The Culture War #11 - Lauren Southern, Seamus Coughlin DESTROY The Left With LOGIC and FACTS, BASED
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews
Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
Merch - http://teespring.com/timcast
Make sure to subscribe for more travel, news, opinion, and documentary with Tim Pool everyday.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I'm hanging out with Lauren Southern and Seamus Coghlan, and we were talking about last night with Lance from the Serfs on TimCast IRL, the clips that are popping up on the internet about what happened.
There's like a million things to address in this.
And then we started talking about the clips going viral of Ian, because Ian said a whole bunch of funny things, too.
But, you know, we'll just keep the conversation going.
I mean, when we wrapped the show late, it was 10 30 already.
And I was like, we want to do the members only.
And it's like kind of late.
And he was like, I don't know, man, I don't know how much longer I have.
And I said 10 minutes.
And he was like, yeah, but I don't want to like dip out in the middle of it and have people get mad at me and say that I ran away or something.
And then I was like, well, The truth is, if you don't do the members-only, they're gonna say you ran away, and it was like, alright, let's just try to do 10 minutes.
He stayed for an hour.
So I think it was great.
I think the issue when it comes to the culture war stuff, Is that the left their position is my tribe has said these things are what I'm allowed to say.
Yeah, and then the quote-unquote right which includes like traditional liberals or whatever is here's moral logic and why I feel this like why I believe these things.
So his positions are often this thing is true.
I say why is it true doesn't matter.
It's a talking point.
We say it and then for me, it's kind of like Here's why I feel this way about this law.
Seamus, why do you feel this way about this law?
But anyway, long story short, I'm glad he did come, but he did have to leave, so sorry, Lauren.
It's been a few years now, no bodies, and obviously that's a good thing, right?
They're not finding a bunch of dead children, but it seems like for some reason a bunch of the progressives in Canada are like, please, just one dead child.
Well, let's get some context too, because like I said, we were basically doing the show for a half an hour already, just like laughing our asses off.
But, uh, so Lance is, uh, he's a cool dude.
I'm, I think, I think he's a really nice guy.
I, I find his views abhorrent.
He agrees.
He finds our views abhorrent.
But, uh, I thought it was funny he brought a Bud Light tall boy and cracked it open.
We were laughing.
I think it's a good thing.
It's, it's healing and, and will help bring us together.
But, uh, he is a leftist commentator who came on the show and there are a bunch of clips going viral, namely where He said that so long as a baby is inside a woman, the woman can terminate it and do whatever she wants to it.
Seamus actually asked for clarification, since you're saying, if the baby's in the woman, she can do whatever she wants.
And he was like, effectively, yes.
And then I said, what about meth?
And then he said, no, because that's intentionally killing a baby.
And then I was like, wait a minute.
So, uh, now these clips are going up and then someone tweeted, they had not seen Lance get BTF-o'd this badly since he had a conversation with Lauren Southern.
One thing is, there was a few moments where I felt a need to come in with a comment just because I was saying what he's saying here is factually incorrect and I really do need to set the record straight, but I did feel bad about the fact that he was totally behind enemy lines and everyone was sort of arguing with him, and so I said next time I really want him to come on with another leftist, so it's like me and you versus him and another lefty and it doesn't feel as much like we're jumping him.
And to be fair, to be fair, a lot of people in the comments, and it could just be because they're people who agree with us, are saying, I didn't think you interjected too much.
And so it was mostly like it was unfair by any means, but he did choose to come on the show, but I would really love to do it with, with another lefty.
I go on Joe Rogan's show with the Twitter executives, and it was literally two liberals arguing with two progressives about how they're treating conservatives.
We do a show here when Matt, I think Matt Binder is here, and you were here.
It's literally me, a centrist, arguing with a progressive, and you, the conservative, keeping quiet.
So these aren't even left and right debates.
But the funny thing is, When Lance yesterday said that I was a conservative, he's like, if an alien came to earth and looked at what you were doing and the way you post videos, they'd say you're a conservative.
I pulled up all sides with 4,000 user reviews calling me a centrist.
And I'm like, how is it that Seamus wants to ban all abortion?
I'm in favor of abortion being legal with restrictions, and you're in favor of abortion with no restriction.
I'm in the middle!
They don't know what middle is or centrist is.
It's either you're with them or you're a conservative.
By the way, you did beautifully in that debate, and I remember hearing that story about the mass graves and not really being able to make heads or tails of it, and then you came along and said it's all nonsense, and as I looked into the information that was available on it, it was clear it was all nonsense, and then you absolutely crushed it in that debate.
Essentially two years ago, this story came out in Canada that they discovered mass graves of indigenous children and that there was basically a genocide going on by the government and the Catholic Church, and You know, there's no denying there was abuse within the government systems that were created and priests, but to say they were like ritually, you know, at nuns coming out and executing these kids.
Yeah, coming out, executing them, burying them in mass graves behind these churches.
But what kept happening is I do like the tiniest bit of surface level research on this and it's like, oh, this graveyard existed that they found 13 years before the residential school was even built.
That was one of the main ones that Trudeau visited in In Saskatchewan and then the main one that started this all in Kamloops.
They have done no excavation, nothing.
It's years later and all of the articles that came out then, mass graves, which implies a genocide.
Before the show, we were like, talk about Lance with him not here is kind of shady.
It's like, okay, I, you know, but it is what it is.
I told him he was in a cult.
Like in the after show, for those that didn't see it, I asked him, oh, here we go.
I asked him, I'll try and keep it family friendly.
If you engage in adult relations with a trans woman who's male and has male body parts, are you gay?
He said, no.
And I said, if you were to go to MGM National Harbor, And the reason why I use it as an example is for one, it's obvious, like I was just there last weekend, but it's like a big shopping center with like a steakhouse and restaurants and casino.
And you proclaim loudly to the thousands of people that position, that engaging in adult relations with a male who is trans is not gay.
Do you think any of them would agree with you?
And he's like, no, none of them would.
I'm like, you're in a cult!
Like, you're asserting this worldview that exists only among a tiny, tiny subset of people.
He tweeted something at someone, I don't remember who, and then I responded with, just like, hey, come on the show, bro.
And immediately he was like, hell yeah, dude, awesome.
And I was like, cool.
The thing that these leftists don't understand, and he's a self-proclaimed leftist, I'm not trying to insult him, is that I have no fear of having a conversation with a leftist because I only seek to follow a logical pathway towards betterment.
So when it comes to my politics, it's simply, is there something I missed?
Give me the study that proves me wrong.
I'd like to hear it.
He couldn't do it.
When I mentioned that trans kids desist at 61 to 98 percent, there were two studies that show this.
The only thing you could say is, a meta-analysis of studies disproves this, and I said, a meta-analysis is the opinion of a researcher who read articles, not a scientific study.
You have to give me, he couldn't give me one study.
I'd say there exists a small tendency, because tribalism exists on the right as it does on the left.
The left is overwhelmingly I have to say this for my social circles.
The right is, there are certain lines I won't cross because of my social circles, but here at TimCast, Ian can go on a rant about fake Jews and usury, and we just roll our eyes, and the conversation exists.
I'm not going to pretend to be conservative for conservatives or liberal for liberals.
If Lance or any leftist comes to me and says, here's proof you're wrong, I'll say, I have nothing to say.
