked into it a bit more, really.
	But the subject of the conversation is an important one for people who have been involved in this.
	And I think that they should spend the time talking to people and explaining how things were for them and how this can be used as advice for other people who have been through something similar or prevent a similar occurrence going on in the future.
	Protesting these people for just speaking about this is really counterintuitive and counterproductive.
	I mean, why would you do this?
	This is something that's going to be helpful, but The event was cancelled following protests against Stranger's scheduled appearance at the festival following talks with the author, her publisher, Rape Survivor Groups, and other interested parties, The Guardian reports.
	Instead, a standalone event will be held on the 14th of March.
	Stranger will appear on stage with Elva at the talk, and group discussions will be held afterwards to support anyone whose own memories of sexual assault are triggered, organizers said.
	I mean, that's that's actually fair enough in this case.
	I mean, most of the people there will probably be people who have had a similar experience, and maybe there will be people who will be upset.
	And fine, I can completely accept that in this space, in this situation.
	That's fine.
	It's not acceptable to force them to stop their public talk just because you don't like it, though.
	I mean, there are other people who would undoubtedly benefited from their life experiences and understanding what made these people who they are and why what happened happened, and that is prevented by some censorious cunts.
	And even then, that wasn't so bad because it was at some women's conference thing.
	But when it's something like Parks Canada kill off Liam Neeson's bant film, why?
	Oh, a movie production team was denied permission to shoot in the Rocky Mountain National Parks after Parks Canada staff learned that the film's plot involved an Indigenous gang leader.
	Why?
	Don't you think Indigenous people can be gang leaders?
	Are they not capable?
	That's a bit racist.
	Again, the bigotry of low expectations.
	They expressed a real concern that this was not something they would favour.
	Said Mark Voyce, location manager for the film project that had been scheduled to start shooting later this month.
	Voice is working for Michael Shamberg, a film producer who's passing credits in Kuwait, blah blah blah.
	Shamberg is currently working on a project called Hard Powder, a crime drama ostensibly set in Colorado Ski Town.
	Action star Liam Neeson, alright, calm down, is to play the play an honest snowpower driver whose son is murdered by a local drug kingpin.
	He then seeks to dismantle the cartel.
	Pretty sure you've done this film before, Liam.
	But his efforts spark a turf war involving a First Nations gang boss, played by First Nations actor, musician, and Order of Canada member Tom Jackson.
	What's wrong with any of that?
	Oh, you can't betray people of colour negatively.
	Not the indigenous people of colour.
	They can't be treated like real people.
	This is exactly the same as why Anita Sarkesian doesn't seem to understand.
	She is never arguing for women to be better represented.
	She is only ever arguing for women to never be represented.
	Because you can't do things to these women that you can do to white men.
	And that is a really important thing in storytelling.
	Bad things happening and them doing bad things is part of character growth.
	If you can't have a character that grows, you can't have any depth to your characters.
	And if you won't allow this, and they won't purely on ideological reasons, then this is a constrictive, censorious method of preventing people from living.
	It's terrible.
	As if this representation will make all people think, well, Jesus Christ, all Native Americans are actually gang bosses and they should be dealt with.
	Possibly some sort of genocide, maybe.
	I mean, you know, it's not going to fuel the alt-right or anything, you lunatics.
	I love this, right?
	Voices previously organized movie shoots from national parks from Newfoundland's Gross Morn to Pacific Rim on Vancouver Island.
	Said the team began the application process with Parks Canada in December.
	He believed that by last week, only a few details needed to be cleaned up and that permissions would be granted.
	Then late last week came a phone call.
	They phoned and asked, Is the leader of the rival gang in this picture First Nations?
	We said yes.
	That became an obvious last nail in the coffin for us.
	They didn't want to offend anybody.
	They said they would get back to us, but they had grave concerns over subject matter.
	They told us that in almost exactly those words.
	Why?
	I bet if you asked any First Nations person, they'd be like, why would I care?
	Yeah.
	You know, I'm glad the guy's got work.
	I don't give a shit.
