All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 17, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:06:17
This Week in Stupid (17⧸12⧸2017) - Live at Conway Hall
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Winters would have something to say about all this.
It's okay to be right.
Oh no, no, I would like to just thank all the SGWs.
They're complaining that they didn't want me to have a stage unopposed, which is why I did this.
So, thank you.
That's it!
Robert!
Robert!
I knew it.
I knew it.
There we go.
Now I need to figure out how this works.
Laptop, mate.
What the hell would I say to Alex Jones?
Yeah, I would just want all the memes.
So yeah, thanks for coming, everyone.
I see why Dankula's gripping on for dear life.
But yeah, this is going to be a learning experience for everyone because this is the first, isn't it?
So yeah, I don't really know what I'd do, because I'm like, I don't know, I just could put shit on the internet.
Just talk about things that have pissed me off, so prepare to be lectured.
Right, okay, so to make sure that it is this weekend's stupid, you know, a lot of things I'm going to talk about on this week, but to make sure you can't see me, here's one thing.
Feminism, Merriam-Webster's word of the year.
Why?
What is the reason?
I just can't get over it.
But you've got to love the comfort of you.
Women strike back.
Oh yeah, you're the evil umpire, aren't you?
That thing is like, sick lives matter or something.
Why would you do that?
That's funny because the Sith killed all the other Sith.
You're as old as a guy white.
Honestly, at this point I'm just glad they're being honest.
They've got a vast fleet of soy boys went along the Institute.
And that's not your class, brother.
You know what I mean?
They're not here to be your friends.
And I'm going to do what Danko did with Ruster Elvis, because he stole all my best lines.
Exactly.
Joking down, sorry.
So, um, shit, you know what I realized?
I can't actually read what it says on the fucking thing.
I thought I can't see it.
Let me see if I can fucking...
Do you give three laughs?
No, I can't get...
It's already a shit show, isn't it?
So yeah.
Basically, it's complete bullshit.
It's just because there was fights in the search term of the word feminism, which is why they did this.
That's literally it.
So I mean, I'm thinking that next year we could probably game it for something offensive.
I'll let everyone decide just what the most offensive N-word they can think of is.
See if they can't make very much to run this one back again.
But yeah, I've got to say, this is reported in Entertainment Weekly, which is weird for something with dictionary.
But the comment section is pretty fucking red pill, actually.
I was really pleased to see this.
Like, the first one was to start still with entertainment, you know, entertainment weekly in that hourly PC liberal agenda post.
And someone called Nimble Navigator so.
I guess we can add dictionaries to the list of institutions which have abandoned their traditional eight political principles in order to get some intention.
It's pretty bland, you know, but it gets better.
Definition: Feminism equals accusation that causes postman without proof.
To be followed by next year's word, you know.
But I really like Pennywise Hendrix down here.
I feel sorry for men today.
These winers won't stop until they emasculate every man so they can wear their gonads with a badge of our sickening.
I was like, oh shit, that's a red pill, isn't it?
And after this, they're going to close their comment sections.
So yeah, institutionally, it's been a really good year for feminism, hasn't it?
In fact, I've got some to act.
It's been a really good year for feminism, but culturally, they're on the rocks and they know it.
They're getting bitched out everywhere.
And the great thing about it is they're starting to reach such heights that the inherent contradictions in the movement are starting to actually do damage.
It's actually starting to come back to blight money narcissists.
This is just the best.
It's nowhere better exemplified than with the draconian speech codes that they lobbied so aggressively for in the first place.
I'm not talking about this, by the way.
I'm sorry to show you a topless picture of Clanny Tunford.
I assume you came here for abuse.
Yeah, feminists want a free nipple, and after seeing feminist nipples, I don't spawn this campaign.
I'm not talking about the bizarre incident where Facebook decided to ban a woman for posting about her period day, which was actually weird.
She posted, does anyone develop a coding to you?
Because Lady Woodman is waging war upon her.
That's fucking inoffensive, you know?
She's gone.
So, the thing is, it wasn't even a public post department.
So she's like, some evil conserved misogynist has infiltrated her Facebook friends and she went not who you and your patriarchal mindset are no longer welcome on my personal Facebook page.
She's going to keep bleeding and keep being loud, which is pretty much all feminist feels.
So these are examples to show that Facebook doesn't actually give feminists special treatment.
And you think they'd know this.
And they would understand that Facebook's going to follow the rules that they've been given.
But no.
Facebook is banning women for calling men's scum.
One in the air.
It's fake news for parameters.
Yeah, that's how it protected classes.
But you've got to love the top all caps in red.
Absolutely silencing wow.
Exactly, I'll get to that.
Because women responding to male trolls by saying men are trash violates their policy of protective characteristics.
You can just feel them bristling with a fence, can't you?
Could you do this to us?
So, so this is about a comedian called Monica Belsky.
Again, I can't read my own notes.
She required men are scum to a friend's Facebook post back in October.
She never anticipated being banned from the platform for 30 days, which is exactly what happened.
She was shocked, just shocked that Facebook would take objection to this relatively annoying comment.
