The Culture War #72 The End Of Liberalism With Carl Benjamin, Connor Tomlinson
Host:
Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere)
Guests:
Carl Benjamin | LotusEaters.com
Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson (X)
Phil Labonte @PhilThatRemains (X)
Producers:
Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X)
Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
Connect with TENET Media:
https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow
https://www.facebook.com/watchTENET
https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/
https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet
https://www.youtube.com/@watchTENET
https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150
https://www.tenetmedia.com/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Twas 11 years ago, I was but a wee lad watching the internet when I came across a YouTube video from Sargon of Akkad.
And his gentle musings informed me of classical liberalism and great minds like Locke.
And today, this man hates liberalism and is trying- I'm kidding.
But we're here to debate The limits of liberalism, and post-liberalism, because now there are many people who, like Carl I suppose, how would you describe yourself?
And I've been reading more comments from people on X, seeing a lot of these debates, and finding myself in agreement with a lot of what post-liberals have been saying.
I mean, actually watching your show and stuff for a long period of time.
So, that's what we're going to do today.
We have the Lotus Eaters gentleman here with us as well, and Phil Labonte.
So, why don't we just start?
You can do a quick introduction of who you are and what you do.
I'm one of the hosts of the podcast, The Lotus Eaters.
And I finished a degree in philosophy last year because I wanted to get to the bottom of what it is that is actually causing all of the trouble in our political system.
Because you'll notice that most countries that aren't liberal countries just don't have the problems that we have.
So I wanted to understand why we have the problems that we have, and I've come to the conclusion that I think it's liberalism itself that is at issue, because it's trying to bring about a world that has never existed and can never exist.
And so we're constantly finding ourselves butting up against reality, from the ideals of liberalism.
I think there is a reasonable way that we can simply modify the ideals of liberalism to change the nature of it to more fit what we are and where we want to go.
Yes, Conor Tomlinson, also co-host over at lototeasers.com, hosts my own show Tomlinson Talks on Wednesday afternoons there, occasionally pop up in various magazines and on the New Culture Forum and the like.
If I were to describe myself, check my Twitter bio, it's Zuma Catholic Reactionary, in that order.
And my main critiques, I think, will be levelled at the false anthropology of liberalism, namely the blank slate and the state of nature, and how its attitude towards technology causes an antagonistic relationship with culture and creates a kind of revolutionary dynamism that mandates it homogenise everything to be undifferentiated human mass.
I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains.
I am an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary, and I am trying to understand why these two gentlemen, who I so strongly agree with on many points, believe that the seed of liberalism's destruction is in liberalism's birth.
And it is something that I'm struggling with.
I'm not here to actually...
I don't want to cast this as a debate, but I'm really here to try to understand why they see the liberalism as they do, because I don't see the same promises in liberalism that you were talking about.
I think one way to really kick this off is that the other day, when Karl first showed up, and I mentioned I was really excited for this conversation, Karl said he was excited to explain to Phil why he's a communist.
How is someone who believes in liberalism actually a... Well, first first, the American word liberal, as it's often used, has nothing to do with liberalism.
I can already see in my mind, you are correct where this goes in the long run, what I mean is if you go to the average person, and say liberal or conservative, they're thinking a grey-haired woman wearing a Save the Whales shirt, and a guy in a MAGA hat waving an American flag, and they have no concept of the underlying ideologies that bring those people to those positions.
So when we say in the media a liberal, they're basically saying someone who voted Democrat.
And you could argue that is a function of what liberalism brought about.
I'm saying that most of these people have no idea about the ideology, the underlying principles, and many of them would vote for Donald Trump, as we've seen with these man-on-the-street interviews where they say, how would you feel about someone building a wall to secure the border?
And they'd say, I'm for that.
And you're a Democrat?
Yes, I am.
And okay, well, that was Trump's position.
And so people really, it just means tribe.
But, in the true sense of liberalism, how it got us to this point, the word actually, like, these voters do have a root in that.
So let's just start from the beginning then, and why does liberal lead to communist, or where do you want to begin?
So the issue is that liberalism makes two promises, which is liberty and equality.
But the thing is, these are, of course, contradictory states.
Any amount of liberty destroys any amount of equality, and any amount of equality destroys any amount of liberty.
And so you would normally have to choose one or the other.
But the problem that the liberals have is that the original liberals managed to harmonize these two things into the same position by creating a thought experiment called the State of Nature.
So in the State of Nature, it was theorized by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Monscu, Hegel, various others.
That man must have existed at some point in a pre-social state.
So it was individual men and women running around the woods, fighting off animals, you know, eating acorns, things like that.
And then they'd bump into each other, and depending on the sort of disposition of the theorist, would decide what they thought would happen in those interactions.
And then each one has their own reason for why man decided, you know what, actually living in the state of nature is difficult or undesirable.
Let's all get together and consciously choose to form a society.
And from that point onwards, we can start deciding what kind of government we're going to have, what kind of constitution the state should have, and things like that.
So if I give everyone in the room $10 and I say, right, OK, now you're all equal, well, any amount of economic activity will make you unequal.
unidentified
So what is it about, how is it that liberalism makes a promise of equality?
I understand, and it's my conception, that it's a, that it is, the concept is equality under the law.
I don't see where Liberalism is making a promise of equality of results.
Because it has a false anthropology of fundamental human sameness.
I mean the direct quote from Locke is that in before civilization human beings existed in perfect freedom and perfect equality.
So the idea is that until culture, until different states, until different geographies, frankly, intervened, human beings, if they run out the same experiments, would produce the same outcomes.
And so this sets up an antagonistic relationship with the liberal state as a kind of compromise.
As Carl said, it depends on the disposition of the theorist as to why the state was formed.
Rousseau thought it was out of envy, Locke thought it was out of a necessary compromise to secure property.
So then my, so my disagreement would be that I don't agree with the preconceived notion in liberalism that there is, that there was a perfect state of nature where man was all equal.
I do understand the idea as in, if man were running around in the woods alone, all men would be basically equal.
Yeah.
Because of the conditions of reality.
But that doesn't change the fact that Even in that context there would be different heights, different strengths, different abilities, and so the fundamental, if the argument is, if that was the preconception, then I would say I reject that, that's wrong.
They'd be like, well, yes, there would be different physical powers, but those physical powers would not be so great as to enable one man to say, monopolize natural resources or something like that.
If it's just one guy on his own in the woods, even if he's 10 feet tall and is capable of tearing down trees, He doesn't really have access to very much more than a guy who's five foot five and just has to climb trees to get fruits or something, right?
Because equality in the pre-modern sense isn't really about physical equality, it's really about social equality.
Because the pre-modern societies are very stratified, very hierarchical.
You're born into a social class and that class comes with obligations and restrictions, limitations and you will be born in the class and you will die in the class and you are sort of held in this web of social relations and I don't doubt that in its time that felt very oppressive to especially up-and-coming, intelligent, active, educated middle class I want to interject one thing.
unidentified
The idea that society was created by man, I would reject that idea as well.
And I would say very likely even before proto-humans, the organisms that eventually come to be human existed.
And we can actually frame this two different ways.
The first is The, you know, three million years ago, whatever weird monkey-like creatures were social creatures.
And more importantly, you can also make the religious argument, if you believe in creationism, man was created as a social entity in the Garden of Eden.
Right, exactly.
unidentified
Well, so this is actually probably the easiest way to understand the anthropology of liberalism.
They all kind of think of it as a Garden of Eden narrative.
Yeah.
I mean, Locke, if you think of the state of nature of man roaming around with perfect freedom and equality, it's essentially that nature provides.
Locke thought it didn't provide enough.
So therefore we had to enter a state which would guarantee your private property rights.
Rousseau believed that Eden basically existed, even though he wasn't a Christian, and that the first time man conceived of, he picked up this rock and said, this is my rock, it introduced a kind of contaminated element into the human psyche.
And so all of civilization was created to manage that envy and keep property unequal.
Many, many progressives and leftists And they don't consider themselves liberals, have this belief that man was better off in the wilds because the system was created by evil to oppress and control.
They act as if the peasants lived in a post-industrial society.
Like, there was, in the 70s, there was a TV show where they took like a dozen people and were like, right, you're gonna live like someone in like, you know, 700 AD or something like that.
And all these people did is work.
You know, they've got to stitch their own clothes, they've got to constantly look after the animals, they're constantly cleaning, they're constantly sewing, they're constantly, you know, preparing food, whatever it is.
Everything takes a long time.
So there's no such thing as a holiday.
There's no such thing as time off.
Things need to be done, even if you're not just ploughing the fields.
This is the fundamental problem with liberalism.
It creates a mythology for itself which is false.
It never happened.
It was never the case that man lived in this Garden of Eden state of nature.
But what the problem with mythologies, well not a problem but one of the functions of mythology, is that it sets the values of the civilization.
It tells the civilization what is good.
And that's why liberalism is constantly harping on about freedom and equality.
These are the values of liberalism because they're set from the state of nature in the original position that man was supposed to be in.
unidentified
Would you call Rousseau a product of liberalism?
He is one of the architects of liberalism.
Really?
Because I feel like he's far closer to a romantic.
It's my understanding, and I'm just trying to understand.
It's my understanding that liberalism as a product of the enlightenment says that we can contact reality, that we can reason.
Romanticism rejects reason.
Romanticism says that you should go to your emotions and that's a better way to understand the world.
