Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Yes, Censorship is Bad

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 26, 2021 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:21:53

Yes, Censorship is Bad

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, it's telling me I'm live.
	Here we go.
	It's on.
	How's it going, everyone?
	Hope you enjoyed the thumbnail.
	Be the subject of the video that we're talking about.
	Well, the video, the live stream, as it were.
	Let me just get things set up in the back and we shall.
	When I say set up in the back, let me pop out the chat so I can see it and make sure, big night off.
	Oh, I'm here.
	Shut up.
	Why are you up so late?
	I'm always up late.
	I've always been a night owl.
	I like being up late.
	I don't know why.
	I do my best thinking late at night.
	You see.
	I don't know why.
	I always assumed it's because I've been awake all day just living, going about my life, reading books, doing whatever it is I'm doing that day.
	And by the end of the day, I guess I've collected a series of patterns of thought that start interlacing each other and I start reflecting on them.
	And so I have good ideas at night, I think.
	Possibly.
	If ever I've had a good idea.
	So, okay.
	It seems that this is up.
	So let's get right into the news, shall we?
	So you're, of course, familiar with the lovely lady who is present on the thumbnail of this stream, which would be ContraPoints.
	And Conch Points has recently had a free speech awakening, which I'm very glad about.
	Sorry, I almost forgot a link that I'm just going to get because otherwise I'll want it and I don't have it.
	But yes, Conch Points has had something of a free speech awakening.
	And that's good.
	That's good.
	We should have more free speech awakenings, please.
	I would like free speech awakenings.
	These are good.
	We generally want people to be pro-free speech, don't we?
	I mean, I am a free speech extremist, as described by the British press, which, okay, I'll take it.
	If I've got to be an extremist of some kind.
	It's like that conspiracy theorist I quite like.
	So yeah, yeah, I do like a good conspiracy theory.
	Maybe Russia tampered with the elections.
	The most recent ones, in fact, involved.
	No, no, no, the most secure in history.
	Anyway, going off topic.
	But anyway.
	So recently, Conch Points has found herself in the position that Alex Jones found himself in about two years ago now, where the noose of censorship has scythed through the alt-right, or the noose, the scythe, I should say.
	Don't mix metaphors, goddammit.
	But the boundaries of what is acceptable to censor has gone from the tyrannical, sort of, you know, the terrifying Nazi types, to then the alt-right, to then the conservatives, and now it's arriving in the center and far left.
	And this is not good for Conch Points because Conch Points is, of course, a leftist.
	And I just say this because of her own tweets, it seems.
	Like, I don't think there's any controversy in me saying this, which is like, you know, when I was an undergrad, I once wrote a paper using the phrase late-stage capitalism.
	My Marxist English professor, of course, underlined it and wrote very optimistic.
	I mean, I agree with the professor, to be honest, is deeply optimistic, because as far as I can tell, capitalism merely means private property ownership.
	And if we are to abolish that, then I think it's very unlikely that's going to be abolished.
	So, I mean, I agree with the professor.
	Thank God, it's unlikely that's going to be abolished.
	Of course, I don't want to start speculating on the future here.
	But anyway, when Lindsay Ellis was being cancelled, Conch Points decided to weigh in.
	This is one of her friends, and she decided, yes, I have a point to make.
	But the thing is, this point has been valid for quite some time, and a lot of people have been making it for quite some time.
	And it just is very Odd that Conch Points, being a fair-minded and decent person, decided not to make it when the people she's not overly fond of weren't were suffering the same problems that now her friends are doing.
	You can say, Well, hey, you know, that's not her job, and maybe that's the case.
	However, I think that she knows that she, as a very influential voice on the left, has a personal responsibility to use that platform in a responsible manner.
	At least, I think that's what the left would say about that.
	So, I think she would have to admit that actually, yes, maybe I should have been speaking out against something that I personally consider to be an evil that is being perpetuated by the very people who are listening to my videos.
	But anyway, Lindsay Ellis got cancelled because she made a ridiculous comparison.
	And I say ridiculous, not because the comparison itself was crazy, but the way that it was framed and the reaction that it triggered, she said that, I don't know, Raya or some anime thing was basically the part of a genre which is Avatar the Last Airbend and knockoffs.
	Probably a true criticism.
	I've never seen this Rare thing.
	But this was misinterpreted maliciously by hate mobs on Twitter because any famous figure, no matter where they come from, who they are, they get hate followers and people who are just genuinely just dislike them for their own personal reasons.
	And on Twitter, these people can gather into quite a sizable mob.
	And they came down on Lindsay Ellis.
	Finally, we can cancel her.
	Finally.
	And so Lindsay Ellis closed her Twitter account down for a day, went off, licked her wounds, did a video going, oh, cancel culture is when your own community tells you off.
	It's like, that's bollocks, Lindsay, and you know it.
	You know, if that's it by your definition, Alex Jones, Tommy Robinson, if I'm even allowed to mention the name, and of course, a sitting president of the United States weren't cancelled.
	So what do we describe them as having had done to them?
	Because it was a damn sight worse than what was done to you by people on the internet who hate you.
	If cancelling doesn't involve deplatforming anymore, then I guess we'll just call it the digital death sentence then.
	So cancel culture is now not the problem.
	Digital mobs going around shooting people in the streets are the problem.
	Anyway, the point being, she says here, I'll call it cancel culture trope 9, Encyclopedia Problematica.
	This is quite clever, actually.
	Well done, Natalie.
	There is a parallel between Diet Nazi Internet, which is 8 Chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the Kiwi Farms Doxes, and Twitter Woke Scolds in this tactic of anthologizing a person's entire history of misdeeds and embarrassments and weaponizing it to harass them.
	Compare Encyclopedia Dramatica doing this, and she's noticed the same thing has happened with Lindsay Ellis because Lindsay Ellis used to be a comedian and made jokes on the internet.
	And man, who hasn't been punished for jokes they've made on the internet?
	The rape rap video that Lindsay Ellis made just, you know, in like 2012 or something, like a decade ago, 12 years later, as she says.
	It's 2009, sorry.
	Again, it was like an obvious pastiche, an obvious parody.
	The joke was the idea that there could be someone so unable to understand that the advocacy that they're making is morally evil that it's funny.
	I mean, now I've had to explain it.
	It's no longer funny, is it?
	But it's a genuinely funny video.
	And it's got this kind of like red dwarf style aesthetic to it, which makes it kind of, you know, campy.
	And, you know, everyone's in on the joke that this is a really low-budget production done by a bunch of mates.
	But there is also something they're doing.
	So, you know, you accept the premise and you carry on.
	But ContraPoints, anyway, getting back to this, ContraPoints is completely right.
	There is indeed an exact parallel, but it's not just a parallel.
	There's a huge amount of crossover.
	It's amazing.
	I see all the time leftists throwing Nazi-made memes at me because I opposed the leftists and the Nazis, but I repeat myself.
	I see these all the time.
	I'm like, wow, if they knew who made that, they'd flip that bloody shit.
	But there's no point like trying to go into it.
	But the point being is it's something that we have to talk about because it seems to happen to everyone.
	And is that something that we want to have as a part of life on social media?
	It would seem that Natalie agrees that maybe this isn't such a good thing.
	And I agree with her.
	I think that's a fine position to hold.
	Again, it seems a bit self-serving.
	Now it's got to this point because this has been going on for years and it's been the ruination of many a content creator who you have to go elsewhere to find.
	Personally, I prefer BitChute just because I think it's a good platform and like good concept for a platform and everyone seems to be on it.
	It seems to be politically neutral.
	So it's not just people who have deplatformed that are on it.
	It seems everyone just has a parallel account there.
	And BitChute seems to have grown quite well and it's not monetizable yet, but I believe that's coming, blah, blah, blah.
	Anyway, and now internet censorship has hit ContraPoints.
	So one of the sort of most mainstream of left-wing content creators and YouTube are like, hmm, you know what that video that millions of people have watched and that you made, I don't know how many years ago, we're just suddenly going to whack you.
	You get this.
	Eat it.
	She says, three years and four million views after upload.
	Today, YouTube has age-restricted my video in cells.
	Age restriction significantly reduces visibility, requiring views to be logged in and suppressing it.
	Yes, indeed.
	YouTube's community guidelines are supposed to make it clear to creators what content is allowed on the platform.
	Wow, where have I heard this before?
	This is a good complaint.
	I wonder who has ever voiced this before.
	Amazing.
	The guidelines are enforced very arbitrarily.
	Wow, if only someone had said this before ContraPoints.
	But now that ContraPoints has said it, maybe YouTube could change its ways.
	The guidelines are enforced arbitrarily, worse than arbitrarily.