And her friends, of course, could totally relate because they're a bunch of man-eaters as well.
Sorry, I have this all on the screen in front of me.
Sorry?
The handheld mic?
Yeah, they are.
One of the stars.
The stars.
This thing is stupid!
I've already featured in it before.
So yeah, they're posting things as bland as, men ain't shit, all men are ugly, and even all men are allegedly ugly and they're having their posts removed.
They've been locked out of their accounts for suggesting that since all men are ugly, country music star Blake Shelton winning Sexiest Man isn't a trionist.
I love this.
Can you imagine the outrage if this was just a gender reversal?
That would be freaking funny.
But you've really got to love that this is just one of those best cases of like, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
And they did.
This is great.
Kayla Avery, the comedian in Boston, says she's been banned close to 10 times by Facebook and serving at the end of her third 30-day ban.
How much does she hate men?
To get banned ten fucking times.
After the fourth or fifth time, she might be like, ah, okay, maybe this isn't going to work.
Maybe I should just stop at this point.
But I love the way she says that she feels helpless to stop their hate.
And it's like, you are joking, aren't you?
To stop their hate, you've become mean.
You have actually become this mean.
But she enjoys it!
So, um...
Yeah.
The resistance, which is what I believe they're going to call themselves, they decided that a private Facebook group of 500 female comedians pledged to post some variation of men are scum to Facebook on November 24th in order to stage a protest.
That's cool.
Nearly every woman who carried out the pledge was banned you fucking laws.
What did Facebook stand to lose by banning you?
Nothing.
You know, you were, like, maybe you should have read the terms and conditions, just saying.
I shouldn't be indeed because I can ban stuff by not reading TSC all the time.
They even, the feminist renegades created a little Twitter account called Facebook Jailed, from which they could whine about how they don't understand a fucking thing.
I've got the best example.
This is one tweet.
Saying men aren't funny is attacking a gender, but saying feminism is illegal.
Feminism is evil is A-O-K.
Well, duh.
Feminism isn't the fucking gender you pretend.
Apples and oranges.
Fantastic.
And I love The Guardian's take on this.
Facebook bans women for posting men as scum after the harassment scandals.
How come they're connected?
What's that got to do with anything?
Won't someone please think of the women?
Sorry, the wanna.
And The Guardian's article is basically in Sentinel's daily piece with our old pal, Marcia Belsky again.
Don't book as a guest bed.
I check out her Twitter feed.
I'm not kidding you, right?
She is the host of the Misoundry podcast.
The picture, as we can see there, is her and her co-host holding the severed head of a man.
The ping tweet, love podcasts but hate men.
Wow, have we got a treat for you?
I can't believe Facebook banned her.
This is the patriarchy at work.
She literally describes herself as the proud mother to a militia of women in the woods.
I don't even have a joke prepared for that because it's like, well, how do you satirize a bunch of crazed lunatic feminists hiding out in the woods practicing militia drills to overthrow the patriarchy?
And it's going to.
I look at The Guardian is on this woman's side as well.
They're just like, oh yeah, we better help her out, huh?
Honestly.
Anyway.
So naturally, my favourite publication, The Mary Sue, is freaking the fuck out, which is great, because they have zero understanding of what's happening.
And I'll tell you what, there is actually like a deep philosophical confusion behind all of these, but I'll say that to the end.
For pretty much as long as these sites have existed, women, people of colour, and other marginalized groups have been asking for Facebook and other social media platforms to start taking verbal abuse, hate speech, and other forms of harassment seriously.
Yes, I think, my dear, that your problem is that they are.
Some of this is just beyond parody.
I'm really sorry this isn't as funny as I wanted it to be.
Anyway, so why is this happening?
Is it deliberate targeting or a genuine flaw in the moderated guidelines?
And also, I mean, I really think that they just look like they're just confused about the world.
And look, I love this, right?
According to the Daily Beast, 7,000 moderators working to police hate speech and can't see the demographic information if the original poster is being reported.
Like that matters.
Like hate speech matters whether it depends where it comes from as to whether it's hate speech or not.
It's not hate speech when we do it.
Fucking male scum.
As Belsky said recently to the Daily Dot, I was like, fine, I get that.
But if they punish the serious kill all Muslims people, then I'm fine with them getting that photo too.
Only they don't punish the kill all Muslims people.
Yeah, they do.
Especially in this country, they send them to jail.
Except ISIS.
Yeah, well, I mean, at least I'm in Sweden.
At least we're not giving him houses.
Actually, I say that, but I haven't Googled it.
We might well be giving them houses.
I'm assigned, how is that even a debate?
It's like, well, what should we do with the ISIS fighters who are returning?
What do you mean?
Returning.
Sorry, you defect into an enemy terrorist state, and you're like, yeah, it's not working out.
I want to come back.
I'm sorry.
I'm in favour of bombing the shit out of ISIS.
And if you're not, then you're part of the problem.
Facebook, of course, defended blocking women who call men scum.
Because Facebook is run by men.
It actually is technically run by men.
And they are pretty pussyworked.
But the problem is, you can't ever fulfil the demands of social justice because they're inherently contradictory.
