All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2025 - MyronGainesX
06:29:14
Charlie Kirk vs 400 Cambridge Students, Andrew Wilson vs Feminist, Diddy Trial Week 3 Begins!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, can you guys?
All right, I think you guys should be able to hear me right now.
Uh all right, guys, can you hear me now?
Holy, sorry, man.
I don't know what the hell happened there.
I don't know what the hell happened there.
Give me ones if you guys can hear me, and we're all good now.
God damn, this shit pisses me off, man.
Sometimes really pisses me off.
Um, you guys should have me now.
All right, cool, cool, cool.
Yeah, guys, a funny story for you guys.
Like, I forgot to fucking pay my electric bill, and like, every I woke up and like everything was turned off.
I gotta put that shit on auto pay, man.
I guess I forgot.
Um, oh my god, okay.
So, like, reset my mixer and my computer and all this crap.
So, now we're now we're good.
I don't know why.
I'm streaming on X right now, but I'm getting like a fucking fucked up screen.
Let me end this fucking shit on here, man.
Sing.
Bear with me real quick guys.
I'm trying to fix my Twitter situation.
It's acting all crazy.
Let me call Bills real fast.
God damn it, man.
Technology pills me.
It pisses me off.
But, and good news, guys, I am going to be doing.
And the good news is, we're going to be doing a college site debate in the city of Miami here on Friday.
Talk to me.
Yo, Bills, what's up, man?
I tried using Restream with X, Bro, because I hated the quality on Rumble Studio.
Yeah, so, but for some odd reason, I kept getting it.
It says fail to connect RTMP source exceeded the maximum 1080 by 1920 resolution.
Okay, based on it.
I got you.
Yeah.
So I'll show you kind of what I had here before.
I made a whole restream thing in the Adem.
Make sure I'm charging.
Okay, cool.
I'm waiting for my damn signal to unblur.
I'm just waiting on the damn connection.
What does that say right there?
Is it saying restream studio or does it say restream?
Yeah, restream Twitter.
I made that output.
Fuck that out, but we gotta change that out because it's set to.
Because if you made that output, you probably set it to the 4K setting and it's not gonna be able to take that.
Okay.
So do I remove it?
Did you delete some of the outputs?
There's no restream out there no more?
I don't think it's there anymore.
All right, I got digging, Myron.
All right, click the setting on the bottom.
Go to output settings.
Hold on, hold on.
Or add output.
No, no, no, no, no.
The output settings for the one you made.
I'm going to just make the output settings.
Okay.
Yeah, I'll tell you right now.
Oh, not that one advanced.
I guess advanced settings.
It's whatever.
Okay.
All right, cool.
Now, that says main encoder, right?
Change that to times 264.
Yep.
Yep.
And then, hold on.
I'm trying to see.
God damn.
I'm doing this shit off the fucking fly.
Bit rate 2500 or you could put that at 8,000.
Okay.
Actually, 10k.
Make it 10k.
10k.
All right.
Make it 10k.
And then it says, I got to rescale this shit.
There's a scaling option somewhere.
Hold on.
Scroll up.
Scroll up.
Missing something.
Check that.
There it goes.
Where?
Rescale output.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
And then click that.
No, no, no.
Just click that.
And then go to the PADP.
Click 1080, 1920.
Okay, 920, 1080.
Okay, boom.
Yeah.
Then hit okay.
Hold on, hold on.
Change it from CBR.
There's one on the bottom from CBR.
What the hell?
CRF.
CRF, VBR, ABR, CBR.
You keep a CBR, that's fine.
CBR is cool then.
All right.
Keep a CBR.
And then everything should be good.
Click apply or whatever and okay, and then you should be good.
All right, let me try.
Okay, let me try hitting.
So hit the ADEM thing again.
Yep.
And now you should be good to see that.
Hold on, let me try to put in the key and make sure I got the right key in there.
Put the right key in there.
It should be good to go.
My bad, Gary.
One second.
Okay.
Oh, are you guys?
What time are you guys starting the first start at?
We're doing a first start at probably like 9, 9:30, but I'm here with Gary right now.
I'm about to do a show with Gary real quick.
Okay.
All right, then.
Let me hit.
Oh, okay.
So.
No, no worries.
All right.
All right.
So I hit go live on here.
Yeah, you're about to see it.
It's about to come up.
Give it a second.
And then I hit restream over here.
Fire.
Let's see what happens.
All right, y'all.
We're going to get this thing going here in a second.
I think you did.
Let me remove this one.
Is that not restream?
Am I tripping?
Yeah, on restream, it's fine, but I don't know what the hell's going on here on X. It doesn't show on X yet.
It might show on X on it.
Okay, now it's showing on X. Now it is.
It has a little delay.
All right.
Cool.
All right.
Thank you, Bills.
You're the man.
Appreciate it, bro.
I got you, brother.
All right, cool.
All right, W Bills as usual, chat.
W Bills, I got to give him a Don DeMarco for that one.
All right.
Dumb DeMonco.
Okay.
All right.
Okay, we are live, guys.
Welcome to the stream, man.
Welcome to the stream.
Welcome to the stream.
Sorry for the delay, guys.
As always, some bullshit always happens.