	It's a fucking movie.
	I love this.
	In an email, Parks Canada confirmed it had concerns over the script.
	The government of Canada is committed to reconciliation and nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous people, based on a recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership, said the response from the spokeswoman.
	In addition to some administrative details and outstanding documentation, Park Canada's commitment to reconciliation and respect for Indigenous people is an important factor in the agency's final decision on the matter.
	I'm sorry, but treating them like children who can never be criticised or represented in anything other than glowing terms is not respect.
	I swear to God, I just sit and think, well, work that on me.
	You know, they'd be like, well, we can't portray a white man as a criminal or like a villain because that would be inherently disrespectful.
	Well, no, it's disrespectful to say that we can't do that.
	We're not special, we're not different, we're actually really fucking similar to you, and we can all do good and bad things.
	This is just something that is completely within the sphere of the human experience.
	You can't sit there and go, well, we can't possibly portray a brown person as a gang boss.
	It's like, why?
	That's a hell of a lot of agency you'd be displaying.
	And that'd be a hell of an interesting character because the character themselves undoubtedly understands that it's not a good thing inherently to be a gang boss and they will likely have some reason that they do it.
	It'd be interesting to learn about the character.
	I'm already interested in this character just by saying it, and you're preventing me from enjoying a movie that might actually be good on the basis of their fucking race.
	Again.
	Just.
	This is the problem with these people.
	They don't understand what they're doing.
	So, Owen Jones quits social media after threats of torture and murder.
	I like how this is being represented on the BBC as well.
	Threats of torture and murder.
	Not real reason he quit, though.
	Writer and activist Owen Jones is quitting social media due to the abuse he faces online.
	Owen says he's been threatened with torture and murder by far-right extremists, but he says the abuse has come from both sides in UK politics with criticism from Labour and Conservative supporters.
	Owen is a Labour supporter and has questioned Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.
	Uh-oh.
	You can see where this is going.
	I'll actually go straight to his post because I love how this is represented.
	After threats of torture and murder, they are not why he quit.
	And he says specifically in his Facebook post why he's quitting.
	He says, I'm going to take a break from social media to accept post articles and videos and the occasional events.
	This isn't flouncing off.
	It's come to the point where A, it's totally unproductive and B, it's frankly completely and utterly depressing.
	On a daily basis, I have angry strangers yelling at me.
	On one hand, that I'm responsible for the destruction of the Labour Party.
	That's something the right winger complained about.
	And on the other, I'm a right-wing sellout careerist who's allied to Tony Blair and possibly in the pay of the Israeli government.
	This is the paranoid lunatic fringe of the hard left.
	Jeremy supporters cult following, Jeremy Corbyn's cult following, who are now attacking Owen Jones because Owen Jones, as I did the video on this, is able to recognize reality.
	And he understands that he is trapped in this cult and he is at the point where he has to speak out in favour of admitting what the real world problems are.
	But he knows, and he knew doing that video, you could tell on his fucking face, he knew what was going to happen.
	That the people who are mired in their support for Jeremy Corbyn don't care.
	For them, that he is the leader, the dear leader.
	And Owen Jones is now a challenger because he had the temerity to say, look, Corbyn ain't going to win anything.
	Because he literally is not going to win anything.
	Anyway, he says what unites both of these groups, and both of those groups are hard left-wing, is a chronic inability to accept political disagreement in good faith.
	Nope, there has to be some sinister ulterior motive.
	And I'll tell you what, man, I really do understand where Owen Jones is coming from because I get the same thing thrown at me when I'm criticizing other people as well.
	My motives are impugned all the time.
	And I'm just sat here thinking, I don't do anything for any of the reasons you suspect.
	I mean, I do things because I often because I feel morally compelled to do so.
	Oh, no, you know, you must be doing it for the money.
	It's like, if I was doing it for the money, I'd take sponsorships.
	You must be doing it because of this.
	There's always a good reason, but nobody ever wants to hear.
	Because if they can just dismiss you and denigrate you and say, well, he's just saying that because he's evil, then I don't have to listen to what it is he has said.