	The video restriction slash removal is very often triggered by an easily abused system.
	That's true.
	People have been complaining about that for years, but those people, I guess you would say, are right wingers.
	And therefore, not my problem.
	Not my problem.
	Ooh, God.
	Cancel culture is coming from Lindsay Ellis.
	That was a bit close.
	Don't like that.
	Oh, God, I've been hit.
	Oh, I need to take to Twitter to complain about this cancel culture and censorship now.
	Bloody self-serving, isn't it, Natalie?
	You know, when this is happening to everyone else, crickets.
	Now it's happening to you and your buddies.
	Oh, we've gone too far.
	Maybe you shouldn't start it.
	Maybe this was inevitable.
	You don't know exactly what you can get away with.
	Oh, sorry, I missed one.
	Randomly enforced restrictions are more restrictive than ones that are consistently enforced.
	Yes, in fact, you could suggest that this is how tyrannical regimes maintain their reign of terror.
	In fact, you would if you did any reading of the 20th century, which I'm sure ContraPoints, again, has done.
	If enforcement is consistent, you know what rules are and you know you can work around them, but arbitrary enforcement forces you into superstitious, neurotic self-censorship.
	Very well said.
	And that's not good for anyone, is it?
	That's not good for the content creator themselves.
	And if YouTube claims to care about their content creators and even insufferable lefties are getting whacked with the censorship algorithms, maybe they don't.
	And maybe you should have disagreed with them at the very first rather than at the very last.
	That seems to me to have been the more ethical thing to do here.
	You don't know exactly what you can get away with.
	So you start bleeping, blurring, and omitting anything that could be possibly evocative of sex, drugs, violence, profanity, hate speech, or bullying.
	This is bad for art.
	Wow.
	Don't disagree, but who made that point?
	It seems so far that ContraPoints, her position, has totally harmonized with the saga of a CAD position on censorship.
	All of these are not original arguments.
	They've been made many times.
	And not original to me either, by the way.
	It's just that I was one of the first people to start voicing them in this sort of way.
	But anyway, suppose you're a history YouTuber.
	Can you show images of Nazi Germany for educational purposes?
	According to the community guidelines, yes, but in practice, such videos are often restricted or removed for hate speech.
	Yeah, this has happened many times as well.
	It's actually, it's unbelievably dumb.
	Suppose you're a feminist or sex educator.
	Can you say certain words?
	I'm not going to say them.
	But anyway, she says, finally, free speech should be reclaimed as an essential leftist issue.
	I just can't go over it.
	How?
	How could that possibly be done when it's the left that has been responsible for most of the censorship that's happened?
	How could that be the case?
	The left is the driving force behind censorship at the moment.
	If it wasn't for leftist Twitter mobs screeching constantly and mass flagging and complaining about every little thing that violates the tenets of woke ideology, then there would be no censorship at all.
	In fact, this isn't even like, this isn't even hypothetical, right?
	You can go back four years and you find yourself in exactly the position where the left at the time do not have the power and the influence to pressure the Silicon Valley tech giants into obedience.
	They simply weren't capable.
	And so you had quite large alt-right channels.
	You had all of the sort of, you know, anti-SJW, like skeptic channels.
	You had all of the right-wing channels.
	They were all safe, all secure.
	They all had their videos.
	They all had their monetization.
	And YouTube was bloody brilliant.
	Everyone enjoyed it.
	It was an absolute booming time.
	YouTube was such a good place to be.
	And then the left started losing the arguments.
	Losing them hard.
	I mean, there's another tweet that I actually didn't get up for this, where Natalie's like, what happened to feminism?
	I feel like a few years ago, it was like the main dialogue.
	Feminism won.
	Like, everyone believes the intersectional, they were forced to believe the intersectional view of the world now, the feminist view of the world.
	It's amazing.
	Like, there are people in the UK where the judge literally would turn around and say, if you believe that biological sex is immutable, that is an opinion that is, quote, not worthy of democratic consideration.
	If you're not woke, then somehow you're anti-democracy is the message that is coming through there.
	Incredible.
	It's just unbelievable, the sort of crap that comes out of the left at this point.
	And the fact that we're all having to bend the knee to this or else.
	And in my country, for legal, with legal ramifications.
	It's insane.
	Like, misogyny is a hate crime in Nottingham, and I think they're rolling out in a few other places.
	What the hell does that even mean?
	Like, I don't, look, what do you mean?
	Hatred of women, but what's a woman?
	Like, define woman for me, and then we might be able to talk about hatred of them.
	Anyway, you can't reclaim free speech as an essential leftist issue because you have pathologized speech as being a form of violence.
	Speech is the exercise of power.
	And this means, from the leftist perspective, that any speech that challenges whatever it is you like, as in, goes against your particular ideological tenets or is what you can classify as hate speech, which are things that are entirely arbitrary and do not actually exist outside of leftist orthodoxy.
	This means you can't do it.
	You are completely stuck with the monster you have created.
	So you are in part responsible for your own censorship, Natalie.
	And you've doubtless converted so many people to the woke Twitter mob that goes around harassing people online.
	You played a large part in this.
	But anyway, she says, we should not surrender the most fundamental civil right to Google LLC in the name of deplatforming rightists and contailing harassment.
	It's not worth the cost.
	There we have it.
	Not worth the cost.
	That's the sort of thing you say when you are in a war and you are thinking, how can I take a strategic position?
	And Natalie is saying that our war about deplatforming the rightists from the left has been a pyrrhic victory.
	We may have won these battles, but look, now we're starting to lose the war.
	Not good, I guess.
	Maybe you should have thought about that before you decided that it was okay to persecute people because they thought differently to you, which is an implicit assumption of what you have written there.
	You are not saying that censorship is bad in theory, in abstract, before it connects with reality.
	You're saying that censorship is not bad in theory.
	The problem is that in practice, it's starting to hurt us.
	Your position is entirely self-serving.
	This means there is nothing principled about it.
	So you are actually a grifter.
	You're sat there looking at your shekels, looking at your reach, looking at your credibility, and thinking, ooh, I might be hurt by this.
	That means this has to go.
	It's an unacceptably immoral position.
	It's entirely selfish.
	I despise it.
	And it's also very hypocritical.
	And like I said, it's not like Natalie wasn't behind all of this.
	As you can follow me on Gab, by the way, where I'm a verified checkmark.
	So, but I do love it when a new free speech warrior is born.
	Look at the old tweets from 2016.
	I got like seven likes.
	I love it.
	So SJW is a part of a victim cult.
	But every time someone criticizes you, you complain your free speech is taken away.
	No one has ever said this.
	This is such a phenomenally embarrassing straw man.
	I'm amazed that even in 2016, you'd say something like this.
	Like, nobody has ever said this.
	Nobody.
	We, I guess the non-left, love criticism.
	We love it.
	We love when you do like hour-long videos so we can watch them and deconstruct them.
	We love it when you sit there whining on Twitter about us.
	We love when you complain and criticize.
	That's great.
	That's not someone's free speech being taken away.
	It is the woke scold mob.
	And now, to be fair, right, to Natalie, to be fair, that was a tweet from 2016.
	Before the woke scold mob on Twitter was capable of taking down Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson or whoever or me or the president, before they had this power, this is what she was saying.
	Oh, you're saying you're going to take your free speech away.
	Yes.
	That's exactly what the inference was.
	Inductively, it seemed strong, Natalie.
	You know what that means.
	It meant that there seemed to be more than enough evidence that that was what was going to happen.
	And that's what did happen.
	And so now you're like, oh, by the way, stop oppressing me.
	I'm being censored on YouTube.
	Yes.
	You did this.
	You were part of it.
	This whole rhetorical move of responding to criticism with stop attacking my free speech needs to stop now.
	No, what needs to happen is the left needs to stop attacking free speech, which you can't do.
	And TSJWs have this problem where they respond to any criticism saying, stop attacking my free speech.
	Again, nonsense.
	Free speech warriors are not neutral advocates.
	They have a very specific set of sympathies.
	Yeah, to free speech.
	They have an a priori assumption that free speech is a natural human right because they can see their own mouths moving and think, well, if everyone can do this, this must be something that's essentially just innate to human beings.
	And maybe it's wrong to allow the government or Google or whoever to take that away from people.
	I mean, you know, those people who read Locke, you know, those assholes on the internet who think that human rights should be innate are just such a group of people who are just the absolute problem.
	But I love what she said here because this is not untrue, right?
	Free speech warriors are not neutral advocates.
	Of course not.
	What the hell's a neutral advocate?
	What the hell could someone who's neutral possibly advocate for?
	Like, it's like the neutrals for Futurama.
	Like, they go, I have no strong feelings one way or another.
	Oh, contra points, we've found your neutral advocate here.
