"The Devil was the First Whig" Liberalism & Modernism with Jay Dyer & Matt Forney
Liberalism is the default assumption of our civilization; it is the bedrock of modernism. Quite simply, it fails as any sort of bulwark against the excesses of the radical left.
Matt Forney's website: www.MattForney.com
Jay Dyer's site: http://jaysanalysis.com/
Jay Dyer's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/jaydyer
List of links mentioned during this stream (in chronological order):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWD-PjojDm0
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/capitalism-not-socialism-led-gay-rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI
http://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html
https://jaysanalysis.com/2013/10/26/numbers-prove-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bezVbPCK5Q8
https://www.amazon.com/Nihilism-Root-Revolution-Modern-Age/dp/1887904069
My website: http://www.staresattheworld.com/
My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Aurini
My Gab: https://gab.ai/DavisMJAurini
Download in MP3 Format: http://www.youtubeconvert.cc/
If you feel like tossing some coins in the hat, I take BTC, BTH, ETH, LTC, & XMR as well as Paypal: http://www.staresattheworld.com/donate/
Or, you could back me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DMJAurini
I was going to say very special live stream, except everybody here is a heterosexual.
I'm joined with my good friend Matt Forney, who just finished streaming Max Payne on his own channel.
How are you doing, brother?
Doing great.
And I am here.
Folks, welcome to the comic screen.
Damn it.
And Jay Dyer.
Jay Dyer, how are you doing this evening, brother?
Ballin.
Balling, my niggas.
Balling.
We were just chatting before the show about different creepy stalkers that we have had.
Yeah, I had the Jim Prophet Bolshevik who threatened me with the communist wizard staff.
And you had some rapper that hated you and thought you were the son of Ted Turner?
Yeah, Jaja.
She sings this unbearable rap song, Here Pussy Pussy, which you can link.
Is there a chat on this thing?
Anyway, if you look up Jaja, J-A-H-J-A-J-J-A-H, her song, Here Pussy Pussy, will put a smile on your face.
I'll put it that way.
Oh, God.
You know what?
On the one hand.
Oh, she claims to be the, I forgot.
She's a relative of Aaron Russo.
That's another one of her.
She claims she's Aaron Russo's cousin and that I am a Nazi grandson of Ted Turner.
And that's why I because I made fun of her one time on a podcast or some shit.
So anyway, she flipped out and there's a video that she made on YouTube trying to show that I'm grandson of Ted Turner.
And she is a skanky white rapper chick.
Yeah, sometimes, on the one hand, I can understand why the elites hate us so much and want our extinction when this is the sort of garbage we get up to.
I was going to say, yeah.
And at the same time, the sort of garbage that idiots get up to, you know, the sort of like, yeah, you do some of the conspiracy stuff.
And there's a, that's the thing.
There's the good stuff that you do, and then there's the conspirators.
The reason they get up to this.
There's a lot of tards.
And this chick is one of them.
She does videos about FEMA cams and that kind of shit.
That's the thing.
It's part of the reason people are getting up to all this nonsense is because there is no actual leadership from the elites, no aristocracy.
And that's kind of the topic of this live stream.
How liberalism is the default assumption that we were all that's like the mother's milk.
We all start with some form of liberalism, whether it's classical liberalism, whether it's modern conservatism.
It all goes back to the French Revolution, all goes back to the philosophy of man, you know, starting back enlightenment and post-enlightenment.
Now, in my case, I could tell you that for a long time, I was a libertarian conservative, but I was always looking for that black box at the core of everything.
Like if you take the whole the rights of man, free speech, oh, that you take that whole package, it seems really nice.
But at the end of the day, how do you compel this behavior?
Either there's a magic black box that runs the whole thing, you know, that justifies it.
It justifies forcing people to follow this system, or there is no black box, and it's just like your opinion, man.
And so this, at this point, you have to admit that your perfect system where everything's beautiful is foundationally no different from communism, is no different from anarcho-capitalism.
And what you need to do to maintain any system like this is force and indoctrinate everybody in the society.
You must believe in classical liberalism or you're an unperson.
We've seen this coming from the classical liberals.
Well, you're a Nazi.
The right is exactly the same as the left, horseshoe theory.
Yeah, you have to 100% buy into their scheme, whether it's classical liberalism, communism, whatever it might be, because it needs a magic black box.
And that's been a focus of your work with your philosophy work.
Yes, for many years, we've been critiquing me, myself, my friends, my circles.
We've been critiquing classical liberalism, and I can speak from experience.
As I said, before we started, I was probably a classical liberal when I was 18, 19, 20.
At that time, I still really believed that America kind of had a Christian heritage and that that could be preserved.
And if we could just get the right, you know, libertarian Constitution Party candidates in.
I think we even canvassed at one point when I was 21 or two for Constitution Party candidates.
So I was, in a way, I was red-pilled back then, but I was still very naive, very stupid.
And the internet wasn't popular like it is now.
So it was a different situation back then.
And, you know, you don't really think or know to question things like classical liberalism because it's just kind of the ether in which we all, you know, live and swim and breathe and move and have our being.
So for me, it was a little bit different because I went to school to study philosophy and that kind of prompted me to ask those kinds of questions, which like you guys were talking about last night, the normie kind of approach to the world, you're not even really asking those kinds of questions.
So in one way, the internet is good because it will allow people to be presented with information to question their presuppositions.
And that's why I do like that there's a lot of debate and discussion going on that is sometimes a shit show, but sometimes it's also fruitful.
I mean, I've learned a lot from different debates that people have had online.
But anyway, yeah, the idea just simply stated is that everything is inverted.
So what we would consider natural is in any sphere or aspect of life, it gets inverted.
So it's not just a question of government, but yes, in government, you don't have the idea of hierarchy or vested authority or aristocracy, natural aristocracy here.
I'm not talking about like a petty bourgeoisie aristocracy.
All that stuff is tossed out the window for all the false presuppositions of egalitarian thought.
And I know this audience is very educated.
You guys all know that.
So I'm not going to rehearse a bunch of basic-bitch critiques of classical liberalism, but it does spill over into a lot of areas that we don't really think about.
I mean, you know, when I made that video, for example, critiquing Jordan Peterson, it's not that he doesn't have a good effect in certain ways, but what happens, in my view, let's take the American experience, the American Constitution as a perfect example.
Many of the founding fathers, I would say, were sincere.
They really did believe that maybe you could erect a purely rational, purely propositional republic or something like this.
But the problem is that the document itself, the founding documents, the founding ideology has an inconsistency in it, which on the one hand is the idea that you can have a kind of universalized notion of what rights are, of what freedom is, and you can have a generic idea of God.
Half the founding fathers will be Freemasons.
Half of them will be Episcopals.
Half of them will be, well, I got a third of them, fourth of them, whatever.
And that we can all just kind of get together under the banner of generic theism, little g God or something like that, and erect a republic that is at the same time pluralistic and syncretistic in its religious sphere, but objective and rational when it comes to things like trade or economics and borders.
And really, I think the essence of the best critique of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment stuff is not there's not any specific thing like, should we have rights or this or that, but this issue of authority and how do we know things and what's certain, what's not certain, whether there's metaphysics or not.
So the birth of the Enlightenment, the birth of America, this comes to fruition out of Masonically inspired revolutions.
And that's not debated.
That's like a known, you know, the Jacobins were Freemasons.
They had a very revolutionary ideology against throne and altar.
So all of the revolutions of the 1800s spawned from 1789 and 1776 have this same classical liberal modus operandi.
And so what most people don't make the connection with, what you would never hear Jordan Peterson talk about, because yeah, it might be considered too conspiratorial.
But the reason that all these revolutions were successful, not just in Europe, but also in places like Mexico or anywhere in the globe, basically, Russia included, is because of an international organization committed to revolutionary inversion, namely Freemasonry.
You know what?
I'm just looking for a quote right now.
Are you familiar with Casey versus Planned Parenthood?
I'm not.
Okay, Matt, could you cover me?
Give me like 30 seconds.
This quickly sums up what's happened to the Republic.
Oh, yeah.
Well, you know, Jay talking about the international organizations and the Freemasons.
That's the crucial component to revolution that a lot of people don't really pay attention to.
I mean, a lot of people have this vision of revolution, whether it's the literal kind of violent kind or metaphorical kind coming from the commoners, the proles, Winston Smith, 1984.
It comes from the proles.
But there were plenty of pro-led revolutions during, for example, the Middle Ages.