	And that is, of course, an ad homonym.
	You're attacking a man and not the argument.
	The argument is true regardless, and you are not listening to it.
	And you are deliberately not listening to it on the basis that you feel you can devalue the messenger.
	That is cult behavior.
	And it's frankly nonsense.
	I mean, it's obviously a dumb thing to do because you are now, in the face of arguments which may or may not be legitimate, just closing your ears and going blah blah blah blah blah.
	I mean, do you really think that blocking out reality or just any of this is a productive thing to do?
	It's going to leave you blindsided by something.
	But yeah, he says that I'm, you know, disagreeing with Matt's agreed, that I'm a careerist, obsessed with my own profile, driven by selling books or making money, that the Guardian have brainwashed me, and that I was never really left-wing and so on and so forth.
	Yeah, none of these things are true.
	Owen Jones has always been left-wing.
	He's not a careerist.
	I don't think he is obsessed with his own profile.
	And I say this because he is successful.
	People who are successful rarely need to worry about being successful.
	Especially if their success is built on their own hard work, which in Owens Jones' case, it is.
	I just disagree with his work.
	But I don't think for a second he sat there, like, plotting, like Jafar from Aladdin.
	Hmm, how can I convince these hard left radicals to buy my books?
	To come to my rallies.
	I mean, obviously not.
	He obviously believes this nonsense.
	And he puts the hard work in, writes his crappy books, ends up writing his shitty columns, and then eventually he comes to the realization that, look, they have gone down the wrong path, and he is obliged to be honest, and this is the response he gets.
	Well, you won't get it from me, Owen.
	I think you're fucking wrong on socialism.
	I think you're completely wrong about what the actual real solutions are, but I don't think you're disingenuous.
	I don't think you're a liar.
	I don't think you're just a scam artist.
	I think you are someone who simply has a different opinion to me.
	I mean, it's literally like seven fucking paragraphs down before he even talks about far-right extremists sending him every more creative descriptions of how they're going to torture and murder him, which obviously don't do this.
	I mean, okay, you can do that if you want.
	You're a fucking far-right extremist.
	You do that if you want.
	But it just discredits you.
	You're not persuading anyone.
	You're not even intimidating anyone.
	No one thinks you're going to do it.
	This is just polluting the dialogue.
	It doesn't help.
	And I'm going to end this week with this interesting article from The Guardian.
	I feature The Guardian a lot, don't I?
	I can't help it.
	The thing is, once you cut out things like Salon and Slate and everyday feminism and the sort of low, and obviously not like the Daily Stormer and shit like this, you end up finding that your minimum standard is The Guardian.
	You think, well shit, that is a low fucking minimum standard.
	Internet warriors inside the dark world of online trolls.
	Why do people vent such toxic opinions online?
	Filmmaker Kiri Lien spent three years traveling the world to find out who these anonymous internet warriors are and why they do it.
	Oh, let me guess.
	They do it because they can't express these opinions in usual, regular public debate.
	Is that the reason?
	Norwegian filmmaker Kier Lien began researching online commenters on Christmas Day 2014.
	I became fascinated with how much hate and ignorance people were writing from the comment section of a news site.
	I bet, if you actually look at these people, and when we get to them, I bet they are poor, as in lower class, and I bet they have very little actual political representation in the mainstream, as in people actually speaking their opinions that they can support, which is why they have to vent their spleens in the comment sections of news sites.
	And I love the condescending tone.
	Well, this is all just hate.
	What?
	Unauthorized opinions, things you don't agree with, it's just hate, right?
	Well, that's easy to dismiss.
	But to Kier Lien's credit, I mean, looking into it, surely they, I assume it's a woman, surely she found that these people are regular people as well, and they have genuine concerns that are simply relevant to their own personal sphere of experience.
	So I began looking at people's profiles, trying to work out who they were.
	Many seemed quite normal.
	They had families and looked like nice people, but the comments they were writing in a public space were so extreme.
	There was a disconnect.