As I'm getting ready to stream, it's like it never fails, dude.
Something always happens to me technology-wise.
And it's always a pain in the ass.
But we got to figure it out.
I do think that I have a little bit of knowledge on OBS and how to make this stuff happen.
But it's now I see why everybody's streamyard, bro.
Bro, this shit is way more complicated, man.
Oh, shit.
Hold on, Bill's calling me right now.
Yo.
Hey, what up, my white friend?
Yo.
What's up, brother?
Yo, what's up?
Myron, are you live right now?
I'm live right now.
Yeah, what's up?
All right, Vegas?
What?
Are you down?
Vegas tomorrow?
You down?
No, man.
We got a stream, bro.
Nah, nigga, we need to go to Vegas, bro.
Nah, man, you go to Vegas, nigga.
Nah, man.
Wait, what?
What the fuck, nigga?
Listen, bro.
Come on, let's go to Vegas, man.
No, man, you go there.
You're the network, nigga, man.
You're right.
Plus, networking is gay.
Apparently, networking is gay, apparently.
Yo, niggas be hating on me, bro.
That's shit crazy.
W stream, W chat.
Listen, I love y'all niggas, man.
I'm out.
Vegas tomorrow, though.
All right, you're going to go to Vegas.
Anyhow, chats, think about this.
All right.
I don't know what this nigga's doing.
All right, is that all you got?
Did you see this video?
Check it out.
That's good, man.
All right, nigga, I'm getting off.
All right, I'm hanging up on this nigga.
All right.
Sorry about that, chat.
This nigga, man, I don't know what the hell.
Bro, just call me out of nowhere.
All right.
So, all right.
Sorry about that, guys.
Now we can officially start this thing up proper, okay?
Dom DeMonco.
Damn, I'm about to.
I'm probably going to edit this video for you guys and cut out the first fucking 42 minutes there.
All right.
So, all right, let's get right into it, man.
So, we're going to be covering three different things.
We're going to be covering the Diddy case, the Cambridge debates, and Andrew Wilson.
So, what I want to do here first is let's go ahead and cover Diddy catch up, okay, with what's going on.
Let me go ahead and catch up with that one first.
So, we're going to go on Law and Crime Network because they did a pretty good summary on this.
Because the person that testified today was a girl named Capricorn.
So, we're going to go over some of that testimony taken from three in the prosecution of this case.
And really, really interesting testimony from what we're getting reports on what happened in court today.
But by the way, for the next hour or so, we're going to be taking your questions on YouTube.
Any questions you have about today's testimony, anything about that's happened in the case.
So, single day of testimony.
All right, so this girl right here, I met her at the courthouse when I was there.
So, today, guys, the person that testified was Capricorn.
Now, if you guys are wondering, A.O. Myron, I'm not caught up on this case.
What do I do?
No problem.
I got you guys.
I made a whole video on this, and it is this video right here.
Okay, you go right here.
This video, Didier Trial Breakdown, witness breakdown.
Two hours long, but I go through each witness on this in detail.
So, if you guys want to get caught up on the case, here it is.
Okay, here's the video on it where I recap all of the 16 witnesses prior to Capricorn taking the stand, who was one of Diddy's assistants.
So, we're going to go ahead and listen to what she had to say.
Now, this woman, if you guys remember, was mentioned in multiple other people's testimony, including today.
Elizabeth, it's great to see you.
I will ask you about what the vibe is and what we're seeing in the court in a minute, but I have to start with the testimony of Capricorn Clark.
So, this former assistant.
All right.
Some idiot in the mic said, Myron, your mic is muffled again.
Guys, is this guy trolling or not?
Is this guy trolling or not?
This nigga said, "My mic gets muffled again." The kid said, "Myron, fix your mic, it's muffled again." Is there a controller in or not, chat?
He's muffled.
No, he's not trolling.
Audio sounds like in a box.
Bruh.
Oh.
That should make it better.
Is that better now?
Chat?
I think I just made it better just now.
If it's good now, give me O slashes.
I just fixed it.
Should be significantly better now.
If it's good now, give me an O slash.
Yeah, like I said before, guys, the reason why a lot of this shit's happening is because...
So here's what happened, Chad.
All right.
The reason why all this shit is fucked up and not working right now, randomly I wake up and all my power's gone.
I'm like, what the hell?
And I'm like, oh, shit.
And I try to flicker the lights and it's off.
And I'm like, oh, I guess I didn't put autopay on my light bill.
Oh, wow.
So I paid it.
And then everything, you know, obviously when things get just like randomly shut off, it resets.
So that's what happened.
So the kid, thank you.
Normally I hate audio trolls, but you weren't trolling.
So it's fixed now, bro.
To Sean Combs, we knew she was going to take the stand.
She had been mentioned last week during Kid Cuddy's testimony.
I want to take this in pieces if I can.
So, because I know we have a little bit of time with you.
So just talk to me real quick about how she began her testimony and how she started working for Sean Combs.
And then we'll move into more of the specific allegations regarding Kid Cuddy.
Yeah, well, Jesse, from what Capricorn Clark said while on the stand today, she said that she and Diddy actually go back before she actually started working with him.
She said she met him around 2002.