And the reason we don't hear about them is because they all failed.
You get a bunch of rattle together with their pitchforks.
Not too hard for the people who own the weapons to put it down.
Now, successful revolutions are always hatched.
You obviously need the foot soldiers to ultimately carry it through to completion.
But the ideas of successful revolutions are hatched by the bourgeoisie and these organizations that get the ideas out there and start the planning, the smart people, as it were.
The way Spengler puts it is brilliant.
He says, there's never been a socialist revolution that was not backed by monopoly capitalists.
Something to that effect.
It's a famous Spengler quote, but that's essentially what it is.
And, you know, I did a lot of lectures last year on Carol Quigley's Traging Hope, and I'm not going to rehearse all that, but there's a great chapter on the French Revolution where Quigley talks about Jewish banking and Protestant banking interests that were behind the French Revolution.
So you had a combination of people in Britain, the Masonic lodges in Britain, together with Swiss bankers who were Protestants and Jewish interests all colluded to change the social makeup of France.
And so who do they use?
All these idiot revolutionary Masonic groups.
And so that's really what is another fascinating insight that even Plato, who is ironically the father of communism, even Plato recognized that democracy has always been a tool of money oligarchy.
So, and Plato noticed as well in the Republic that the Democrat, the oligarch money democrat, he's not really a Democrat, but he controls the democracy, the demos, the mob, as you said, by their base passions.
And so that's why culture constantly degrades is because the money power likes and needs it to degrade for better and better concentration of power, wealth, and control.
The more you can degrade, the more you have a completely docile populace.
And that, by the way, to go to what Davis was saying, that's why relativism as a concept is so useful.
Once the people do not believe there's such a thing as objective truth, then all they care about is their own personal subjective egoistic truth.
So they just become basically hedonistic slaves to their desires.
And it's very easy to control them.
Just give them a bunch of porn.
And I think what was Matt saying, like, give me a desk, a cubicle, and opiates and my porn.
And that's it.
That's the perfect democracy right there.
And give them their corn syrup, you know, their porn, their weed, and they'll be satisfied.
And going back to the idea of, you know, you don't even have to go as far back as the French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution was in part bankrupt by international capitalists from the West.
In fact, there were many Jewish, the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution has been well documented.
There were many Jewish financiers.
There's one I forget the name of in particular who financed the communists in large part because the Russian Empire was anti-Semitic and all that.
You see these Warburg.
I've read Warburg's letters where he writes about how happy he was that the money that he sent was successful.
Yes.
But going back to, you know, going back to how democracy works and how it gets subverted, the most powerful position in a democracy, in a system of government where the people supposedly rule is whoever controls the people's opinions, whoever gives them what they, like, where do the people get their beliefs?
Where do they get their desires, their wants, their needs?
Whoever shapes that, they're the ones who control.
That's why you see all these subversive elements.
They moved quickly to take control and establish such things as Hollywood, the movie industry, and also journalism.
Whoever controls the information flow and can shape people's wants, they control everything.
Okay, I found the quote I was looking for.
This directly relates to how the conception of American liberty, which began with the founding of the Republic, ultimately collapses in on itself.
This is from Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
Now, a lot of people think that Roe v. Wade is the abortion legislation.
And it's not really.
If you read Roe v. Wade, it boils down to, we don't want to have an opinion on this right now, so we're just going to ignore it.
It was in, I believe, 1991 that Planned Parenthood versus Casey came along.
And there's one crucial bit in the justification for the decision that this perfectly illustrates what we're all talking about.
Quote, at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion by the state.
In other words, we can all be our own popes now, and you can believe whatever damn fool thing you want to believe, and the government can't compel you to believe anything else.
And so we eventually go from that to winding up with people demanding that you respect their pronouns because they're transgender to other kin.
This is a direct devolution.
When you say that we just believe that God gave us these rights, but you can believe whatever God believe in whatever God you want to believe in, all of a sudden document means nothing.
Yeah, that's why I don't understand.
Like, say, if you're an alt-right proponent of race theory and all this kind of stuff, who but you also believe in natural rights and you're an atheist, this is a very popular position in YouTube sphere, but it makes absolutely no sense.
On what basis do you have rights if you are an atheist?
They're completely arbitrary, they're ad hoc, they're subjective.
And this is a point I've been making for a long time that one of the problems with classical liberalism, you just hinted at it, Davis, right there, is personhood.
So when this comes up in the debates about pro-choice and pro-life and whatnot, how if you let's say you're a libertarian or a classical liberal of some sort, and you believe in liberty, you believe in personhood, you believe persons have rights.
If you don't have a worldview that gives a context for how there's such a thing as personhood, and I would say that it really only makes sense if you're made in the image of God.
If you're not made in the image of God, then you're just kind of an evolutionary bubbling force with no meaning at all.
It doesn't really matter.
It's just nature just eats nature, right?
It's like a, it's like a Norboro seating its own tail.
It just eats itself.
There's no place in this for rights outside of just will to power.
And that's what and all of these positions that remove the transcendent, and that's what you get in classical liberalism because it starts with the individual.
That's its autonomous, self-evident maxim is the individual.
That's where it starts.
It doesn't start with anything to do with the transcendent.
Once you do that, you have no basis for any objective, immaterial moral standards, or even other things like law, mathematics, all these things that are immaterial.
You've already negated the possibility of that because you start with a purely material sphere.
See, the classical liberals, what they do is they replace theology and philosophy.
They replace it with legalism.
See, if you take a monarchy and you ask the king to have an opinion on whether or not the morning after pill, the king is probably going to say, you know what?
I don't want to touch that kettle of fish.
You know what?
And it doesn't affect me.
You know, I'm still getting my taxes.
We've defended the border.
People, there's like I'm more concerned about standardizing the system of measurements used in grain shipments than something like abortion.
I don't care about anything until it starts affecting society.
So heroin.
Quantification.
Yeah.
Exactly.
There is no need for the king to have an opinion on something like that.
But with classical liberalism, with modern republicanism, there is this demand, this totalitarian demand that it have an opinion on everything.
Instead of God being the fardinal arbiter, it winds up being the Supreme Court.
And so in this case, the Supreme Court has said, we don't want to have an opinion on that.
They recognize that having an opinion on this would be totalitarianism, but instead of enacting an attempt at just totalitarianism, which probably would have turned out terribly anyway, they said anybody can believe whatever the hell they want.
So now we're each our own little king.
And so, and this is exactly it.
It becomes the will to power.
Your ability to manipulate the system.
I was saying this last night: that you get the on the one hand, you have the smart charismatic people that manipulate their way into golden parachutes.
And then you have the big mass of people that are dumb and ugly.
So all they can do is vote for socialism.
But it's the same thing, this will to power because there's no overarching authority.
There's just what you can get away with in court.
Yeah, I'm about to do a talk on tonight, actually, or tomorrow, on Jürgen Habermos of the Frankfurt School fame.
He has a book called Theory and Praxis.
And the reason I'm doing that book is because we talk a lot about Frankfurt School, and this gets bantered about, but not many people actually go through the actual books and look at what they say.
And what's amazing about Habermas is that he's a huge fan of America.
He's a huge fan of Americanism, precisely because he correctly understands America as having a central position in revolutionary thought and global revolution.
So he wants to see, he accurately sees that out of classical liberalism, you basically get two strands of revolutionary thought.
You get the communistic Marxist strand, which would be people like Weishaupt.
You get Mazzini, you get Antonio Gramsci, you get the Frankfurt School.
The other side of this dialectic is the capitalists.
This is the right-wing Masonic lodge of Edmund Berg, and you get what are called Girondins.
This is the founding fathers of America, right?
The Jeffersons, the Franklins.
These are the right-wing revolutionaries who want private property and they want their bank accounts.
They don't want to share their wives unless you're Ben Franklin and you want to fuck old women, which is what he was a big fan of.
But gray at night.
So what I'm saying is that Habermas, here's this preeminent Frankfurt School critical theory Marxist who's a big fan of America because he believes America is just another flavor of the revolutionary classical liberal tradition,
which whether it's global homo capitalism or global Fabian socialist Marxism, really doesn't matter because it's like H.G. Wells said, he says to his fellow Marxists, he says, you Marxist idiots, how else do you think that the utopian global society will come without the engine of global capitalism?
He says, global capitalism is the engine that will bring our socialist world order because it will flatten all the cultures into a monoculture.
So, so the essence of all this is, again, that I think we have, if we really want to reject modernity, I think we have to question classical liberalism.