	Yes, you are middle class and they are not.
	That's what this will be.
	And so began Lien's three-year journey into the lives of some of the internet's most prolific online commenters, commentators.
	And now the subject of the documentary, The Internet Warriors, which I will have to watch at some point.
	Lien's research took him across the world.
	Sorry, Lien.
	From the fjords of Norway to the US desert, meeting people of extreme, often illogical beliefs.
	Again, illogical or you don't understand.
	That's the question.
	The racists, the homophobes, the sludge shamers.
	Okay, well, maybe some of them are illogical.
	Again, I haven't got to it yet, so I don't know.
	He initially researched 200 potential subjects, half of whom said no when he approached them.
	It was then a process of elimination to find out what their motives were, who they were, and why they held the views they did.
	In a way, I became an investigator.
	Yes, well done.
	Of all the haters he found online, one type eluded him.
	I love this.
	I contacted many, many misogynists as I wanted to try and understand, but none would talk publicly, which itself is interesting.
	Well, I think I can help you out there.
	The fact you're branding them as misogynist, by, I mean, you've defined them as misogynists, and now you're going to them saying, well, why don't you want to talk about your misogyny?
	And it's like, well, if they're making, and I get the feeling, what you're talking about are anti-feminists who are just opposed to the dogmatic ideology that we are seeing being propagated that has been featured all throughout this video.
	I mean, don't get wrong, I might be wrong.
	You might be talking about like ruche V style woman haters, you know, like people who genuinely think that women shouldn't have rights and shouldn't be able to vote and should be kept in the kitchen and pregnant all the time and all this thing.
	The actual people like that, I don't think are the ones you're referring to.
	And I think I strongly suspect that the ones you're referring to would absolutely not want to talk to you because they know you're just going to misrepresent them.
	I mean, you already define them as misogynists.
	So, maybe I'm wrong, but that's my gut feeling with that.
	So, I'm against all immigration.
	Robert Jackson, 50, steel worker from England.
	Northerner.
	I imagine.
	Fuck Islam.
	And don't you ever stand up for that evil religion.
	It's a pretty evil religion, I'm not going to lie.
	I don't like what it does to people.
	Robert Jackson spends hours every day commenting online.
	He recently wrote that Tony Blair should be hanged.
	I stand by that.
	I'll gladly put the rope around his neck.
	He's a traitor to his people.
	Well, I mean, there was a rumour that he had silenced ministers who were trying to speak out against mass immigration because he wanted mass immigration for extra voters for labour.
	That worked out well, didn't it?
	Jackson's primary concern is immigration.
	He believes Britain will fall apart under the weight of refugees.
	It's not even refugees that are really the problem with Britain.
	I don't really care where they're from or what war they're fleeing, and that's...
	this is the guy.
	This is the sort of guy who is actually affected by mass immigration on a visceral physical level.
	He has to deal with it in his community.
	He has to deal with his wages going down.
	He has to deal with the added competition at every job he goes for.
	This is the exact sort of person.
	And don't get me wrong.
	He doesn't look like a very pleasant chap, does he?
	Yet he's still a British citizen.
	He's still entitled to vote.
	And the more of these people you create, the more these people will have a voice, because they will keep voting.
	I slut shame celebrities, says Ashley Jones, 21 student from Wales.
	That bitch really fucking pissed me off.
	Fuck you, you tired-ass showgirl.
	Go back to Party City where you belong.
	Tweet directly to Lady Gaga.
	I wonder if there's a little bit of jealousy involved in that.
	So Ashley Jones would not describe herself as a troll.
	A troll is someone who is ruining the discussion.
	And that's not mean.
	You're not ruining the discussion at all, are you?
	Jones' commenting style is honest and brutal.
	I don't sugarcoat anything, she says.
	She uses Twitter as a sort of daily diary, a place where she can express how she's feeling every day.
	Like when I tweeted to Amy Schumer, I would say Amy Schumer is a cunt, but you have to be smart to be a cunt.
	Quite like this girl's style.