And it was just interesting, because sitting across across from him as I was speaking to him, it felt like this was somebody who shouldn't believe these insane things.
He doesn't come off as somebody who, if you encounter on the streets, would go, ah, let's kill babies, ah, let's mutilate children.
But he's bought into an ideology that essentially forces him to hold those positions.
I've been in a few situations where I've been around some pretty radical, crazy people while I was traveling the world.
And there was one house that I went to and they had a baby there and they were like some gun toting crazies.
But I was looking at that baby and I'm like, this kid is probably going to be radicalized into this, this group as well.
Well, I love guns, by the way.
But I mean, with the crazy ideology, it kind of makes it different.
But anyways, I was like, this baby who's like a perfectly lovely little being, no matter what, they're probably headed on this trajectory to have the same beliefs as their parents, their community, everything else.
And that's what I, when you talk about like Lance having these beliefs, I wonder what set of events happened in his life that led him to that position?
And what set of events could occur that would ever make him change his mind?
I think this is one of the greatest debates we have right now is like, how much of our ideology is heritable?
So you mentioned this before the show, and I was thinking about it.
We talk about nature versus nurture.
And I think it's a mix of nature versus nurture.
But I don't think it's the politics you inherit.
I think it's the social characteristics.
I believe that Lance is of a genetic predisposition towards social conformity and so that is to say I believe that there are some people who are predisposed more so towards following the crowd and some people who are predisposed to reject the crowd.
And I think there's good reasons why that exists in human psychology.
I don't think it's absolute.
I think someone who is of a family genetic line that is predisposed towards being a follower could absolutely be a leader because I think these things are only a small faction, a small factor.
But I think there's good reason why they exist in humanity, in terms of human development and how societies form and function.
There is great benefit to following the crowd in a crisis and disaster when if, you know, if you took a bunch of leftists, gave them their authority figure, a crisis happened, you do need, in certain emergencies, quick executive action.
And you need everyone to fall in line.
At the same time, if everyone falls in line, you commit atrocities, your system will break down.
Well, I would also add this, and this is probably the last thing I'll say about Lancet.
I don't think it's some horrible thing that I wouldn't say to his face by any means, so I'm comfortable saying it here.
Yeah, absolutely, just horrible.
No, he really, there's this idea of the banality of evil, you know, how someone who is an otherwise decent person can participate in just morally entirely unacceptable behavior, right?
And promoting this stuff on a national level with a public platform is absolutely horrible.
He's doing a lot of damage, but it's so strange because He doesn't strike me as someone who is intending to act maliciously, he's just very confused.
And I don't know how to convince somebody like that, but it's certain that what he's doing has massive negative effects on the real world to the point where it could seriously harm children.
The idea that you are on the right side of history.
There's that viral clip going around now of Taylor Swift, and she was like, I need to be on the right side of history.
Right, she's wrong.
But think about it this way.
There's an invasion.
China storms the beach of California or whatever, and then starts moving very quickly across the United States, taking over countries.
You can't now have a committee sit down and have a logical conversation.
You need executive action.
You need someone to be like, I got a plan, here's what we gotta do, please do it.
Now, if you have 100 people that are social conformist, And the leader comes in and says, we face an existential threat.
Trust me and do this thing.
You start building walls.
You start getting guns.
If they just say, I'm going to fit in and do it, that's a huge net benefit to your society.
But when you get to the point where there are evil people in charge and corruption, people who seek to only extract value, those followers become zombies marching behind a corrupt institution.
What you're essentially saying is, long after I am dead, I will still be seeking the approval of others.
It's a very sad way of looking at the world.
And I'll also add that if you have eternity in mind, Being on the right side of history is a very small, petty ambition.
You should be trying to get to heaven.
You should be trying to be on the side of truth, not the side of whoever's going to end up writing books 200 years from now if they happen to remember whatever small political movement you're a part of.
I saw the other day that Tucker text leak where he's talking about kind of rediscovering his empathy, watching this video of an Antifa guy getting the shit beat out of him and he's like, oh, this is actually a human being.
I shouldn't want this guy to be killed, even though I had that spur of feeling.
I retweeted it and basically said, you know, how are people crapping on Tucker for showing this moment of amazing humanity?
And some guy replied, ah, this is why the right always loses.
Why are you taking this position, Lauren?
We should want our enemies dead.
And you never want to win the war or the battle.
And I was thinking exactly that.
I'm like, mate, you've already lost the battle, the one that matters for your soul.
Like that's the battle that matters.
Not to say that there aren't these political fights that we can have and try to Have victories in, but if you've lost your soul and you've become just like the people you're trying to fight, what's the point of it all?
That's why I say the left likes to say the ends justify the means.
And they don't, because there is no end.
Life is the journey.
And this is where my moral positions often come from.
I would say this to the Occupy people.
If you decide that you today are justified to use violence, why would you not be justified tomorrow, or the year after that, or the year after that?
And if you believe the government is evil, the institutions are evil because they use violence against people, and so you've decided the only way you can win is to adopt those policies and tactics, how will you defend that revolution you in exactly the way they are doing now.
Quite literally are what you claim to oppose.
The only way to truly win is to stand up for your principles, hold them true in adversity, no matter how difficult it is.
unidentified
Yeah, so we talk about the culture war and trying to win.
And I think the culture war is a perfectly serviceable phrase, but it doesn't paint a full picture.
The reality is we are engaged in a spiritual war just by the very fact of our existence as human beings with rational souls in a universe where good and evil exists.
And the culture war is one of the battles that exists within spiritual warfare.
And what's very interesting about spiritual warfare is, at the very least, from the Catholic perspective, It's a total inversion of, at the very least, outcome prediction ability with respect to other forms of warfare.
So, in a worldly war, in a physical war, you know what side you're on from the get-go.
And then, in battle, you learn who wins.
With spiritual warfare, we know who wins.
We know God wins.
We know goodness wins.
But through battle, you figure out which side you're on.
That's the difference.
And so if you abandon your principles in order to beat the bad guys in the culture war, you are placing yourself on the wrong side of the spiritual war in order to attempt to win a battle.
So you've completely defeated yourself.
Good will win.
Good does not need you to do evil so that good can win.
It's going to win.
What you're determining in the culture war is, which side am I on, good or evil?
Do you remember the scene where he goes to the witch and he like goes to see his future how he dies in her eye and he's like, I want to see it so that I know I don't have to be afraid of anything between now and the point that I die.
And he goes and he faces all of these crazy battles and, like, stays true to himself because he knows, no, this isn't the moment for me.
This is not happening, yeah.
And it kind of reminds me of that, like, you know who's going to win, you know what's at the end.
Certainly if you are a self-proclaimed Christian watching this or just someone who believes in, like, the concept of truth will come to light and that's what matters.
Yeah, then stick to your principles because that's, you know, you know what the end goal is.
There's no need for these petty little changes in your spirit.
His fight... Oh, no, that's what I'm saying, in the sense that they wrote history books about him, but going up and shooting someone in the face who was a non-combatant... No, no, no, you misunderstand.
His fight, and what he believed in, ultimately won.
So, if you go back in time and say, anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces, who will be on the right side of history?
John Brown was a psychotic individual who sacrificed his own children, and was hanged for treason.
At the time, they said that he was a bad guy.
He was a criminal who deserved death.
So these people who today are like, I wanna be on the right side of history, supporting the establishment cause does not put you on the right side of history.