Your reactions, your emotions, these are more real to people than reason because even Nietzsche was saying that Man's most fallible faculty is reason, because when you reason, you are, without a doubt, capable of being wrong because you don't have enough information, you don't have the capacity to reason properly or whatever.
So, from my understanding, Rousseau, as a romantic, and this is something, and this is the way I'm only talking about what I see it, so, Rousseau as a romantic,
Is far closer to what we see today on the social justice left than would be any other kind of enlightenment philosophy because the left rejects the ability to, they think that power comes from words as opposed to being able to reason and being able to argue from a place of charity.
He begins with liberal priors, he constructs his philosophy rationalistically, he just has a different interpretation.
And I don't know what definition you're using for a romantic, but I would say he was more idealistic about what he thinks the state of nature would have been like.
unidentified
He wanted savages made to live in cities, I understand that part, yeah.
But they still begin from the same thought experiment, with the same a priori assumption that this was how things were.
And since this must have been man in the pre-social state of nature, Why did he come together into a society and what should that society look like from those presuppositions?
So Rousseau is 100% illiberal.
unidentified
If I can go off that a little bit, so I did actually study the romantics because I was silly enough to take English at university.
It's important though.
You know it is, yes.
We shouldn't have abandoned that field to Rousseauians, funnily enough, the Romantics saw the epistemology of emotional intuition as the way to repeal what was getting in the way of man's authentic consciousness.
And so if Rousseau starts with the same anthropology as Locke, that they were in the state of nature, he's just a bit more optimistic about it.
Then that means everything that's come after the state of nature is a deterioration from source.
And what he's seeking to do is have the state emulate the same conditions as the state of nature.
And so he thinks that if we've grown up in the state and let's move this away from our original pre-civilizational existence, Then, reasoning based on those priors isn't going to get us anywhere.
It's just that emotions and intuitions are the more authentic apparatus for getting back to the same anthropology he shares with Locke.
And I think what you're identifying is, it sounds a lot like Marx.
Yeah, absolutely.
Because Marx basically plagiarized Rousseau.
There's a reason why the final line of the Communist Manifesto, the workers have nothing to lose but their chains, Apes, the opening line of Rousseau, which is that man is born free and is everywhere in chains.
They share a lot of those similarities, and this is why, and this is something we'll get onto later, that's why the communists are always nipping at the heels of the liberals.
Because fundamentally they share the same anthropology.
That all underneath, we're fundamentally equal, we have the same fundamental natural rights, and it's civilization that is getting in the way of us realizing our egalitarian natures.
And what I'm going to say is, when Marx says they have nothing to lose but their chains, what it means to be unchained is to be separated from society, the privileges, the benefits, and the responsibilities.
To be born free of those things also means to be in a downward state where you will likely succumb to death.
The way I try to explain it, certainly outside of the confines of philosophical understanding and great writers, when I talk to my friends, because I'm like a teenager, I'm like, dude, why don't you go try living in the middle of the woods buck naked and see how you like it?
Like, be free.
Be free as you want to be.
No support, no help, no making your clothes, no plastics, no computers.
unidentified
Bro, I don't want to walk outside barefoot halfway.
And so, what I would say to them, for a lot of my friends who are always complaining about something, I said, you need to understand that you live in this great privilege of society with roads, with protection, with police, all of these things.
Go in the middle of the woods, buck naked, you're at zero, and without society, without family, without community, you are slowly going to die.
And actually, very quickly, I should say, slowly, but now...
Now imagine you're in the middle of the woods, completely buck naked, but you have a pointy stick.
That is a step up from being totally nothing.
To separate the workers from their chains is to say, go into the woods with absolutely nothing.
The chains are the social bonds that tie us together.
So when Rousseau says, man is born free, but everywhere isn't changed, what he's saying is, man is an atomized individual who should be alone in the woods.
But for some reason he's born into this civilization.
But in reality that's just not the case.
You're born as the son of parents.
You're born in a country.
You're born in a community.
You are born to a social network.
You are not born free.
Nobody is born free.
And what good would freedom do to a baby anyway?
It would be the freedom to literally starve or freeze to death.
I think it's interesting because we see one of the highest rates of mortality is just after retirement.
Babies that don't receive human contact also die.
Humans as social creatures, I wonder if this is a component of evolution where if a society, if a person had aged to a point where they were no longer contributing, Their survival would be a detriment to the remaining tribe who would have to do extra work to maintain something that is not doing anything in return.
And a baby without touch is also like, it's like self-terminate essentially.
This is a net negative, there's no positive.
I wonder if that's an evolutionary thing about social constructs or social connections.
It is the worst thing you can do, other than simply hanging them, right?
And we know this.
So we know that everything about liberalism being like, OK, well, actually, we used to live in the Garden of Eden, and we used to be on our own, and that's where things were perfect.
That's not correct.
And it's also not a desirable goal at all.
Because this is why the mythology of liberalism is the poison that is the problem.
The constant liberation from contingency.
Everything you should have, you should have all the time, whenever you feel like it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
The way you've explained not being born free, I would completely agree as well, right?
You are born into a country with laws, and there are responsibilities to you, and you reach a certain age, you then have responsibilities back.
Those chains of society have always been there.
Unless you were born in the middle of the woods, and your mom ran away, and then you got eaten by wolves.
unidentified
I believe it was St.
Augustine who said, it's not that we're born free and equal, it's that we're born in urine and excrement.
In a sense, we're born inextricably contingent on everyone around us who is compelled to make sacrifices to take care of us.
This is why when you had Katie Faust on your show a while ago with my good friend Geoff Younger, she said, civilization is healthiest when everything is reoriented around caring for those who get the absolute least say into the position that they are born in.
Because they cannot consent to the parents that they choose, they can't choose their parents, therefore the parents must act as if they could have chosen and they would have chosen them.
And we are now, here in the United States, and to what degree in the UK or Europe, I'm not, you guys can answer that one, but we are society for the elderly now.
Our government is run by the oldest, for the oldest, who refuse to give up power.
The advocacy is, do not have children.
Children are bad.
Children should be aborted.
It is no longer a society being oriented around children.
The civilization used to be focused around families with children.
That's what it used to be focused around.
And now it's focused around single adults who have got wage jobs, who hate their lives, who just want to get their burger just before they kill themselves.
unidentified
Not just that, there's a proliferation, this is something I've noticed particularly about America, of homeless, vagrant drug addicts.
I wrote about this recently for the European Conservatives.
They are the last man of liberalism.
I think this is why you're seeing anarcho-tyranny on American streets.
It's because As you said, if you have an on-demand desire all the time, that is the true and authentic expression of your individual freedom.
And anyone asserting a standard, even if it's loving concern for the addiction you have, is an incursion on that freedom.
So what you need is like a TSA-style government that oversees all relationships and ensures that at no point are you Impinged upon by someone else's expectations.
So the government, and this is how it mutates from Locke to Rousseau, from limited government as the founders intended to a totalitarian government, it's that on the premise that we are born free and equal and that our very own relationships and our own parents And their expectations are incursions on our freedom.
The government has to step in to ensure that no interaction ever stops that.
And so you sleeping on the street or in the doorway of a CVS shooting up heroin and ODing and no one caring for you is actually the vision of your total freedom.
And from a non-liberal perspective, it's complete evil.
But it's not a coincidence that in every place that the Democrats end up running, they end up going, well, we need to provide those people with needles.
unidentified
And the Taliban walk in, and then they withdraw it.
This is an interesting argument that relates to gender dysphoria.
Matt Walsh, his position has been there should be no Sex change surgery for anyone, doesn't matter how old you are.
And many of the classical liberals, the middle-of-the-road, disaffected liberal types who have now said, I'm voting for Trump, take the position, well, no, no, no, if you're an adult, you can choose to do what you want to do.
And I think that makes an interesting argument.
And I've asked people this question as well.
I mean, if someone went to a doctor and said, I'm body dysmorphic, I want my hand removed, would you remove it?
And everyone says no.
I said, okay, well then what's the moral difference between someone's reproductive organs and their hand?
unidentified
Should we let an anorexic get liposuction?
Or should we say, no, you're deluded, and we should save your life and prevent you from making this irreversible decision?
You have a miscalibrated perception about yourself.
And this is quite a deeply personal issue to me because I've had friends that have fallen afoul of this and are now sterile and fertile and have complications.
And they themselves said, okay, I was above the age of 18 at the time.
This is really interesting as it pertains to the idea of chains of society.
What are the chains of society?
When you are born, you will be fed.
You'll be taken care of.
Your parents must do it.
We have an apparatus of the state to try and step in when that is not the case.
But you look at everything that is coming about through Democrats, the left, I'm sure it's the same in Europe, it is breaking the chains, quite literally, to the point where Children are being aborted and killed and treated as things.
Prominent leftist YouTubers... I asked Vosh, when does a baby become a human?
He said, some point after birth.
It is quite literally removing the humanity from a person and taking away...
They, this is really fascinating, the way Marx describes chains, the way the left describes chains, is they want you to imagine a slave master having you chained.
But one of the liberal thinkers said, look, what we're going to do is we're going to create... Kant.
Oh, it was Kant.
Right.
So Kant, again, is a great example of this, where he's trying to create a framework that is a rational framework That any rational being should be able to consent to.
So, okay, I've got a series of rights, a series of restrictions on myself and obligations to the state, and therefore I could have a society of rational devils who could all live peaceably because of the social contract.
The United States is a social contract society, right?
So theoretically you should have a society that could function from, you know, a society of rational devils.