	She herself is very used to receiving abuse in return for inflammatory comments, but that doesn't bother me, she says.
	I have lots of sex, so I can't be that ugly.
	Hmm.
	I think that speaks more to the men you know.
	I believe Israel was behind 9-11.
	Scott Munson, 49, activists from California.
	Would our government stage this to try and scare people into gun control?
	I'm going to guess you believe yes.
	Scott Munson describes himself as a truth-teller, and he considers this to be his full-time job, particularly when it comes to sharing information about 9-11 and gun control.
	Munson says he is convinced the US government is trying to control us all.
	Well, that's probably true.
	It's also clear to him that Israel benefited from 9-11.
	We have more than 3,000 Israelis not showing up for work, and then Israelis danced after the attack.
	It's obvious that it was a nation that gained from that event.
	Fucking hell, man.
	This guy's red-pilled.
	He is no stranger to abuse himself.
	When I write online that Israel was behind 9-11, people call me bad names.
	I'm not even going to comment.
	He believes that this is because he's telling people truths that are difficult to hear.
	It could be that they genuinely think you're stupid.
	Just so you know.
	That's the process.
	Many are in denial.
	But then I help see them.
	I helped them see even.
	It's uncomfortable to find out that our government is killing its own people.
	Well.
	Every day, Munson shares his truth with his 5,000 Facebook friends and his special email list of 23,000 people.
	Well, it's not as big as it could have been.
	I want to be free to carry a gun, says Nick Haynes, 42 trunk driver from Pennsylvania.
	Voting for Hillary is the same as killing your own children.
	Holy shit.
	Alright, look.
	Dude, I don't think you'll find anyone who really, like, thinks Hillary is as big a problem as me.
	I think she's catastrophic, but I don't think it's the same as killing your own children.
	Get ready for a civil war if she gets in.
	Hillary Sports will be the first to go.
	See, I told you it was important that Hillary lost, didn't I?
	So when Nick Haynes was younger, he got into frequent arguments with the authorities.
	At 16, he ran away from home and he hasn't looked back since.
	He's now lost contact with his family altogether.
	It's been four or five years since I even last talked to my father.
	That's sad.
	Today, Haynes continues with his arguments, but this time it's on social media.
	He says he tweets about 57 times a day.
	That's about 57.
	Not 60, not 55, 57.
	I debate because if I don't say anything, people who are against the Second Amendment and people who spread lies will win the arguments.
	If I don't fight back when someone claims something, then they win every time.
	Well, that's true.
	He watched the US election with his three daughters and son.
	I told them what I believe.
	That Hillary Clinton has raped this country.
	Again, there is a lot wrong with Hillary Clinton, but I don't think you can legitimately say that she raped the country.
	Now Trump's one, he says, is the first time since 9-11 I feel our country is back on track, where it belongs.
	His children agree with him.
	I'm sure they do.
	I like this one.
	I think.
	I think homosexuals will ruin Russia.
	Says Alexandra.
	Fuck you, Russia.
	51 student.
	Shame on the European world.
	Damn, the faggots are all around.
	Well, that's something that there are faggots everywhere.
	From her apartment near St. Petersburg, she believes she is fighting for Russia.
	Her fear is that her country will be overtaken by gay Europe.
	Her 75-year-old mother debates online alongside her.
	We're very worried that our beloved Russia will be influenced by the homosexuals in Europe and the US, and they will destroy it with their crap homosexual culture.
	She wants to make it clear that she doesn't see LGBT people as her enemy, but they have a defect.
	Furthermore, they should stop showing off all the time.
	They've ruined that flag for me.
	I really liked the rainbow before, but I don't anymore.
	Yeah, I'm starting to think maybe it's something more about you than them.
	Just putting that out there.
	Oh, this is my favourite, I think.
	I want to bring back colonialism, says a Norwegian.
	Did Norway have a colonial empire?
	I'm just going to fucking check.
	Must have been like...
	Because there was Denmark that had green on it.
	And what did you have?
	Like, Iceland?
	That wasn't colonized, so you can hardly call it a colonial empire.