And then from there, later on, that's when she started getting into his employment around 2004, between 2004 to 2006.
So when she was first brought on, she was brought on as a personal assistant.
And she said, actually, on the first day of the job, she was taken to Central Park.
And you might think, oh, we're going to go to Central Park.
It's going to be great.
But that's not really how she described her first day on the job.
She said she went there with Sean Combs, Diddy, and she also went there with Paul Alfred.
Now, who is Paul Alford?
He's actually the security guard that we've known about for a number of testimony, right?
But she's actually talking about Uncle Pauli.
And so she said that she was.
Now, Uncle Pauli, guys, is one of Diddy's main security guys.
He had three main guys.
He had a DRock, Pauly, and, um, one other dude.
Um, fuck.
His name is going to come up here.
Um, when we're brought to central park, um, And then she kind of gets into why they would go to Central Park.
And it was essentially to threaten Capricorn Clark.
Why?
Because she actually used to work with Death Row.
And who was the CEO of Death Row?
That is Suge Knight, one of Diddy's mini arch nemesis.
And so she said that she described her previous relationship with Suge Knight as he is actually the father of her best friend's children.
So she does not have a personal, like intimate relationship.
And Sugar Knight, as you guys know, is the head of Death Row Records.
You know, for those of you that don't know who Sugar Knight is, because I know we got a lot of young niggas in here.
Okay, this guy was the big bad wolf back in the day, Mr. Tough Guy.
Okay.
Here he is, Suk Knight, head of Death Row Records back in the day.
Relationship with Suk Knight necessarily, but she just knows of him and knows him a little bit closer, mainly because of her best friend and that he is the father of her best friend's children.
And so when she was taken to Central Park around this time, this being in 2002, or excuse me, 2004, she said that Diddy told her he'd kill her if she had anything to do with Suge Knight.
Then there was an objection raised in court.
The defense obviously objecting to that statement.
But the government continued to ask her about this alleged threat.
And she being Capricorn Clark had explained that Diddy was relatively calm while delaying this kind of message to her.
She said that during this kind of meetup at Central Park or during this meeting, that Uncle Pauli said nothing.
He was calm as well too.
He was a little stoic from her description of it.
And she said, as far as the response to the threat goes, she says, well, we'll just have to see.
But Capricorn said while she was on the stand that she should have just been more transparent about her relationship with Suge Knight.
And that's when we start getting into the exhibit photos of just some of the security guards that we've seen a number of times through these exhibits.
So we were shown a photo of D-Rock, who Capricorn Clark explained was a good friend of Biggie Smalls.
D-Rock actually came on board after Capricorn Clark.
Then we're showing an exhibit photo of Ruben, who's actually D-Rock's little brother.
And she explained that D-Rock, or excuse me, that Ruben came after Capricorn Clark, and so did, or excuse me.
She said that Ruben came after Capricorn Clark, same as D-Rock.
And then as far as Roger Bonds, we already saw an exhibit photo of him, but we saw that again today.
And she explained that Roger Barnes started around the time that Capricorn Clark did.
So this was around that 2004 timeframe.
And then slowly we start to get into the guns.
And Capricorn had said that she had observed Diddy with a gun while she was being kidnapped.
And obviously, we're going to divulge and take that piece by piece in just a little bit.
But the government asked her, you know.
Also, guys, another Twitter account that covers quite a bit of this stuff is this guy, Inner City Press.
So here you got some of the testimony, right, from earlier.
Judge, Ms. Clark, you were still under oath, blah, blah, blah.
Okay.
She goes, Combs, Agni Philo, we met in April 2024.
You had a lawyer, Brian Friedman.
Okay, but then I'll sift through this, guys, while you keep watching this.
That Diddy has discussed having a gun before because there was this whole, I guess, press thing and interview that Diddy had done with 50 Cent.
And we all know Diddy's relationship with 50 Cent is not the best.
And so I guess Puff, or who she refers to as Puff, said that Chris Leidy, who was Diddy's manager around that time, said that Diddy said, I don't like the bath back and forth.
I like guns.
And Puff or Diddy or Sean Combs, as we're calling him.
All right, so here we go.
So here's a little bit more stuff.
So it goes, so she started working with because I guess her last name is Agnafilio.
And then let's go ahead and let me show you guys what she looks like, who this woman is, one of Diddy's assistants.
Is it Capricorn Clark?
Here Yep, this is her.
This is the government exhibit they use for her every time.
This is Capricorn Clark right here.
When I was in, you can see her government exhibit right here.
So let's see here.
Okay, and Agni Philo, this is Diddy's attorney.
This guy right here.
Okay.
This is Diddy's attorney.
This is the lead attorney for Diddy, this guy.
Okay.
So he had her on cross-examination, it looks like.
So, okay.
So he goes, okay.
We met in April 2024.
You had a lawyer, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, cool.
And then you saw Miss Garregos taking notes.
Okay, we caught that.
Okay, Capricorn Clark.
It was 2002.
I met Jeanette.
Then Mr. Combs in 2001 was the World Trade Center thing that I met, Mr. Combs.
He wasn't doing drugs, right?
She says he did ecstasy in Daddy's house, but it got worse.