But I actually don't want to live in a society of devils, actually.
Why do we want to make devils someone we can live alongside?
Can't I live alongside good and virtuous people?
unidentified
And this is why the French Revolution failed and the American Revolution succeeded, one of many reasons, is because actually the American Constitution, the social contract, is subordinate to the fact that you were formulated from a time, a place, a particular people and a faith, and all of the underlying assumptions of the Constitution
were baked in by the authors, but as the demographics changes, religion wanes, you're no longer living by these thick bonds of sentiment and Christian faith, you're living up and according to the letter of the law, and if they don't believe in the original sentiment that wrote the law, then it just becomes, how do we quickly circumvent this and establish an elite class that can apply the law selectively?
And Benjamin Franklin said it is better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
Sure.
And the reason was We need these enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee the rights because we know government can run afoul, but we've witnessed this.
The reason these rights must be protected is that a society that, a citizen who believes that even if he is a good person who abides by the rules of society and law, if they believe they will be Improperly prosecuted, imprisoned, or punished.
They have no incentive to be a good person.
In fact, quite the opposite.
They will lie, cheat, and steal to protect themselves from a corrupt system.
Therefore, the system must always persevere to protect the innocent so that they always try to be their best selves.
And, of course, Blackstone's formulation, Sodom and Gomorrah, rooted in the Bible.
The United States' foundation of its constitution, its governance, its moral worldview was rooted in Christianity.
unidentified
And an English interpretation of that Christianity.
It expresses these ideas, but it has no connection to what actually brought it to that point.
A man who says he's an atheist, and more power to him, it's fine.
Live how you want to live, I guess.
But my point is, with that ideology, what that results in is Abject chaos and the dissolution of social order.
So this man, Bill Maher, who will go on TV and say, but I believe in free speech, but I believe in these things.
He doesn't understand that the root ideology for which he was raised in is Christian moral structure.
unidentified
On that point, he went and did an interview with our friends at Trigonometry, and he was celebrating the fact that London is now a minority English.
And what he doesn't understand, and this is an outgrowth of liberal philosophy as well, is that you can't have civilisation in amber.
You can't have values and principles dislocated from the peoples that formulated them, because they are the only ones who have enshrined those values in their hearts and minds.
As Demestra said, a constitution is just the codification of what the authors thought, and you can't make people live according to those things if they don't believe what it was originally there.
And so all these principles that he advocates for, free speech and license to not be judged for being a pot-smoking degenerate, suddenly if you import millions of Islamic followers, Muslims, into Britain, those values go away.
The constitution has changed.
And so, Bill Maher may well appeal to this, but under the rubric of liberalism, he is doing what Renaud Camus called the second career of Adolf Hitler.
And that is, in the name of making a nation, after the Second World War, prove its anti-racist credentials and be open and free and tolerant to prevent the guard towers of Auschwitz from being reconstructed, he's actually imported the values of another country who doesn't believe in this and has the exact same thing happen all over again.
Overly simplify that into a meme Millennials would understand.
It's Sideshow Bob stepping on the rake and smacking himself in the face over and over again and going... There are a couple of points there that I want to just pick up on as well.
Jonathan Haidt has proven, look, most of what you do is actually quite irrational, quite habitual.
And it's only when you have to stop and think and deliberate very, very carefully that you become rational for a small period of time.
So a society of rational devils would have to be rational quite a lot of the time.
And so this social contract only holds until some guy who might not be terribly intelligent decides, you know, I don't care.
I'm not going to be rational and I'm going to just attack that Asian grandma or something because I'm sick of these Asians in my neighborhood or something like that.
So the social contract breaks down like that instantly because they've got no they've got no love for one another.
Love is what prevents that from happening, right?
So that's the problem with the society of rational devils.
Well, it only holds while they're 100% rational.
And, well, there are lots of people who aren't 100% rational any of the time.
And there was a second thing that... The immigration thing is particularly interesting, right?
Because the...
Most cultures would instinctively say, well, no, we're not going to bring in millions of people from a foreign culture.
That's mad because that would attack our own culture, the integrity of our culture, right?
Most normal cultures would think that.
But the liberals, the interesting thing about pre-social man is what you do is you create a kind of universal man.
A kind of universal blank slate because they point out, rightly so, that a lot of the way that we are is formed by the society in which we live.
Like your accents, the things you believe, the habits you have, the food you like to eat, the clothes you wear, the things you watch.
The way that you think we should interact with other people, all of these things are socially conditioned into us.
And so if you took someone from one society, a baby from one society, raised them in another society, they would have the social conditioning of that other society.
But the problem is, no person is ever raised outside of a society.
So there's never a time where there is a universal blank-slate man who can be presented as, oh here we go, we're all just the same really.
So these people have got their own value system, they've got their own norms, they've got their own habits, they've got their own...
Well, I think really backwards belief around, you know, inter-gender behaviors and things like that.
And we're just bringing them in because we've assumed underneath all of that, they're just like us.
And it's like, well, hey, there's no getting underneath all of that.
That is what they are authentically to the core, because that's all they know of reality.
So there's a 4chan post from someone who said that they were a psychology major, or something to the effect that they did experiments, and they said that low IQ people could not understand conditional hypotheticals.
They would ask a question, how would you have felt if you did not eat breakfast yesterday?
And so now it's become a meme on X, where when someone says something dumb, you respond with, how would you have felt if you didn't have breakfast yesterday?
Low IQ people say, But I did.
Or they'd say, but I didn't, and you're like, no, no, no, but okay, so hypothetically, and they can't comprehend.
In that post, it's actually a bit more elaborate.
The individual goes on to say that they went to prisons, and they spoke with violent offenders who had murdered, raped, or, you know, and robbed, and things like this, maimed, and they asked them, how do you think the mother of the man you murdered felt when she found out you killed her son.
And they go, huh?
unidentified
I have a clip of this that we can play off.
I don't know.
Because Ross Kemp went to South Africa and asked a bunch of rapists, admitted rapists, how do you feel about this?
Do you not feel bad about this?
And they kept saying, yeah, well, we might get the girl pregnant, so we might be worried.
But the funny thing is, like, it is regressive solipsism.
It is not someone who has sat down and had a conversation on a philosophy and then come to the conclusion, nihilism and solipsism, therefore I'll do what I please.
It's people who can't even create, understand, or get anywhere near that idea.
unidentified
The fundamental assumption that all people are equal is probably the worst thing that, or that people all experience the world, not equal, that all people experience the world in the same way.
It's only the modern era, the liberal era, where anyone thinks that.
In every sort of pre-modern society, they understand that no, you come from a tribe, another tribe is a separate people to you, and they will behave differently.
unidentified
And that was the fundamental assumption that got the United States and England into the Iraq War.
Led to the rise of ISIS, led to unbelievable horrors.
unidentified
And as much as people will say that, oh, well, you know, it was it was George Bush or whatever, it's like, no, that is it wasn't George Bush.
And it wasn't actually the argument that they might have nuclear material and stuff like that.
That was the yeah, exactly.
That was the argument on the face.
But the real reason that people accepted it was, well, Americans accepted it, was we'll go in and they'll be better off once they take Saddam out of power because they want to be free like us.
And that is wrong.
And as long as our society keeps behaving as if that's true, which it does currently, there has been no change in the minds of the people that organized the Iraq war.
In fact, a good portion of them are currently in the administration now.
And as long as that intuition has not changed, the mistakes will keep repeating.
This is, in my opinion, most well manifested in the migrant crisis in Britain, where you've got 90% of young men in their 20s and early 30s who are essentially adventuring.
They're obviously adventurers, and they're obviously breaking into Britain because they know they're going to get free money.
And it's like, okay, look, this isn't anything new.
Young men have always gone on adventures.
You know, they've always joined groups of people who go off adventuring to get whatever plunder they can get.
unidentified
On social media, they advertise our women on nights out in states of drunkenness as the spoils of war.
And it's like, look, but the liberals are like, oh no, they're just coming here because they're victims of whatever, and they just want to be like us.
It's like, no, they're coming here to exploit us, and they know that, and we know that.
And yet, for some reason, this is still being allowed to happen.
unidentified
And again, to this point, this is an argument that Sam Harris, regardless of your opinion of him, This is the argument that he makes about Islam, and he gets tons of hell for it.
He's right.
But if you read Dabiq, which I've mentioned before, that was their magazine where they outlined, they had a whole article where they outlined exactly what they thought.
At the time, Barack Obama was making the argument, no, it's economic.
They don't really believe that.
And it's like, no, you're a fool.
They absolutely believe that.
They absolutely do want to kill people that disagree with them because their religion says, and it's been this way for the entirety of the Islamic history.
That is the way that they think.
And so, sure, there are definitely peaceful Muslims.
There are liberalized Muslims that could come to Western countries and live perfectly normal lives with with everybody and they go to you go to the park and they'll you know Have have cookouts with their neighbors and it'll be wonderful and everybody be happy But that doesn't mean that there isn't a portion of the people that have that theology That believe that they are better that believe that it is the right thing to do to enslave People that disagree it's it's not a coincidence that terrorism follows Islam, right?
It's not a coincidence exactly It comes from the belief system.
But the thing is, I think this is a good point to go on to communism now, right?
Because it's not a coincidence that communism dogs liberalism.
It's not a coincidence that every liberal society has a communist fringe that is pushing for more and more and more, and it's because the communists fundamentally agree with the liberal mythology.
At no point do the communists ever say, oh no, that's not how things were.