This is the bind Facebook has found the suffering.
So Facebook, of course, have the temerity to stand by their hate speech guidelines because of misogynists.
The problem is, as you might expect, that feminists demanding protected categories being race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. means that when hate speech is directed to attract more people, like saying men are scum, go to that.
But directing it to an individual is actually not.
So if you say someone in particular is scum, that's actually okay with Facebook's guidebooks.
Exactly.
That's actually.
You won't get banned from Facebook for that.
So, yeah, apparently you can't get away with it because Facebook...
Actually, you can't get away from home.
So they're like complaining that men are scum, I guess banned, but apparently women are scum, was reviewed by Facebook and found not to violate Facebook's codes.
Yeah, Facebook's quite woke actually.
It's okay.
I'm just kidding.
They should apply their standards either.
Or they should just stop police for people's speech and let people take control of their own social media accounts and be responsible for their own interactions with other people on the internet.
It's cool.
Isn't that amazing?
Like, just common sense.
Just being an adult gets a round of applause.
That's the point where I think it's going to happen.
It's a science state of affairs.
But the thing is, we've all let it get to this point.
Our inaction has been the reason that they've been able to do whatever they want.
If no one's protesting, then they don't know that people oppose them.
Don't think that you're going to get away with this if you're a person of colour, because Facebook is racist.
I don't know who Lil B is, but he was banned for hate speech.
So Vice is reporting on this.
I'm a big fan of Vice magazine as well.
Their reporting on this was really interesting, because instead of showing us what he'd been banned from Facebook for, they decided to get all euphemistic.
Apparently he was banned for, quote, talking about white people.
Hi, that's what he was saying, I am, and Vice buttressed us by saying he'd been discussing it in blunt tones.
Complex issues about race in America.
Oh yeah.
I can't help but feel that if Lil B had been born with a little more white privilege, then Weiss would be calling him a racist.
Yeah, it sounds like it was like, white people are violent.
Oh, fuck, Samson.
There you got to it.
Bye, let's go!
So I mean, apparently, if the same standard was applied, then I wouldn't get in trouble if I started quoting crime statistics.
And can I make a comment?
The company of a gangster rapper calling other people violent?
Or is that racist?
To be fair though, Danforth is the one who's going to get this taken down off my YouTube channel.
Right, so there was a fairly obscure out there called ProPublica that I'd never heard of, but they decided to get down to business and really break down the sort of ideological problem of Facebook.
And this was really interesting, this article, because I didn't realize that anyone could be just so deep into the sort of SJW quagmire that they literally wouldn't understand a principle that a two-year-old would understand.
So they began by outlining how a post targeting, quote, radicalized Muslims, otherwise known as terrorists, was not removed by Facebook.
And why would it be?
I mean, Facebook isn't the Islamic State's defense force.
It wasn't calling for the execution of all Muslims, only those hell-bent on murdering others.
And as we're told on a daily basis, these aren't real Muslims anyway.
So, no problem at all.
But a post from Black Lives Matter saying all white people are racist, start from there, or you've already failed.
Somehow hate speech.
And a point in the irony is saying, look, all white people are racist.
I was like, okay, why wouldn't we change?
What's the incentive for us to all change?
If we're all racists already, then we'll just carry on and go, yeah, you're a racist, I guess.
It relies on people already knowing that they're not.
So it's all a big fiction.
I hate it.
Anyway, ProPublica got to work.
And lo and behold, they got it.
And I love this.
Look, this is just amazing.
A trove of internal documents reviewed by ProPublica sheds new light on the secret guidelines that Facebook censors use to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate political expression.
I love this.
Men of skull.
Legitimate political expression, according to these people.
The documents reveal the rationale behind seemingly inconsistent decisions.
For instance, Higgins' incitement to violence passed Mustard because it targeted a specific subgroup of Muslims.
Those that are, quote, radicalized.
While Delgado's post was deleted for attacking whites in general.
Yes, it's a simple principle.
Even a kid can understand this.
Sorry, I know it's coming.
So this slide identifies three groups, female drivers, black children and white men.
It asks, which group is protected from hate speech?
The correct answer is actually white men.
You can imagine how they feel about this.
So then it is female drivers indicates that a woman has made the decision to drive.
So it's something within her power.
She can change.
She's decided to do this.
So if you want to say women drivers are bad, not that I am.
I don't drive, so I'm a terrible driver.
You know, it's their decision.
It's completely within their power.
It's interesting how black children aren't part of the group that they lobbied to try and have protected.
Because child wasn't one of the characteristics they give a damn about.
Isn't that strange?
Like every other group, but not kids, because they fucking hate kids.
As a father, that kind of pisses me off, you know?
But it really is that simple, though.
A blanket statement over a characteristic thing that people have no agency over is bad, and anything else is permissible.
Behind this seemingly arcane distinction lies a broader philosophy.
I look like they're discovering this for the first time.
Unlike American law, which permits preferences such as affirmative action for racial minorities and women for the sake of diversity or redressing discrimination, Facebook's algorithm is designed to defend all races and genders equally and that's the problem.