John Brown was seen as a criminal and a traitor who was hanged for it, who sacrificed his own children.
But 100 years later, with slavery being abolished, they put his picture on casino chips over at Hollywood Charlestown Races.
They revere him.
There are statues and monuments to him, despite the fact, yo, the government killed him for treason!
Today, I believe the equivalent to that is the pro-life movement.
I would not say it's acceptable for a pro-lifer to go murder somebody who's had an abortion or an abortion doctor.
And the idea that John Brown was justified in doing so is also absurd.
I agree with your point, though, that he's on the right side of history, quote unquote, because our establishments have decided that we can do evil that good might come of it.
And not to mention, like, what people read in history books a hundred years from now might be completely different than what any of us are experiencing.
You think about the false information that's spread in media today, at the mass scale, when we have video cameras to prove what's going on, you really think the crap we're reading about, oh, this happened a thousand years ago, wasn't some, like, egotistical king off his head, like, yeah, yeah, yeah, put that in there.
I've got Life magazine, I bought, I have like 90% of Life Magazine.
I went to a bunch of antique stores, I found a whole bunch, I bought a whole bunch, I got the first copy.
I have Life Magazine from like a month before D-Day, and it shows photos of tanks and armaments in the UK, and it says the US is bolstering the United Kingdom's defenses in preparation for any kind of invasion.
That was fake news.
Back then, people thought history at the time was the news being told, we have sent defensive armament to the UK.
Now what do we know?
No, they were preparing an invasion of Europe to push back the Nazis.
So when we read a news story today, In 10 years, they might be like, oh, that story was fake.
Yeah, the real thing we did was this, like, we might learn something about Afghanistan.
In the withdrawal that we, at the time, they're like, Joe Biden abandoned Bagram.
For all we know, 10 years from now, it'll be like the terrorists snuck in and planted bombs, and he evacuated our troops, and it was never reported because of the security threat to our personnel.
Well, I think usually when we end up with more information about what truly happened, it's much less flattering for those in power, which is why the lie was told in the first place.
Look at MKUltra, look at Operation Northwoods.
I mean, these are just mind-blowing facts of history.
If you thought those things happened and the government hadn't openly admitted it, you'd be considered a deranged lunatic.
It's weird because You know, growing up, hearing about conspiracy theorists and like the negative stigmas and all that stuff, you could feel that it mattered.
That if the media attacked you, like it put you in this negative position.
I literally could not care less.
No, not even a little.
So, you know, I'm thinking about this the other day when we have Lance on the show and he said, we were talking about trans kids.
And I said, they won't have any sensation.
They won't be able to experience a sexual sensation of any kind.
And he goes, it's really weird.
You're obsessed with people's genitals.
And I'm just like, bro, you're not gonna shame me into not making an argument, because I don't care what you think.
I have seen what, uh, your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
So, if you, as this leftist, holds an abhorrent moral position, and then tell me I'm weird, I'll be like, bro, there's a lot of things about me you think are weird, and I think you're despicable.
You know what I mean?
So when it comes to today's day and age, With MKUltra, John F. Kennedy.
Bro, I'll sit here right now and be like, oh, we had Ron Paul on the show, and the first thing he says is, our government killed a sitting president, John F. Kennedy.
And I'm just like, okay.
You're not going to shame me into not believing it.
People always, they come up with this idea that, oh, well, if these conspiracies were true, someone would have said something by now.
No.
No, they wouldn't.
If they were sane, they won't.
If they sound sane to the media, they won't.
Because they want to keep their job.
They want to feed their family.
They don't want to be outcasted from social groups and potentially, like, I don't know, get in jail time for leaking government secrets, whatever it is.
If someone is a bit insane and they're willing to say these things, usually it's because their life is falling apart and they're like, what do I have left to lose?
I mentioned when it comes to any president, I'm like, I bet the first thing that happens when the president gets elected is a guy in a suit shows up and just slides a picture of John F. Kennedy on their desk and doesn't say a word.
And they're just like, I get it, I get it, I get it.
But it is funny the idea, like, the president gets elected and then this guy like, alright, so your orientation as president, the earth is flat, aliens do exist, JFK, that was us, MKUltra, yes, exactly what you think it was, MomTalk, What a doozy.
To be honest, and I'm more or less just memeing here, I don't know nearly enough about the JFK situation.
What I do know is that the Warren report was the most widely doubted piece of official government information that's ever been issued according to surveys, but I don't know enough about the actual situation to make a declaration one way or another.
We clearly got some kind of work done or I don't know if it's something as simple as like a facelift or having his eyebrows too, but he does look different.
No, no, I think he'll say it because he'll see it and then be too, like, a younger person might see the context and be like, I don't know what that is, I'm not gonna say that, but Biden's gonna read the prompter.
Dude it's crazy and I've made this point a million times but I'll make it again.
I remember being taught in school with a wink and a nudge about how horrible and stupid Republicans are that Ronald Reagan became senile towards the end of his last presidential term and how shameful it was and how absurd it was that the Republicans were willing to allow a man to stay in office when he was in cognitive decline.
Biden was clearly demented during the primaries.
He didn't even have to be the nominee.
unidentified
They went out of their way to choose a guy with dementia, and then they ran him, and he won!
And I'm like, I don't know, like, this was before the show, I said, you know, in the United States, they like shut down churches, it was pretty bad, and they were like shutting down businesses, but there are videos coming out of Canada where people were like, the cops went into their houses and pulled people out, and he goes, he did something like, we'll know that, no, but you know, there are instances, I'm like, no, no, there's videos of that happening!
And not to mention there's, you can look up the Fraser Institute report on this, I think it's from two years ago or something, where they calculate the total amount we pay in taxes when you include all of the sales tax, you know, income tax, everything, property, it's about like 60% of your income.
What percentage of our income do we have to be taxed before it's communism?
Well, so, alright, this is a fact that's very inconvenient for the left-wing narrative, and I know conservatives mostly talk about the culture war, and they've strayed from economic issues, and I understand why, but it's important to state- I don't.
It pisses me off.
It makes me angry as well.
They will say the top marginal tax rate used to be 90%.
No one No one in the top marginal tax bracket, right, was paying 90% taxes.
They found workarounds.
Government revenues, federal revenues, have never, for any sustained period of time with any tax rate, surpassed 20% of GDP ever, no matter how high or low the tax rate is.
And in fact, it tends to hover around just below that 20% number, which would suggest that Art Laffer Was not pulling the Laffer Curve out of his rear without there being any legitimate basis for it.
What happens is, if you tax people at 100%, you end up getting 0% in revenue, because no one's going to work for money they can't have.
You tax people at 0%, you get 0% in revenue.
So you start with 0% on both sides of the tax curve, whether you're at 100% or 0%.
Which means there is a revenue maximizing point somewhere in the middle.
According to the data which says federal revenues have never exceeded 20% of GDP, that would indicate the Laffer curve is somewhere around 15-30% of tax rate, and that changes based on what you're taxing.
But statistically, what we see is that as these tax rates increase, federal revenue doesn't, and it's because people either stop working or they find work around the tax code.
With MMT, they are only taxing to prevent inflation from occurring.
But, even with MMT, because inflation is just another form of taxation, you still end up having an effective real tax rate, even if it's unacknowledged.
And the higher that rate is, the less people are either willing to use your currency and start bartering outside of the system, or the less work they do because they can't see the fruits of their labor.