	They can't advocate for anything because everything you would say is, well, that's ideological.
	That's ideological.
	So they've got to sit there and be nothing.
	Obviously, they're not neutral advocates, genius.
	They have a very specific set of sympathies.
	You can say that about anyone.
	Talk about a comment without content.
	You are now a free speech advocate and you have a very specific set of sympathies.
	Oh, no.
	Does that make what you have to say invalid?
	No.
	So why did you say it like it does then?
	It's insane.
	And then, of course, on the other side of this meme that's been going around, you know, we've got ContraPoints complaining, oh, free speech should be reclaimed as an essential leftist issue.
	Good luck.
	Good luck.
	And then you have people like Kyle Kalinsky, who, again, I still watch, which is how I came across this video.
	And on almost all of the points, I think he's basically wrong and in an echo chamber.
	But the one point that he has always consistently held to was that free speech good.
	Free speech good.
	I mean, but the thing is, his problem is exactly the same as ContraPoints.
	Listen.
	And so they're never going to stop.
	And people on the left who have seen these things in the past have been screaming at the top of their lungs that you can't agree in principle to the deplatforming and the censorship because we're ultimately the main targets over time.
	Because think about it.
	When you give powers to the censors, who are the censors?
	Who are the people who are going to determine what is and isn't allowed?
	Great question.
	We'll cover that shortly.
	But as you can see, he's literally just like, you can't do this in principle because it will affect us.
	He's not arguing that in principle it is bad, even though I know that he believes this.
	He's just arguing from a pragmatic utilitarian perspective.
	It will affect us, therefore don't do it.
	I mean, you could literally have any kind of World War II analogy.
	You know, it could be anyone like, oh, we could blow up this fuel depot.
	And it's like, okay, we could, but we were thinking about taking that territory and that would be bad for us.
	So let's not do that.
	You know, this would be bad.
	We could do this, but it's bad for us.
	You know, you could literally come up with any kind of analogy for this that just shows that the moral content in what they're saying is entirely consequential, right?
	There's no moral consideration in what should be.
	It is purely about what has happened.
	And so it's like, you can censor all you like according to the formulation as put out by secular talk, by Kyle, and of course by Conscience Points themselves.
	You can argue for censorship all day, and they can't argue that it's bad.
	They will agree with you that censorship is a good thing until it hits them.
	And yeah, someone in the chat was like, you know, this is the worst kind of censorship, the kind that affects me.
	It's such a caricature of futurama.
	It's embarrassing.
	But anyway.
	So the reason this is all annoyed me, I guess.
	Not annoyed me.
	I mean, obviously annoys me, but like the reason I think this is worth talking about is because after two years, two long years of me having reapplied to get my main, this channel remonetized.
	Not that it matters whether this channel's remonetized or not, of course, but just see what would happen, right?
	Because I didn't expect them to say yes.
	But what I also didn't expect is for them to essentially just be like, no, because it's you, right?
	So I, to re-monetize my channel, I was like, okay, I'll play by the rules.
	I'll do exactly everything they're saying.
	So I went through all the videos and anything that had even like a hint of like, you know, here's a warning or a, you know, anything about it, you know, age restriction, any, anything that would have been picked up.
	I just deleted all those videos.
	Just gone forever, right?
	So I can't remember how many millions of views that was, but it was a lot of views that just taken off my channel.
	Okay, fine.
	And so reapply.
	And this was the message I got back.
	This is just like, no, we just don't like you.
	You have been flagged for severe violations of our policies.
	And there's nothing you can do about it.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	So that's just me, YouTube, judgment, even though I've really done nothing wrong.
	You know, I'm in trouble for the same reason that Lindsay Ellis is in trouble.
	I told a joke, a joke that wasn't a crime.
	The police were contacted.
	They spoke to me about it.
	They said it wasn't a crime.
	I've not got any charge.
	I don't have a criminal record.
	I've never had an interaction with the police that wasn't entirely polite.
	I've never seen the inside of a courtroom.
	And yet YouTube, like you, you're a bad person.
	Get fucked.
	Get fucked.
	You're making moral judgments about me.
	Holy crap, you're the biggest censor in the world.
	There is no bigger censor than YouTube.
	You destroy more content than anything else.
	And you've got the bulls top.
	No, you're a bad person.
	Thanks, YouTube.
	Don't know why.
	Don't know why you're so bothered about protecting an MP in Britain from jokes.
	We actually have a time-honored tradition in Britain of making jokes.
	Like we make, all we do is mock our elected politicians because that's what they're there for.
	Something about legislating as well, but mostly to be mocked, to make sure they know their place because they're meant to be public servants.
	And here's YouTube going, whoa, peasant, sit down.
	You're anathematized forever.
	Don't you forget it.
	And I found this Conscious Points answer to this.
	And I find this hilarious because essentially what ConsciPoints is admitting here is that the left has no solutions.
	So this is from something called the Bad Faith podcast, which is hilarious because, I mean, like when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
	Like if you if someone calls themselves the bad faith podcast, believe them.
	If some of them calls themselves vice magazine, believe them.
	You know, just the, you know, the things you do dictate the things that you are.
	Anyway, this is ConsciPoints on what can be done about cancel culture.
	Now it's affecting her and her friends.
	What can we do?
	So allowing that people sometimes make mistakes and are rightly criticized, it feels like there is a cultural void when it comes to what penitent absolution looks like.
	The options are excommunication from society or no consequences whatsoever.
	Yeah, I've actually had the thought.
	So let's just interrupt our kind host here.
	I love this.
	The options are excommunication from society or no consequences whatsoever.
	I find that incredible because what she's doing there is completely compressing the issue into a binary when obviously it's not.
	Lindsay Ellis was recently cancelled as described by the left.
	However, she's describing what happened to Lindsay Ellis and everyone else, of course, as no consequences whatsoever.
	No, there are definitely consequences when a large gang of organized people start sending you abuse on social media.
	It's not very pleasant.
	I mean, it's not, it's happened to me many times.
	It's not pleasant, but it's also not the end of the world.
	But it is a form of consequence.
	And what it is, is a social consequence whereupon something essential to your functioning, your operation is not deprived from you, right?
	So it's people making independent decisions.
	This is in fact quite liberal.
	We want people to be able to make their own independent decisions.
	If that means tweeting that Lindsay Ellis is a cow or whatever it was for saying something about Asians, which she didn't, or that's, you know, people unsubscribing from your channel, or maybe that's people subscribing to your channel because they happen to like whatever it is or whatever it is.
	They might hate watch you.
	I don't know.
	There are consequences.
	However, she's framing it purely from the position of the authority, from the power, rather than from the position of the individual who is actually engaged in what's happening.
	Why would you, I mean, from YouTube's position, yeah, nothing's happened to these people, so why do they care?
	From the government's position, nothing's happened, so why do they care?
	But from the individual's position, something definitely has happened, and I think that they do care, and I find it bizarre that she takes this quite anti-human perspective on it.
	But anyway, this is ContraPoint's reply.
	Clever.
	Yeah, I've actually had the thought that it'd be better to have something like internet panels of restorative justice.
	And I know that's it.
	That sounds hilarious.
	That sounds hilarious.
	Sorry.
	Sounds like super dystopian, but I would argue it's way less dystopian than what we currently have.
	Oh, that's so funny.
	It's way less dystopian than what we currently have.
	Who created that?
	Oh, you did, in part.
	As well as all of these other lefty creators.
	They did as well.
	They all have their burden to bear, I think, in this regard.
	So it's interesting how you're like, hmm, this is too dystopian.
	Like, is this affecting me?
	We need something slightly less dystopian.
	Because I would like to have the people I don't like persecuted, but I don't want to be persecuted.
	The bender position.
	Literally, this is bad.
	Now it affects me.
	That's amazing.
	So how much dystopianism does ContraPoints want exactly, do you think?
	And I mean, I like the fact that the very concept of not living in a dystopia is alien to the left at this point.
	They just don't understand the idea of not living in a dystopia.
	The question is, how can the dystopia affect the people they don't like?
	It's always nice when the mask comes off, isn't it?
	It's always nice.
	Like, but if people who had, you know, so suppose someone's going through a cancelling event.
	I think we all know what that means at this point, right?
	Oh, the tweet is trending.
	We're talking about it, right?
	If we were able to kind of have, I don't know, like a live stream or something with a peacekeeper or mediator where like the person who is accused is sort of able to sort of, I don't know, face the people, the group of people that's maybe hurt by this and like able to kind of try to understand where each other is coming from.
	If we can see if this, you know, gives them try to get some sense for if the person who's, you know, who did Blackface 20 years ago has actually moved on or not.
	Do they understand why this is bad?