Yes.
You authorized Mr. Freeman to seek a job for you.
Capricorn says it was all very procedural lawyer to lawyer, but you were told you couldn't be given a job in the middle of the investigation.
I don't remember that.
Read this and let me know when you're done.
State of mind.
Okay, this is some shit.
Okay.
You started with DFJ.
I'm run DMC.
She goes, I don't go back that far.
More Foxy Brown, Redline, Jay-Z.
Agnes Philo says, So, how did you come to work for Mr. Combs?
She says, I put my resume on Monster after the World Trade Center thing.
He said you'd work for me.
I was like, maybe he was acting on Broadway and raising in the sun.
I was impressed.
He had a major part.
CC, he was a star.
And remember, Capricorn Clark is the witness.
Then I shouted him on the vote or die campaign.
Oh, man, I remember that back in the day when they were trying to get Obama in.
My job was to get the t-shirts on the celebrities and into the photo shoots.
I'd call them and say Puff wanted them to come and they came.
Cece, yes, they did.
How long before the jewelry missing thing?
So one of the things that they're going to testify to as well, guys, is the jewelry that went missing and how did he put some of them on lie detectors for this shit?
She says it was about four months.
On the 4th of July, he threw a white party at his home on the Hamptons that year with voter die.
When did the jewels thing missing happen?
After July 4th, she says.
Then they go, the jewels were still on loan from Jacob the jeweler.
Who else got the lie detector?
She says, Mike B. Histylist, he had gone to street level of 1440 for manicures.
The lie detective test was the same day.
You never told HR?
No.
Capricorn Clark, I got fired for three weeks.
How did he get unfired?
I went to work on his 35th birthday at Cipriani to do the celebrity list.
I came back, 2004 to 2006.
She says, not all.
And he goes, as a personal assistant?
Then she says, then liaison.
Then she says, I was making $65K for Combs and then $90 at Jive.
The attorney says, why do you come back to Combs?
She says, I had gotten top records for R. Kelly.
Mr. Combs said he was impressed, asked me to come back for Sean John for women.
Then she goes, I think I was really good employed for him.
A lawyer says, he told you you were awesome.
She says, he did not use that word.
He says, you worked hard for him?
She says, yes, I did.
Attorney says, others worked hard too, right?
And she goes, not as hard as me.
Cap again says, I did learn a lot from Combs, almost crying.
He broke that glass ceiling for us black people in the business world.
I ain't gonna lie.
He kind of did, bro.
I'm not gonna lie.
Before Diddy, I couldn't really think of like a music mogul that was like as respected.
You know, I ain't gonna lie.
He kind of did make it where he was like the first rapper to like actually be an entrepreneur, chat.
He was like the first rapper to actually be an entrepreneur.
Cece, no, it's just complicated.
Judge, we'll take a break.
So she started crying on the stand chat, and they had to take a break.
That's crazy.
Then, let's see here.
With jury and witness out, Judge, on DNA questions, Inspector Jimenez, the government's objection is overruled.
Okay, we all get past this legal mumbo jumbro.
Let's see what this nigga says.
Here, in front of the other Southern District.
Okay, here we are.
Matthew Russell Lee, Intercity Press, here in front of the other Southern District of New York Courthouse today, Tuesday, May 27th, 2025.
We're halfway through the day, and it's been Capricorn Clark all day on the stand.
On direct, she described a number of incidents, including being kidnapped with a gun in the car to Kid Cuddy's house, where she claimed.
And we'll talk about that as well, guys, because in this video right here, where I cover the whole Diddy timeline, the one I showed you guys before, I talked about how Capricorn was the one that called Kid Cuddy to tell him that they were outside of his house because she was there with Diddy and another guy.
She also described in great detail being accused of having stolen jewelry from Jacob the Jeweler.
I think this was during a white party at the Hamptons.
She had the jewels and then she didn't have the jewels.
And for five straight days, she was taken to an empty office building on Broadway and given a lie detector test by a guy she said was as big as two linebackers, but she didn't know his name.
The idea being that if she failed the test, she'd be dumped in the East River.
This was the quote.
Now, when we broke for lunch, she had sort of broken down at the beginning of the cross-examination by Mark Agneslol, the lead attorney for Sean.
That's why she started crying.
He's usually a pretty, pretty, pretty kind of columbo.
He's very nice.
The other attorneys are a lot more bulldoggish.
Diddy's lead attorney is actually very nice when he cross-examines them.
You had a crush on him, didn't you?
And she said, I mean, she called him Chuck, as in chocolate, apparently.
But she also said that he was a ground, you know, he'd broken the glass ceiling and was quite an entrepreneur.
So we'll see how she collects herself.
The lunch break is longer than usual.
The government has said that their case may be done in five weeks rather than six.
There was a sigh of relief among many of the journalists, but we're covering it.
We're also covering, we came over here to 40 to cover some other cases.
There's a tennis pro-tour case about threats made to players, apparently, for starting another union.
There's a Malcolm X case, and there's another criminal case that we came to chuck.
Might as well, since we're out of your show, behind us, the Tall.
All right.
Let's get back to this.
Was actually talking about 50 Cent during that exchange.
So that was automatically the start of the test.