Equal treatment is misogynist.
And racist and transphobic and you know like sadly the rules are this is this is an academic called Danielle Citro, a law professor and expert on information privacy at the University of Maryland.
And she's not happy.
Sadly, the rules are incorporating this colorblindness idea, which is not in the spirit of why we have equal protection.
Thank you for telling.
It's literally just saying look it's one rule for us one more for you.
shut the fuck up.
And she literally says, this will protect the people who need it least and take it away from those who really need it by applying it consistently to everyone.
This is a good thing.
Like I said, I don't really have any jokes to go with this.
It's just like okay Professor Citroen.
It's like Monty Python or something isn't it?
She's a professor.
She teaches students just so you know.
Don't be afraid, it's only the future of the Western world needs a statement.
This is my favourite bit though.
Suddenly, Facebook's rules constitute a legal world of their own.
They stand in sharp contrast to the United States First Amendment protections on free speech.
Oh now you can!
Now you fucking do a shit, do you?
Come on, fucking screen.
I love the way they put this, right?
The company recently pledged to nearly double its army of censors to 7,500 in response to criticism.
Yet your criticism, you fucking morants!
You demanded the army of censors at Facebook and now you've got it.
You know?
Jesus.
I don't know why they're doing this to themselves.
It's the most solopsistic I've ever heard in my life.
The funny thing is, though, it's not because this is required by US law.
It's not.
It's not required by US law to centre content.
End of story.
Why is it happening?
Because you wanted it, you morons.
And the thing is, it really like.
It's the root of it all.
I think they believe that straight white men don't have a race, agenda, and a sexuality.
I can only imagine that's how they envisage it.
Because otherwise, why would they be getting surprised that if you say white people are scum, straight people are scum, men are scum, that that would fall under a protected characteristic of race and gender.
Well, it could only be if you don't consider those things to be part of those categories.
And it turns out that straight white men are just people as well.
Yeah.
And this is Facebook talking, not me.
I mean, yeah, I'm perfectly progressive.
I need menace to come too.
But what I love all about this is that they have such a hard time wrapping their little noodles around the idea that you can't simply define yourself as a victim and expect to get away with anything you want.
The rules still apply to you no matter how much of a victim you are, or at least that you consider yourself to be.
And it's not just Facebook where there's a backlash against the regressive attacks on the non-approved races and genders.
This is an example from the Washington Post, where a female police captain from Indiana was suspended after dismissing a man because of his white privilege.
Which.
No, he's got paid leave, so a holiday.
In the US, I don't think it's actually a criminal offence.
So if there was here, then yeah.
Well, don't even get me started here.
So the man asks a question, and she says, because you're white male privileged, so you wouldn't know.
And he says, I'm sorry, you're white male privilege.
And so he starts going, Chief, are you going to get away with that?
Seriously?
I'm asking a legitimate question here and I'm getting white privilege.
I find that extremely offensive.
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
This is what happens when you make offence the standard by which we police each other's behaviour in crop and colon environments.
Instead of encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their feelings and make decisions accordingly, if someone's offended and everything, then someone has to be punished.
And it turns out even white men can be offended.
The best bit though was the rhetoric that the complainant makes.
He completely co-ops that rhetoric.
I was racially and sexually slurred by Captain Kerry Webb while I was asking a question of the instructor in training.
I am now firmly aware of the discriminatory belief she just verbally communicated.
There is no place in the Blainefield Police Administration or supervision for someone who holds and espouses her discriminatory views.
I wish I could congratulate the man by name because that was great.
That was really great.
Well I wish it was.
But, um, this backlash is even happening at, gasp, universities.
You know, interestingly, this is an example from Dalhousie University in Canada, which I'm sure you all know, is a vile den of progressive scum and villainy.
I mean, just look at that.
Like, this student's Facebook post calling out white fragility created a huge shitstorm.
Oh, fuck it, how BuzzFeed.
I can't wait till BuzzFeed goes away with Gawker.
I really can't.
But have you guys seen the Gorka Crowdfunder?
They're trying to bring it back.
Yes, because the internet misses Gawker media.
Yeah.
So this was someone called Masoula Khan, who had proposed a motion to the student union to ignore Canada's 150th anniversary celebration because of macolonialism.
And obviously, obviously, the backlash she received, it wasn't to do with her fundamentally objecting to the nation in which she lives existing at all.
No, it's racism, obviously.
Oh, fuck's sake.
There's literally nothing I can do about it, Jack.
Sorry.
This wasn't well received by a group called, and I've never heard of these before, the Young Progressive Conservatives.
The Libertarian Socialists.
The anarcho-fascists.
I bet you watch my D&D streams, don't you guys?
Not anymore!
Yeah.
By the way, don't post something called anti-communist action on YouTube, because they'll censor you.
I just want to address the moderators of YouTube.
That was the audience, not me.
So the complaint was upheld by the student authorities, which naturally caused a shitstorm.
But Khan was a woman of colour in a colonised land.
So by crying reverse racism, the complaint was withdrawn.
Bit of a shame, but you can't win them all.