	Like, is it, you know, have they done things in the time sense that would sort of be the opposite values of that in action?
	Well, does Lindsay Ellis recant the fact that she thinks that this Raya program is basically a clone of Avatar, the last airbender?
	Because if she hasn't, I mean, it's been a while, it's been like two weeks, then she should stay cancelled, shouldn't she?
	Because a bunch of people on Twitter didn't like that.
	But this is such a terrible argument, and I find it embarrassing.
	So let's go through it slowly.
	Mamie, the person who is accused is sort of able to, I don't know, face the group of people maybe hurt by this.
	I love it.
	I love everything about it.
	And that's what I was trying to do at VidCon 2017 when I went to hear Anisakesian speak.
	If she hadn't flipped out and started abusing me from the stage, I would have gone up and asked a question.
	But because she abused me, I thought, hmm, probably best not to try and inflame the tensions of this anymore.
	And so I didn't go up and ask my question, which would have been precisely that.
	Why can't you talk to people who disagree with you?
	The people that think that you are hurting them in some emotional way.
	So how are you going to make that happen, ConsciPoints?
	That's exactly what the left has been dodging by all of the deplatforming.
	That's why the deplatformings are happening.
	Because the left doesn't want to have these kind of interactions.
	And so once again, you're talking about dystopian struggle sessions that are essentially for left-wing creators only.
	Whoever is within the club gets to go through the struggle session on the internet in front of presumably the whole world.
	What a horrible thought.
	Anyway, the next part was trying to understand where they're coming from.
	Well, apparently that's not an option anymore.
	And yes, right, okay, I think that's pretty much it.
	And then this chap starts making jokes.
	It's an online revolutionary tribunal.
	Not really a surprise, is it?
	Coming from the online revolutionaries that you would finally get down to the tribunals which I'm sure dispensed a lot of justice.
	I mean, I've read a fair amount about the French Revolution.
	I wouldn't have said there was much justice involved.
	Looking forward to that Thermidorian reaction, though.
	You know it's coming.
	But yeah, anyway, I don't think there's much justice involved in any of that.
	I mean, it is dystopian.
	And I agree, actually, it is actually less dystopian than what we have now.
	But only for those people who have a shred of hope of redemption, which is, as ConsciPoints had presupposed, someone who has moved on from what they did, which assumes that they did something wrong.
	And that assumes that you agree with the left-wing dogma that classifies it as wrong in the first place.
	But I don't.
	And therefore, I can never be found innocent by your left-wing tribunals, which is why I think I'll probably have to refuse them.
	I think I'll go to alt media in its entirety before I go through some kind of YouTube woke tribunal.
	I can't watch the rest of this, by the way, because it's behind these people's Patreon account.
	And there's absolutely no way I'm paying for something called the bad faith podcast.
	Like, in principle, I will not do that because the people there are obviously operating in bad faith.
	Again, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
	Anyway, chat, let's hang out for 20 minutes or so, and then now I'm going to go to bed because I'll work tomorrow.
	We've got a new start, by the way.
	We've got History Bro, Bodade.
	We're going to be doing history podcasts.
	Very excited about it.
	Very excited about it.
	The first one is going to be the voyage of Hanno the Navigator because this is something that I just find really interesting.
	Someone, I'm going to be demonetized, dude.
	A bit late for that.
	Anyway, I want to go through a woke tribunal.
	Yeah, I mean, to be honest with you, right?
	There's a part of me that does want to go through a woke tribunal, to be honest.
	Bring me the people who I've been trying to talk to for the past seven years, and they can tell me why they think I'm a bad person face to face.
	And I will tell them back why I think that, in fact, they owe me an apology.
	This is actually something again, like massive L's will be taken by the left until they abolish the tribunals because they keep defeating them.
	But a trapped gay, yes.
	Can you interview David Sarki again?
	I will do my best.
	When is Hello Weird going to be exposed?
	I don't know what that is.
	Thoughts on the Pesobiak versus Destiny interaction from his live stream?
	Ah, yes.
	Yes, I very much enjoyed the Better Discourses event.
	It was overall, right?
	Surprisingly good.
	I enjoyed Jangles looking like he was about to explode.
	His position was indefensible, so he couldn't actually resist it.
	Destiny going up and asking Jack Pesobiak the question about the CIA was brilliant, frankly.
	Because here you have Destiny, an internet streamer.
	And I agree, someone who probably should have been on the panel, to be honest.
	They would have been better than the other people who didn't really have that much to say.
	Although Elijah Schaefer was surprisingly cogent, I think.
	People, you know, he was right about a lot of stuff.
	But yeah, so is Jack Psobiak.
	And Destiny, being an online streamer, knows nothing about a lot of the things that he's talking about.
	Not first-hand, direct understanding of these things.
	Whereas obviously Jack Psobiak, having been in the military and the intelligence agencies, knows how they function.
	And so Jack is telling them, look, the intelligence agencies aren't your friends and they are corrupt.
	And Destiny's just like, well, where do we get our information from then?
	Well, the same place you normally get your information from.
	Get your information from evidence.
	And if the intelligence agencies aren't providing it, where do you go?
	You find it wherever you can get it.
	It could be a news article, it could be Twitter, it could be photos someone has sent to you.
	It could be you being there directly experiencing it.
	But you get it from evidence.
	You don't need to just simply go, oh, well, then, are we supposed to listen to China's intelligence services?
	No, obviously not, mate.
	You know, you know, that's obviously nonsense.
	But what you're trying to do is derive some sort of deductive conclusion from those things that are only inductively strong or weak.
	You can't ever really be sure about these things unless you're going to go there and check.
	So you have to make assumptions.
	And I definitely don't think you should make assumptions that the intelligence services are just telling you the truth.
	And as Aiden Paladin in the chat points out, he did embarrass Dick Wolfo, and yes, he did.
	And I just want to say, right, I don't, I'm not dunking on Destiny.
	I actually am surprisingly becoming a fan of Destiny these days.
	He's doing a really, really good job at just asking the socialists why.
	Why is any of this beneficial?
	I can't remember what they were, but when he went through a debate with Dick Wolf, is it Dick Wolf?
	It is Dick Wolf, isn't it?
	Is it Richard Wolf?
	Yeah, it's Dick Wolf.
	When he asked them the five questions, there's no good answer to any of them from a socialist position.
	And this is a very, very effective way of approaching it.
	I'm actually really impressed.
	And Destiny's a fantastic debater anyway.
	But the problem is, he is trying to defend positions that are just basically untenable.
	And I guess that's uncomfortable.
	But anyway, I think the whole thing throughout the day's events, the left-wingers were generally quite underwhelming and incredibly ideological.
	The only one I'm actually impressed with was Riley Dennis, who I think handled herself impeccably, actually, especially given it was a three-on-one debate she was having.
	And she not only defended her position admirably, even though I disagree with it, but she also handled herself with a great deal of dignity, which I'm actually really impressed by and is an example to everyone, not just to the left.
	I've made my mistakes too.
	Because, and to give them some sympathy, it is difficult.
	It's difficult when you've got so many eyes on you and it feels like there is so much at stake, it's easy to lose your rag.
	It really is.
	And so, good on her for not, basically.
	And honestly, like, you know, there's no point pathologizing any of these people who did or anything like that.
	It happens.
	It's just a human moment.
	And it's okay to have human moments.
	But again, I guess you'll have to go through a tribunal to see if you get to become a human again.
	How is fitness and back pang going?
	Fitness, pretty good.
	Generally, actually.
	Riding my bike to work every day.
	I feel pretty good.
	I feel great, actually, to be honest.
	I would love to go on Tim Cast IRL.
	Tim keeps inviting me, but unfortunately, my government won't let me leave the country, so I can't.
	When I can, I will.
	And, you know, love Tim.
	Love Mabini.
	Simple as.
	No, Tim's a great guy.
	Will I join Arch's new Warhammer roleplay?
	He didn't invite me, but to be honest with you, I don't have the time.
	No, I'm sure he didn't invite me because he knows I don't have the time.
	Leftists need to read Frankenstein more.
	The monster you create never studies under your will.
	It always attacks you in the end.
	They never learn this.
	Yes.
	Restorative justice is just revenge with revolutionary characteristics.
	That's not how they would argue it.
	But that's essentially what it will turn into.
	And I think, again, Control Place has to know this because she is well educated enough to know that the left can never resolve its contradictions.
	It can never come to a conclusion.
	It can never establish an order with which it itself would be happy.
	And everything that it does presumes that the only good is in a good will.
	And I really don't agree with that.
	I think that there are people who don't have especially goodwills, but can still do good things.
	And I think there are people with good wills who sometimes do bad things or make mistakes or do things that other people don't find good, but that's because they have a different interpretation of what good and bad are.