When he said he wanted to get a gun, talking about 50 Center already going off with a little bit of fireworks after kind of going into how she came to work with Diddy.
Yeah, look, when you're dealing with a racketeering case, we've said it before, we'll say it again, having the assistants, the bodyguard, the security, the people that were in that inner circle is imperative because they're trying to understand the inner workings of this criminal enterprise or this organization.
But also, you know, Diddy is ultimately charged in a racketeering conspiracy case alone.
There's no other defendants.
So you wonder who did he allegedly do all of these things with?
Who did he engage in this pattern of criminal activity with?
But the reason she is also important is because I believe she is being used to help prove some of the underlying crimes for racketeering.
When you're talking about racketeering conspiracy, the prosecution needs to prove at least two underlying crimes.
So there's sex trafficking, there's arson, there's kidnapping, there's bribery.
But more specifically, what did she say regarding kidnapping?
And what did she say, I believe, that may help support the forced labor allegation.
Again, really, really important for racketeering.
What did Capricorn Clark have to say today?
Yeah, she and she said a lot, Jesse.
Sometimes I just have to go through my notes to see just where everything is that she had been talking about.
But as far as just the kidnapping goes, and I just want to apologize, everyone.
I know my voice is a little hoarse.
So if it scratches off a little bit here and there, I apologize for that.
But so as far as the kidnapping allegation goes, that sims from 2011.
And what do we know that happens in 2011, specifically around December of that timeframe?
That is when we start to kind of get into the Kid Cuddy and Cassie relationship.
Obviously, a very huge talking point throughout a lot of this testimony, especially last week, kind of trickling into this week.
And so around this 2011 timeframe, Capricorn Clark is no longer Diddy's personal assistant.
Now she's a global brand director.
So she's around 28 years old around this time.
But she said around this time frame, she was also working as Cassie's creative director and manager too.
So kind of pulling those double roles.
And she said, as far as that role of being a creative director, it was kind of about maximizing the optics for Cassie.
And so as far as just everything with the Kid Cuddy incident, so Capricorn Clark explained that Cassie was seeing Kid Cuddy in December of 2011.
We already know this.
But Cassie had asked around this timeframe whether or not Kid Cuddy could come on a hike with Capricorn and Cassie.
And Capricorn actually said that this was going to be a bad idea because Capricorn was concerned whether or not Diddy would find out about this.
And so Capricorn was explaining that Diddy had bought her phone.
And so he was worried or she was worried about Diddy seeing these text messages come through from Cassie, kind of explaining that she wanted to bring Kid Cuddy on this hike that they were doing together.
And so Capricorn actually explained on the stand today that she was the one who brought Cassie in to buy that burner phone.
So that way it wouldn't be traced back to Cassie.
That way they could talk without Diddy finding out.
So that was kind of a big revelation that we learned today because Capricorn had explained that she got Cassie this burner phone or she went with her to Best Buy to buy this burner phone because she was afraid that they would all get killed.
There is an objection made by the defense, obviously, because everyone's just like, oh my God, this is now another time where Diddy allegedly threatened to kill either Capricorn Clark or Cassie or somebody in just that fashion.
But the objection was to stay.
So that part is struck from the record.
But Capricorn said she all of a sudden was hearing a loud banging at her apartment.
And so she said that she looked through the people of her apartment door and she saw that Diddy was upset.
He was pacing.
His body language looked like something was kind of in his hand.
So Capricorn Clark opened the door and she said when she did, Diddy was still upset.
She explained everything that he wore from a button-down shirt, a sweater, that he had slacks that just happened to be ripped.
And she said it explosed his underwear.
But she said that Diddy had a gun in his hand whenever he was banging on her door.
And so Diddy said to Capricorn Clark in a very angry way, why didn't you tell me who is Scott?
And as we know, we know Scott to be Scott and Escuddy, aka Kid Cuddy.
And so Diddy told Capricorn, get dressed.
We're going to kill this N-word.
And that's what she said.
And I will say here, Jesse, that Capricorn Clark, when she was on the stand, I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as being casual, but as far as just profanity is concerned, she very much just kind of laid it all out there as far as what was said, what words were used.
And so it did get a little profane during some aspects of her testimony.
And so, yeah, Diddy had told her that they were going to go kill this person and that person being Kid Cuddy.
And so during this testimony, I saw that Diddy was jotting down some notes during this.
And so Capricorn said that she didn't want to go, but Diddy made her and he put a gun in his waist, that same gun that he had had in his hand, he put in his waist.
And that Diddy still seemed mad, but this time mad at Capricorn.
And Diddy says, or excuse me, Capricorn said that Diddy had never been to her house before.
But once they were in the car, Diddy moved his gun from his waist to his lap now.
But notably, Ruben, who we know is also Rue, but is also D-Rock.
That's the other guy.
That's the other security guy, D-Rock, Pauli, and Rube.
Little brother was the one who was driving the car.
So it was the three of them, Capricorn, Diddy, and Ruben, aka Rue.
And so Capricorn explained that she wasn't able to leave the escalade, which I guess is the vehicle that they had driven down to.
She said that everything was just happening so fast.
There was no conversation going on.