You know, look at, like, I've been playing Fallout recently, which has this topic on my mind.
Think about McCarthyism.
On the one hand, I think most of us come from a conservative background.
We're opposed to the Pinkos.
So, and we look at what McCarthy was doing.
Yeah, there was communist infiltration.
There was all of this stuff.
But then look on the other hand.
And you have a bunch of men in black, a bunch of government suits snooping around and prying into your emails.
And it's this dual nature of the whole thing where you can kind of see both sides.
And then the funny thing is that when people start getting into conspiracy theories, it's what do you call that device to get randomized numbers where you drop a ball and it either goes left or right when it hits every single pin on the way down.
It's like some of the people go right and become hardcore capitalists.
Some of the people with the exact same evidence go hardcore socialist because they're both kind of right about that system.
Let me ask you a question.
And I'm not trying to be a dickhead.
I'm just curious.
Are you familiar with there's a famous editorial that David Rockefeller wrote called From a China Traveler?
Have you heard of this?
Oh, no.
No, I haven't heard of it.
Pretend I haven't.
Yeah, you can, it's, I don't think the New York Times will let you pull it up anymore, but if you Google it, you can find actually an image, like a JPEG of the entire article.
And it's 1973.
And what he argues is that he loves the effectiveness of Mao's revolution.
I remember the first time I read that, I was kind of, I was kind of shocked because, like you said, yes, I came from a conservative background.
My uncle was a big Cold Warrior Air Force guy.
So I'm certainly not at all interested in Sovietism or communism.
But I was challenged when I first saw that article because I would have thought, well, if you read David Rockefeller's memoirs, he talks about liking von Mises.
And he actually wrote a thesis on von Mises' Austrian economics one time.
And I remember thinking, that's kind of weird.
Why would he, I wouldn't think he would prefer that.
And then you start to realize that at that level, you're dealing with internationalism.
And so the internationalism of the capitalists is just as international as the international Marxist.
So they have a meeting of the minds, and there have actually been many conferences and meetings between these two types of groups.
I'll give you one example.
This was on the CFR's own website for a long time in their archives.
They had a lengthy essay about the history of the CFR itself and how during the 40s, there was a lot of heated debate, particularly during the period that you're talking about into the 50s with McCarthyism, where the CFR was split between do we go with convergence and melding Eastern Marxism with Western capitalism, or do we just eradicate Marxism?
And guess what side of the spectrum the CFR ended up falling down on?
Let's merge communism and capitalism, and that's the best means to a world order.
So my perspective, especially if you, and the clearest, easiest example of one article that you could read is that David Rockefeller essay from a China traveler, where he says that for the Chinese people, the international capitalist can be a huge supporter of Mao precisely because what communism does is that it concentrates and transfers wealth very well, very easily,
and that we could actually enact these same kinds of patterns in other countries if that's what we want to do.
So he's literally saying all this in that famous editorial.
And then when I read David Rockefeller's memoirs, I was not surprised because I had read that to later see that he says that Chase Bank was the first bank in communist China.
Isn't that interesting?
So all I'm saying is that on the ground level, like at the local university, when we go and we have to deal with these completely shithead, you guys don't, we don't because we're out of the school system.
But I was actually doing grad work not too long ago.
So I was still having to deal with literal Eastern bloc people brought over, you know, over me in the university teaching this Frankfurt School stuff.
That's how I got it firsthand.
And then you find out, guess who brought the Frankfurt school people over?
It's the OSS and the CIA.
They were brought over to create abstract art, to create degenerate music.
It's all those Frankfurt school guys, and they were literally brought over with Macy Foundation money at the behest of Bertrand Russell and the Rockefellers.
And I can give you foreign policy articles, anything to document that if you skip it.
The ugliness known as modern art was funded by the CIA to oppose communism.
Let that stand for a second.
I mean, say what you will about communist square brick architecture.
No Forney's surrounded by it right now.
At least they have pretty impressive public monuments.
And so in classic Hegelian dialectic, the CIA goes and funds the absolute ugliness of modern art to look at us, we're more creative.
And it is about as meaningful as an internet bumfight.
Okay.
It is, it's like, no, oh, the communists are doing this.
We're going to do that.
And so now the art world's been completely destroyed.
We haven't had good art.
We haven't had popular good art in about 50 years.
Yeah, I couldn't, I was surprised to see this David Boaz Cato Institute article a couple weeks ago.
Or no, actually, it's from last year, excuse me.
But it got picked up by Reason Magazine not too long ago.
Capitalism, not socialism, led to international gay rights.
And actually, I was tweeting this to Stefan and Lauren Southern today.
I'm curious who do you think is promoting international tranny stuff?
International homo-usury gay rights?
It's the Fortune 100.
And yeah, I'm not saying that there's not a Jewish element to that, but global capitalism is the means by which there's international revolution.
It's not communism.
They may have communist tactics at times, but the Communist Party itself, that doesn't even exist.
That's like 20 nerds at the University of Berkeley or something.
I was like, you know, capitalism is the when it comes to gay rights and stuff like that, I would say capitalism is pushing apart because gays and trannies are the ultimate consumers.
I know Jack Donovan had a good essay about this some time ago.
But the thing is, you know, gays and trannies, sodomites, they don't have children.
You know, their entire lives revolve around self-gratification, indulgence.
They don't save money.
They have no future.
They have nothing to look forward to.
They just mindlessly spend on whatever.
So they're the perfect consumers because, well, as consumers is all about getting people to spend money on shit they don't need.
And trannyism is the ultimate conclusion of classical liberalism, you know, which you in which you the ultimate conclusion of a world reality in which a world in which reality is objective, saying that you can even deny your biological sex, something that you're born with.
Just get your parts vivisected and then put on some take some hormones and then put on some girl clothes.
And then all of a sudden you're a girl.
And anyone who says, doesn't say you're a girl, they're a hate criminal and they gotta go to prison.
I just tossed up a link to E. Michael Jones, who is a Catholic philosopher that you should all know who he is.
He does great work.
And in that, it's a short video where he's explaining that the homosexual is the perfect consumer.
In fact, the whole point of homosexual marriage is now that we are all in homosexual marriages.
Both the man and the woman work.
It's a marriage of convenience.
It's just marriage to dating plus one.
You might have one child and you work and you consume items.
The homosexual is the perfect end state for the capitalist system.
Yeah, it's a great point.
And see, all of this comes down to the fact that these are the philosophies of man.
This is what happens when man makes himself the sovereign of reality.
You know, whether he starts off with the French Revolution saying, I don't want to do what the king says, I'm going to install Robespierre.
Or if it's America, no taxation without representation, well, how's that tax rate right now down in America?
And in every one of these revolutionary movements, you literally have people in the background.
You literally have a money power.
And that's why I think Spangler was so precise and so on point when he said that, you know, 100 years ago.
And how much more evident is that now when we see, oh, Soros promotes, you know, literally all the tranny stuff in the Ukraine and all this stuff in Hungary, all the all he's promoting this stuff all over the globe with the aid of the CIA, by the way.
It's not just him.
And should we be surprised?
Well, not when we realize that this is the modus operande of the revolutionary, quote, democracy movements all along.
It's always, they've been doing this the entire time.
And so I actually, when we were talking French Revolution, I had some grad classes on the French Revolution.
And then I went and took grad classes under the literal Frankfurt School dude at the university.
So it's not even like a conspiracy secret.
It's just that it's not really anybody that knows this except the academic types.
They're like, oh, yeah, of course.
Of course, Marx and Ingels were funded by big-time stock owners.
Ingalls had a whole bunch of money.
That's it.
Who do you think funded Marx?
But a lot of people also don't know that Marx, if you read his early writings, he wasn't anti-capitalist.
In fact, you can go to marxist.org and you can find where he was for free trade and open borders because he thought that that would wreck the existing cultures even quicker than if there were borders.
Well, and I'd say he was right about that.
Yeah, but most of the, if you were to tell, you know, a libertarian open border proponent that Karl Marx and Engels were for free trade and open borders, they would freak out and be like, no way.
I'm like, yeah, it's on marxist.org.
Just look it up.
Well, and this is why if you look at the extreme anarcho-capitalist groups, they wind up becoming exactly the same as the anarcho-communist syndicalists.
That's what's so amazing.
Yeah.
Marx says that the only way that we can get to the utopia is if the engine of capitalism, he says, which is this powerful force that can mechanize, he says, yes, he was 100% right about that.