The numbers in New York are somehow a little lower, but it's same like 50 to 100 people, just serial criminals because of bail reform.
You look at that and it's like, just arrest them, put them away.
But they've got this infinite forgiveness system.
And there's something like they've convinced themselves that's moral about it.
Like people deserve a second and third chance, unless you disagree with me slightly politically.
But if you're like in the subway, stabbing people, running around robbing every store, I don't understand the infinite forgiveness for this people, but not for people that are trying to find their political place in the world.
The system is falling apart, being ripped apart, and these people crawl up like nasty parasites and latch on to those seeking to defend themselves.
It's, uh, to quote, or to reference, the Gulag Archipelago, when he was like, if the criminal does it, well, that's unfortunate, it's in their nature, but if you do it, you knew better.
So, where this stems from initially, or how it catches fire in the culture, is through a false mercy or a false compassion, right?
So, mercy towards the pedophile is violence towards the child, and people need to keep that in mind.
And that's true of mercy towards the robber.
That is violence towards those who he might end up robbing or mugging.
Once we know someone is a threat, they have to be neutralized.
You have to find some way to either keep that person away from the rest of society, to rehabilitate them, to sufficiently punish them, to deter other criminals, and also, if it's possible, find some way to reintegrate them into society.
But we don't really make a concerted effort to do that anymore, especially in left-wing areas.
Because the dominant belief is the only reason crime is ever committed is because of underlying socio-economic factors.
And so, it's not just that they're being hypocritical and saying, these people disagree with us and so we're going to eliminate them from public life while giving criminals a slide, or giving criminals a pass and letting their behavior slide.
They actually believe that the reason the criminal acts the way the criminal acts is because of people who disagree with them.
Because we don't want to allocate resources to the social programs that they claim are a panacea for all societal ills, and that means, at bottom, we are responsible for the crimes being committed, so it makes sense from their delusional framework to punish us for saying things they disagree with, and not punish the people who are actually committing crimes.
There's a real thing to be said about this, right?
So, obviously, there are certain social difficulties and disabilities that should be addressed through specified care towards that person, trying to integrate them into society.
However, the argument that the left will make about Genuinely destructive psychological pathologies just being a matter of social construction and not being the threat that we think they are is actually true of a lot of psychological ills that the left wants to talk about and demonize.
So when it comes to saying that kids have ADHD or autism, oftentimes That's just a kid with a different learning style.
I'm not saying that's true 100% of the time, especially when we're talking about autism, because that's a much more complex issue.
I come from a family of special ed teachers.
Autism is a very broad umbrella term that captures many different manifestations.
And so I'm not arguing that, like, autism is a social construct or something along those lines, but when you look at people, for example, who have Asperger's, who might not have been diagnosed 40 or 50 years ago as having Asperger's, and people might have just said, this person's socially awkward, for example.
Well, a lot of those people, they are very fact-based, they're very evidence-based, and they, for whatever reason, don't have the same signals firing in their brain when they receive social disapproval.
Now, there's massive social utility in that.
We need people who are that way.
There might be a quality of life discussion to be had there, and it's good for us to have increased awareness and sensitivity towards that condition, but that person plays an important role in our social structures.
You do need people like that.
And I think that they are public enemy number one to people on the left and to ideologues because they can't be shamed and they see things very logically.
So they're willing to say, well, no, a man can't become a woman.
Seamus, make a comic where the villain... Do like a graphic novel, so it's got a start and a finish.
And it turns out the villain, right?
This conservative, corporatist, you know, pro-war, pro-life guy is confronted by the superheroes and he's like, you think you can stop my evil plan?
My evil plan's been enacted for the past 20 years.
It's already happened.
And they're like, what?
No, how is it possible?
And he goes, I have convinced the Democrats to abort and sterilize their own children.
And then it's just like, show Democrats.
A villain, and his plan is quite literally what they're already doing to themselves.
The reason I say this is because I'm like, part of me wants to say to the conservatives, why are y'all so hell-bent on preserving the genetic lineage of people who are desperately trying to end it?
And it's like, I know the answer, it's because conservatives are immoral people.
Right, who believe like you shouldn't harm the children or whatever, and my attitude is kind of like, I don't know if I will win the argument with the left on terminating and sterilizing their kids, but I do know that in a hundred years they won't exist.
So when you see radical ideologues behaving the way those on the left do, where they're destroying others and destroying themselves, I think it makes perfectly clear that Christians have been correct for all of history with respect to the doctrine of original sin, right?
I just don't think you can deny that there is something in the human person that wants to destroy himself and others.
And in every society throughout all of history when behavior is kept unchecked, that manifests itself very, very clearly.
And the more we stray from Christianity and the more we stray from the natural law, the more viciously that manifests itself.
It was some 50-year-old hippie lady who, and she was a white liberal woman in the 70s or something, and then she told everyone it was Native American so that they'd believe it.
There is something, and so you point this out when you say, well, the left are destroying themselves.
Without God, man destroys himself.
It's not just that he doesn't attain perfection.
It's that he dives headfirst into hell.
He goes into the opposite direction.
I'm not a Calvinist.
I don't believe in total depravity.
I believe that humans suffer from original sin, but I believe that there's goodness in us as well.
However, When human beings are left unchecked and they go down the road of vice, they do end up pulling themselves down into hell and everyone else around them down into hell with them.
Like, I'm sure you guys have been in situations, certainly in the media stratosphere, where it's like someone will pull out a line of cocaine and it's like, no, I'm good on that.
I don't have a similar experience with like cocaine and conservative media.
Lauren, you're allowed to say whatever you want.
I haven't had similar like experiences with drugs, but I will say in general, that's kind of the experience of anyone who is the Christian at all, right?
You don't have to say anything to somebody about the choices they're making, but if they know that you disapprove of them, even if you haven't voiced that disapproval, they become very upset with you.
Well, because every single human being, even though we are flawed, There's something inside of us that knows the difference between right and wrong, and I think it's possible to silence that voice, but... Real quick, I agree, and I think last night's conversation really exemplifies that.
The conversation that Seamus and I are having is, let's look at the world from a logical perspective.
What are our goals?
What do we agree on?
Like, we all agree the world should be better.
Humans should be better.
We want people to be happier.
Let's now work through the process by which we can accomplish those goals.
The left was saying simply, What do I have to say to fit in properly?
But when it came to the conversation about meth and choice, Lance had a clear cognitive dissonance in that he knows he cannot say a woman should be allowed to do meth while pregnant.
He knows there's something wrong with that, but he knows his side told him women should be allowed to kill their baby whenever they want.
That So, hence, what did he say?
He said, a woman should not be allowed to do meth because it's intentionally killing the baby.
Even though a second prior, he said, a woman should be allowed to intentionally kill the baby.
This is something that I've been trying to wrap my head around and have actually found sympathy towards the left for.
I think that there's this all-encompassing defense of sometimes behavior that doesn't make sense or that will seem like horrible behavior if you're trying to explain it or justify it in any sort of media setting.
And I think that often comes from the left because there's this radical acceptance of brokenness that the right in some way offers through Christianity.
But in the same sense, because the church is imperfect, because humans are very judgmental and there's also a large component that is not Christian of the right, There is, without a doubt, an extremely judgmental side to the right wing.