But they went from Capricorn Clark's home all the way down to Kid Cuddy's house, or I guess all the way up to Kid Cuddy's house in the Hollywood Hills.
And then we're showing an exhibit photo of the Google map that shows kind of the direction of driving or direction of travel from Capricorn Clark's house to Kid Cuddy's home.
And then we see that same exhibit photo of Kid Cuddy's front door.
And so from there, Capricorn was kind of explaining she didn't know whether or not Kid Cuddy was actually at his home, but Capricorn said that she had to stay in the car.
Meanwhile, Ruben and Diddy went inside Kid Cuddy's home.
Capricorn explained that she had called Cassie and called Cassie's burner phone through all of this.
And Capricorn had explained to Cassie, she said, Cassie, what the F. And she had told Cassie that she had brought, she was brought to Kid Cuddy's home essentially to be there.
So that way they could kill him.
And Capricorn actually changed the name from Cassie's burner phone over to like, I guess her best friend's name because she didn't want Diddy to find out that she called her to give her the heads up.
But guess what happens next?
Diddy comes out and she said that while she was on the phone with Cassie, she could hear Kid Cuddy on the phone telling Cassie that this man's in my house.
Those weren't the exact words that were said, but you get what I'm going with that.
But and Cassie was trying to stop him because he could have been killed in this incident, according to Capricorn Clark.
Diddy comes out.
Diddy explains who the F are you talking to?
Diddy called that same number back, found out that that's Cassie's burner phone, then got livid, knowing Cassie even had this extra phone.
And so Capricorn said that Kid Cuddy later pulled up to his home.
He sped off later.
And guys, I'm going to weave all three of these stories for you guys after we finish listening to this.
So stay tuned.
I'm going to weave this all together for you guys.
And then D-Rob, Capricorn, and Rue all followed him in the same car, chased him until they essentially lost him.
But then the police respond explains who the F are you talking to.
Diddy called that same number back, found out that that's Cassie's burner phone, then got livid, knowing Cassie even had this extra phone.
And so Capricorn said that Kid Cuddy later pulled up to his home.
He sped off later, though.
And then D-Rock, Capricorn, and Rue all followed him in the same car, chased him until they essentially lost him.
But then the police responded.
And that's when Kid Cuddy, I guess, returns back to his home.
And it's interesting because I don't recall under direct.
Okay, he gave a different story, but we'll talk about that.
After even cross-examination, that Kid Cuddy explaining that he actually drove to the home before the police arrived.
But according to Capricorn Clark, that's what she kind of said happened.
But she surprisingly said that Diddy was relatively calm when he saw the police sirens going over to Kid Cuddy's home.
But that afterwards, Capricorn, Diddy, and Ruben all went to the key club.
And Diddy told Capricorn to essentially call Cassie and tell her to come over here.
And Cassie said, okay, well, come get me.
So Diddy told Cassie to tell Kid Cuddy not to tell the police, that Diddy was the one allegedly behind it and not to make a police report about the incident.
Capricorn told Kid Cuddy as well, too, not to file this police report and that Kid Cuddy was essentially mind-blown.
There was another objection.
That objection was sustained.
So maybe the mind-blown won't be in the transcript.
But after this event happened and after this, because this was just them going into the home, that Capricorn.
You guys remember those loud-ass noises when I was trying to report from front of the fucking courtroom?
Crazy, man.
The first day I was there, remember that chat?
Which, by the way, I'm going to go back to New York, guys, for the closing arguments on this case for sure.
And Cassie went over to Diddy's house and Diddy began physically assaulting and being physically violent with Cassie.
Capricorn explained that he kept kicking her and he never used his hands.
Cassie was crouched into this fetal position.
Feliz, let me jump in.
Let me jump in because it's so loud right now.
I know we got the sirens going on.
This is the beauty of all.
All right, so I'll mute that real quick so you spare you guys your eardrums real fast.
So all right, now we can bring it back up.
Had testified to.
It helps to describe and back up and corroborate with what Cassandra Ventura had testified to.
All this idea that the jury has to believe that Sean Combs was essentially a mob boss, that he was running this criminal organization and had people engaging in this kind of behavior.
And I'll pick it up back to you because the sound stopped.
But also real quick, she talked about her work and she talked about being forced.
I mean, if we're talking about forced labor, it wasn't just the hours.
I mean, she talked about the hours she had to work as well, but also the kind of circumstances of her job too, right?
All right, let's weave this all together for you guys, okay?
Because this is very important.
And this is where I'm going to give you guys, you know, an overview here.
So there's three different witnesses that corroborate this Kid Cuddy story.
Okay.
Cassie Ventura, Capricorn Clark, and Kid Cuddy himself, right?
As you guys know, on day three, or sorry, the third witness in the case to testify was Cassie Ventura, Diddy's ex-girlfriend.
And then Kid Cuddy testified way later on, and then Capricorn just went today.
Now, here's basically the overview of the situation.
I'm going to tell you why the government needs this.
So, what the government is trying to establish here is Rico.
And with Rico, there are certain crimes that, if committed, constitute as a predicate offense for racketeering.
They need to prove two of these, okay?