He said that you would see international mechanization, automation, and monoculture would arise from capitalism.
And he says that will put in place the architecture of the utopia that will come after capitalism falls away into international Fabian style socialism.
Then you'd get the utopia.
So, and I think Marx was completely 100% funded by bankers and a scam.
I'm not at all a Marxist, but I'm saying that when you read Marx, you can actually see that, well, the only reason he's right is because this is an actual plan.
It literally is a plan of world revolution of moving people through phases and stages of kind of like a business plan to a final state.
And capitalism is a part of that.
Marx wasn't anti-capitalist any more than he was anti-feudalist.
He just thought they were phases that led to the next.
Yeah, and again, it is man defining his own system.
We are going to build our utopia.
We are going to rewrite the world the way that we want to see it.
And if you don't want to see it in the same way as me, well, we'll find a way to deal with you.
We're going to.
They all start from the presupposition of materialism and naturalism and no transcendent as their starting point.
Now, I'll tell you the interesting thing is that I actually came to my faith in God through a very different, well, I'll tell you the route I came through is actually through mathematics.
And listening to your videos, just it kind of reaffirmed that I'm really much more of a math guy than a philosophy guy.
And the thing with mathematics, what it boils down to is that there's all of these weird little blind spots in math.
All these bits.
We're normally like, if you think of a picture, you have the positive space and the negative space in the picture.
So if you draw a picture of a tree, you know, you have the outline of the tree, that's the positive space, and everything that's not the tree is the negative space.
Typically, we think the positive and the negative are going to be equivalent to one another.
But what we actually find with mathematics is that when we take the positive and the negative spaces within math, there's still something left over.
There's an unknowable, unknowable.
There are statements which may or may not be true, but they are unprovable.
That foundationally, mathematics is not unreliable, but there's on a foundational level, it's you need to take it as an article of faith.
You need to make a leap of faith and just say, okay, I'm going to believe in mathematics because mathematics is never going to prove itself.
And it was Gerdel is the one that really worked out the details of this with set theory, though you get the same thing with the halting problem.
And after Gerdel did that, he went on to write an ontological proof of God.
Because to put it simply, without God, math is just like your opinion, man.
Like what the postmodernists say, they will straightfaced say they actually do believe this, that math is just cultural hegemony.
That when we go down to South America, where they have three numbers, they have one, they have two, and they have many.
That's the extent of their mathematics.
And we try and say two plus two equals four, that that's an act of rape and violence.
And the thing is, from the materialist perspective, or from a strictly logical perspective, it is completely justified for them to say that.
Because basically, you've got a binary choice.
You have to make a leap of faith that there is a God or that there isn't.
And then you can become God.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Back in 2013, I wrote an article that I titled Numbers Prove God.
And I don't think I mentioned Gerdell in there, but in other articles, I did touch on Kurt Gerdell's point about set theory and incompleteness.
But, you know, this really doesn't have to be a super obscure, abstract thing either, because everybody's familiar with numbers.
And a really easy way to show that there are abstract, non-material, invariant things, entities, concepts, whatever you want to call them, is to point to things like mathematics.
They're obviously not social constructs because if they were, then the way that we build a bridge in China would be different than the way that we build a bridge in the United States.
And it's not, because these are functioning on objective principles.
Now, there might be mysterious aspects as to how exactly numbers interact with the physical world, sure.
But regardless, we all kind of intuitively know that, yes, the law of non-contradiction, the laws of logic, numbers, number theory, mathematics, concepts, these things are not matter.
They're not material.
They're not physical.
But in some way, they interact with the world and they aren't changeable.
They aren't in flux.
They don't become the opposite of themselves.
The number seven doesn't become the number 10.
It doesn't evolve into something else.
And this is really the point that kind of Plato made a long time ago.
And then he did get right.
I will give Plato props for that.
He did get that correct.
Not everything Plato said is correct, certainly, but yes.
And this is a great bridge into understanding.
Well, you know what?
If that kind of thing is possible and seems to be true, and most of us all act like it's true, it's pretty common sense.
Then why is it that difficult to think that there would be a God or that there would be an immaterial, you know, omniscient mind in a way, in an analogy similar to things like invariant abstract concepts or numbers.
Now, certainly God is not a number.
He's not impersonal, but he's even greater than numbers because he is personal.
And you can have a relationship with God.
So, you know, you don't have a relationship with the number seven.
So even though Pythagoreanism would attach a kind of mystical significance to numbers and would realize this basic point that I'm making about non-material, non-physical properties or entities, even Pythagoras and Plato didn't recognize that the ultimate principle or the metaphysical absolute that we're talking about here, a concrete absolute, is actually God.
It's actually personal.
It's not an impersonal force.
But yes, once that can be made clear, the basic bitch, Dawkins, Atheon, Sam Harris, atheists, Sam Harris type stuff really doesn't have as much force or as much power because you start to realize that they utilize all these principles and properties that don't make sense on their naturalistic materialistic worldview.
To boil it down, it's numbers can't prove themselves.
They tried to.
Believe me, mathematicians tried to prove that math was real.
They can't.
They prove that you can't prove it.
It's impossible.
However, this is a principle I like to call keeping your feet on the ground.
You don't judge the tree by its fruit.
The thing is that when you employ Western mathematics, you wind up with architecture.
So yeah, we can't prove that math is true, but we can observe that using math builds great, great structures.
And, you know, this is the thing with the modern world.
Like on a certain level, everything that we're trying to talk about can be objectively demonstrated.
The homosexual lifestyle is a nihilistic and destructive lifestyle.
Okay.
It's a lot of fun in your 20s when you're pretty and you don't have any drug addictions and etc.
It is an absolute nightmare in your 40s and pure hell if you actually make it to your 50s or 60s.
Okay.
And that's just an objective observation, but we are so good at ignoring them.
And, you know, I just got to point this out.
This is funny.
We actually got a comment from a girl that's just been insulting me the whole time.
But this perfectly nails what we're trying to say.
She says, religious tradcons seem pretty bad at the whole not being a greedy, callous, evil piece of shit thing.
Yes, yes, this materialist system catches everybody.
You have the rich people or the smart and charismatic people that abuse the system.
And then you have the stupid, dumb people that mass together to greedily vote for socialism.
So it's greed on both sides.
It's this ugly, ugly Hegelian dialectic, which results from the philosophy of man.
Bait.
That's my point.
That's my point right here.
Yeah.
Our God is mammon.
And I remember when I read back in my 20s when I was in college and had to read Dante, I remember Dante saying that usury and sodomy go together.
And I was like, what?
How does he?
I didn't understand how he came to that conclusion.
And then as I got older and I read Michael Hoffman and Hoffman's book on usury and a lot of points that he made, I thought, you know, this is actually makes a lot of sense that it's not, it's barrenness.
It's a kind of non-fruitful, sterile, parasitical relationship that doesn't give birth to actual virtue or love or real exchange.
It's just totally parasitical.
And the best, the most, the highest form of that is like, you know, homosexuality or pederasty or something like that.
And that's why a society that is heavily focused on usury, because what is the usurer doing?
He doesn't produce anything.
He just leeches.
Those societies tend to promote sterility and sodomy because that's how you have this populace that, because if you have kids, if you have a relationship, if you're trying to get along with people and do well in the world and create things and make things, have a farm or whatever, you're not going to have time for what do they call it in the middle ages?
The kingly vice, right?
Sodomy.
You don't have time.
You're not going to be laying around that.
It's the noble vice or whatever.
I mean, if you're the peasants can't exactly engage in sodomy, it's not exactly an activity those who don't have the best hygiene can engage in, among other things.
And it's a hobby for people who have time on their hands.
Think about remember like Braveheart.
Remember how the you know, William Wallace is like blown away by the British aristocracy because, you know, it's like the ones that the son of the king, Longshanks' son, and his gay lover.
Remember that part?
Oh, and the guy put he pushes the one guy out the window because these are very effete to very, you know, they have all their needs met.
They're not men.
They're not, they don't have to deal with living a rugged lifestyle.
They live in a freaking palace with a bunch of pillows everywhere.
Yeah.
And going back to sort of what your response, Davis, to that lady in the chat who is, by the way, now threatening to go stick her tongue down not a woman's throat because that's going to show me.
Babe, knock yourself out.
Just be sure to film it.
But anyway, we live in a materialist world and we can't imagine any sort of consequences to bad behavior that aren't material.