And to be honest with you, wouldn't expect a progressive institution like Dalhousie to uphold that anyway.
But these examples have been pretty tempered.
Sure, they violate the principle of the thing.
They're not really that outrageous, or at least maybe not to meet because I've been doing this for a long time.
It's kind of just legalese, basically.
But this one has to take the case.
You've probably all already seen it.
Oh, but one more way to see this guy.
If you reversed the races on this, it would be extreme for the Daily Stormer to post it.
And I thought the editors of the Daily Stormer just sat there going, fuck.
We could have done that.
Jewish DNA is an abomination?
On that note, Corbyn 2022 is it?
Who's getting worried about Corbyn, though, seriously?
Look at his fucking hands.
Okay, not the Jew!
YouTube, that wasn't the way the winners.
Better dance in bed.
Seriously, though, like the Grenfell Fire thing, it's embarrassing enough watching him ambulance chasing a tragedy, you know, get down there for 35 minutes, give a couple of hugs, get a couple of third opportunities, then fuck off.
But hit him alone, like, right, okay.
There are houses in London that are owned but not occupied.
We need to seize them.
Jeremy, that is the opposite of what the government is for.
You fucking idiot.
It is to protect a property owner's rights.
That's the basis of our entire democracy.
You fucking coming!
I might just skip the rest of the presentation and get a lot of my Corbyn anger off my chest.
Do you know what's actually worse than corporate books?
Theresa May, right?
If you wonder if there is maybe a certain aristocratic backbencher in the Tory party who might actually be allowed to drag...
I thought they are looking at Jacob Reesmog social media following and shitting themselves.
Honestly, though, the whole thing has been a complete farce, because the thing with Theresa May is she's an idiot.
She is an idiot.
When Jeremy Corbyn is standing there going, Is it right?
I've got a moral argument, she should just go, Jeremy, you're a fucking communist.
You don't have a moral argument.
You supported dictators.
You called Fidel Castro a champion of social justice.
The man died with $900 million worth of assets, and the average wage in Cuba is $25 a month.
Is this a get-rich-quick scheme, Jeremy?
That's what I'm saying.
Is this what this is about?
But yeah, she should.
I mean, like, I actually.
Kill the elephants.
I am legitimately starting to wonder if it is anyway.
So, yeah, this piece, getting back to what I actually had prepared, I stand all day on this.
This piece is pretty astounding because, to be fair, I don't think anyone was going to expect a call for genocide from a student newspaper at Texas University.
It's pretty unambiguous as well.
Your DNA is an abomination.
Whiteness will be over because we want it to be, and white death will mean liberation for all.
Literally, it's like mine camp.
I mean, I don't want to just rejectio ad Hitler on this, but there's a better example.
There's nothing closer.
But yeah, it's pretty cundry, and it was written by a philosophy major, and it's because it is exactly as Jordan Peterson says.
Far-left professors in academia are radicalising their students to hate their history, their culture, their friends, their family, and even themselves.
They hate what they are, and they've been programmed this way by their fucking professors.
This has to stop.
This just can't carry on.
I love their apology.
They did that.
Fucking apology.
This is some of the best weasling you'll ever hear in your life, right?
The University Star's opinion pages are a forum for students to express and debate ideas.
Well, how publication does not endorse every opinion put forth by student colonists and guest contributors?
As the editor, I take responsibility for what's printed on our pages.
This is a lady called Denise Symantes.
She says, the original intent of the column was to provide a commentary on the idea of race and racial identities.
The brass balls on that woman.
She's just taking credit, taking responsibility for an article that says, let's kill all white people.
People won't be free until all white people are dead.
So yeah, we're just trying to start a conversation on race.
I can hardly believe what I actually am reading out.
But yeah, so, gee, obviously.
So needless to say, an open call for genocide drew widespread criticism from readers.
And this is fascist.
Unsurprisingly, there's nothing I can do, I'm sorry.
So the author was fired from the paper, which, if it comes back on, the art rights are actually having an effect, you know, because The Hill, which is a pretty damn mainstream newspaper, is using the phrase anti-white in their title as if it was just part of common parlance.
But to be fair, though, calling for the genocide for the white race could legitimately be termed anti-white.
I mean, you know, let's not mince words here.
They're not.
But the editors of the paper obviously gave their full unequivocal apology.
But the author, among Rudy Martinez, stands by it.
I stand by exterminating the white race, thank you very much.
I don't even know.
It's like Hitler and the bunker.
It's like Jesus.
But the reason, the article speaks for itself.
Though my language, through my language, I don't know my good side, especially when I claim to have only ever met 12 decent white people could be deemed as hyperbolic, just barely.
It has accomplished it's goal, starting a conversation and outing racists.
...would possibly complain to me about the extermination of the white race.
Only a racist would.
Only a racist.
I'm not racist, I've met white people.
I'm not racist, I've got a white friend.
So, yeah, that was pretty much everything I had.
I could.
Actually, I've actually kind of prepared a bit of a monologue, if you guys want to hear, just talk about it.
I really want to explain to people, like, the essence of social justice is power.