They say, yes, the state of nature sounds like a great idea, so why do we have private property?
Because the liberals know they expressly left the state of nature to protect private property.
And the communists rightly, and they are correct on this, identify private property as the source of inequality, which it is.
And so the communists say, well look, to get back to the state of nature, we have to get rid of the property.
And the liberal actually has to kind of admit that they're correct on that.
There are a few contemporary conflicts which started to change my view on free speech and liberalism, classical liberalism.
So we, for a long time, and right alongside me, Carl, we were defending people who opposed free speech on social media when they were being banned.
They would say awful things, they would call for Carl to be banned, they got Carl banned, and then when they got banned, we would all jump up and say, no, no!
We are moral people who believe in free speech, so they must be unbanned.
We effectively were handing them the stones which they would cast in our direction.
And so then I had a change of mind about it.
I said, rights for those who believe in rights.
And so that is...
If you believe no one should have free speech, then I say, I agree.
Censor that man.
Absolutely.
Then when the government comes to shut you down, I will say, congratulations on getting exactly what you asked for.
And then if anyone else of any ideology, someone can come and tell me they're a communist, but Free speech must be maintained, always, no matter what.
And the communist states that have suppressed free speech were wrong, I'll say defend that man's speech.
unidentified
These ideas are like free speech and stuff like that.
They're internally working.
They only work in a closed system.
You can't have a... I've mentioned this problem with liberalism before.
You can't have
An authoritarian philosophy come into a liberal philosophy and say well, we're going to live under liberal principles until we have the ability to force you and so liberalism if it if liberalism and this is not particular to the liberalism that we're talking about but if our society as a And whatever name you want to call it is going to survive It has to have the ability to exclude and it has to have the ability to use force to defend its principles Let me I want to elaborate on my point
I was thinking about free speech, and they say speech is the most important thing.
I mean, if you can't express your ideas, how can you maintain your principles, your values, your culture, etc.?
And I was thinking about how they release these criminals in various cities and states and countries.
A criminal will go and mercilessly beat a person.
We say, okay, we want to apply force against this person, which is to detain them, to lock them in a box.
The liberals then say, no, no, that's unfair, release them.
You have someone who is violating the social contract in beating you, but you will not uphold the contract against them.
And so I look at that as plainly obvious to the average person.
Hey, physical violence is wrong.
The question then becomes, why did we release that person from jail?
And then I thought about it.
What's the difference with free speech?
Speech is an important thing.
We need to be able to express our ideas without censorship.
But if an individual is going around shutting people down so they cannot speak, for us to defend their free speech would be akin to releasing a violent criminal from jail because jail is wrong.
Because remember, the Rousseauian paradigm has the person as the victim of society.
And so the person who... And this is why.
This is why they're always on the side of criminals, right?
Because if you're hard-working, you pay your taxes, you obey the law, you get on with your neighbors, then you are the beneficiary of an unjust system.
Because the system does produce criminals, right?
A system that we didn't choose, that grew up around us, that you are privileged by.
You are actually the oppressor of the criminal.
Because the criminal didn't choose to live in society, and he can't live by the rules.
He can't live by the laws.
And so when the society is clubbing him down and persecuting him, that's unjust as far as the very left-wing liberal is concerned.
However, I also agree that there are circumstances a person could engage in where they have forfeit their right to life.
That is, if a criminal pulls a gun on an old Asian woman... Kills him.
If you are in a circumstance where you must defend the life of another person, the action taken by the criminal perpetrator that puts other people at risk, they have forfeited their right to continue living.
And I don't want them to die.
I want to avoid that in all circumstances.
That being said, it's not that I'm saying they deserve it, I'm saying we must take the action necessary to save lives.
And I agree, and the challenge I think that I come to with that is, we need to make sure that the people that function within our society know we will do everything in our power to protect the innocent and those who abide by our values, lest they decide one day, my friend just got the crap beaten out of him because they were wrong.
Yeah.
And if that's what's gonna happen to me, I better be sneaky.
unidentified
We want people to be honest.
I mean the example I would always use in the UK is the Lee Rigby murderers.
There was a Royal Army drummer who was stabbed, decapitated, brutalized in broad daylight.
His two killers are now in Belmarsh Prison, and as Islamists, are at liberty on the taxpayer's dime to sit in their cells and worship all day and cavort with their fellow Islamists.
Because there is no doubt that they did it, and what naive optimism are we laboring under where we think that locking them in a box for a little while and giving them room to reflect might recondition them and allow them to assimilate back into civilization?
And I agree with this because You know, a lot of people ask me why I oppose the death penalty, and it's because we do not have such a system here in the United States, where we only give the death penalty when there is a clear video of a man doing it, who then screams, I did it and will do it again.
We have instances where corrupt prosecutors like Kamala Harris tell me, trust me, this person's bad, and it has resulted in an amount of innocent death.
But I also got to add, the problem of your country in this circumstance, What do you think would have happened to this man if he did this in West Virginia?
I want interplanetary, interstellar, subspace communications.
And when a crazy ideologue pulls out a machete and then says, screams a fanatical, you know, Alhu Akbar, and then grabs a guy by the hair and... This is awful.
My concern, however, is I want to make sure that we present ourselves to future generations as firm, logical, rational, and when a child looks at a man who just had to end the life of another man who is evil, he does not say, ha ha ha, what a great thing, my child.
He says, we must endeavor to make these not possible, which means a secure state, a secure border, and these criminals not being able to engage in these actions in the first place.
We should not celebrate that we had to end the life of a crazy person.
Sure, but there's also a kind of issue with the... I don't think morality is rational.
I think morality is sentimental.
And I think to be a genuinely good person you have to tap into a well of feeling.
That you feel towards someone else.
And this is what heroism is, right?
Because whenever you see these videos where you've got some lunatic with a gun going and killing people, and then some guy puts his own neck out and just, bam, gets him.
That is heroism.
That's a heroic act.
He's putting himself in danger.
And this isn't rational, because it's rational to just leave.
It's not my problem.
I'm going to go, right?
But no, I'm going to put myself in a line of danger because it's morally the right thing to do.
It comes from the heart.
But I agree with you, there should be a level of due solemnity to this.
I think it is only because, and I don't even know if I have the grounds to say this, but neither of us have ever had to shoot somebody.
The only thing I've ever heard from people who have is trauma and regret and wonder, did I have to?
Should I have?
The stories from Vietnam where we draft these young men, drop them on the shores, and they aim above the average height of a person.
They shoot into the trees.
They don't want to do it.
unidentified
This has not been my experience.
There's a lot of people that I know that, especially guys that tend to get into the Special Forces stuff, they are as murdery as they come.
Chris Coyle's biography is exactly that.
That's scary.
There's another guy, there's a guy that...
B.J.
Baldwin, right?
He's a race car driver, does B.J.J.
A couple years back, he was in a parking lot in Las Vegas, and a guy pulled out a gun and was attacking his girl, and he does a lot of competitions.
He cleared the garment, drew, smoked the guy, two sets, like under a second, like super fast.
And he did what he had to do to save his girlfriend, or his wife.
When you do things like that for the right reasons, if you're defending your family, it is actually more common for people to not feel that kind of bad.
Why would you?
Exactly.
And that is a good thing.
And it's something, as a society, we should hold in high regard, because you did the hard, right thing.
That's a great point though because this is the point that we're making about like, you know, Phil making about the guy shooting the guy who's going to threaten his wife.
We're not celebrating having done harm because we're not trying to do harm.
And I agree that there should be sort of due solemnity, but I don't think there's any... I don't think it helps, like quibbling over, well, what about the harm to the criminal?
I was talking about Cincinnatus the other day, and he was a consul in Rome, I believe, right?
He was called upon during an invasion to take dictatorial powers, and I think it was like 14 days, 16 days, they quelled the invasion, and he says, I'll see you guys later, and they were like, you don't want, you have absolute power, everyone will do it.
He's like, I'm gonna go back to my farm.
Several years later, another emergency, they called him back, they said there's an uprising, he's like, I'll take care of it, but then I'm leaving.
And we look at that, and that is a, that is something I think we, that is a story to look up to.
I want our children to grow up to be like that great dictator, emperor, who gave up his power.
They are strong men.
They are rational men.
My concern is you get If people, if children are taught to derive pleasure from these circumstances, you end up with these leftist lunatics and violent... We want strong reasoned men.
I would say is, I know that you, when you're celebrating the bad guy being stopped, who literally beheaded a soldier, your celebration is not in the death, it's in the preservation of life.
And my concern is, a child who may not understand the nuances of this, thinking the celebration is in the destruction, as opposed to the limiting factor of Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that we're emphasizing the justice that is being preserved by the stopping of the evildoer.
As long as the children understand that when our soldiers come home and we're celebrating and cheering mission accomplished, it's not because of the death that was wrought in the war, it's because of what we halted, what was stopped, and what needed to be done for the preservation of our society and our life.
unidentified
Context does matter because if you're like to Tim's point the the idea of people coming home from war and Having done what they were, you know told they had to do in a combat situation is one thing And then something more of what I described where you're on the street defending the lives of your family or whatever those are very different contexts and that that they should be approached differently and the differences in the context need to be addressed because if you
If you are defending your family or your children or even if you're just defending innocent people, part of the reason that we have, you know, we have the issues in New York City is because, you know, Daniel Penney got put, you know, got picked up by the police for trying to defend.
Yeah.