Like say, for example, you get to recent depictions of the slavery era of U.S. history.
You get stuff like Django Unchained Chained or 12 years of slave that cartoonishly exaggerates the amount of violence and pain that black people had to go through.
This is because this is in contravention to one of the original arguments for abolition, which was abolitionists argued that it was immoral to enslave black people because they had souls, because you know, the souls of black folk.
And enslaving someone with a soul was wrong because, well, you know, we are all God's children.
But because we live in a materialist world where we deny the existence of the soul or anything beyond the material, we have to exaggerate the physical violence in these depictions and imagine that, you know, like for a slave, which is constantly getting beaten with a whip, constantly, you know, the women were constantly getting raped by their masters because we can't imagine any sort of consequences to slavery beyond physical wounds and physical consequences.
This is an era when most employees, if they screwed up, would get whipped.
Okay.
People got whipped all the time back then, but we can only see, oh, whipping somebody is bad.
It's not the subjugation into slavery that's bad.
Well, there's a there used to be a great video, and we watched it in one of my college classes in undergrad American history, and it was when we were doing the Civil War.
I can't believe we watched that video, by the way, in a secular school.
But if somebody could find this on YouTube, it's gold, but it's, I think, probably 60s or 70s-era interview with one of the last living slaves.
You know, this guy's like 90, 95, something like that.
Very, very old guy in the probably in the 60s.
And they're interviewing him about what it was like.
And they're expecting it, you know, like you said, like Django and Chain, like getting whipped every way.
This old black guy is just really caught.
Well, I reckon it was just every old day we just kind of hung out and nobody was getting whipped and everybody got along and we had a house and we was next to the field and everything was fine and it wasn't like they say in the movies at all.
I was checking out the uh Andrew Jackson's Hermitage, which is his house, which was just like basically you could show up at his house and stay as long as you wanted.
They had like a bedroom for him, a bedroom for his daughters.
I think a bed, I forget if he had sons or not.
And then they had like two guest bedrooms, okay?
And there was a king-size bed and everybody, there's the men's room and the women's room, and you'd all sleep in that bed.
Now, the interesting thing is that the original caretaker of his estate, of the hermitage, which he gave to the American public, was the head slave.
You know, it was the head slave who stayed on after slavery ended.
So it's anyway, we're listening.
People have no idea.
We're getting on a tangent.
Nobody here supports slavery, but let's try and be realistic about it.
I think it's our point.
Again, I'm glad this Ashley showed up because this is a perfect.
We're talking about the high level what happens to society, but it also happens on the individual level.
Why does Ashley, why is she so angry that we're talking about this?
Can she have an identity without othering us to provide an ending?
She's just like the alt-right in this way, where I think if you went up to a lot of the young men in the alt-right and said, okay, you've won.
Now what are you going to do with yourself?
They have no idea.
Well, a lot of this stems back to It's astounding how much of modern thought is informed, and the materialism is involved by, I drop another name, Michelle Foucault, and his concept of biopower, the idea that governments are constantly seeking to, you know, in Foucault's estimation, everything was about power and controlling the body.
And his estimation, for example, notorious sodomite, too, by the way.
I was going to point that up.
Yeah, he was a homosexual who's into BDSM.
So unsurprisingly, he formulated a vision of the world in which everything was about power and control and all about material consequences.
He also, interestingly enough, came up with the idea that the left would abandon economic socialism if capitalists could placate them with social leftist gestures, which is exactly what is happening right now.
The left in the U.S. and in the West has entirely stopped.
They are the biggest boosters of international capitalism and corporations because those corporations are all about gay rights and trans rights and women's rights and all that.
You can placate them with symbolism.
Look at the Super Bowl commercials, okay?
It's not the Hillary Clinton pushing gay rights, it's the corporations pushing gay rights.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, Hillary is a BFF of the corporations.
I mean, she was recruited into the CIA during college, and it was the Rockefellers who spotted Bill.
Again, Arkansas.
Hello, that's where the Rockefellers are headquartered.
So it's not accidental that he went from governor of Arkansas to, which is, by the way, he was governor when they were running the CIA cocaine at Amino, Arkansas.
And so he goes from there to Bilderberg to being president.
And that's because Rockefeller money was behind him.
You can find lectures of Bill Clinton on YouTube with David Rockefeller.
Devil Rockefeller comes on.
Yes, I want to think Bill.
Bill is a great man.
We spotted him a long time ago and knew he'd be perfect for the presidency.
And yes, Mr. Burns is modeled on David Rockefeller.
Well, it certainly explains how a white trash son of a single mother from Arkansas suddenly is sends to the.
And that's what he is.
Bill Clinton was this fat, you know, white trash nerd who got beat up every day by jocks.
And his basically, his psychology as an adult is getting revenge on the jocks who beat him up and stole his girlfriend in high school.
You know, I was speaking with an elder at one point who I was pointing out that Cthulhu always swims left, as we like to say.
And he was saying, as far as he can tell, that it just flip-flops between the left and the right if you look at the past 50 years of history.
And what we're seeing right now, and a few comedians have made jokes about this, is we're currently living in a world where the left absolutely hates the Russians and the right wants to, whatever, take care of the working man.
And so for your average person that's not paying attention to the deeper ontological issues underlying all of this, it does look like the left and the right are flipping back and forth and both teams are full of assholes and corrupt losers and nothing matters.
But if you lean back a little bit and take in the situation as a whole, there is this consistent trend leftwards.
Yes, there's a great book called The Cultural Cold War by Francis Stoner Saunders.
In that book, which is kind of a whitewash, by the way, but I'll be citing that quite a bit in my new book about how the communist dialectic was kind of weak and it didn't really achieve what they hoped.
So, what the elite establishment, especially the WASP Eastern establishment, what they did was they started supporting and funding leftist and socialist movements that weren't just the Communist Party.
So, the rise of Atlantic Magazine, the rise of these different publications, the rise of liberalism in American educational institutions, pioneered especially at places like Yale and Harvard.
It was, yes, you would get these Marxist professors coming to prominence, but it was because the donors to the schools were these waspy Rockefeller-type people who wanted that ideology in all these universities.
So, I think that if we want to combat the errors and we want to combat it for the normie, okay, so the normie is not going to get into all the philosophy.
I understand that.
But if the normie could ever grasp that it's not commies, it's the corporate elite that run the commies.
And if you okay, so if you want to call Hillary Clinton a commie, okay, but she's a Goldman Sachs commie.
Okay, she's a, she's a, Barack Obama is a Goldman Sachs commie.
Okay, he's, he's a Siemens Corporation commie.
If we could ever get people to understand that, then they would, they would, we would make some progress.
But you could never get a boomer to understand.
I've never, ever convinced a boomer of that.
Um, and I've tried many times.
I've, I can't tell you how many times I've shown all of these articles to boomers, and they're just like, yeah, but it's them Russian commies that are going to get us.
And I'm like, dude, North Korea, they don't, they can, they're not going to nuke you, man.
Like, they're not, there's not, this is not 1986.
Like, the, the wall, the wall came down, man.
Like, we're not in the Cold War.
It's, it's, it's, why do you think the Democrats are pushing the Cold War McCarthy story of the Russians running the election?
That's crazy.
The boomers seem to think that it was just wonderful, all of these freedoms and rights and whatnot that they grew up with.
And these kids these days have just taken it a little bit far, but they're going to rein it back in.
You know, they'll get back together.
They don't see that this is an ongoing issue that could stretch us back hundreds of years.
And you don't know.
So like, super chat.
How do we put Humpty Dumpty of how do we put the Humpty Dumpty of true authority back together again?
And that's exactly it.
The problem, listen, before the chat started, we were kind of talking about the crazy people that each one of us has had associations with in the past.
That's because anytime you step out of the Overton window, you wind up with a lot of weird bedfellows.
And the normies out there, because the elites are playing these crazy power games that the normie can't really figure out, they become distrustful of all authority.
And so, you know, to put it one way, you know, you or I might say giving a three-month-old baby 30 vaccinations is probably a bad idea.
And then somebody that agrees with us says, yeah, and they're putting aluminium in our toothpaste to control our minds.
Well, they're probably not doing that.
This is the problem.
There is the normies need elites that they can trust and look up to, and they don't have that.
Right, right, right.
And that's why cult of personality in the alt-right is that's what happens is that people end up following a celebrity figure.
And then as soon as the celebrity figure has their faux pas or collapses, the whole thing is done.
So people need an ideology.