	And so it's not nearly that simple.
	And this attempts to adhere to the political orthodoxy, what they call political correctness, what we would call this, is, I think, totally, totally unacceptable.
	I don't see why we should have to demand that someone to be considered a human being agrees with any one political point of view.
	Someone's asking for an invite to the Discord.
	Let me see if I can generate one.
	It's been a while since I've done this.
	So, let me, right, I should be able to whack that in the chat.
	I'll, uh...
	I'll pin that, in fact, so you can join my Discord if you like.
	Can I watch Berserk?
	I haven't watched Berserk, so I've never heard of him, I'm afraid.
	What do you think of the Meme Magic comic strip?
	I'm not familiar with Meme Magic Comic Strip, I'm afraid.
	I do believe in Meme Magic, though.
	I haven't been yeeted off Discord yet.
	No, I haven't.
	The allegations were, of course, made that we do Nazi organizing on my Discord.
	And I found that very offensive because there's no f ⁇ ing way that I would ever be a socialist.
	And add to that, there's no way I'd ever be a German sympathizer either.
	I'm against Germanism in all of its forms, if that helps.
	But basically, they couldn't prove that we organize anything Nazi on my Discord, because obviously we don't.
	And so they didn't de-platform us, which is nice.
	I like my Discord a lot, and we spend a lot of time keeping it in good shape.
	So, yeah.
	Can we get an apology for your keto tyranny?
	Never.
	Never.
	Where's my shame bell?
	God damn it.
	Right.
	I'm publicly shaming the English loyalist for daring, daring to suggest.
	Yeah.
	Shame.
	For daring to suggest that we're allowed to eat sugar.
	We are not allowed to eat sugar.
	Sugar-free zone.
	That's what this is.
	Notice your Starship Troopers Vid is public again.
	Doesn't seem that old in 2018.
	Why'd you bring it back to the NASA?
	Well, I didn't really.
	I didn't.
	Honestly, when they started copy striking, I was just like, it's available on BitChute, blah, blah, blah.
	It's fine.
	But the thing is, for some reason, the BitChute upload just doesn't play very well, or it doesn't play at all for a lot of people.
	And I uploaded it to Facebook because I thought, okay, well, screw it.
	You know, I'll put it on Facebook then.
	And Facebook was like, ah, this is copy struck as well.
	So this is only available in like 12 countries or something.
	Okay, fine.
	So then I went just back on YouTube.
	And I was like, okay, well, I know that I'm using this footage for commentary in an hour and a half long video essay.
	This is obviously not a reproduction of the original work and it's obviously not a substitution for the original work.
	Therefore, I will enter the legal challenge.
	And I expected, honestly, to have to go to court over it or something like that, which would be insufferable.
	But instead, they just almost instantly released the copyright.
	So now, boof, it's back.
	It's like, oh, well, that's good.
	So now it's back on YouTube, which is great.
	It's honestly one of my proudest videos, obviously, but the politics of Demolition Man, I thought, was also very good.
	Very pleased with that, too.
	But I will be doing more videos like that in the future, but, you know, as we are.
	I missed some things I wanted to.
	Do I eat pork?
	Of course I eat pork.
	Pork's delicious.
	And free from sugar.
	Have you seen Godzilla versus Kong?
	No.
	No.
	Was there an Oscar that was a given?
	Or something like that?
	Of course not.
	I'm joking.
	Dump the sugar in the London River.
	Yes.
	Free yourselves.
	It's all very Brave New World.
	You don't even know why you should be free of the sugar.
	But the sugar is a drug.
	It's addictive.
	It's enervating.
	It's preventing you from being men.
	Don't you want to be men?
	Put down the sugar.
	No, only the people who have watched my Brave New World book review will get that.
	What's my main criticism of BreadTube?
	Jesus, I kind of don't know.
	Can I pick just one?
	The main criticisms I have of BreadTube are not the intellectual dishonesty.
	They're not the rampant partisanship.
	And people are like, us, us, us in the chat.
	It's like, yeah, that's their entire, entire platform at this point.
	It's not even that, right?
	It's not a complete absence of first principles and it's not a complete absence of moral methods.
	It's the fact that they are unironically defending the status quo and the power structures.
	I can't get over it.
	Anyone in BreadTube could have voted or advocated for Joe Biden, like Concha Points itself.
	It's like, I guess you're going to have to vote for Joe Biden then.
	Why?
	If you're a communist, why wouldn't you want, like, you know, upheaval?
	Why wouldn't you want something revolutionary to happen?
	Trump's a lot closer to that than Joe Biden is.
	Joe Biden is just a restoration of an order that's lived in the United States, ruled the United States for like 20 years now.
	Trump was an interruption of that.
	You know, why be like, yeah, well, vote status quo 2020?
	That's embarrassing.
	Like, every leftist going, Joe Biden will do it.
	Joe Biden is the thing you hated, dumbasses.
	Utterly corrupt, straight old white man with a history of racism.
	How on earth, and God only knows what other kind of isms that you guys hate.
	How on earth could you possibly have supported Joe Biden?
	It's like you don't even have the idp aspect to it.
	And the only reason that he gets away with anything, really, is because he is allowing the people who puppeteer him to make the policy decisions.
	And a lot of those are quite left-wing because the left-wing has just become the norm, like intersectional left has become the norm on the left.
	There is no sort of the dirtbag left are in the process of getting censored out of existence.
	So, oops.
	Too bad, I guess.
	Your mere concepts of justice, liberty, of civic duties will all die in great Cthulhu.
	And it won't even be a loss.
	Trump wasn't perfect, but he was the God Emperor.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly how I feel about it.
	I like Trump's imperfections towards the end, to be honest.
	I thought, you know what?
	Yeah, no, great.
	Fuck you.
	Oh, you don't like it?
	That's too bad.
	I hope he tweets some more.
	Emotional attachment to the identity of the left absolutely overrides all of that.
	Yeah, it does.
	That is, but it's not the worst thing they do.
	The worst thing they do to me is, for me, is protecting the power structures because the power structures are vocal and sympathetic.
	Like watching all these international multi-billion dollar businesses put like a little gay flag on the LGBT pride flag or whatever it is, and the Black Lives Matter flag, it's like, are you with them now?
	Are you?
	You're with Amazon, are you?
	Because they've got a little flag in their bio on Twitter.
	Is that you defending them, is it?
	Weird.
	Very weird.
	But there we go.
	The Marxist fears this with Christianity.
	That's true.
	Absolutely true.
	The Marxists being completely materialistic have abolished any kind of sacred understanding of what it is to be a human.
	The Christians at least have that sacred understanding, whether you agree with the presuppositions to it or not, which of course I don't as an atheist.
	But that doesn't mean, okay, well, you know, theoretically, I don't agree with the Christians.
	However, in action, they seem to do okay.
	And the consequences of them doing okay seem to be a net positive.
	So two out of three ain't bad.
	You know, it could be worse.
	Devin says, we got kicked out on our butts.
	I'm a lefty, but the Western left has gone insane.
	I got labeled an ableist for going to the gym at 6.30 a.m.
	Well, you're basically a right-winger.
	Going to the gym?
	Don't you know that Jim Bros are right-wing?
	I mean, you're probably not going to, you know, die young or something.
	You probably don't have tremendous mental illnesses.
	So you can see how you're not fit for the left at all.
	Marx lives rent-free in your heads.
	Marx lives rent-free in all of our heads, unfortunately.
	I mean, it's really embarrassing.
	Like, his ideas are so demonstrably silly, though.
	Like, don't be wrong.
	Everyone's like, oh, the critique is good.
	Yes, and I've said this myself before.
	The critique is good in one dimension.
	But there are multiple dimensions to human beings that Marx does not understand and thinks that are just purely destroyed.
	And where they're not destroyed by capitalism, whatever that means, turning everything into a purely materialistic money relationship, he wants to further destroy them, like the family.
	And the bond between parents and children.
	He wants to actually get rid of that.
	Engels was way worse for this, but Marx wanted that as well.
	It's like, why are you agreeing to the capitalist proposition that the bonds of loyalty and oaths should be abolished and replaced with mere money interactions?
	It's like, well, what do you want to replace it with?
	Nothing.
	I don't want to have anyone to have any interactions or any relations or obligations or oaths or duties to one another.
	It's like, what kind of world would that be?
	Like, normally, ostracization is the worst thing you can do to a person, right?
	It used to just be like the punishment we give someone when we feel that killing them is the wrong thing to do, right?
	So in Athens, it would be ostracized 10 years.
	You can't come to the city for 10 years.
	When it's people now, when they've done something particularly heinous, we put them in solitary confinement.