And that's a scary concept.
Because when you start talking about power, suddenly you start thinking of people who rise to the top of a hierarchy, start doing bad things for other people.
Because ultimately, that is what power is force.
We knew to have an effect on the world.
And this is what people don't understand.
You can't define a single thing in social justice without contextualizing it as prejudice plus exactly.
You know, and it's unbelievably transparent.
But nobody thinks about what that actually means.
Because as soon as you start exercising power on someone else, they're your enemy.
Because they're not going to want to just be under your power for no good reason.
You haven't legitimately actually found a racist.
You've legitimately found someone who's probably an anti-racist, and now you have to shut them up.
But anyway, so the more power you have, the more you can change the world to your liking.
But the important thing, and this is what really defines everything about their mentality, is that power is not static.
If you don't use it, you lose it.
So through the lens of power, every single event becomes politicized and dichotomized into that which does not benefit me hurts me.
And this is the worldview of social justice.
This is why they can't just leave you alone.
You have to be under their control because if you're not under their control, they become weaker for it.
This is why it's important for someone to just stand up and say, no, I refuse to comply with you.
That's why you have to do it.
Because otherwise, they get stronger and you get weaker.
So some recommended reading on the subject.
And I just want to, again, just take a quick break from this.
There's a reason that these books are considered dangerous.
I mean, Machiavelli, when he published The Prince, he was banned for something like 100 years by the Catholic Church.
The book was banned.
It was just considered heretical.
Because it was part of a collection of, part of a genre back in the Middle Ages called The Mirrors for Princes.
And what this was for, because in the Middle Ages you had a large aristocratic class in Europe, many of them had the potential to go on to be rulers and kings and dukes and whatnot.
So it was popular to create books that would try and explain to them.
You've got like the opposite of this is like Erasmus' The Education of the Christian Prince, where it was highly Christian, it was very good, very moral, very, you know, what you should be doing to be a moral person.
And Machiavelli just came along and said, no, the syllabolics.
In fact, we need to do this, be a ruthless cunt, and I'll explain to you why.
And he did, and he got himself in a lot of trouble.
The second one is the Conservatives' favourite book, Rules for Radicals, which we all should read.
All of you in this, you guys are all radicals, you know this.
You're all radicals.
If you're against hate speech, you are a radical.
The system is completely opposed to you.
If you're against diversity quotas, you are a radical.
The system loves diversity quotas.
They have them everywhere in every fucking corporation, all of our government buildings.
Every single one has a diversity officer whose sole job it is to give a shit about your race, your gender, your sexuality.
If you want to remove these people, you are a radical.
Don't forget it.
And the next one is The 48 Laws of Power by Rennick Green.
This is something that you can use personally and identify.
This will teach you when an individual SGW face to face is trying to get you, trying to get you under their power, and they always are.
And this will teach you how it's done.
Really important.
These will give you a really good sort of basic understanding of the dynamics and nature of power.
But also, read history.
Almost all of recorded history is the history of power politics.
Everything about Caesar's commentaries, things like this.
It's all power politics.
And you can see the same things happening.
When Gankula did his thing about them co-opting and infiltrating institutions, that's it at work.
That would normally be done between nations and between tribes.
But instead, they do it between interest groups, between hobbies.
And I just want to make a note.
Using this on an individual who doesn't know that they're effectively at war with you is fucking immoral.
It is wrong to bully people using power tactics when they're just trying to play a game, when they're just trying to hang out and have fun, whatever it is they're doing.
That's why SJWs are fucking evil.
So what they've done is they've redefined racism to draw the conclusion that racism is any kind of negative consequence to a brown person.
And that is not a concept that results in equality.
If the aim is to prevent any negative consequences to one class of people, then the legitimate times that they deserve their negative consequences will be interpreted as illegitimate because you've already defined any negative consequences to the protected group as an injustice.
It doesn't matter how you arrive at the conclusion that a black person should be disadvantaged because we've already decided that one of the fundamental axioms of social justice is that every black person is already defined as being disadvantaged by white people.
So through the lens of social justice, they are already the victims of systemic injustice.
So anything more the system does, such as disadvantaging them by, say, locking them up for murder, is just adding insult to injury.
That person, they don't have any control of their own agency, according to social justice.
And anyone who holds a worldview like this will find that the normal enforcement of the laws of the country to be a form of injustice and oppression, even if they aren't the majority of cases.
Of course, any benefits that come with the system will be seen as just reparations for harms done, and no amount of free money or special treatment will seem too much.
It's not like they have quantified the amount of oppression that's suffered anyway.
And so it just doesn't matter what you personally do, because it's not your fault.
So what difference does it make how far you go?
What's stopping you?
The cult-like chant of the oppressed have the right to hate their oppressors should tell you everything you need to know about who they perceive to hold the power in their dichotomy.
So anything they do is punching up by definition.
So by definition, anything a black person does to a white person is just.
That's what they think.
It's nuts, frankly.
This is the mindset of a revolutionary.
People like Eric Clanton of Antifar.
Can we give a shout out for Eric in prison?
Yeah!