They need more than the celebrity figure on YouTube.
They need a worldview.
They need a community.
They need a church.
Those are the things that people need to actually have.
a change in their life and in their community.
And that we have a template of that in history.
So we know it works.
It's not purely ideological, right?
It's not just some utopian thing that maybe we can do this.
No, we've already done this.
It's already built civilizations.
We've already built things like Byzantium, right?
And it can happen again, but it has to, I think, occur in a more.
We have to earn it.
We as individuals, we as a people.
Yeah, yeah.
You got to start with yourself, obviously.
Exactly.
You can't just, you can't avoid things like changing your own lot.
You're not going to fix everybody else before you fix yourself.
That's a great point that Ruch is always making.
Which is what everybody else is trying to do.
Fix everybody else instead of dealing with their own problems.
Another great example is climate change.
I know that we're not really focused on that tonight, but it's a good point to show that, look, yes, in a way, a lot of the climate change stuff is Marxist or socialist or whatever.
But who is funding climate change throughout the world?
It's the big corporations.
That's who's funding it.
It's the big banks.
I mean, it comes out of the Club of Rome.
It comes out of the Rockefeller Foundation money and support.
The big oil companies, Shell, VP, they have a huge stake in promoting the climate change agenda.
So that's something that most normies or Fox News watchers, they think, oh, that's a liberal socialist Marxist thing is promoting all that climate change.
No, it's actually the monopoly capitalists that are promoting climate change.
Yeah, there's a layer of duped idiot socialists in there promoting it too.
But who do you think funds these idiot socialists?
They don't make any money.
Where do they get their money?
From people like David Rockefeller?
And yes, from Jews too.
There are Jewish bankers that fund it too.
You know, to go back to the cults of personality, it's always reminded me of the summer king.
So the summer king was maybe apocryphal, but a phenomenon among savage tribes where they would promote one person to be the king, and that person was just lauded with the summer season, all the crops harvested.
That's all because he's a great king.
And the moment that you get a bad harvest or at the end of summer, you kill the son of a bitch.
Okay, that's what the celebrity worship is.
You see poor little girls like Britney Spears who are just raised up to be this Madonna-like figure that people worship.
And then 10 years later, the same people that worshipped her turn against her in the most vicious manner possible and start speculating about what her handlers are doing and all that.
And the cults of personality that we're seeing in the alt-right are the exact same sort of things.
There's an inability, there's a great inability to separate the person and the position in the modern mind.
One thing that Catholics will point out is that, yeah, we've had bad popes.
Okay.
The Pope is just a man.
When he is fulfilling his role as the vicar of Christ, that's a position.
In his private life, he might have some major personal flaws, but that's the position and the person are two different things.
The king, the personage of the king, and the king as an individual are two separate things.
And we want to make it's no different than deifying Caesar at the end of the day.
Well, I would say that we're hitting on points that are really illustrative of the weak weak points in the right, paleoconservative, alt-right, alt-light, whatever.
When it becomes a personality cult, that's partly just because of human nature.
Humans don't just follow ideologies, they follow and commune with other human beings.
We're made that way.
But what's interesting about, and I think you guys and I would agree, at least we have a tradition East and West, where we have saints.
I mean, that's kind of the point of saints.
I'm not saying strictly speaking that they're an ID, that they're a personality cult, but it does kind of touch on that aspect of, you know, you take a saint when you're confirmed, or you have some special association with this guy because you read his book and it really influenced you.
And so you're partial to the saint, whoever.
I mean, that's kind of an aspect to which we already have that thing there for us too.
So, so in any of these realms, we already have a template.
And so, that's what's kind of amazing to me is that, you know, a lot of the stuff that's happening in the alt-right, a lot of these alt-like people, like they're kind of groping in the dark.
And even Jared Taylor was saying on one of these streams, like that, that, okay, the weak part of the alt-right is that it doesn't really have an ideology.
It's just kind of like, we don't like this.
Maybe we should have an ethno-state of some kind.
And then that's it.
But you really can't change things with something that loose.
You need a kind of program, a template.
For me, obviously, you know, that comes with Orthodox theology and philosophy.
You guys and I would agree, at least on the first thousand years of the church, we already kind of have a template of a basic pattern of what to look for.
And so, you know, as long as the alt-right remains in the sphere of just arguing, you know, our selection, K-selection, and, you know, how bad Haiti is, okay, then what?
It's just doomed to be part of this, I don't want to call this cycle of history because it's such it's more like the fashion cycle, right?
Where fashion is the only thing that's so ugly we need to get rid of it every three years.
It's the same thing with modern politics, where it ultimately comes to nothing because it's at the core of it is just the will to power.
There's a worship of the self as opposed to service to God.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, that's when you read about Babel, I mean, that's really, you know, the modern world is Babel.
That's where they sought to build a tower to heaven.
And this is contrasted with Abraham, who builds an altar and calls upon the name of the Lord.
So there's a specific contrast in Genesis between these two attempts at cultures, culture creation.
Abraham's culture is centered around the idea of God first, divine law, moral law.
The Babel culture is built around we will make a name for ourselves and build a tower to heaven.
Well, the thing about all these groups is that they form their identities around extremely loose and difficult concepts that are not capable of holding together.
Like the alt-right builds their identity around race, which going by the concentric circles of identity is the weakest way to bind people.
The easiest way to bind people would be through family, then you know, local area, you know, city, town, then nation, etc., state.
You know, that race is the absolute weakest way to bind people because it's so amorphous.
I mean, I'm not arguing there's no white race, there obviously, there obviously is, but white race encompasses everything from Americans to Hungarians to British to Russians, etc.
You can't throw that under one roof and expect anything concrete to come out of it.
Same thing goes for these other groups, like the skeptics or excuse me, the liberalists.
They form their identity around skepticism or whatever it is.
Libertarians form their idea around freedom.
None of these people have any real concrete roots in anything real.
And it shows in the movements they end up creating.
All right.
Gregory Trump.
What is this?
Super test me five bucks.
Use the Robin Hood trading app, give me a free stock.
And he lists his email.
Dude, what is that?
He's a regular commenter.
So we're actually getting quite a lot of angry.
I mean, isn't this just a you know, if they hate you, know that they hated me first.
There, it's just amazing how much the name of Christ causes in the world.
So people are mad that Jesus is being named.
I've literally seen people break out in cold sweats and start shaking at the mention of the name Jesus Christ.
It's uh well, we may have to pull that project you wanted to put together, Davis.
Get free billboards.
Uh, you know, put uh, the first one says Rush V, the second one says Donald Trump, the third one says Jesus Christ.
Get all the liberals to drive off the road.
I was thinking of putting it in Atlanta.
I'll just reach that Matt.
You had a great point where you were talking about, I think it was you.
You were talking about the skeptic community, or maybe it was Bektoff or Bektloff, whatever his name is.
I forgot what he was saying.
Bekloff, excuse me.
Um, there was something that was being said about the collapse, the clashing together of alt-right and skeptic communities kind of dissolving the two.
Um, I don't know, I think maybe a lot of the skeptic people are kind of see that lasting very long.
I'm really hoping this big debate with uh one of the big name YouTube skeptics happens on the Worski stream.
We'll see.
But was it was you making that point, or was he?
I can't remember.
I think it was him because I don't recall making it, but yeah, skepticism is on its last legs.
Uh, I mean, the whole atheism, internet atheism has been on a downward decline in the recent years.
Uh, I'd say the fission point was when uh if it bifurcated into atheism plus, because you know, the feminists were not too happy that a movement uh dedicated primarily to denying the existence of God was not focused on how oppressed women were.
And now you have um you know, you know, that big debate with uh between Sargon and Richard Spencer that really broke Sargon mentally.
I mean, I'm no fan of Richard Spencer, but Spencer pretty much Spencer inflicted narcissistic injury on Sargon, and ever since then, Sargon is just trying to prove to the world and to Spencer that he's right, and I'm the smart one, and I know all about liberty.
And you alt-right is just acting like a bunch of niggas.
You know, somebody else made this observation.
I forget whom.
I wish I could take credit for it.
But Sargon is, he's got a monkey on his back trying to prove to the world that he's not stupid, which is why he calls other people stupid all the time.
The word stupid really, really triggers him.
And yeah, and Spencer smashed that button.
And now he's gone a little bit wacky, trying to prove that he's not stupid and that 1850s Germany wasn't part of Western civilization.
I seriously are arguing now that, like, you know, the alt-right is trying to attack my heritage.