	So they have no human interaction because human life, the meat of it, the texture, the good bits about being human is contained in our relationships.
	And so sundering these relationships is a way of making someone feel really, really bad, which is incidentally what online censorship is about.
	But getting people to do this themselves and not even knowing that they're doing it again through this sort of constant self-affirmation of clicks.
	On the podcast tomorrow, we're going to cover a story about a woman who literally broke up with the love of her life because of Twitter likes.
	And it's awful.
	It's an awful, it's actually kind of harrowing because by the end of it, of course, I'm not going to spoil it, but it doesn't end up well, as you might imagine.
	And it's just like, look, this is what social media is doing to you, right?
	And it's not just left-wing, the left-wing that has a problem with this.
	They happen to have more of a problem with it, I think, because they don't value the concept of relationship itself.
	But anyway, don't want to go off on a rant about it.
	Can we get an us, us, us, us?
	Well, I mean, that's how these things work.
	Us, us, us.
	It's just all of politics at this point.
	Democracy, the god that failed.
	Yeah, it is.
	Isn't it just?
	Adam Smith didn't believe in what capitalism has become?
	That's true.
	Adam Smith was again, you can't really object to what Adam Smith is saying, really.
	What do I think about the Baltic states?
	As little as possible.
	I don't have any kind of emotional investment in Eastern Europe, really, so I don't really think about it.
	What do you think the possibility that religion was an evolution of quickly uploading ethical information to the masses?
	Not even quickly, really.
	But the point that I think the atheists have missed, and this was exemplified recently in the New Atheists rounding on the American Humanist Association for rescinding an award to Richard Dawkins that was given to him 25 years ago, because he dare point out that, look, if you're going to say that men and women can transition from, you know, males and females can transition into the opposite sex slash gender, whichever it is, then what prevents that happening from race?
	And he just said, discuss.
	The answer is, of course, that there's nothing that prevents this logically.
	The formulation is exactly the same.
	The criteria are exactly the same.
	And therefore, you would think the conclusion would be exactly the same.
	But the thing is, the idea of transracialism is still utterly verboten to the intersectional left at this point.
	And so they essentially had to freak out and be like, Richard Dawkins asked a bad question.
	He's a bad person.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	We're the American Humanist Association.
	We support critical thinking.
	And thankfully, all of the new atheists rounded on the American Humanist Association.
	Sam Harris had the best take of all of this.
	It was basically like a Donald Trump tweet.
	It was like, you know, when everyone's forgotten you existed, why not remind them of your existence by committing suicide?
	Which is basically like, oof, failing humanist association.
	It was such a good line.
	And I do like Sam Harris's one lines.
	But the point is, why?
	Why is the atheist left collapsing into social justice?
	And it's because essentially there appears to be nowhere else to go because I think in ejecting Christianity and the divine origin of morality, they also ejected the virtue ethics that went along with Christianity.
	But the thing is, Christianity, for all its faults and for all of the assumptions that I don't agree with, did get the kind of Aristotelian holistic view of what a human is correct.
	A human being is made up of their position in society and their relationships and the things that they do, their habits.
	That's something that Christianity got right because they took it from Aristotle.
	So the atheists could go a step back and just say, okay, well, let's go back to the ancient Greeks.
	What did Aristotle think about how a person should live their life?
	Because there is actually a great deal of moral content in there.
	Even if we don't think that the universe has a teleology for us, a goal for us, it's like a mission in life.
	Even though I actually think this might be a more defensible position than people give it credit for, I think you can say that evolution has imbued us with something that we should be trying to achieve with our lives.
	I mean, it's quite basic and materialistic, say procreate, obviously.
	But it does seem that there have been a bunch of things that have been handed to us that would be good if we did them.
	And the people who seem to be the happiest and have the most successful lives, those people we might describe as thriving, seem to do those things.
	And the people who don't do those things turn into people who are complaining about everything on Twitter, who put the mental illnesses in their bio and live in giant cities when nobody cares about them.
	Aristotle was right about a lot.
	And the atheists have forgotten this and collapsed into the sort of materialistic communism because, of course, they don't think anything metaphysical really exists, which is wrong.
	I think metaphysics does exist.
	I think that honor, you know, these sort of concepts, these sort of thick relational concepts, they do exist.
	And they're not divine.
	They're not spiritual.
	They're not physical either, but they are real.
	And this is something that we need to consider.
	I hope that answered the question that someone asked me.
	Nihilism is a dead end.
	No way.
	Yeah, I know.
	The idea, the idea of wanting or accepting a nihilistic, like the amazing atheist.
	I watched a video about the amazing atheist the other day.
	And it went something like this.
	We can't demonstrate an objective morality.
	Therefore, everything is subjective.
	Therefore, essentially, there is no God.
	And therefore, why not be a nihilist?
	We're forced into the position of being a nihilist.
	And I'm just amazed at these standards.
	So, I mean, first thing, why do I need there to be an objective morality?
	Objective means something that is an intrinsic part of the universe, that it's something external to ourselves.
	I mean, you can make the argument, as Short Fataka did the other day to me, but he was in a roundabout way trying to be clever clogs about it, but it didn't quite land.
	That, well, I mean, human beings are actually an objective part of the universe.
	So if we have morality in our heads, then morality is an objective part of the universe.
	Nice try.
	But what we're saying is morality that is true from every position, possible observer's position.
	And what he had described really is intersubjective morality.
	But good try, Dev, but I'm watching you.
	But they, okay, so let's assume there is no objective morality.
	There's no morality that's the correct morality.
	Okay, well, so what?
	I mean, literally nobody, nobody on earth actually lives their lives as if under the auspices of a correct morality.
	Everyone's morality, and this is what Height finds.
	This is what Steven Pinker finds.
	All of it is essentially just, I feel this is right.
	And people complain about the last stream and they go, well, Hannah, you can't just be like, this is my feelings.
	It's like, well, why not?
	You're only criticizing it because of your feelings, because you feel that objective morality should be correct.
	Well, there isn't one.
	Now what?
	You feel what?
	You know, now we're back to feelings.
	And it is an aesthetic consideration.
	That's the thing.
	It's not scientific.
	And trying to apply scientific standards to something that isn't scientific is a bit irrational, really, and leaves you in a position where you're kind of flailing and lost and going, well, okay, well, if there's no objective morality, then anything's permissible.
	Everything's permissible.
	And oh, God, I've got no moral compass whatsoever.
	I'm a nihilist.
	Which is really sad to see, because honestly, I do think that TJ is smarter than that.
	I think he is actually smart enough to be better than this.
	But of course, that's up to him, right?
	And it's easy to take this kind of false refuge in just self-abasement.
	But if you actually think, okay, well, what would I want to hand down to my children?
	I doubt TJ would say his nihilistic attitude is what he would wish to imbue in someone else.
	He might be the victim of it in his own view.
	But there we go.
	Someone's saying it's a circular argument.
	Maybe.
	Let me tell you about language.
	How do you think words are defined?
	Words are defined by other words.
	Literally all of it is circular.
	All of it is circular and we just chose it.
	But that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
	That doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
	And it doesn't mean it can't be enough for our purposes, which it is.
	So I don't see why we can't agree that the morality we use can be along the same view.
	I don't have any particular thoughts on Ted Kaczynski.
	For the person who keeps spamming it, please don't keep spamming it.
	I don't want to have to like mute you or anything.
	It's just really annoying.
	I've never read the Unabomber manifesto.
	I probably will at some point because people keep bringing it up.
	But, you know, he holds no particular interest to me.
	But anyway, the point about nihilism, I don't see why we can't say if there are no objectively true moral statements, then we can't have any true moral statements.
	Why can't we accept subjectively true moral statements?
	I think it's a moral wrong to blow up a mosque of people or to a supermarket of people.
	Jihadis disagree with me, and they are wrong.
	Like, they may well say that's a moral good.
	I don't agree.
	And my own opinion on that is enough for me to make moral judgments from.
	And it comes from a simple difference in worldview.
	I just think that it's evil to try and impose a worldwide caliphate on people.
	And I don't have to have an objective standard to back that up.
	My own opinion is enough, I think.
	And so I don't see why that's not enough for TJ.
	Why is his own opinion not enough?
	Again, I think it comes down to the repeated self-abasement and the aspiration towards an impossible standard.
	Because the thing is, the very word moral values, what's a value?
	A value is something you like, something you hold to be a standard of some form.
	That obviously can't be objective.
	Value itself, the very notion of value, is subjective.
	So why you would even apply objective moral values to the world is a contradiction in terms, it seems.
	And the thing is, I think, again, people mistake this because they forget that moral judgments and prescriptions are categoric, right?
	And this is not the same thing, but it is to say, for example, if I said everyone thinks it's wrong to steal, well, communists don't.