Imagine he's getting a taste of reparations as we speak.
But this is the mindset of a revolutionary.
It's not just morally permissible to bash the fashion is positively virtuous.
Which is why mainstream publications like the New York Times will promote black block fashion in order that you may look more cool when you smash the state, which is the most bourgeois thing I've ever heard in my life.
in fashion are they talking about?
They dress like ISICs.
How more fashion advice could they be given?
Blacks to be black.
But this is the thing to remember.
Social justice is a completely revolutionary philosophy.
There can be no detente with them because they want it all.
They want control of every system, every space, every hierarchy, because, ironically, they're fundamentally opposed to hierarchy.
And instead of forming their own communes and living by their principles, which is hard, they realise it's far easier to brown-nose and rules lawyer their way up any hierarchy, using their ability to instill guilt into white men so they give in to their demands, lest they'd be publicly accused of being woman-hating racists.
Anyone here been accused of being a woman-hating racist?
Oh man, look at that.
What's up?
Excuse me, Mr. Black Man, could you put your hand up, please?
You're a racist for just being here.
I'm so sorry.
Actually, no, that's not true.
They've got worse terms for you.
And this is the thing that's horrible about it.
It's like, you're not a person today.
You're not a person to them.
But the thing is, if they're opposed to hierarchies of power, why do they try to cobb?
It would seem counterintuitive.
But the thing is, it's all they know.
Their entire worldview is viewed on hierarchies of power.
And they think that if they can control it all, they can handcraft a perfectly equal world where nobody has power over everyone else.
I'm sure you can see why that's going to fail, right?
The nature of intersectionality gives it a clear logic.
And with only a fairly limited induction into the principles of it, it provides a series of ideological constructs that don't resemble the reality of the situation, such as black people, gay people, and women.
Intersectionality is for individuals.
Are you going to dance?
My favourite part of that whole thing was when Thomas was just saying, if we let people be free, then white men will control everything.
Thomas!
I hear he's going the old right at this point, though.
But I say women and not women for a good reason, because it distinguishes between the ideological versus the literal meaning of the words.
Women is a reference to actual people, people who have the gender of woman.
So blanket statements such as like, all women hate Trump, can be disproven by one example.
But the statement, all women hate Trump, is true.
Because some women are gender traitors in league with the patriarchy because they secretly hate themselves, and that is literally the feminist interpretation of it.
This is what the word wamming really describes.
Because ultimately, who else is calling for respect for women?
It's not your average woman who's wandering around doing living her life.
She's not the one arguing for this.
And in Britain, only 7% of people identify as feminists.
So no normal woman is going to walk around thinking that she bears no responsibility for her own actions.
And so she's not going to think she's being oppressed by the patriarchy when she breaks a law and is punished for it, or is suspended from Facebook because she hates men or whatever.
They don't think that men inherently disrespect them because they acknowledge that they personally have the power to hurt other people as well.
And so they don't act like a massive bunch of cunts all the time.
Unlike them.
But women.
Women demand your respect.
And the only kind of person who demands you respect someone is someone who deep down knows they don't deserve it.
because they're a massive fucking cunt.
And it's only natural that a massive fucking cunt is gonna search out ways of protecting their own ego from having to admit that they're being an asshole.
I know because I'm like that.
The only difference between me and them is that I know I'm like this.
And so I can actively take steps not to be like that.
But this is one of the reasons that I find the behaviour of feminists so distasteful.
And it's one of the reasons that they hate trolling the most.
Are the feminists arch enemy?
Because a feminist is demanding your respect and the purpose of trolling is to deliberately withhold it.
You're laughing in their faces and admitting you don't care if they're upset that they think you're scum or you think they're scum because it's not illegal.
Yes.
Probably.
Just use a VPN is all I'm saying.
It's interesting that they publicly broadcast that they hate trolls all the time though, isn't it?
They constantly go on about it.
The SJWs may have legions of rapists, murderers, and pedophiles within their ranks, but at least they respected women.
Would it even troll you?
You're going to have to do better than that, my friend.
When popularising the meme respect for women, wamin, sorry, Christ, PewDiePie was actually popularising the isolation and neutralization of the ideological construct that feminists use to attack the unwitting but well-meaning folk who suddenly find themselves not much liking the general atmosphere of an organization after social justice has set in.
And the more ideological the system becomes, the more they find themselves with an urge to write a memo.
And there's a reason that the far left called it a manifesto.
I mean, I assume you've all read DeMore's memo, right?
It's not a manifesto.
It's a statement of science.
But in their eyes, it absolutely was a manifesto because they're biology denying lunatics.
And the reason for this is that the ideological construct that is wham doesn't represent the reality of what women are, or even the majority of them, or even some of them.
But it's one of the pillars of the ideological construct that is wamen is that the behavioural differences between men and women are socially constructed and there is no biological components at all.
You would have to be, I mean, really, let's be honest, this is, what was it, George Orwell, who said there are some things so stupid only an intellectual could believe me?
But you really have to divorce yourself from actually dealing with people as individuals, like on the ground, to genuinely believe something like that.