And people who are very aware, or shameful, or maybe even grew up in religious communities that have that internal shame are like, I would rather join the side that is going to accept me for all of my brokenness.
And not just that, and this is the fundamental problem with the left is not the acceptance, but the Lifting it up as a virtue.
And they're at war with their conscience, and now they see you, whether you have articulated it or not, Making it clear that that behavior is unacceptable and so now they have to regard you with the same contempt that they do the voice in their head that tells them what they're doing is wrong.
This is the best explanation of original sin or the easiest way it's ever been articulated for me to understand it.
Right?
That there is something within people that would drive them to depravity or amoral behavior.
And everyone has it within them, and we have to actively choose to be better people.
That is, there are things that give us gratification and pleasure, but we recognize you shouldn't just act upon all of these things.
They could be bad, they could be destructive.
The left seems to be saying, especially with the child drag shows, where they're saying it's not going to look itself and things like that, you should just stop making them feel bad about it.
He worked on a lot of addiction cases on the East End in Vancouver, Canada.
And he says the one common thing that he's found amongst addicts is not, he says it's not actually the addiction that they're struggling with, but it's some sort of painkiller.
That every vice is a painkiller for something people have been through.
And so I think that the world is very broken and I think there are a lot of people that actually, I think most people start out wanting what conservatives put up as the vision.
They want the family, they want the white picket fence, they want all of that, they want the community.
And then something happens in their life that sets it astray and they begin finding painkillers, coping mechanisms that are vices.
And then they look at conservatives shaming them and they say, "I am, how could, like they're already psychologically in enough trauma, can't get through it, they can't deal with the shame.
So they go to the side that accepts them when, when fundamentally broken people exist in this world, I don't think it's gonna be any internet shaming this or that.
It has to be community, real people that go and help them, and it's the internet, the radical acceptance, and the radical rejection that is sending people further into the spiraling.
But so what's happening now is for people like me, disaffected liberals, traditional or classical liberals, You can have views the right doesn't like, but they will sit down with you and have a conversation.
It's remarkable how the left recoils at the idea of Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro being friends.
Because they were like, Ben Shapiro opposes gay marriage and thinks what Dave Rubin is doing is wrong.
And Glenn Beck says that Dave Rubin shouldn't have kids.
And I'm like, isn't it funny that we all know that?
That Dave Rubin is well aware of that.
And the issue is, despite the very serious moral disagreements, there's still an effort between these individuals to be compassionate towards each other and to try and find a way to accept each other or save each other.
And the left outright says, if you're not with us, you're against us.
So what's the end result?
Dave Rubin, who by every basic right should be on the side of the individuals who are saying, he can do these things, finds himself on the side of the people who are saying, we don't like that he's doing these things.
Because they're still nicer to him!
They're still like... The left doesn't seem to get it, they can't grasp this.
Dave Rubin is a grifter because he's friends with these people.
No!
These people are friends with him and they're being nice to him despite not liking or agreeing with what he does.
The left will tell you, you're with us or you're against us, so nobody who has any, like...
By all rights, my position on abortion is not conservative, and the left should be trying to win me over and say we accept that you're halfway there.
Instead, they tell me to screw off, I'm a conservative, and then Steven Crowder's the one who came to me and said, I agree with, I accept your proposal, Tim.
We as conservatives will accept restrictions on abortion to a certain degree if that means we save more lives.
Real quick, several years ago, I went on Crowder's show and I said, I think, you know, I'm pro-choice, there's some limits and blah, blah, blah.
And he said, OK, as a conservative, I will accept that you have that position.
So I'm willing to compromise 12 weeks.
We will say at this point the baby is viable.
We shouldn't have any reason to kill it.
Uh, except in medical emergencies.
And I was like, I agree with that.
That works.
And he goes, let's take that compromise.
Where's the left?
And I'm like, you're right.
I completely disagree with them.
Instead of trying to win me over or form a compromise, the left says all or nothing.
The end result is going to be a coalition of, of moderate liberals, moderates, traditional liberals, and conservatives forming the larger faction because the left is forcing us to, to, to like, they're not giving us a position.
They're saying you either agree with us wholeheartedly, join the cult or else.
So, my feelings on that are a little bit complicated, but I'll add this.
I think maybe we're saying the same thing.
What Pope St.
John Paul II said is that Catholics can accept a compromise on abortion if that's the only option, and it will push things in the direction of abortion stopping.
So, for example, if there's legislation that's proposed that says, you know, we will illegalize abortion after this point in time, as we have a lot of these bills now, let's say after six weeks.
The Catholic position is no abortion ever, but it's okay for us to support that law if it's the only one available, or to vote for that law if it's the only one available, so that we can eventually get to the point where there are no abortions, because fewer babies dying is better than that law not passing and then many of them dying.
But the position can't be like, oh yes, we should have a permanent state of affairs where these abortions are okay and these aren't.
But the simple position is, For the past several years, at least in my experience, the right is playing for the long-term victory and the left is demanding instant gratification.
The right is saying to me, we accept your terms and we'll work towards a better future.
I'll take what you're offering.
And then in two years, we'll try and do it again in two years.
Yeah, but I think those words are constantly changing.
I just put out a tweet the other day where I said, listen, I'm not calling myself a conservative anymore, I'm not calling myself a libertarian, nothing.
Because the definitions of these ideologies and the moral standards people are held to to be a part of them are changing so quickly.
I don't know what the definition of conservative in six months is going to be.
I just don't know.
9/11, a lot of their, you know, we didn't land on the moon, great people.
But they were like hardcore leftists and I think they'd be considered right wing today.
I enjoy talking with Michael Malice because I feel like we have enough common ground, but there's enough to argue about too.
You know, we'll sort of give each other a little bit of pushback, so it sharpens the rhetorical tools, so to speak.
And it's just exhausting when you're having a conversation with someone who is committed to misunderstanding you, and I think that happens when you talk with a lot of left-wing people.
You know?
They really can't hear what you're saying because if they do and they go along with you and you end up saying something that they can't deny is true, then their audience gets upset with them.
unidentified
And they don't want their audience to be upset with them.
You know, it's tough because I don't know if Yay actually has properly thought out his positions.
You know, like, he said all that stuff about Hitler.
Those are kind of alarming things.
I'm kind of like, I'm wondering if he's thought through.
You know what's funny is a lot of people came to his defense over that, and like, his point was that he as a Christian loves everybody, and I'm like, I understand the attempt, but for the love of all that is holy, there are people who are evil, and like, come on, man.
You know, but Ian tried defending Ye after that happened, saying he's trying to say he's a good Christian and he loves everybody, and I'm like, I get it, but some people, like, dude, what are you talking about?
Like, and what I can't stand is how the left often just isolates Hitler, Stalin, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong.
I mean, like, there are just very, very evil, demonic people who must be stopped.
And there's, look, Did Hitler like dogs?
I'm sure.
I don't consider that even a redeeming quality of the man.
And there are people on the left who won't say that they're tankies, but they'll effectively engage in In genocide denial, the likes of which would get somebody called a neo-nazi, but what they do it when they're talking about Stalin or Mao, so it's considered acceptable.
Oh, there's no way he could have killed that many people.
Okay, well, you're just a Holocaust denier at this point, right?
The story is, Voldemort, he's not a pure-blood wizard himself, he's a half-blood wizard, and he believes only wizards born of two wizard parents should be in control.