	Communists think there shouldn't be any property at all.
	So they don't think it's wrong to steal at all.
	In fact, they think it's so not wrong to steal that the person who is doing the stealing is the victim of the crime.
	That's the position they're at.
	You'll notice they always, every martyr that left props up is a terrible person, right?
	It's a terrible person.
	And they've done terrible things.
	But the Jacob Blake thing, man, watching them try and prop up Jacob Blake, this sex offender who was on his way to grab a knife to stab the cops when he got shot, trying to prop him up as a, he's an asshole.
	And then there's this 16-year-old girl who's in mid-swing with her knife when the cops shot her.
	It's like, oh, God, the cops killed a black woman.
	Or the cops saved a black woman.
	Like, however you want to look at it, right?
	But what was I going to say?
	I was going to say something to that.
	Yeah, categoric.
	But that's the difference of opinion.
	However, if I say a person should not steal, that's a categoric statement that applies to everyone.
	I don't think anyone should steal.
	There is no exception to that rule.
	I don't think that someone should steal at all.
	However, there are going to be circumstances where you can say, well, you know, you shouldn't steal.
	The rule is you should not steal.
	However, there are going to be some circumstances in which a starving, starving orphan boy steals a loaf of bread Aladdin style and gives it to some other starving orphans where you're not going to care that that's the case.
	You're going to overlook it.
	You're going to say, no, fair enough.
	There are other moral considerations.
	So everything is layered.
	You know, there's things pushing and pulling on various things.
	And the starving child could probably do that loaf of bread.
	It's a minor moral infraction, right?
	But, you know, when billionaires are stealing our houses from under us using a stock market crash or whatever it is that people think they did, and I don't know.
	I'm just saying, you know, that's the narrative.
	I'm sure it's true.
	That, you know, this is theft that is of more consequence.
	And so it's worth talking, but it still comes from the same principle that you should not steal.
	That is categoric.
	It's not true.
	It's a prescription.
	It's my opinion.
	I don't think you should steal.
	But the word should, I don't think that the left runs from this.
	Not just the left either.
	The free speech warriors tend to run from should as if prescriptions are bad.
	It's like, no, why should they be?
	I'm as much a moral legislator as anyone else.
	Andrew, nice to see you, man.
	They're stealing bread to feed their families.
	AOC.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's exactly their point.
	So these thieves are good thieves.
	Good thieves we've arrived at from the left-wing position.
	And everyone keeps telling me about C.S. Lewis.
	Yes, I will get to C.S. Lewis.
	But what I want is to organize my own thoughts first.
	There are a lot of different thinkers from around the political spectrum that I'm actually kind of earmarking.
	And so we're like, right, I'm going to read them at some point.
	I'm going to read them at some point.
	I'm going to read them at some point after I've come to my own conclusions on all this.
	What's my favorite beer?
	I've been avoiding this question for years.
	Honestly, I just like lagers, but I don't drink lager anymore, obviously, because it's not keto.
	So yeah, I don't have a favorite beer anymore.
	I quite like Carling, to be honest.
	Just crappy beers, just I could drink gallons of.
	I stole those $250 Jordans for my son.
	Yes, finally, racism is over because I have a giant TV.
	Yeah, everyone knows that this isn't about justice.
	There's nothing to do with justice here.
	And to be honest with you, right, on the subject of reparations, I say go for it.
	Go for it.
	Like one of the panels, one of the chaps who's a leftist, I can't remember his name at the moment.
	I mean, A, he didn't sound very much like a leftist.
	He came to sort of based right-wing opinions through left-wing manner, which I found was amusing.
	But he was like, oh, well, we should have reparations.
	And then he just pulled off the figure, sort of like a million pounds or a million dollars, sorry, a person who could be identified as, say, the victim of redlining or the victim of slavery or something like that.
	And Wilk Chamberlain, who is surprisingly quick on his feet, actually, he was like, yeah, okay.
	You know, sold.
	I'll take you up on that.
	I mean, you know, you have to sign a, he didn't say this, but I would have it.
	So you'd have to sign a piece of paper saying, right, okay.
	I will never, ever be allowed by threat of law to complain about reparations again.
	All of the past historical injustice, if I bring it up, if I provably say anything about it on social media, if someone records me having a conversation, I go to jail.
	That's what the deal should be.
	But then you get a million dollars.
	Now, you're going to get a huge number of the black community going, fine.
	And that's going to destroy them.
	It's going to be really bad for them.
	And someone on the stage made the point of being like, look, that's essentially what you're saying.
	This should each one of the black communities should be a lottery winner.
	And we know what happens to lottery winners, especially when they come from particularly poor backgrounds.
	They destroy themselves because something given has no value.
	You don't understand how to use it.
	And this guy was like, oh, you're saying that black people don't understand money.
	Well, I mean, no, we're saying poor people don't understand money.
	And if you're saying, well, there's a disproportionate number of poor people in the black community, well, there we go.
	But that's irrelevant to the point that poor people don't understand how to manage money.
	And they often will just end up blowing it.
	And this is what a lot of black conservatives have been saying.
	They're getting trouble, right?
	Sean Bailey is the Conservative candidate for London, for the mayor of London.
	And he's not going to win.
	Sadiq Khan's going to win.
	But Sean Bailey made a great point.
	He was just like, well, look, you know, if we give reparations, then all you're going to see is a massive increase in drug use in the black community.
	And everyone's like, oh, how could he say this?
	Oh, my God.
	They couldn't call him racist because he's a very dark-skinned man.
	He's a black man.
	So they can't call him a racist, but they also can't say that he's wrong because this would be the case in any community, I think.
	Like any poor community, like, you know, white, Asian, wherever, you give those people lots of money, they're going to spend it on drugs.
	It's going to happen.
	I'm telling you, it's going to happen.
	I say this as someone who's come, whose, you know, family origin is from poor communities that do drugs.
	Okay, it's what's going to happen.
	You will destroy their lives.
	And what's worse is you'll sunder the relationships that they have.
	Because a lot of the time, relationships, in fact, most of the time, I can't think of any time they're not.
	In fact, relationships are built from necessity.
	And if you give someone a million dollars, they're going to be like, I don't actually need to maintain this relationship and still have the things I want, you know, still have my material comforts.
	Therefore, I'm just going to get rid of them.
	And these people end up being alone.
	And then when they've lost all their money, they become broke.
	And then they're in a way worse position than before you gave them the free money.
	It would have been better for them, probably for their health, definitely for their emotional life and their mental health, for them to have never been given this money at all.
	So I say the racists should be in favor of reparations, just like the left-wing racists are.
	The right-wing racists should be in favor of them.
	And those sensible sorts of virtue ethicists in the middle, where I like to place myself, would be like, look, this is not the right way to make these people's lives better.
	Doesn't happen.
	I mean, you could look at like the gibbs that have been going on for the past 50, 60 years and be like, okay, well, how many billions of dollars have been pumped into the black community in America thus far?
	And have things got measurably better or worse for the black community?
	And the answer, as Thomas Sowell points out, is these things have got worse.
	Like the rate of black homeownership, black homeownership, black earnings, and black marriage were better under Jim Crow.
	I mean, come on.
	You know, if you can say, honestly, look someone in the eye and honestly say that racism is worse in America now than it was then, then you're a liar, frankly.
	And the material difference is measurable.
	Just saying, free money isn't the problem.
	The problem, I think, is actually a complete lack of ethical standards that are applied to these communities.
	And it's not just the black community.
	You get this here as well with Chavs, right?
	And the sort of, you know, white working underclass, or not even working, white underclass that fill the sort of the same drug dealer role.
	These are true aspects of society.
	And again, giving them millions of pounds would ruin their lives too.
	It's about the way that you live your life and the things you think you should do.
	And if we don't have a strong constructive plan for that, then these people won't have much.
	And it's easy for the cognitive elite in their university, Ivory Towers, who get paid a good solid 50, 60 grand a year, sell a few thousand books every year to make some extra money.
	It's easy, you know, they go to conferences, they're very well protected, everything's very pampered.
	It's easy for them to say, oh, no, you're just a bigger.
	But it's like, look, you don't know these people, right?
	They are not.
	intellectually gifted as you are.
	Half the population aren't.
	Half the population are below average, which means half the population have no particular engagement with theory, right?
	And this is where the strength of religion lay.
	It didn't have to explain theory.
	It had a very simple explanation.
	God says, do this.
	Works.
	That works for the half of the population that's below average intelligence.
	That really works on them.
	It makes sense to them.
	Yep, there is a God in the heavens.
	And if I go out of these boundaries, then I get punished for it by the universe around me.
	Therefore, what God is saying is don't do these things, right?