It is sad that the person died, you know, that wasn't their intent, but the effort wasn't to kill the man, the effort was to stop the attack, and that's one of the things that, I mean, I go to a lot of gun classes, I've gone to more than, you know, at least 15 different times I've gone to handgun classes and stuff like that, and one of the things that you're taught Is you're not killing anyone.
The point is not killing.
The point is not to do anything other than to stop the threat.
And one of the things you have to learn is in an interaction like that, the legal use of force is like a light switch.
There are times where you can be in a situation where you have to draw your gun and you take shots, and then the person can fall on the ground, right?
Because they lose blood, but because of the way the body works, when they fall on the ground, their blood pressure had dropped and so they dropped, but then when they're on the ground and they're laying down, blood goes back to their brain.
They could still have the gun, and when they're on the ground, you can't shoot them anymore.
But once the blood goes back into their brain and they get a little bit of sense back, if they start getting up with the gun again, flip that switch, it's time to go to work again and stop that threat.
This brings me, you know, I'm thinking about an interesting consequence of The idea is, we're not trying to kill, we're trying to stop the threat and protect our society.
We want justice, we want stability, we want our values upheld.
I suppose the idea would be, if you had the ability to use the force And there was a guy who was about to commit a murder and you could just halt him.
That would be required by our society as opposed to using a gun.
Yes.
The reason the gun is allowed is because it is the means by which you stop the threat, not kill the person.
As technology is advancing, we are now running into a very serious conundrum of the gray area of weaponry, but also, you go back in time, exile was an option.
Running someone out of town was an option.
People would be satisfied.
To a certain degree, if they had a small village, there was a person who lived there who was a criminal, and they chased him away, and he ran off into the woods and was never seen again.
They'd say, yay!
We're safe.
That doesn't exist anymore.
In the United States, there's no running anywhere.
You're not going to Canada or Mexico.
They're not going to let you in.
You can try, but then you're a problem there.
Then the question becomes, While we don't want people to die, we want to preserve justice, then there's a difference in, and this is interesting, if you do not need to kill the person who is about to commit a murder, or a series of murders, whatever it may be, And you capture them, but you know they are a threat.
And they say to you and to everyone, I'll do it again, you let me out, I swear.
Then we must pay forever as a society.
What is the answer to this question?
Certainly it is not so easy to say that we're just going to keep paying resources and doing labor to preserve some standard of living for someone who is trying to kill and murder and maim.
That's why I've proposed, half-jokingly, the island, where we get a big island, like a big one, maybe, you know, like 20, 30 square miles somewhere.
Not big enough.
And too close.
I'm saying, in the middle of nowhere, and we say, here's what we're gonna do.
We're not paying for you, but you're also not welcome in our society anymore, so we're gonna get you- It's your new little society.
That's right.
Arkham City.
It's where all of the- You wanna live that way?
Live that way with them, and you guys have your own social order.
And then, I feel like that's a solution.
It minimizes how much we have to spend on preserving the lives of evil people without killing them, and it solves the moral question.
And then, hey, we're not killing them.
We're breaking their chains.
unidentified
But liberal anthropology won't allow that, and the reason is...
It's that they believe that by contact with this paradoxically value-neutral but pro-liberal assertion of values, they will have all their civilizational priors deconditioned.
It's like the Frearian idea of education.
The child who hasn't been appropriately inculcated into the society yet repeals the priors of the teacher and then the teacher replaces their priors with proactive liberal slash Marxist values.
And this is what's happening in the UK with these Palestine protests and the mass immigration.
The idea is that we will allow these protests to continue on because eventually just by making physical and cultural contact with secular liberal capitalism all of these tribal issues will Dissolve into a neutral liberal milieu.
Liberals are special people, huh?
Very optimistic.
You know the phrase melting pot that is applied to America often?
They think of a melting pot as a crucible, right?
You put all these metals in and all the impurities will be burnt off and you'll create a billet that you can fashion a fantastic dagger out of.
Actually, it's a blender.
You put all of these incompatible ingredients in, and liberalism is the parameters, the cup that all these ingredients are in.
You hit blend, and they think there will be some sort of nutritious smoothie in it.
Instead, it'll be this lumpy thing, and the most dominant, illiberal ingredient will be the strongest possible aftertaste.
The problem is, liberalism is what will be removed as an impurity.
So, the denser material of culture is not liberalism.
So if you were to, let's call it a centrifuge, right?
If you were to take all of these various cultural metals and put them in the crucible, boil it up, liberalism rises to the top and is pushed out, and the denser material is not going to be liberalism.
And a good example of this is even Noam Chomsky.
When he was asked, there's that famous email where he was asked about violence, and he said, we must not engage in violence, because if we enter this arena, he said something, in the arena of violence, we are not the strong, and we will lose.
And that's what he was trying to tell these, you know, hippie progressive leftists, but not like it matters.
I believe he's correct.
The leftist liberal that is engaging in the acts of violence, and this is a meme most people talk about, Throwing firebombs, using guns, they suck at everything they do.
And unfortunately, our society here in the United States, and to large degrees in Europe, they're tolerating this leftist unrest.
However, most people agree that rural conservative, Second Amendment cheering folks are going to be substantially better at armed combat and conflict, but they try their best to refrain from that becoming the norm for obvious reasons.
You take liberalism and American conservatism, And you throw them in the crucible, and the ejection will be liberalism, not conservatism.
But my point to what you're saying is, if you take fundamentalist Islam and British liberalism and put them in a crucible, Liberalism is what's going to be pushed out.
Islam will become the mass.
unidentified
They think, though, that the technological progress that comes out of liberalism because of its narrative of it being the apotheosis of philosophy as of the Enlightenment, and off the coattails of the scientific revolution, will be a seductive enough power to persuade the Islamists.
And they're not wrong in some places, because have you seen the city The Line?
This massive wall city that looks like a destiny map.
So there is a degree of parasitism happening just because the attraction of wealth and the abolition of privation and of suffering that comes with the adoption of liberal technology It's a strong argument, and you really need to be like an Amish or a Mennonite or a proper Islamic fundamentalist to not buy into the technology.
And that's what C.S.
Lewis was writing about.
He was essentially saying that the paradigm of technology is trying to stave off nature's rule over man, in this Francis Bacon idea.
Those that buy into that, over the generations, will eventually be men ruled by other men who applied technology to them.
They don't know how to build and maintain themselves.
And then, when something in that technology breaks, nature will reassert itself.
The only people that will be able to survive that will be living on the outside of that technological paradigm.
And those, coming back to demographics, those are the only ones with positive birth rates.
I mean, right now, with OnlyFans, for instance, we have a declining birth rate.
This is apocalyptic for any society.
The fascinating thing now is that OnlyFans is turning into guys talking to guys but pretending to be girls and other guys are buying into this.
The masturbatory machine, I mean that literally and figuratively, of the dopamine release economy that we have in the United States is creating a group of people that are going to destroy themselves.
Outside of this, it is going to be, you know, the way I've described it is, the conservative birth rate is higher than the liberal birth rate.
The very simple reality.
If your ideology leans more towards a traditional worldview, your culture, society, your faith, your religion, and your duty, you're more likely to survive, and it's obvious.
On its own terms, but the problem is the liberals control the education system.
So it doesn't matter how many children conservatives have, they're just going to be fodder for the liberal grinder, where they're going to just go through, okay, now you're a communist when you come out of the education system.
It is true, but what we're seeing now culturally is conservatives have started to resist this, and even classical liberals.
Who, as you would view, are part of that chain, that component into the communist pipeline.
But many of these now, I call them disaffected liberals.
Liberals who still think they're liberal but have realized the party and the social structure has gone chaotic and destructive.
We're now looking at pod learning, private education, and things like this.
And healthcare too.
A lot of people are dissociating themselves from the system they created.
unidentified
A lot of the classical liberal wing of the woke coalition, and this would be very unpopular to say though, are also not having the same propagative lifestyles as the non-tech conservatives are.
I still believe Even with the education system controlled by the left, if you were to, I'd make that bet, run the simulations, whatever's you gotta do, take conservative kid and a liberal kid, run the simulation 50 billion times, the only difference with liberals controlling the education system is that it will take longer for them to collapse.
With the cultural shift, quite literally in the culture war, with conservatives fighting the education system, Challenging these degenerate books in schools.
I think we're rapidly on track.
And I can give you an actual example that I've cited several times on my show.
I cover this on my 2018 birth rates in the 2000s among liberals was I think like 1.43 and conservatives was 2.03 or 2.05 or something like that.
And the prediction was give it 18 years and you are going to see this represented in politics.
And we literally did.
Pew Research in 2018 found that for the first time in 100 years, Gen Z, for the first time in 100 years, a generation moved slightly more conservative in some areas.
Not all, in some.
And while Gen Z looks very, very much politically like Millennials, they lean slightly more to the right and conservative values.
Now, a lot of people immediately assumed it's because conservatives were winning the argument.
And that's not the case.
It's because conservatives had more children.
That's it.
Now, polls are coming out showing that Gen Z is shifting towards the Republican Party.
Once again, people are acting like it's because we've convinced Gen Z to be conservative, and I'm like, no, it's because conservatives had more children, and those kids had a tendency towards conservative values.
But also, the left has really reached the sort of end point of their liberal ideals, where they're like, okay, so we're going to chop off your dick and you're going to take loads of drugs.
Yeah, you'll live in a pod, you'll owe nothing, and it's, you know, I'm not surprised some Gen Z kids are like, you know, I don't think I'm that, guys.