What they're trying to do is show, you know, violence, arson, kidnapping, extortion, all these different crimes can be constituted as part of a racketeering organization, right?
So, Cassie first tells a story saying how she got an argument with Diddy.
He hit her or something like that.
She calls Cuddy.
Cuddy picks her up and they go somewhere.
She doesn't go into much more detail than that.
And then she goes into his car, it was later firebombed, right?
She couldn't really, she didn't really know how it happened or whatever, but she thinks Diddy did it, right?
Then we talk, we hear Cuddy on testimony.
And Cuddy says, Hey, Cassie called me.
I picked her up and I went to the Marquee Hotel.
When I took her to the Marque Hotel, Capricorn called both of us and said, Yo, Diddy's at your house now with one of his associates.
So he speeds over there to confront them.
When he gets there, they're not there, but his Christmas presents were open and his dog was locked in the bathroom.
Okay.
He calls Diddy saying, Where are you?
I want to fight.
And Diddy says he's on the way.
But at that point, he kind of thought to himself again and called the cops and the cops showed up.
Now, Capricorn comes and says, All right, Diddy comes to my house, livid, right?
Because remember, he was already mad that night because that's how him and Cassie got in a fight in the first place.
Remember, he hit her.
That's why this all started, allegedly.
Then he shows up to her house with a gun, says, Yo, we're going to go find this guy, Cuddy, right?
We're going to go to his house because Cassie's dumbass gave Diddy the address to Cuddy's house.
So he takes Capricorn with him and they go with his bodyguard, one of his bodyguards, to the house, right?
That's when she's in the car and she calls them and says, Yo, I'm at Cuddy's house.
Now, what she's claiming is they chased Cuddy off.
Cuddy's saying when I got there, they weren't there.
So that's a discrepancy in the story, right?
But the important thing to realize here is that this is going to be used to show that Diddy is running a criminal organization.
Because as I showed you guys this last, I don't know if I showed you guys these pictures last week, but these are the pictures of the car when it got firebombed.
Okay?
Here's Cuddy's Porsche.
This is the same Porsche that he put Cassie picked Cassie up in when she called him for help.
Okay.
You guys can see here, here it is at the top, a hole cut out, and then it was hit with like a Molotov cocktail of some kind, right?
Look at the inside, completely charred, right?
And then here's the hole right here on top.
So they basically cut a hole in that bitch and they threw a Molotov cocktail and it landed in the front passenger seat.
And then here's the inside of the car.
Completely cooked.
Right?
So we have three different individuals confirming the same story.
I think they're going to probably get him dead to rights on this goddamn arson chat.
It's crazy.
She did.
And as I'm trying to go through my notes, everyone, that's also the beauty of the live shot: writing or finding your place where you wrote down everything because you write down so many notes, I should say.
But yeah, as far as just the overworking that she did, she said on a good night, she got four hours of sleep.
And then on a bad night, she got two hours of sleep.
I'm personally think four hours of sleep is kind of a bad night, but according to her, that was just pretty typical.
She said that she even got stress-induced alopecia from working with Diddy.
She even had to go to a doctor.
Damn, bro, he made her bald.
God damn.
She said that around that time frame, she was making about $65,000 as her salary as a personal assistant.
But the thing is, Jesse, she went to HR and HR calculated Capricorn's overtime.
And she said that she had enough overtime that was owed to her, totaling about $80,000 of overtime.
That's a lot.
Now, here's another trend that you guys are starting to see.
Diddy worked a lot of his employees to the bone.
We spoke, we heard from two different assistants that worked for Diddy that they would work like, you know, 20-hour days.
Like, they'd work all fucking day for him.
So, this is now the third employee to show that he works as employees to the bone.
doesn't pay them enough.
A lot of money.
But what did he do whenever he was shown kind of this paper receipt and kind of this document that showed that she was owed $80,000 in overtime?
Diddy allegedly ripped up this paper.
That's what Capricorn Clark said while she was on the stand.
But like a lot of the other assistants go that have testified so far, including, you know, David James and George Kaplan as well, that Capricorn Clark's one of her many duties was to set up hotel rooms.
And even just thinking about this timeframe, right, Jesse, it's from 2004 to 2006.
So, this was before the Cassie relationship that she was still required to set up these hotels.
She said that she would unpack a camera box.
This camera box had a camera, lube, baby oil in it.
She said that she had unpacked packed Diddy's clothes, his shoes, a toiletry bag, which toiletry bag was that Louis Vuitton bag that allegedly had drugs inside of it.
She said there were drugs like ecstasy inside this bag.
Kind of still the same old tricks.
And you guys know the Louis Vuitton bag, they caught, they found that Louis Vuitton bag in Diddy's hotel.
They found it in his hotel when he was when they searched his hotel after he was arrested in November of last year.
Seems like, too, from just booking these hotel stays, that if it was one of Diddy's girlfriends, because again, this was before Cassie Ventura, that the name for the girlfriend would be Jackie Starr, same alias that was used by Cassie.
She explained that as far as the names for the hotel reservations for Diddy specifically, she said that those could be either Frank Black, they could be Frank White.
She even said that during some of these hotel stays, that he would, he being Diddy, would stay at the hotel with Kim Porter.
And this would be something that would happen at least once a week.