	Okay, well, I better know that these things are not to be done.
	I will get on and be a good boy and follow a particular kind of life path.
	And for the average person, that's going to produce the best possible results.
	Sure, it's going to be unsatisfying to those 130 IQ academics who, you know, go off and write their books and write these manifestos and end up ruining the lives of millions of people with their dumbass ideas.
	But that's their problem.
	You know, for the rest of the normal people, some kind of adequate life plan has to be put forth that is something quite simple, that doesn't require like 500 hours reading Marxist theory, shit like this.
	And not that Marxist theory has anything useful to say.
	And this, again, I say all this from the position of an atheist.
	I do think that the ball has been dropped.
	And I think that it can be picked up again by the atheists by considering that there is a metaphysical incarnation of a thing that is a person.
	And this is worth generating.
	This is worth promoting.
	And I actually do think that Aristotle has some very good ideas here.
	And that doesn't lead to communism.
	So maybe that's where I would start if I was one of the new atheists.
	I have not taken the Jesus pill.
	What I'm saying is there is a, and it is not Jesus.
	That's the thing.
	You're just saying this because of your particular relative cultural perspective.
	But the same is true for Jews, for Muslims, for Hindus, for Buddhists, all religions.
	The whole point of religions is to provide you with an adequate moral framework with which to live a half-decent life.
	That's what they're for.
	You know, the abstract theoretical discussions of whether God exists or not are, for most people, totally irrelevant and do nothing good for their lives.
	Do I fully believe in Aristotelian ethics or believe that they should be mixed in with actual law?
	If you believe in Aristotelian ethics alone, enough, please explain why.
	Yeah, I don't really see why we would need to actually make law out of much of what Aristotle is saying.
	And in many ways, I don't think you could make a law out of what much of us say.
	Because all of, and one of the major criticisms of Greek thought, ancient Greek thought, is it's egocentric.
	But the thing is, there's a real strength to that, right?
	There's real strength to the idea that the focus of ethical action and the authorship of ethical action is from the perspective of the individual because that's what you are.
	You've got to make the decision.
	You can't be like, oh, I'm going to outsource my moral decision making someone else.
	No, you've got to make that decision.
	So where do you start?
	And at that point, you don't really need much in the way of laws.
	You don't need to talk about laws very much.
	But what you do need is a strong cultural understanding that this is good for you.
	And I think that we have come to the point where we've seen what an absence of that cultural understanding looks like.
	It looks awful.
	It looks absolutely terrible.
	I don't think we can go that far.
	I don't think we should desire to go that far.
	And in fact, we can think of something else.
	Grace is the ingredient Carl misses along with its source.
	Well, from a Christian or religious perspective, sure, but I'm not religious.
	That doesn't mean I can't identify and understand and adapt what religion did right.
	Because this is the problem.
	Whenever, and this is Puralinski, like whenever you want to lead a crusade against something, you have to reduce it to the status of being all bad.
	But the thing is, some parts of religion are not bad.
	They are beneficial, which is why religion was able to propagate itself so successfully for so many tens or probably thousands of years.
	Thousands of years.
	There has to have been some utility to it.
	There's something good about it.
	And the failure of the new atheists in their crusade was to miss that and say that that obviously isn't the problem.
	What we need is pure freedom.
	There's nothing else.
	But the problem is there's no good that comes from pure freedom.
	It seems to all be vice.
	Very little in the way of virtue.
	I see Dev is in the chat, which is good.
	Dev, I just BTF urged you.
	I hope you're listening.
	Sorry, I know I've been ranting for ages.
	I should probably go to bed.
	But Mad Mercenary.
	Hey, mate, I hope you enjoyed the Spanish Civil War stream.
	I saw you in the chat after watching the stream.
	What did you think of the Spanish Civil War and its parallels of the day?
	Keep it up.
	Mad Mercenary, I thought you and Apolistic Majesty, I think it was.
	I'm assuming you're both Catholics.
	And so, you know, as a Protestant, at least the inheritor of a Protestant culture, you know, you're wrong on everything and you're going to lose the next war.
	But I very much enjoyed your stream.
	It was absolutely excellent.
	You and AM had a very, very good way of kind of filling in the gaps of the narrative that you'd kind of jumped over.
	And I thought the whole stream was fantastic.
	I think you both did a really good job.
	And I really hope you guys get to do another one.
	When it comes to the parallels with the Spanish Civil War, yeah, what's interesting, I've recently finished reading a book and a series of lectures, or listening to a series of lectures, on the French Revolution.
	And it just seems that the Enlightenment, the continental Enlightenment, has all of this just pre-packaged in all of its political meanderings.
	So essentially, it's addressing aspects of human nature that it decides in a kind of one, you know, monomaniacal way to say, this is it.
	I have hit on the gold seam of correctness.
	And now I will use my big throbbing brain to show everyone else is wrong.
	And if they disagree with me, they get the bullet too.
	It's like, but that's ridiculous.
	That's just ridiculous.
	And this is why I find myself agreeing with the Catholics a lot more because the Catholics have inherited Aristotle's view of a complete human life.
	You know, they're like, no, well, you can't just be one thing or another thing.
	You are actually all of these things.
	And that's true.
	The Trinity's not, but okay, pagans.
	Just a hang grenade.
	I'm just teasing and you know it.
	It doesn't matter.
	But that's from this bifurcation into different factions.
	You see exactly the same sort of thing in the Spanish Civil War as you were saying with the French Revolution.
	It's incredibly, incredibly similar.
	And like I said, I'm looking forward to the Thermidorian reaction, to be honest.
	It's just going to be funny.
	I mean, it's going to have to get bad, but like, but no, I thought this was an excellent stream and a very interesting topic.
	And the thing is, I'd never really spent a lot of time reading about Spain either, so it's good to know.
	Man, you Catholics are disgusting.
	Ryan, stop spamming Catholic pill in the chat.
	Or, for the love of God, someone start spamming like, you know, the Anglo pill or something like that, Protestant pill.
	Like, anything other than this rampant and despicable papery in the chat.
	Honestly.
	Tell them the truth, Carl.
	Jesus never even existed.
	Oh, man, it's way worse than that.
	The question isn't just, did Jesus exist?
	Which Jesus is the real one?
	I'm putting my money on Barabbas, actually.
	But, but no, there were definitely prophets, revolutionary Jewish prophets called Yeshua, I think it would be.
	And the question is, just which one was it?
	Yeah, but the Protestants don't really have a metaphysics.
	Thoughts on Buddhism?
	I haven't really read much about Buddhism, to be honest.
	Yeah, good.
	Some Wodens in the chat as well I like to see.
	Yeah, based Anglo-Pilled Wodens.
	Calvinist, you know.
	Oh my God.
	Dirty, dirty stuff.
	Oh, God.
	Okay, look, you're going to turn me back into a new atheist if you keep going on like that.
	Dawn of War stream, when?
	When I've got some time.
	I'm not going to have any time for a while, but maybe in the summer.
	Go to bed, see a fresh of the stream tomorrow.
	Yeah, I should.
	I should.
	But either, I think it's Wednesday.
	We're going to be recording our first history stream, like I said, A Voyage of Hanno, a history podcast with Bodade, who's honestly, I love the guy's writing, and I'm really, really excited to be able to do regular history content on the new site.
	Very excited about it.
	But until then, have you ever done a video about the Art of War?
	I've done a video of me reading the Art of War.
	I have read the, assuming you mean the Enchiridion of Epictetus, yes, you can go to ancient recitations actually and find me reading both of those things.
	Calvinists will win, it's predestined.
	Oh my god, just stop.
	But what do I think of objectivism?
	I don't think you can make selfishness a virtue.
	I find Ayn Rand's arguments interesting, but I find that the basic premise I can't buy into.
	Woden, Thunur, Frigg, and Tyr.
	These are your true gods.
	Interesting.
	48 Lords of Paris, that's a good one as well.
	I will do that at some point.
	So anyway, yes, I probably should go because hopefully we'll be recording some great stuff.
	So you can go to lotusators.com if you would like to see more from me and the team.
	We're doing amazing work.
	I actually, I'm incredibly proud of the work we've done.
	I recently did a podcast about Tucker Carlson and his Anglo-Saxon traditions, political traditions.
	This is a big, big tism in the American political sphere recently.
	Does America have Anglo-Saxon political traditions?
	What does that mean?
	And you saw loads of brainlets on Twitter going, what's an Anglo-Saxon political tradition mean?
	That's racist.
	Bitch, you pledge allegiance to an Anglo-Saxon political tradition.
	Shut your mouth.
	But you'll have to go watch the podcast to find out more.
	And look, the great thing about this, I didn't do any super chat, so I can just go.

▲