So, I don't know how much longer we've got left, but I thought what might be worth doing is talking about what is a sort of alternative way of looking at the world to the liberal way?
unidentified
So, before we get into that, you two have both convinced me, because my preconceptions about what liberalism was or is, Apparently they were wrong because the things that you're pointing out, the idea of a blank slate I don't agree with, the idea that society existed prior to, or that society didn't exist prior to man I don't agree with.
So all of the things that you pointed out I already agreed with and I thought about, thought exactly, I just, I had a different understanding of the fundamental... To add some continuity to this that might be interesting is that I really appreciate the humility that you've come to this discussion with, Phil.
Well, because it's one I want to understand.
Someone you cite frequently is a friend of the show, James Lindsay.
When Carl put this to James, despite having frequent conversations, James decided to block Carl and not listen.
And this is, I think, the same reason why we keep hearing this term far-right, is the same reason why James doesn't want to acknowledge this, and the same reason why James is a liberal.
In Cynical Theories, he and Helen Pluckrow said the reason they want to defeat critical social justice, wokeness, is because they fear not necessarily their aims going too far, because they agree with everything up until the 1990s, basically.
It's that they're afraid of the far-right backlash that's going to come when this thing inevitably fails.
And what far-right now takes to mean in parlance, this is why lots of disaffected liberals, even like yourself, Tim, are now part of the far-right.
Far-right, especially after the Second World War, essentially put the blank slate on steroids because nobody wanted to see the Nazis rise to power again, means any nation, whether they fought or lied with the Germans, who has a preference for their own people, their own history, their own culture, and their own national preferences.
And that is seen as a provocation against universal, homogenous, anti-racist liberalism.
And so this is why I think any time that a post-liberal vision has been articulated that is particular about a religion or a people The likes of James and some of the Anti-Work Coalition have gone, whoa, whoa, hang on guys.
I thought we were just going back to the 90s here.
We don't want the religious right in charge.
I'm going to denounce you just as much as the left, and I'm not going to listen to any of the principled criticisms of liberalism from the guys they now see as far right.
I muted him, and the reason was when I saw him arguing with you, Carl, and I know you, and you have sound reasoned and excellent conversations around these ideas which are fun, funny, and exciting.
These were three moves that were left liberal, leftist messaging strategies that I disagree with and find to be dishonest.
And so I didn't block him, but I said, I don't want to see this anymore.
This is ineffective.
Ineffective messaging.
It's irrational.
He insulted my friend, which I take issue with, but I'm not so emotional to where I wouldn't listen to an argument simply because he was insulting Karl.
But I felt that this classical liberal approach he was taking, or I'm sorry, the idea that he was promoting this idea, but at the same time was presenting in much the same way as the woke, which I disagree with, I said, Not interested.
It's interesting how, like, I mean, there's a radio host called Ian Dale in the UK, who normally is well known for his sort of common sense interventions, but when Sweller Braverman, the former Home Secretary, came out and said, well, look, I don't think that we should trans children, actually, he has defaulted back into that kind of shitlib, screeching leftist frame, where he's got, I'm going to do everything in my power I can to stop her, and it's like, but she's right.
Because he's fundamentally a liberal, even if he is a moderate one, on most issues.
When you hit that hot button issue, then suddenly they become the screeching leftist.
And it's like, what's going on?
unidentified
Okay, so then go on with what you were talking about, the alternative, because I still think that there are far more good in classical liberalism, or whatever you want to call it, than there is bad.
And I think that No, no, he's right.
Listen, I think there's far more good in classical liberalism than there is bad.
So what is the option or the solution?
Because to say a postmodern traditionalist or something like that, people don't understand.
When it happens in France, it becomes a bloody revolution because it's just not how they live.
It's what happens in Russia, when the Russian Revolution becomes unbelievably bloody.
It's just not how they live.
So what it is is just parroting back what you already believe back at yourself.
Well, we don't need to have an abstract distillation of doctrine to do that, right?
We already live and breathe these things.
Like, liberalism doesn't have a monopoly on freedom.
It doesn't have a monopoly on equality of rights.
It doesn't have a monopoly on fair procedure.
Like, these are things that all existed prior to liberalism.
So we don't need liberalism to have those things.
This is the way we live our lives This is what we believe to be real and true and valuable anyway, right so we can begin from a different foundation and still arrive with those things without the Excesses and wrong turns that liberalism ends up taking because of the way it characterizes the origin of the world, right?
So if we begin, instead of saying, well, man was an individual in the state of nature, running around fighting bears and eating acorns or whatever, if we say, no, actually, what it was, and anthropologically this is correct from the archaeology, humans lived in tribes.
We've always lived in small tribes, like 20 or 30 people.
And so you've always had a hierarchy.
Every tribe has a hierarchy.
And Jordan Peterson makes this point.
Human beings have been hierarchical.
I mean, you know, the animals have been hierarchical since longer than trees have existed.
And there's always a kind of, you know, the sort of patriarchal, you know, and then matriarchal layers in the tribe.
And that's good and proper because you should respect your mum and dad.
You should respect your nan, your grandad.
You should respect your aunties and your uncles.
And they will treat you in a particular kind of way.
They'll treat with love and kindness.
They'll help you when you need help, right?
And so instantly, we are already in a social frame.
No, you belong in a society.
You belong in these relationships.
And they can be good and they can be bad.
You know, obviously you could have an abusive father or whatever.
But this is why you have lots of different relationships with lots of people who love you.
And so yeah, if you've got an abusive father, well then go to your uncle on your mum's side or something like this, you know.
You can find people who can help you.
And so this familial way, relational way of looking at the world, imbues the relationships themselves with moral goodness.
Whereas liberalism says, well, these are chains.
These are chains that hold you back, hold you down.
You'll never be properly liberated.
It's like, no, that's not true.
You know, my relationships with my friends, my family, my community, these are all where the nourishing content of moral life actually exists.
And so now I've imbued these with a positive good.
It is good to see your friends.
It's good to see your family.
It's good to see all these things.
Like, who doesn't love hanging out with their mates?
Who doesn't love visiting their family at Christmas?
Like, it's crazy that liberalism would have you arguing around the dinner table over partisan politics and breaking these relationships over who the current president is.
That is madness!
And yet it's inevitable.
We see these, we hear these stories every Thanksgiving, every Christmas.
Oh no, I'm going to have to argue about Trump or Biden.
unidentified
You find it, and you find it mostly on the left, people that- I do.
The dopamine machine, the maspatory social machine, the porn machine, so in the literal sense, but also the video games in the figurative sense.
But those of strong mental fortitude resist and do what must be done to preserve and maintain.
And I don't think in this, you know, in what we're seeing, Any one of these liberals are going to be able to defeat natural selection.
If they don't have kids, if their social order is in chaos, if their rooms are messy and they won't clean them, they're going to fail.
You know, I made this point because I've been saying for a few months now, a lot of people ask me, what can we do with the election coming up?
I don't know what to do.
And the obvious answer is register people to vote, focus on your local elections, volunteer, be involved.
You know, knock on doors, whatever it is you have to do for the political situation, but also don't forget, get fit, eat right, be healthy.
If every single person in the United States who was opposed to the woke machine, or whatever, got fit and did nothing else, The natural consequence will be a tendency towards substantial success.
A group of people that live longer, are healthier, can think quicker, move faster, they're less likely to die, they're more likely to solve problems and succeed, and take over society than those who are fat, lazy, and do nothing.
unidentified
You don't know what you believe until you're capable of defending yourself.
When I point that out, it's a simple way to explain, do the mathematic equation of net positive group of people and net negative group of people, and run the math in the long run.
Compounded interest, where do we end up?
Liberals are not having kids, they're not going to have kids, but it's not just about that.
The ideology is chaotic and tends towards collapse, and the people on the right, and I agree, classical liberals are They're probably, I'll put it this way, classical liberals seem to be walking on the treadmill, liberals seem to be standing still, moving backwards, and conservatives are running forward.
unidentified
Because they want still some wiggle room for unorthodox lifestyle permissions.
Right.
That's often why.
And this is, it's not just the utilitarian calculus, I know you're not just reducing it to that, but the reason people have children isn't because I need to put my part in so that the pensions are paid.
It's a very weak argument that some people, even demographers are making.
It's because if they have sincere religious convictions, and this is I think where Carl and I differ, and we still haven't hashed this out yet, they have a philosophy of human dignity that is good in its own sake but also laden with expectations that you should aspire to emulate a divine ideal.
It's like the Catholic idea of a Margot Day versus the liberal notion that You are your individual desires and so you should use technologies to facilitate those desires and decouple choices from consequences to minimize the harm of constantly indulging.
It's like you should be plugged into a renewable powered experience headset from Rick and Morty at all times You should be on drugs, you should be gooning, you should eat whatever you want and then take Ozempic to ensure you aren't fat, and then as soon as your body starts failing you and you can't experience pleasure anymore, step in the suicide booth and exit and be recyclably composted for the good of whatever renewable powered vegetables or whatever they want to produce.
The only thing stops you from doing all that stuff is having a philosophy of human dignities that says, no, I inherited my body, I have an aspect of something aspirational, akin to the divine, and therefore I have a set of obligations to those people around me and to the ideal that I would like to live up to.
And those are the people that are having kids and raising them with the kind of ethics that safeguard them against from the education system that we were talking about that wants to transition them to liberals or the opposite sex.
I read, I was reading a long time ago about how technology is destroying society, and I think my simplified version of the quote is probably better than the actual quote.