The British have fought for freedom for 800 years.
If you exclude Ireland, India, the United States, South Africa, all these other places.
Yeah, the British were fighting for freedom if you just plot out about 80% of British history.
Well, what about Elizabeth actually being more of a tyrant persecuting Catholics than Bloody Mary?
A lot of people don't know that, but Elizabeth killed more people than, quote, Bloody Mary.
So this is kind of a mythology of, oh, because of Magna Carta, we've, you know, all always been about freedom.
Not really.
Come on.
This is the thing.
You nailed it when you pointed out it's Babel.
That when you try and talk to these people, they don't hear what you're saying.
Because at the root, the root of it, they're just using their words like sledgehammers.
Okay, they're donning the outfit of logic and reason just to pursue personal power.
And it's devolved to the point in this day where, to a large extent, it's narcissistic supply.
We have so many people that are just after, they've completely rejected objective reality and they just want to be the hero.
And what the, again, the alt-right thinking that Charlottesville was a great victory for them.
This is classic narcissistic projection.
Okay, the left wants to pretend that they're the heroes, that they're the SJW paladins, and the right wants to believe the exact same thing.
And so they won't acknowledge objective reality.
And if you try and debate, like I point out that homosexuality tends to lead to a miserable old age, and that that young girl says, well, I'm going to go put my tongue down another girl's throat.
Well, hey, you're really showing me.
But this is what happened.
you are like barking dogs.
Yeah, it's like Go ahead, Matt.
I'll let you go.
I was just going to make a joke.
No, go ahead.
That's what I was going to say.
It goes back to, I remember the dearly departed YouTuber, Asymmetrical Warfare, a friend of mine, Davis.
He made this point in a now deleted video.
Like, leftists will often threaten to harm themselves in an attempt to get at you.
I mean, I'm reminded of in 2016 when I think it was Pop Tart Kellogg pulled their advertising from Breitbart.
So the right announced the boycott of Breitbart.
And then there was that guy on Twitter who was all like, well, here's how I'm going to, you could really piss off the alt-right by buying Kellen eating Pop-Tarts and other Kellogg products.
And he posts a picture of himself and he's this like fat ass with his shirt off and he pop-tarts.
And I'm like, you're not, you're not hurting us, buddy.
All you're hurting is yourself.
You're just ensuring you'll end up dead of a heart attack in about 10 years instead of 15.
But go right ahead.
Enjoy yourself.
They act like it's children having a tantrum.
It's like a showing out, basically, is the way these people act.
And I remember even in college when I was a grad student in my 30s, and I would interact with, and this is not too long ago.
So, this is when there already are social justice warrior people on campus.
They're putting up the Kony 2012 crap everywhere.
They're talking about how they're going to save the children.
And they're promoting all this transgender stuff on campus.
And you interact with them, you debate with them in a class or whatever, and they lose their mind.
And I mean, not just everybody's seen triggerly puff, but I'm saying like it's a tantrum.
It's like, let me just act like I'm a four-year-old kid who ate a bunch of candy going nuts.
It's the narcissistic injury.
The narcissist, just to briefly describe them, Lord knows I've talked about them enough, but if you're new to this channel, what narcissism is not egoism, okay?
Trump is an egoist.
He thinks very highly of himself, maybe a little bit too highly.
But the narcissist is actually somebody that loathes themselves.
And so they need to manufacture reality where they aren't a contemptible piece of garbage.
So, I mean, the fat activists do this by saying, you know, that's a good point.
And they demand to manufacture this reality because they reject God.
They reject the absolute level of reality.
They reject the objective level of reality.
All they're left with is subjective.
And so to create this ego for themselves so that they can pretend that they're not self-loathing, they demand that you also believe what they believe about themselves.
And the moment you pierce that narcissistic shell, all that self-loathing comes out.
It's like boiling water shooting out of a radiator hose straight into your face.
It's just rage.
Yes, they're mad at their conscience, is what it boils down to, because we all have a conscience and their own conscience testifies to them that the reason that they're 500 pounds, the reason that they're having these issues is because of bad choices that they've made.
Now, yes, I mean, people can be abused and they can have mental problems.
I'm not denying that.
But for most of these people, not everybody's been abused.
Okay.
Most of these people have made bad choices.
And rather than admit that they need to change, they project that onto society and they demand then that society, you know, the only reason that you don't accept me as I am is because of your social construct prejudice.
But no, it's actually because the world is objective.
There are objective facts.
There's objective right and wrong.
And they're reacting against their own conscience testifying against them, I would say.
Incidentally, this is why objective logical argument doesn't work against them.
Because one example of a narcissist is the guy that he wants his narcissistic bubble is that he's the pillar of the community, that he has a great house and a brand new car and a successful business.
Reality is that it's all credit cards, that he's not making any money.
He's actually a loser.
He's not good at business, but he needs to convince everybody else he is.
Now, that guy will go out and he will constantly criticize people for spending money with their credit card, even though that's what he's doing.
Because it's not about an objective reality or an objective moral law.
It's about maintaining the delusion.
So a fat activist will attack you for being overweight, or some disgusting freak that nobody wants to have sex with will accuse Rouge B of being a virgin.
You know, it doesn't make any sense because this is not the world of logic and objective law.
This is not God's world.
This is hell.
It is.
It is.
The Orthodox always, you know, hell begins now, as does heaven, and the Orthodox perspective.
And it makes me think of there's a great documentary that everybody should watch.
Well, it's not a documentary.
It's like a 60 Minutes Australia.
And it's about the pedo scandal in the Australian parliament and in the UK parliament, how it was networks, savel, all that stuff.
And the reason I recommend that, it's on YouTube, is that they interview this guy who is this pedo dude.
And he's like, we need to have this society-wide.
It needs to be accepted everywhere.
And the interviewer is like, why do you feel this way?
And he's like, because the only thing that's wrong about any of this, and me raping kids or whatever, is that society has foisted it upon me that it's wrong.
It's not actually wrong.
I'm actually okay.
Everything's, I'm good.
I'm fine.
I'm okay.
But this, quote, society has made this an issue that troubles my conscience.
It's not actually my conscience.
It's society.
So that guy actually is a perfect illustration of this point.
It was C.S. Lewis, I believe, who said that the gates of hell are locked from the inside.
Guys, this is what you are seeing.
Okay, when somebody rejects objective truth, they're rejecting God.
They are rejecting any humbleness.
They are rejecting self-knowledge.
There was a saint who had a vision of the spirits, spirits upon the earth that were basically like they're not allowed in heaven.
And there was just constant insults and sexual invectives and just pure, the nastiest sort of arguing and fighting that you can think of.
And this is where it leads.
Okay, a lot of us have been on some sort of path that was fun at first, but was going towards a dark place.
And we pulled ourselves off of it.
This is the whole modern world is about sending souls straight into hell.
And if you open your eyes to it, you can see it.
And that's, I mean, like, we start off talking about, you know, liberalism and how to build a correct society.
Well, the whole point of a correct society is that it gets souls to heaven.
You know, it teaches people humbleness and hard work and honesty and virtue.
Okay, that's what we need.
If you embody these traits in yourself, if you get off that path straight into hell, then you're going to be doing your part to build that great society.
You can't without the other.
Well, it's like what Mephistopheles said when Foss asked him what hell is like.
And Mephisto says, well, I'm in hell right now.
It's horrible.
And Foss was all like, oh, this is hell?
Not so bad.
Missing the point.
Hell's not a place.
It's a state of mind.
It's a state of total isolation from the truth.
And this is some, and the same point was made by the most educational porn film ever made, The Devil and Miss Jones.
How so?
The plot's about a woman who kills herself and ends up in purgatory because she doesn't, you know, because even though she was a good person, she killed herself.
So she petitions to earn her way into hell by being reincarnated and then going on a just having sex with every guy imaginable.
She ends up becoming a full-blown nymphomaniac.
And then, you know, they're coming back to get her soul.
And she's like, I'm ready for hell.
I'm ready for the flames.
And instead of being put into like hell of the flames, for her, hell is being trapped in a completely featureless room with a man who does not want to have sex with her.
And she's desperate to have sex with him.
And that's her life for all of eternity.
You know, think about these people that scream and have tantrums when you misgender them.
How the hell could that person wind up in heaven?
Could you imagine being a roommate with that person?
This is a great, a great point that touches on, I'm not trying to go off into like a big theological thing.
This is just a quick point.