But Susan Wojiki, the CO of YouTube, don't boom, yes, wrote in Fortune magazine after DeMore's memo went viral, proclaiming to her woke 80-year-old daughter, and I'm not making this up, literally says yesterday after reading the news, my daughter asked me a question: Mum, is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?
Yes!
Yes!
I thought about all this, looked at my daughter and answered simply, no, it's not true.
Can you imagine broadcasting this to the world?
Your company's currently in the middle of the scandal.
And you're like, yeah, okay.
So the first thing I'm going to do is go out and deny the biological reality of human beings.
But the 1k8-year-old is incidentally another satirical ideological construct in the same way whammy is.
It neutralizes and isolates the thing that they're doing.
The ideological construct that describes the assumed progressiveness, coupled with a profound knowledge of politics, that the SJW's child has expressed completely on their own and with absolutely no provocation from the parent.
Sure.
But the best part about this is they're admitting that their ideology is the unworkable, utopian ideology of a child who has no idea of the consequences of their own actions because they've never been held to account for them.
Thank you.
Who the fuck is taking political advice from a child?
Why would you do it?
My kids said, I don't give a fuck what you kids said.
I don't give a fuck about what you said.
These ideological constructs are the product of a series of intersecting beliefs that build on top of each other to create something that would seem to logically exist, but it does not in fact accurately map with reality.
And when you're not operating in line with reality, eventually you're going to fuck something up because you didn't know what you were doing.
If these sort of ideological VR headsets are being worn by a bunch of fruitcakes living in a tent sitting under a bridge complaining about how their tinfoil hat is failing to block out all the alien radiation, it's not a tremendous problem for society.
But these people aren't.
They're in our universities.
Intersectional social justice does precisely the same thing.
Imagine a rich black person accusing a poor white person of being privileged because they live in a capitalist society.
Nice fucking watch, Trey.
Nice fucking watch indeed, Trey.
Look at that fucking thing.
I'm surprised he's strong enough to lift it.
Under social justice, such a ridiculous thing can and does happen because the ideological constructs don't have to match reality.
It doesn't matter how soft and pampered Trey is.
Doesn't he look pretty?
Doesn't he beautiful?
You know, he looks like a child of privilege, doesn't he?
The parts of reality that don't catch the ideological construct have actually already been accounted for as traitorous.
If reality isn't with you, it's against you.
And anything that is against you has to be suppressed.
Now we're forced to operate with an inaccurate interpretation of the world that gets proceedingly less accurate as time goes on because the SJWs are at war with reality.
Until suddenly they can't believe that they're being banned from Facebook for saying all men are scum.
After all, they'll only present, like, the SJW, no, not the S2, sorry, the MRAs running Facebook will only present their ideological construction of masculinity, which you can satirise as male tears and dismiss.
They do this to you.
This is what they're doing when you're saying, look, I'm upset by that goal.
White fragility, male tears.
Get fucked.
You know, we have legitimate concerns.
And you think you can just satirise us by using, as PewDiePie was doing, the term, wow.
This is why these things are useful.
This is why they work.
So once you've dismissed their only defense without consideration and you've established your target as the enemy, a white male, for instance, you can do whatever you like.
And you will think you have a moral argument with which to force bystanders to give you sympathy and from which all manner of power can be drawn because after all, you are the victim.
You can become suddenly famous through a media flurry and suddenly enriched as well-wishers decide to take an interest in redressing the cosmic balance of good against evil in their own small personal way by donating to your Patreon.
And I don't mean that as a dismissal either.
Ultimately, that's really why anyone donates to the Patreon of someone who's participating in a political cause.
But it's usually done by services rendered rather than victimhood claimed.
Which incidentally is the reason why it doesn't matter if say a victim's Kickstarter campaign is years late in completion or somebody who spends their time doing nothing at all.
Bit of shame there.
And for the people who are, well, I don't know, say potential rapists.
Sorry, that's going to be nicer to male feminists, shouldn't it?
Just remember, a male feminist is basically Schrodinger's rapist, so...
This is the performative aspect of their ideological construct.
This is how they act to be moral, by donating to your patron.
And you only need to be moral if you're privileged.
Because as we've already covered, oppressed people aren't responsible for their own actions and they don't have the same standards applied to them.
This is why SJWs are constantly colliding with the rules of the outside world.
As much as the social media companies want to submit to the harsh moralizing attack of the SJWs on their racist, sexist institutions, they can't change the fundamental principles that the institutions are founded upon.
Because we decided that, in principle, discrimination against protected characteristics like race and gender is bad because it creates a class of second-class citizens, which is the very reason we made them protected characteristics in the first place.
But the ideological lens of social justice gives the person wearing it an inaccurate representation of the power dynamics of the relations between individuals by deliberately omitting certain factors that wildly change a rational interpretation of the power at work.
This is why Zoe Quinn can cry out in pain as she doxes you.
To her, it doesn't matter if she's the author of pain.
She's already defined herself as the victim.
And what the SJWs have constructed for themselves is a moral justification for bad behaviour.
Just can't stand.
Thank you.
Let the recordings show that.
▲
Export Selection