Carl Schroeder, a science fiction author, wrote, The point is, if we do meet extraterrestrials one day, we'll be shaking hands not because we figured out how to avoid nuclear war, but because we figured out how to get along playing Xbox in our spare time.
This reflects Schroeder's view on the significance of overcoming social and technological challenges to foster cooperation, etc.
My interpretation of this when I initially read it was more about how I didn't actually read his essay or anything on it, and so what I was told The article I was reading was more about how we are drowning ourselves in excess.
And that the phrase was, if we ever meet aliens, we will shake hands, not because we overcame nuclear weapons, but because we overcame the Xbox.
So it's a bit of a different interpretation.
I think it's a completely different point to what he was saying.
Because my view of that was, we are creating these isolated internal worlds to remove us from harsh reality.
And the people who cannot overcome that system will cease to exist.
So one thing I think is worth looking at is why we can end up getting the things that Phil wants out of the new foundations I'm proposing here, right?
Because the sort of abstract doctrine of human rights that comes from the state of nature needs to be replaced with something.
But it's actually quite easy to see how these things follow.
So, for example, you say, OK, well, I'd like freedom.
It's like, well, I mean, I assume we're going to define personal freedoms and freedom from state intervention, which is what the original liberal view was.
Yeah, who doesn't want that?
We all want that.
And we want that for one another.
Okay, well, how do you get that?
Well, actually, it's community organizing.
It's having a strong local community that allows you to create a power block that resists government intervention.
An isolated individual can do nothing to resist government power, but a community of people can.
So okay, we can get, we can actually physically get a measure of independence and autonomy from the state by being a strong local community.
And then you've got other things.
So well, freedom from oppression or to make sure that a person isn't going without, you know, a person isn't starving to death or anything like that.
Again, instead of being reliant upon the state, well, if you've got a strong social network, these people will take care of you.
Like, you know, I had to take care of my cousin, because he was out, you know, he found himself homeless for a couple of days, so I personally paid for him to live in a hotel for a couple of nights, right?
He could have appealed to the state, but he didn't need to because I love him.
I will help him.
And this is what being a part of these social networks does.
Having a strong society provides us with the sort of independence that we're looking for, or the safety, the security, the freedom from injustice that we're also looking for.
It doesn't have to be an abstract, rationalistic scheme for a set of rational devils.
Donald Trump says that if he gets elected, there will be the largest mass deportation effort we've ever seen.
A society that needs to function a certain way, but is currently beset by such a conflict with mass illegal immigration.
How do you remedy that?
The proposals are trains, bus, trucks, loading people up, local police, state police are going to do this mass deportation effort.
I don't know that that's sustainable, affordable, or possible.
I'm not saying it's morally incorrect.
The question is how do you do it and how do you maintain your morals?
unidentified
I want to use the UK as a model for this because the UK in 2017 is estimated to have possibly 1.2 million illegal immigrants and this is before the mass small boat crossing.
So let's say it's 2 million now.
Let's say that we get a government that isn't so afraid of being called racist and bigoted and the like to actually enforce the law and send these people home.
Then you have a large cohort of legal migrants, 1.2 million every year, that have come into the country as merchants.
They're economic operators.
Not all of them buy into the story that the Brits tell themselves.
They tell themselves a different story, an incompatible story, as we saw with the Hindu and Muslim riots in Leicester.
Okay, well how do you get those people to either assimilate or leave?
What you do is you withdraw the provisions of the liberal state.
You take away and abolish the welfare state.
You abolish social housing for migrants.
You abolish benefits for migrants.
And so the people that are here for purely economic reasons, that don't tell themselves a cultural story, will move elsewhere.
And you don't need to fuel up the boats and withdraw people's legal papers in order to do that.
And we see this because we already have a net outflow of about 500,000 people every year.
So what that does is it forces the migrants to integrate into the social fabric.
You have to form relationships with the people here.
Because like my cousin relying on me, well, he's gonna have to rely on someone else.
The state's not just gonna give him my money.
You know, if he wants my money, I have to have a reason to give it to him.
unidentified
At the moment they're clientele classes.
This is the analogy I've used with you before.
The pre-liberal state was like a Russian nesting doll.
So you've got the individual, their family, their congregation, their community, their sense of cultural and historical obligation, and then the nation.
If you take all of those out and you just have the individual inside the bigger Russian nestling all over the state, and you rattle it around, it's gonna get broken.
And that's what those communities, like the black community in the US, exist as.
They exist in a direct relationship with the state, and they aren't self-sufficient, and they're downwardly mobile, and they're not having large families, they are...
shooting each other and they are dependent on handouts and that's not a dignified way to live actually it's a really unpleasant way of living yeah so so rebuild the or encourage they rebuild those concentric circles of relationships and belonging and identity and you won't just be naked and afraid in the face of state tyranny and i i genuinely am of the opinion that these sort of like you know the sort of random mass shootings that america gets i think that what these are ultimately underneath
it are an expression of revenge against this kind of empty society that has failed them is it They've got no one to turn to, no one who they feel that they love, and things like this.
So they go, right, I don't know anyone here, I don't have any ties to this, I don't care about this.
I think that doesn't happen when you have this kind of, not a social contract society, but a familial society where people care about one another.
You know, it's funny when I see a lot of people in comments say things like, who cares about comics or art?
There are people who will chat and they'll say things like, grow up, stop focusing on these things.
There's a reason why.
Stories, culture, art have been so important for humans throughout basically every civilization, and there's reason why conservatives in the U.S.
have lost culturally, and the left has been able to gain so much ground, and it's because of this.
I have to imagine the people who are saying these things are liberals masquerading as conservatives trying to destroy the conservative opportunity, you know, at regaining cultural value and power.
You need to inspire young people through stories, through myths, and have children want to aspire to be something great.
And that's why we are upset when they destroy Star Wars, when they ruin video games, when they ruin movies, because these are things that we produce.
Why do we make movies?
It's not just about entertainment, it's about something that connects to us.
There's a video I love to cite that compares Captain America, the first Captain America movie, with Captain Marvel.
Captain Marvel was, people were outraged, they were angry, they complained about it.
Captain America, people really loved, made a billion dollars, whatever.
A really great example in both movies.
In the Captain America movie, You've got, uh, who is it?
Steve Rogers.
Tommy Lee, the actor, is saying, why'd you pick the scrawny loser guy?
I want a strong, tough guy, and then he grabs a fake grenade and pulls it and throws it, and then scrawny, weak Steve Rogers jumps on the grenade right away, and the scientist starts laughing, like, this is the guy we want.
That we laugh about that the audience related to it.
They liked the movie because they understood that this scrawny weak man with all of these ailments who does he jumped on a grenade to save everyone's life.
This was a movie about.
A young man who had ailments and was trying to lie to get his way into the military to fight for his country.
And it's funny that conservatives don't praise this movie more.
I'm like, look at it.
Captain Marvel was a woman who accidentally gets superpowers that puts her at the highest level of all galactic beings, making her stronger than everybody, and a man Put a chip on her to suppress her powers.
The cut scene is her grabbing his wrist, using her superpowers and threatening to break it.
And they're like, oh, it's a Terminator reference.
And it's like, no, no, no.
The Women of Marvel podcast exists.
And before Captain Marvel came out, they were talking about cover art.
And they started depicting women doing things.
And most of these comics suddenly were about villains.
And they said it's because they identify with the villains more than heroes, because they see the villains as fundamentally flawed, and they can personally relate to them.
This is all projection by horrendous people who want, and this is why they've contorted Heroes from being paragons of virtue to particular ethnic and sexual identity groups that need validation by going on a journey.
They basically need the abolition of their screaming conscience and they need the entire civilization to validate them so they don't change their perfect as they are.
He's part of the Comics Gate guys, and he is deeply in the Aristotelian storytelling tradition.
And he's got, honestly, he's got hours of videos explaining why heroes are paragons of virtue, what it is we take from that, and why Marvel have done such an evil thing to invert this and make the villain the hero.
And then you get these conservatives And not all of them, because obviously with what The Daily Wire is doing, there's an effort to push back, though.
They're trying.
unidentified
The movies suck.
Sorry, they do.
And it's also because, and look, I like Gina Carano very much, but if you frame these movies like Run, Hide, Fight, or Terror on the Prairie as, this is our version of the Girlboss, You're still operating within the paradigm.
I mean, sorry to interrupt, but I used to write for the American Spectator.
My first column was quite unorthodox.
It was complaining about the new Superman.
Are you all aware of what happened to Superman in the last couple of years?
So Superman, obviously Clark Kent, married to Lois Lane, has a son, upstanding father.
He gets taken off the book and he gets replaced.
The writers, which was Peter J. Tomasi and Patrick Gleeson, get replaced by Brian Michael Bendis, the guy who made Miles Morales' Spider-Man.
And what he does is he sends Superman's teenage son, John Kent, off into space and instantly ages him up, so taking away his development arc.
So he becomes an adult.
He comes back, then in this new five generations initiative where Batman becomes black, Wonder Woman's bisexual Brazilian, Superman's son becomes gay.
He has a pink haired Asian boyfriend who looks up to Lois Lane and he goes on school climate strikes and he fights social injustice.
As you can imagine, the book tanked.
But what are they saying with that?
They are saying that Now, Superman is no longer defined by his deeds and his relationships.
He's defined by his identity characteristics.
What identity characteristics do we say are powerful?
Well, the writer Tom Taylor said, we have this young bisexual guy being confident in himself, it's so heroic.