I am looking forward to now the new story that JK Rowling writes, the sequel to Harry Potter, where there is a roving band of transmogrifiers who are trying to forcefully turn the children of Hogwarts into animals.
Well, it's also, it's funny to me too, you know, I've said this before, conservatives will hold anyone who the left dislikes up as a hero, and I think they've done a good job not doing that with J.K.
Rowling.
Fortunately, I think most conservatives still aren't huge fans of her and her politics.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no She then got shoved by the left into the hands of the right.
So let's say we also have a football field, right?
And we have a football player.
And we have one football player who says, you know what?
I think touchdowns are at the 10-yard line.
So when I get to that 10-yard line, I'm just gonna stay there and I'm not gonna go all the way to the other side.
Okay, we can say that's great that they were able to move the football to that other side of the field, but they're not exactly the most effective player.
The better analogy, excuse me, would be that when the football team Moves the line of scrimmage, so the football's thrown, the guy catches it, he makes it past, I don't know enough about football, but he makes it past the line of scrimmage.
My point is this, if you're at the 10 yard line and you're on defense and you intercept the ball, And then you push it and move the line back, now in possession?
You cheer for that!
The crowd goes wild!
unidentified
But what if the football player stops at that line and they throw, they spike the ball in the ground and they TOUCHDOWN!
I believe that when it comes to people like TERFs, We sh- I 100% agree just as I think it's great that Matt Gaetz and AOC are working together to pass legislation that says people who are elected officials should not be able to trade.
I would also say that we should be willing to work with people with whom we disagree when there's common ground and we can achieve something together.
Absolutely no argument for me there.
However, we need to keep in mind the substantive differences.
My position is not that we refuse to collaborate with anyone with whom we can make ground in the culture war.
My position is to simply say we need to operate from a position of principle and we need to remember that all of the TERFs right now who are saying men should not be able to invade women's spaces were cheering 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago every single time men's spaces were invaded by women.
And now they are receiving their just desserts and they're saying, I don't like how this tastes.
No, but I'm saying they were the intellectual heirs of that.
So, so in 2010, in 2000.
The sins of the father.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm talking, no, I'm just talking about 10 years ago.
I'm, I'm saying this started, or at least it began to manifest publicly in the 60s.
But if you go back 10 years ago, you had these feminists cheering for the elimination of male only spaces.
This is, What I'm saying is yes, we do need to work with people with whom we disagree, even on principle, so that we can push the left back and have victories in the culture war where we have common ground with those people.
However, and this is an important key point, Once we get to that point where we no longer agree, we're going to reach an impasse.
And so we need to figure out as we're collaborating with them, what are our base principles?
Because we're not going to be able to move forward past the first victory that we get if we can't agree upon where the culture needs to go.
Because J.K.
Rowling can push back on the trans issues with us, and I think that's great if she does that.
But once we get to that point, the next step is, well now we need to stop normalizing LGBTQ lifestyles in general to children.
Well, she writes a series of children's books where she has made an effort to say that there's LGBT representation in it, where she's saying this character in a children's book is gay.
I don't think, again, you're not understanding my position.
He's pro-gay Dumbledore.
Yeah, absolutely.
My position is not that we are going to have an instant solution, and it's certainly not that we're going to have an instant top-down solution.
My argument is simply that as conservatives, we need to be rooted in principle so that when we do work with left-wing people on things that we do have some agreement on, we don't lose sight of our actual end goal.
It's not me saying that tomorrow... I get it, I get it.
Rowling and you're coming up to me saying, I want to work with you, and I guess putting myself in her brain, assuming that it was my goal to have a gay Dumbledore in a movie, I'd be wondering, why would I work with you if your end goal is to try to ban my movies?
Look, a lot of people celebrate Christmas who don't really believe- Yes, but the point is, if you see heathens start to take up a practice, you don't say, well, you know, you're a heathen.
You say, let me teach you more.
No, no, I agree with you.
Come with me and let me show you what this is all about.
Anyways, they've got like ads everywhere for like lovers potions, penis enlargement, everything all over Johannesburg and you have to go to the witch doctor school in the black or I'm sure they've got a few of them.
Oh, well if you're saying you're gonna do one card, then two, then three, and it was like one sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword, sword.
I think people's influence and will can impact the universe in like ways that people don't quite understand.
That is to say, there is something beyond us that we can't perceive of, that we're connected to, that our desires and passions and will has an influence over.
I believe that Everybody has some kind of access to something beyond us to varying degrees.
Some people have no- like, let's call it a third eye.
It's not the easiest way to explain what I see in my mind, but it's the easiest way for the average person to understand what I'm kind of trying to say.
Let's say that you have a third eye that is very strong and pronounced in your mind, that connects you very deeply to the spiritual.
You likely will understand God.
In your mind, you'll be like, it's just, of course there's a God.
If you have a very, very tiny, pea-sized, little, itty-bitty third eye, you're gonna be like, I'm a wet robot and there's nothing beyond my existence.
There could be the very secular in, if you have a support network of people who care about you, who are literally telling you they want you to live, you will fight.
And if you don't have that, you'll die.
But I do believe that, like, I think prayer in whatever, however you want to describe it, has some kind of impact.
I just, I believe there's something bigger than us.
It's like God is, you know, in heaven or whatever and then he's like going over his files and he's like, I got these 50 requests to save these people.
All right, let's save them.
unidentified
These other 50 got thrown in the garbage so I'm gonna... But, no, no, no, it's not, it's just like, I guess you did tell them they were being prayed for, yeah.
But it's probably, it's not as pronounced as someone who believes that God is actively watching over.
I think it's more like...
My view is probably closer to, in my minuscule and microscopic human brain, that God is actively paying attention, but on a scale so vast, this moment in time is probably not as relevant to God as it is to us.
So, to a human being, it may appear as though God is not playing an active role, but if you think about the longevity of the universe, I believe God is actively involved.
So, what I believe is that, as human beings, right, when we try to pull back and focus on too many things at once, each little thing becomes less important to us.
But with God, He's capable of holding everything as important, even when He's paying attention to everything.
And so, it's interesting, one thing, And this is actually something that I first received as a joke.
It was someone did a webcomic of this, but I thought it was really brilliant.
And the first panel is someone saying, have you ever seen, you know, the Discovery Channel?
Have you ever seen, you know, these documentaries on outer space?
The universe is so massive.
How could God care about us?
And then the second panel is a guy going, have you ever seen like the subatomic particles, like the universes?
Well, we're so massive in comparison to the world, and I do find it interesting that we want to focus on the vastness of the universe and not pay any attention to the fact that, okay, firstly, hierarchical scale and the idea that bigger equals better is not really a tenable position for an atheist at all, right?
Why would you say, well, this rock is bigger than a human, therefore the human is less important?
That's absurd under any paradigm, but I don't know how like an atheist can justify hierarchical scale at all, just like they can't justify any hierarchy.
But here's my main point with it, is that I think it's clear that God pays attention to even the most minute details.
Look at how intricately designed the universe is at the level of the subatomic.
So what I think we do agree on here is that God has created an ordered universe, and he has set up certain confines, and he's told us the ways in which he plans to behave, and he's always the same, so we can trust that word.
I love the storyline, but it's really become leftist.
Zero Dawn, the first game, came out like 2016.
You're this tribal woman, and there are these robot machine dinosaurs and animals, and you fight them and strip them of parts and make a bow and arrow.