A lot of times people say, is there a distinction between like a medieval, you know, Dante style vision of hell as opposed to the Orthodox view?
And yes, there is actually.
If you read the great C.S. Lewis book, it's not very long.
It's pretty short.
The Great Divorce.
That's kind of our view of hell.
And it's essentially what you're saying, Davis.
It's like in the story, they transport a bunch of people who wanted to go to hell.
And they're kind of transported by bus into heaven.
And the thing about it is, is that they can't stand it.
They actually hate being there.
They don't want to be in an environment, as you said, based around what's true, what's objective, what's actually loving and so forth.
It's literally torturous to them to be around truth.
And so they chose hell because they would rather be in this kind of egoistic narcissist.
You know, narcissist is looking at himself, a reflection of himself in the mirror for all eternity, right?
I mean, that is the condemnation is completely being alone, basically just with you forever.
The blackness of darkness, as Jesus describes it.
So in the same way, you know, we totally say 100.
What you were saying there is that it doesn't even you people think that hell, oh hell, is not fair, it doesn't make any sense.
No it's, it's actually.
It begins now and it's and it's people who want to be in that kind of a situation, because they would not even if you took them to to heaven.
They wouldn't want to be there.
But see Gregory uh, Trump just sent me another super chat and, by the way, that thing you mentioned earlier was uh doc, trading or something.
You get a free stock.
I'm not sure.
Uh, there should be a comment below if you're watching this after the stream.
But he says Bernie Bros should read the book.
Rich Dad, Poor Dad um, I honestly i'm not so sure about that book.
Uh, i've heard very questionable things about the author.
It's, I don't know.
It's a sort of advice that sounds really deep, but I worry, can it's like the secret?
Okay, it can lead a lot of people astray, but thanks for the mammons anyway.
Uh oh yeah, for the maimons, as a sir Septic would put it.
Yeah, appreciate it, brother.
Just my two cents on the book.
Um, my two, my two cents, and this is this may sound corny and it may sound protestant but uh, one thing I found that's helped me in the last maybe two years is that I quite frequently will listen to on my Iphone or whatever, through the headphones.
I'll listen to the Book Of Proverbs so, like people are looking for, you know, practical kind of self-help type stuff.
That's what the Book Of Proverbs is actually, just a, a catechism for young men.
That's what it was written for.
Um, so I I listen to it like at least once a month, all the way through.
I would recommend doing that.
That's a great idea, you know it's.
Yeah, I had a business partner that decided that destroying himself to hurt me was more important than us both succeeding.
And see, this is the nature of the narcissist of the hellbound soul.
They are more interested in screaming obscenities than in discoursing or appreciating anything beautiful.
Yeah, this is part of the reason I'm not a big fan of these internet bum fights because I just don't want that negative energy in my environment.
You know, I don't like I was on that stream with Ruch about the trad tots, and we had some ladies on there and we didn't argue with them.
Why the hell would we do that?
Why would we bring argument into our Waldoff garden?
You know, so like I'm not saying don't watch the bum fights if you're getting something out of them, but it's just I'm looking at that and that's a little bit too close to hell for the world I want to live in.
And you know, with that, I think we've done a pretty good job with this topic.
You know, it's kind of a big idea.
It's it's hard to communicate what exactly we're talking about because we're talking about the ineffable.
We're talking about something that you can't really put into words.
But like by definition, you can't put it into words.
And yet it's absolutely necessary on a mathematical philosophical.
Yeah, I was going to say, you can use another math analogy because we all understand the idea of positive integers.
And at the same time, there are negative numbers.
We can't exactly explain how this is or what exactly a negative number is, but in some way, there's some means by which there's a progression into the infinity of non-existence or non-being.
And there is some analogy there to hell in some way or to the dark side of the spiritual forces or whatever.
I think that this is kind of a goofy pop culture analogy, but if you watched Stranger Things, not the second season where it got all feminist SJW, but the first season was really good.
And you have the upside-down world.
You know, this is, I remember having a bad trip one time, and it was like the upside-down world.
I was like, this is got to be what hell's like.
It's well, I'll tell you, it's the demons and souls in hell.
Like the God's word, the logos is existence itself.
And hell is this strange place where they continue to exist without existence.
Yeah.
Lies need a truth to glom onto to propagate themselves, even though they're the opposite of truth.
And so what you see with these hellbound souls is this desperation to latch onto the good and twist it towards evil, even though it's self-defeating.
You're just destroying the good in the process.
But it's this left of their own devices, they have absolutely nothing, which is why they're constantly.
Yeah, others have pointed out that a socialist socialist can never just leave well enough alone.
Like, okay, you go have your little socialist communist utopia over in California.
No, they ruin it and then they spread everywhere else.
Well, this is the leaven, like Jesus says.
Like it has to, it's like it has to grow.
The corruption has to grow.
I mean, Matt, you were talking about this with like the grooming of people on the right, you know, into this parasitical kind of gay stuff.
Exactly.
It's not enough to keep to their own devices.
It never is.
Like either you're getting better or you're getting worse.
There's no maintaining the status quo ever.
Right, right, right, right.
Totally agree.
And yeah, what we're seeing now, the devolution of Western civilization into modern babel and identity politics and narcissism, this was set into motion as soon as we rejected God and started worshiping man.
And the only way to get around it, like going back to classical liberalism, going back to 1950 or 1900 or 1850 or 1750 is insufficient.
What we need to do is go back to God.
Yeah, and I'm actually optimistic because, you know, in the first, second century, it would seem very dismal because you have this giant mammonistic pagan empire.
Things don't look very, very hopeful.
And then you have the spread of the church almost miraculously from nothing to essentially encompassing the entire Roman Imperium, the Orchuminae.
And so I would say in the same way, maybe in our day, it's like we, and the spread of the church wouldn't have happened without Koine Greek, without Alexander the Great spreading this language across his empire, which would be adopted into the Roman Empire.
And so in the same way, I'd say the internet kind of like Koine Greek.
I think that there is the possibility of things actually changing in the future and breaking out of a lot of this stuff through a return to God.
Absolutely.
And it is happening.
And guys, if you need some affirmation for yourself, I strongly recommend the TV series, The Young Pope.
Have you had a chance to see that, Jay Dyer?
I have not.
It is the only unrealistic part of it is that the Pope has never really sinned.
That he is.
Is this the Jude Long series?
Yes.
He is a living saint.
And in reality, all the saints were sinners originally.
They all, it took a while for them to become saints.
So that's the only unrealistic part.
But if you had a saint for Pope, this is what it would be like, where he is very hard with the justice because we've shown too much mercy for too long.
And yet he's not without mercy.
He's got the balance between the two.
It's a wonderful, wonderful series to watch.
I will have to check that out.
I expected it would have been just awful and blasphemous and degenerate, but I'm surprised to hear that it's not.
I would recommend a book that I know you guys would like, even though it's from an Orthodox perspective, but it's actually converted a lot of atheists, a lot of nihilists, is Father Rose's book, Nihilism.
That's a really good 100-page, 150-page book on modernity, how classical liberalism's logical conclusion actually is nihilism.
I'll have to check it out.
And guys, I'm going to take all the links we've mentioned and put them into the description once we're done streaming.
And again, we've been going for an hour and a half.
We could talk for hours, but I want to end it now because that way people can watch it and hopefully pay attention and get something out of it.
I think it's been a great chat.
Forney, do you have any final thoughts?
Yeah, Bayakan, Dios, Peachy Cavrons.
And Jay?
Hopefully, I will have a debate Thursday with one of the big YouTube atheists, and it will actually be profitable, hopefully, and not just a shitstorm blood sport, but we'll see.
Yeah, it's always worth trying, all right.
Well this uh, Jay Dyer you, your website is.
It's linked down below.
But what's your website?
Again at Jaysanalysis.com, Jay's Analysis.
And uh, it's just Jay Dyer, d-y-e-r on youtube to find him.
He's got some right right, excellent philosophical videos.
And go check out that debate.
You said it's thursday.
Uh, if this big Youtube atheist person agrees to it which i'm not 100 certain they will, but it's.
It's been in the works for a couple weeks now and it should be thursday, on the Warsky stream maybe.
Oh, best of luck with it.
I'm sure it will be at a fine regardless.
Listen, folks.
Thank you very much for listening.
I I hope this was useful.
Again, we're trying to point towards the ineffable.
It's never been easy, but uh yeah, go read The book Of Proverbs, check out the links that I'm going to add below, and uh, day as both, folks.