Right.
So you have to be these minority groups to be a hero.
So that is indicting the white male population, the reading population, that has been the custodians of these characters and have bought these characters to provide these new conceited writers a career.
You are the villain.
You are akin to Lex Luthor.
And so now, identity characteristics are the defining feature of virtue, and no wonder the audience is dropping it and seeking other things.
Just to stress, conservatives want to make a movie right.
I don't understand why there wasn't universal acclaim across the board from every conservative for Captain America.
To stress one more time, a guy, the hero of the story, is trying to join the army, and he can't because he's got, you know, flat feet, small, and disorders, and he's lying to try and join the army.
He jumps on the grenade, becomes Captain America fighting the Nazis.
We hear a lot of complaints about it, but that's a story that... Just one real quick point.
To these people who nay say culture and they say grow up.
We tell stories of superheroes, just like you said, the stories of the gods and fighting the gods and all these things were what we used to instill values in our next generation.
I mean, one of the things that drives me crazy about The Daily Wire in particular is that they've got all of these resources and they're producing not great things.
Because they're thinking about the left, right?
They're thinking consciously about the left.
And that's not how conservatives tell great stories.
That's not how Tolkien told Lord of the Rings, right?
What it's about is, what are your authentic values, and how could they manifest in a good story, in a good way?
And so, I mean, it's a great point.
It's a deeply conservative message.
You know, this young patriot is going to, okay, you know, lying's not great, but you can see why he's doing it.
He's doing the right thing.
You know, he's trying to do the right thing, and he's being held back by something he can't change.
And he ends up getting to where he wants to be and he becomes Captain America.
Like, the conservative, like the Daily Wire, they're like, okay, now we're gonna produce Mr. Bertram or something.
It's like, what are you doing?
Just don't think about the left.
Think about what you are and the message you're trying to put across and the hurdles that person has to go through that don't have anything to do with left-wingers.
I thought the way the show would work better, or the way a show could work if you're trying to do a family-style sitcom that incorporates these issues, is their neighbor is woke, and they're friends with their neighbor.
And that's a vehicle for which jokes can derive, and the family's perception of it when they do happen is to roll their eyes.
And so you have a normal family engaging in normal family behaviors, normal family circumstances, the son wants to join the military, the daughter is concerned about what that could mean, you have conservative... I mean, you look at... Yeah, that's good framing.
And then their neighbor is some woke woman, and they're friends with her, and they're like, well don't say that around Tammy because you know what she's gonna- and they laugh, and what that does is it otherizes the woke without being too overt.
It makes them the silly, oh another wacky woke person.
unidentified
Basically the inverse to what the Simpsons did to Flambers.
So everybody's got the crazy woke friend and you don't want... it's so over the top when the woke guy comes in and has got a phone and he's like, I'm trying to secretly destroy their lives and it's like, come on.
unidentified
It's the inverse of what happened with Barbie, actually, where Barbie tried to be an overtly woke and feminist film and ended up being an accidentally reaction to what came with Starship Troopers.
We had a movie where we all watched it and we felt so good.
When the premise of the story was this man of little physical merit, but of strong moral virtue.
His moral virtue was so strong he was chosen to be given super soldier serum.
And the message, the point of the story was, The most important thing about him was not whether he could do push-ups or pull-ups or run far, it was that he was a good person of good moral virtue.
That's the message we're giving to kids.
Even if you're scrawny and weak, be like Steve Rogers.
Within only a few years begins the rise of the destruction of that narrative and this mission.
And hey, guess what?
It's funny now.
Because they went from making a billion dollars per movie to now their movies are slowly starting to fizzle out and tank.
They get what they deserve as far as I'm concerned.
If you're gonna, again, A.J.
from The Fourth Age is just superb on this.
There are timeless mechanisms to get the messages across.
And if you're gonna subvert them, then people won't, not necessarily consciously realise it, they just won't enjoy it.
They'll just be like, no, I don't relate to this.
That's not what I view to be a good person.
unidentified
My other thing I must say as well is that I fear we stray too much into the conversation of values here as well.
Identity is also an aspect that we must recognize and I refer to Josh Hawley versus J.D.
Vance's speeches this week.
Josh Hawley positions America as essentially a nation of ideals.
Even if those ideals are Christian and therefore true in his heart and mind, whereas J.D.
Vance says it's not just Christianity that makes America, it's not just these abstract commitments to freedom and equality, it's a people and a shared lineage.
And this is what they mean by representation matters, is that they, the progressives, identify that tribalism does in fact matter.
And yes, you can marry into and assimilate with the tribe, but A home ceases to be a home when the hosts are outnumbered by the house guests.
Yep.
In terms of raw demographics or in terms of being salient in their own media.
And so you do have to have, as Nigeria bans us from its adverts, a bit far, you know, but you do have to have You have to abolish the sort of consciousness that says we must have arbitrary quotas and forefront minoritarian concerns in all these movies just to make everyone feel seen and represented.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
The people that formulated these values need to be respected too, and they are who is going to sustain them.
But what we've been doing, right now we've got Deadpool and Wolverine is coming out in a couple weeks.
And it's just regurgitating characters that were made a long time ago.
unidentified
Logan was meant to have ended Wolverine in 2017.
Right.
I'm sure, look, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman wanted to make a movie and everyone wants to see it, but I'm not excited for it because it felt that that chapter of life was over and that they're constantly recycling.
Yeah, yeah, Trinity and Neo flying around together at the end, yeah.
But the whole thing I thought was fascinating because what it looked like to me was a look into the Wachowski's just daily life.
So what do we do?
We get up, we go to a coffee shop, we go to a focus meeting, we talk about, you know, the thing that we have already created, but we're constantly getting smaller and smaller and smaller in that thing.
Because I mean, this is why, um, George Lucas and the Star Wars prequels have aged so well, because what they did is built outwards.
Okay, he told the story poorly, there are lots of criticisms, but at least the world got bigger from him doing that, rather than everything now is smaller and smaller and smaller.
So, you know, everything feels like there's nothing left to tell in that little universe.
And this is why I quite enjoyed the fourth Matrix, not because it was good, but because it was kind of admitting this, being like, yeah, no, we're trapped in this and we've got nowhere else to go.
I'm saying that the movie told the story to the American people about the idea of ethno-nationalism and isolated borders and ethno-supremacy at an international scale.
unidentified
Yeah, but it's only good for black people.
That was the underlying thing.
And it would just be great if all of these white people would stop incurring on Wakanda's borders because this magic space rock arrived, somehow giving us spaceships when the Roman Republic was exploring the continent.
The idea of creating this mythos of Wakanda and Vibranium is less relevant to me than T'Challa, who's supposed to be the good guy, saying, we will not open our borders because those refugees will bring their problems into our country.
And I started laughing my ass off.
unidentified
We're not going to have a woman in charge.
His arc was on doing all of that.
His arc was at the end, living up to Killmonger's promise and going and giving Wakandan technology to kids in Oakland because he realized the original sin of Wakanda was not actually defending its African neighbors.
The thing is, I think that it actually does stem back to CRT, like Critical Race Theory makes people aware of racial differences, makes them cognitively aware of them and stuff, and so people can't help but fall back onto stereotypes.
Yes, but it exposes inherent racism that people think is acceptable because it is towards the right people and not against the wrong people.
But the accusation and the right people, not the wrong people here, the framing of it is these countries would just have been fine experimenting with their incredible technology If the white man hadn't set them at odds, if the Spanish hadn't come and colonized Latin America, if all of enslavement hadn't caused Wakanda to become an isolationist nation, and so it comes back to fundamentally we're all the same underneath, it's just oppressive white European culture that is keeping us divided.
I mean, the story of Wakanda was that when the Vibranium meteor landed, and this strange metal rapidly advanced this people, they immediately secured their wealth, isolated themselves from everyone else, and only the tribes that were around it came to an agreement as to how they would manage the Vibranium.
They immediately said, to hell with all the rest of you, it's ours, and built walls.
unidentified
But in the opening thing, they depict specifically the Romans and the European colonizers.
In the second one, they depict the Spanish.
In all of the interviews they're saying that, yes, Namur and all of the underwater Mexicans were meant to be analogous, yes, but there's a continuity here.
Killmonger was meant to be a sympathetic villain because he blames wanting to cause white genocide on slavery, and then Namur is meant to be analogous to all of those displaced Mexicans who the US has transgressed against and made militant.
So the enemy is still white people, in the minds of the creators.
And then, at the end, I could not believe it when they were like, how is Namor so strong?
He's flying around, he's got wings on his feet, and, cause that's from written Namor, and then they were like, his skin, it can oxidize the water, so he's effectively breathing at a high rate, we need to dry him off.
So they literally, he's standing there and like sure he jumps over him and then presses a button and then the jet blasts him in the back and he goes, ahhh!
And then it shows his back with the steam coming off and it's singed and he's like, ahhh!
And then he falls down and he's been defeated because his wet back is now dry.
Like, yo, my final thoughts on everything, to wrap up that idea is— Liberalism is in fact to blame for this, yes.
Well, it's that a lot of people think Michelle Obama will be brought in to replace Biden, but I don't think people—this idea is coming from conservatives because conservatives aren't racist.
They're not thinking about They're viewing the world from their own minds.
And so, ultimately, to wrap up all these ideas before we wrap up is just, the reason why you end up with Black Panther, as ridiculously racist as it is, is because it's made by affluent white female liberals.