And then it's like, what a weird world.
And then it turns out, the story is such.
You discover this throughout the game.
It's a really awesome narrative.
In 2065, the CEO of a military contractor developed self-replicating war machines.
He wanted them to be unhackable.
He wanted to create a security force that would replenish itself through biomass as fuel and construct more of themselves.
Unfortunately, one small group at a security company got, they were effectively locked out of this battalion of robots, who then started their protocol, reproduction consumption.
They could not brute force their way in.
They didn't have the means of doing it.
The machines then spread to the point where they were like, in 15 months, they will have destroyed civilization.
So, two projects were created.
The Zero Dawn Project and the Far Zenith Project.
Zero Dawn was to create a bunch of underground terraforming facilities, so that after Earth was destroyed completely, and biomass was stripped, they could brute force over a hundred years the robots to shut them down, and then re-terraform Earth.
Clone humans, and then those cloned humans would repopulate.
Far Zenith wanted to escape Earth and colonize another planet.
What ends up happening in the later game, the second game, Forbidden West, which came out a few years ago, is that first you think the descendants of Far Zenith returned to Earth to reclaim it, but then you learn the Far Zenith humans escaped Yeah, well I think the idea that we all have this inherent bias that we are the most intelligent thing that exists around us.
Even the idea of another human being in the room with you.
what you're saying. - Yeah, well, I think the idea that, we all have this inherent bias that we are the most intelligent thing that exists around us.
Even the idea of another human being in the room with you that is like twice as intelligent as you are is a horrifying idea.
You don't like to think there's like basically a predator that can trounce you in any sort of mental gymnastics you could, you know, go hand-to-hand at.
And the idea that there would be another race or creature being on this planet or outside of it that knows about us and treats us like the individuals from Senegal Island is... We just choose not to even try to comprehend it, even though there is, you know, it's probably a decent chance that that's the case.
No, I think there's a decent chance that there are life forms out there, even on this earth, that are significantly more intelligent than us, or that have existed in history, I think.
No, yeah, I was just gonna say, I think, so, I mean, they're immaterial, right?
But basically, the devil has a plan, and demons tempt people to certain sins.
We tempt ourselves to certain sins just by our own fallen nature, but people don't realize is every time you give in to your own vices, you are working into that master plan.
Whales have far more complex brains than us for relationships and the way that they can communicate can communicate over vast distances, very complex language we just don't understand.
If we were born on the ship and just released on the ship as babies and a robot educated us, we would have no social understanding of the world.
We would land on a planet and we'd have very strange social customs that wouldn't work.
If we truly wanted to spread to the stars, you'd plug the babies into a metaverse, have the babies grow up in a normal Earth-like environment, and then one day wake up on the ship.
And you would have the mind of an Earth human from the 21st century on this ship and you'd say, what happened?
And then what likely will happen is towards the end of the Metaverse program, it will say, we are transporting.
You're going to go and travel to Mars to colonize the planet.
When you wake up, it'll say, your whole life was a virtual experience to train you in human social behaviors.
If that were to happen, the exact same thing would happen with the simulation they made that's happening with AI, which is some group of ideologues who are in charge of programming it would create an artificial world for those experiencing the simulation that promotes their ideology.
And when they got to the planet, they would just do whatever that insane ideology told them worse than the real world, even though it didn't.
How mad are you going to be when you wake up from the simulation and realize you spent your whole baby simulation time just podcasting when you could have been flying planes in video games?
You, so listen, the ship starts creating humans, right?
And those babies are, their brains are in a VR to train them in, how would you train a baby to live on a new planet with no social customs?
You basically program them by having them live a life in VR and then all different ages.
You will wake up as yourself And you'll be like, where am I?
And, but what actually happened is towards the end of the simulation, Elon Musk, like in a week from now, Elon's gonna be like, Lauren, I've got to send you to Mars.
It's the only way to save the world.
And you'll be like, yes, Elon, yes.
And then you'll wake up on the ship thinking you're arriving there.
50 years from now, when we're old and in the metaverse for work, or retirement or whatever, and some 17 year old kid comes in and he's a carrot, and he's like, I'm a carrot!
They've created this procedure that you can get that splits your brain between work life and home life to create the work-life balance, right?
And then essentially they've made it so that your work self can't even communicate with yourself outside of work and you have no idea what happens in your office, nothing.
Basically all the people in the office kind of realize what's going on and they hate it and they want to escape and they're like trying to kill themselves and stuff to get out of this.
They can't send messages to theirselves outside because if they've got like elevators that detect any sort of text written on you and when they're injured- That's crazy.
They'll like give a note on people's car that's like you hit your head in the office and it was actually them like trying to kill themselves.
If the whole point of it is to split your brain in half so that you're conscious at work with a separate consciousness from what you're conscious at home, wouldn't they realize, oh, one half of me is only ever gonna experience work?
So this company, it's kind of like a Pfizer type company.
They're trying to bring in this new technology and it's just in the testing phases and they're letting the politicians and a few like test individuals like try it out.
Yeah, they're trying to make it look as good as possible, but they're actively having to cover up the experiences of the severed side of people's brains.
But I also think that there would be a lot of fascinating implications to explore there about the people who don't really deal with the hardships and struggles of the more difficult parts of life.
So that's the main guy, his wife dies and that's why he does the separance thing because his life is just like, he's like, why not just... There's a Rick and Morty episode where the sleep self, did you see it?
Yeah, the thing about Horizon Zero Dawn, I was gonna mention this before, is that the first game was based as fuck and the second game is woke as fuck.
So it's like, you go from being this good guy who's trying to save the Earth, and you figure out that the world was ended by, you know... Aliens?
Machines.
Oh.
Self-replicating machines destroyed the planet.
In the second game, you're just a murderer.
In the second game, you're like, these powerful, technologically advanced humans who are trying to survive and escape a calamity should die, and then you literally just murder them.
So like, it's actually kind of sad.
They're not like good people, the descendants of Earth, but it's really fucked up.
In the new expansion that just came out, I don't want to spoil it because it literally just came out, but the game is basically...
The main character is told, one of these people from the original Earth are alive, and she goes, I'll go kill him.
And that's just it, for like, you don't know the guy, you don't know what he's doing, she's just like, better kill him!
But isn't it interesting that they tied the message of the planet needing to die, needing to create a new order and not caring for human beings in with her being homosexual?
So here's the thing, in the Forbidden West, which is part two, which came out a few years ago, so I'll spoil it.
You find out that, like, you're trying to find something called the Gaia Kernel, which is an AI that can restart the terraforming process because Earth is in a state of decay because it's being rebooted or whatever, and then something happens where Gaia breaks and you need to fix it.
During this process, these three people show up who are wearing weird clothes and have force fields.
They're invincible.
And you're like, what's happening?
They have a clone of the scientist that gives them access to these old Earth labs.
You then discover when you meet the clone, which is basically the main character is a clone and there's another clone.
They're like, they want to come back to Earth, wipe out all life, and then reboot it in their image.
And she goes, we have to stop them.
That's actually not what it is.
What you discover in the end is that the Far Zeniths escaped Earth, started a colony, survived for hundreds of years, created their own AI which went rogue and destroyed their planet, and they fled to Earth hoping to find a copy of Gaia so they could leave Earth and create a new planet somewhere else safely.