	Norwegian colonial empire.
	Let's see what you got.
	Scandinavian colonialism.
	Let's go to the Kingdom of Norway on Wikipedia.
	No, that's that.
	That ended 700 years ago.
	Right, Scandinavian colonialism.
	Alright, the field ranges from studying the Sami in relation to the Norwegian, Finnish, and Swedish states, the activities of the Danish colonial empire, which wasn't huge, if I recall correctly.
	Yeah, here we go.
	My God.
	What's this?
	That was a bit far afield.
	And someone take a wrong turn coming out of the English Channel or something, did they?
	But yeah.
	Basically, I think that a Scandinavian saying, I want to bring back colonialism is a bit, well, presumptuous.
	He says, the behavior displayed by Muslims proves that it's wrong to end colonialism, that it should have continued to keep the Muslims under control.
	That wasn't the point of colonialism.
	Because we in the Western world is a more civilized version of humanity.
	I'm not going to criticize the guy's English.
	Subvisi is not his first fucking language.
	My Norwegian would be infinitely worse.
	The Western world is a more civilized version of humanity.
	And that's why we should be babysitters for Muslim countries.
	So bring back colonialism.
	See, this is basically the progressive position on this.
	The white man's burden.
	We know better than the brown people.
	And therefore, we're going to have to tell the brown people what to do.
	I don't think that the brown people are incapable.
	I think they just have old traditions and we should criticize wherever possible.
	But we don't need to colonize them.
	Or do we?
	He used to spend hours debating online.
	Like, when I commented on an article, what we need in Oslo is a sidewalk for those with dark skin and sidewalk for those with white skin.
	That way we won't be attacked or mugged.
	Yeah, I'm sure that those evil darkies wouldn't ever cross onto the white sidewalk.
	They'd be like, well, I mean, it's not for me.
	I can't possibly work on that.
	I was going to attack someone, but fuck.
	That's my fun out the window.
	Eventually, he had to apply a filter on Facebook so he'd no longer see posts about immigration.
	But things are changing for him.
	Last year, a refugee reception center was built in his hometown, and he slowly found he was becoming less sceptical of immigrants.
	It coincided with the arrival of a Muslim at work.
	He's okay, he says.
	So my issues with immigration are going away.
	If I met my former self in discussion forum now, I'd probably get into an argument with him.
	See, this is actually really interesting.
	Because, I mean, this is actually the point about integration, isn't it?
	I mean, you can deal with mass immigration as long as the people aren't, the immigrants aren't cloistered away in their own little ghettos.
	Because that creates resentment between them and the communities around them.
	And contact reduces it.
	It's got to happen.
	Anyway, I was thinking about going back to doing these as the old style.
	Because I've had some people saying they don't like it, some people say they do like it.
	So what I'm going to do, and you've seen it already, maybe I should have put this at the beginning of the video.
	I'm going to edit it more heavily after I've recorded it in this style, so basically it's less just raw work and time for me.
	Because honestly, like that Dawkins video I did, it took three days to make.
	And don't get me wrong, I'm glad I did a good job on anything like that, but I mean, it just takes a long time.
	And so I figure if I just talk it out like this and then edit it afterwards, it'll probably be easier.
	I'm going to not be lazy, I'm going to edit it properly.
	So this will probably be, I mean, it took an hour and 20 minutes to record in total.
	Not the length of the recording is an hour and 20 minutes.
	But it actually took longer than that.
	And yeah, I'll probably spend another hour editing it down to probably about 45 minutes.
	I don't know yet.
	But I just thought I'd give you a bit of an insight into the process.
	And hopefully, let me know if this one was better.
	Like, not necessarily the content, but like the way the delivery of it was better than previous ones.
	Because a lot of people told me they like this format because it's longer and they put it on when they're doing the dishes or something like that.
	When they're doing something, so they've got something to listen to.
	And I do the same thing when I'm doing dishes and stuff like that.
	And I like longer form videos myself because of the same reason.
	So yeah, let me know.

▲