After discovering that, the main character decides they all must die.
And I'm like, so you're saying that these humans, who are technologically advanced and the last remnant of human civilization, are trying to get a copy of a program to start a new world somewhere else away from you and they'll leave you alone, so you must kill them.
Yes.
And I'm like, that's such a- you're the bad guy.
Like, you literally just execute the last remnants of human civilization.
It's so fucked up.
I get pleasure in this game of purposefully losing.
Like, when the future guys are like, I'm going to destroy you, I'm like, I'm just gonna stand here and let them do it because they should.
And then the expansion is just very, very much insane.
And I'm like, this game feels very like leftist Malthusian.
That these people who have great technology destroyed the earth, therefore they should die now.
And I'm like, that's kind of messed up.
I mean, they're not good people in the game.
They're considered to be narcissistic and evil or whatever.
But like, if their whole purpose is to copy a program and leave earth, what is the justification for just killing all of them?
Well, but I think it's interesting that the ethos of the game is people are bad, we're overpopulated, the human race is not an inherently good thing, and then that's expressed through homosexuality.
Well, I think people would have to return, not necessarily something like the Handmaid's Tale, but people would return to the structure that is natural, which is a husband and a wife having children together.
Obviously you had homosexual behavior in basically every civilization throughout history, but Often it was seen as sort of like debaucherous behavior among the elite.
It was not something that your average person was taking part in the same way.
Well, and also What wealth does is it, to some extent, insulates you from natural consequences.
Right?
So when you have an obesity.
Exactly.
And so, or even something like a social security system, right?
So the natural consequence of not populating at replacement numbers exists in the long term, but it doesn't exist in the short term for your average person.
So it doesn't eliminate the consequence, but it insulates you from it.
When you're closer to a state of nature, you're not insulated in such a direct way.
It's like the rich, the So there's always this idea, particularly from Republican circles, that pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Anyone can make it, anyone can do it.
But the problem is the consequences for the rich, for any sort of mistake made in life, are so much less severe than the consequences for someone who is dirt poor.
Like you try to start a business, you got 10 grand to do it, that business fails, your life is over if you're poor.
You can do that a million times as a rich person.
So the ideology is like, oh, well, our brains are all equal.
Well, so what?
I could have the same, you know, Same mental processing, same IQ, whatever, as someone who's born into a wealthy family, and we could make all the same mistakes, but they're going to be able to survive those mistakes way better than I can.
Okay, so my point is there are obviously some people who are more like cognitively capable of navigating modern structures in a way that amasses wealth.
And so there are some people who, even if they're born into a poor family, will be able to ascend up into a very high income bracket.
However, I do agree, and part of why...
I think the issue is complicated is because I do believe that the rich absolutely have a responsibility to use their power in a way that considers and even benefits and advocates for the poor.
I certainly agree with that.
I don't believe in what would be called class warfare.
I do think the different classes have to interact with each other.
I think they have to work for one another's interests.
However, there are a lot of To use a very cringeworthy term, lived experiences that we can't understand that other people do, that doesn't mean we can't collaborate with them.
So right now, one of the massive issues that we're facing as a culture is we're increasingly stratified.
And historically, wealthy people, middle class people, and poor people would have the same religious beliefs, oftentimes attending the same church.
And so they were on the same team culturally, religiously, in terms of the common goals of the nation.
They were collaborating with one another.
And then a wealthy person could be open to and more capable of hearing the concerns of the poor, What you'll see is that among the wealthy, it's very intellectually fashionable for them to fancy themselves heroes of the working classes, those who care about the lower classes, but they never interact with them.
And I'm saying if they did, they could actually do genuine good for them, even though I agree with you, they don't understand.
So the issue is, first, do you have the mental capability to make the choice?
And then do you have the willpower and the understanding?
I'll give you a really simple example.
There's a show called The Real Hustle.
Great show.
A guy, they go and they buy a $10 bottle of Jergens, and then he buys $10 worth of small little bottles, puts the Jergens in it, and sells each bottle for $100.
I know people who make $300,000, $400,000 a year, working one day a year.
You know why?
They do sales.
But the sales they choose to do is among people who are wealthy.
How did they get to that position?
They went to a wealthy club, It was a woman, schmoozed up some wealthy people and got in their circle just by being friends, and then facilitated a sale that nets $300,000 a year.
The point is, the difference between being wealthy and not is not Like, that you have to invent the greatest thing in the world, or start a multi-million dollar business, or be a movie star.
It's quite literally that you take a two-cent piece of copper, hit it with a hammer, and then walk up to a millionaire and say it costs ten grand, and they give you ten grand.
But they went to a nightclub to get drunk and party, and they went to a wealthy area of New York, and they had a hundred bucks from their Starbucks job, which was enough to buy a couple drinks and dance around and met some women, and the women were like, we're all going to my friend's house tomorrow night, you should totally come.
They're at the top of the Trump Tower in a millionaire's house, and they were like, I'm trying to, you know, I'm trying to sell this, I don't have time for it.
If I gave you a Rolodex, could you call these people and figure it out?
I know people that spend their whole lives planning these things, proposals, going to all of these meetings with rich people and getting rejected every single time.
What if you have zero social skills because you grew up in a horribly abusive household where your parents never taught you anything, they didn't let you go to school, whatever.
and put them in little designer bottles, you can make $100,000 a year.
The point is, in America, some people may not know these things, and for some people, it's circumstance.
But the reason I'm saying it's a choice is obviously to be a little hyperbolic and to rustle up some feathers, but it's that the gap between being rich and poor is not as big a leap as people think.
I've actually seen like this new trend start with young women where they're trying to like find jobs that you can work in order to start dating rich men.
An interesting response that was like, you're just gonna be the temporary muse of some rich man and then he's gonna go marry someone within his own class.
If you work for Vice, or BuzzFeed, you're getting paid like 60 grand a year to do what?
Nothing.
That's my point.
That there are people who train really, really hard and are like, I do an honest living, I'm a plumber, I'm making X amount of dollars, and it's like, yeah.
And that kid who showed up one day and said, don't know, don't care, is being given four or five times as much money as you by simple proximity.
So what I'm trying to say is, When I say choice, I'm saying proximity.
I'm saying that you could decide to go and seek out wealthy individuals and try and befriend them, and you would be surprised a lot of these people are really, really dumb and undeserving of what they have relative to you.
Sit down on State and Jackson, or whatever, I don't know, State and Jackson, and take a Folgers tin, sit on the ground up against a wall, write a sign that says, I have nothing, please understand, and fall asleep.
I mean, if you go to Mr. Beast's neighborhood, you're more likely to be handed $10,000 than if you don't.
That's what I'm talking about.
When I learned how people make money in this country, it's simply by being around money.
I'm like, you just need to choose to do it.
You need to say, today, I'm in a poor neighborhood, I'm gonna go panhandle in the rich neighborhood.
Making that simple of a choice.
Not everybody understands that, but that's the simple nature of the choice.
Instead of selling lotion at the mall, sell lotion in Beverly Hills.
Now you're rich.
It's crazy to me that I see hippie ladies that will, like, buy beads at Hobby Lobby for $5 and then go sell it in a wealthy neighborhood and make $300,000 a year.
I'm like, wow!
These people are rich because rich people just buy this thing.
It's the same thing.
Make your market the wealthier person.
But anyway, we're way over time, so I'll wrap it up.