But there were other girlfriends who would stay at the hotel too.
And then even in the aftermath of everything, Jesse, it's kind of that same old thing where she would pack up all of his stuff and clean up after him.
And what was kind of on the walls and kind of the stickier stuff that's found inside these hotel rooms, it was baby oil.
So it was interesting kind of hearing that even before the Cassie Ventura relationship goes, that Capricorn Clark was essentially doing the same type of responsibility that other assistants did while nigga behavior.
What else is new?
Diddy was with Cassie and even after the fact.
Right.
Well, listen, we have a lot to break down with her testimony and what to make of it.
But Elizabeth Milner, thank you.
Well, she was brought in to confirm, again, she was there to corroborate the Kid Cuddy story, the Cassie story of what happened when he went to Kikuddy's house.
They're definitely going to try to establish that for the as a predicate offense for the racketeering with the arson and the kidnapping.
100% they're going to try to do that.
And they might get him on that chat.
So that is an update with the Diddy case.
We're going to go ahead and move forward now, guys, into super chats.
And then we're going to do super chats, we're going to go ahead and go into the Charlie Kirk debate.
So let me read, guys, get your chats in right now.
MyronGainesX.com, five bucks and up reading all of them.
Whether on Rumble or Castle Club, I read your chat no matter what.
So Mr. B says, so it looks like you're black, Myron, not paying your electricity bills.
Okay.
You should apply your own advice on how to make payments.
I did an automate 95% of the great lifesaver as usual.
W advice W stream.
Here's the thing, dude.
I tried, but FBL and Florida is fucking annoying.
Like, if it's very, their auto pay system is trash.
Without me going into crazy, annoying details, their auto pay is trash.
It's muffled a little on headphones only.
That was from earlier, though.
I think the audio should be good.
Now, I also, guys, how's the audio now?
It should be like damn near pristine.
I edited the thing to make it sound a bit more professional, but you guys should be getting really good mic audio now at this point.
So, y'all want to see Frank?
This nigga's slumped, though.
He's asleep right now on the side.
He'll wake up, though.
Isle of White privilege.
Like the video, ninjas.
All right.
I found this gem on YouTube regarding the Zionist lobby best documentary after yours.
Okay.
Stop buying George and Payer Light Bill.
Thanks, Jay Tillo.
17 says, when I asked you last week about Brock being mentioned in the case, because them Dom Lucer posted about it, it came from Inner City Press.
They also claimed there was Obama-faced ecstasy pills.
So I don't know how legit they are.
There was no talk about Obama-faced ecstasy pills, at least from when I was in trial.
Do you think the group of Patriot Front are feds?
They were marching in Kansas City this weekend.
Peacefully.
Feds are villainized for being nationalists.
I like Thomas Russo.
I think he's a smart guy.
Patriot Front are definitely not feds.
Definitely not feds.
Anyone that thinks they are is retarded.
They wouldn't be hiding their face if they were.
I don't think they're the feds at all.
Since reality, what's your take on the state of Canada right now?
Especially these girls from Toronto coming down to Miami.
Last time I noticed there was a lot of them being the biggest throw fors.
Yeah, Canadian girls are always sluts when they come down here.
The other thing, too, if they were feds, bro, you know, if they were feds, they wouldn't be banned everywhere.
Picture fun is banned on like every platform, dude.
So yeah.
Okay.
Let's see here.
Let's go ahead and go into the Charlie Kirk debate with the Cambridge students.
I have not seen this video chat, so we're going to watch it for the first time together.
Thank you.
And guys, just so I know, how many of you guys are new to watching the stream live?
Okay, I know we've grown quite a bit, man.
We've gained like 30,000 plus subscribers over the past month, 30,000 plus.
So, guys, do me a solid.
Type a one in the chat if this is your first time tuning in to a live stream.
Type a two if you've this is not your first time.
If it's your first time, give me a one.
If it's not your first time, give me a two.
First time tuning into a live stream, give me a one.
Two if you've been here before.
Some stupid ass thing in the chat said this is like three weeks old.
Notes now, bro.
They posted this literally days ago.
All right, all the Rumble niggas.
I see you guys with twos.
Fair.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
We got some ones on YouTube.
All right, cool.
Cool, cool, cool.
All right, mostly twos, but I do see some ones here.
First time tuning in.
Wait, when are you?
When you, bro, how are you?
First time tuning in, you got a wrench, nigga.
Stop lying.
Fuck.
All right.
Cool.
All right.
Let's get into this Charlie Kirk debate chat.
Can we settle down, please?
We're going to move on to our questions.
Our first question is from Zenaisha Zubair from Sydney, Sussex.
Come up and ask a question.
Remember, you have the right of response.
Thank you.
I have quite a simple question for you.
Now, I know you've debated Dean Withers on June.
Bruh.
Bitch is really bringing up Dean Withers.
Who gives up, bro?
...believe before.
I was wondering why you now refuse to engage with further debate with him.
Because he's a fucking coward and a cloud-chasing retard.
*clicks*
Wait, hold on.
First of all, he's coming on my show this summer.
And let me get this straight.
I flew 5,000 miles across the world to have you ask why I'm not going to debate a left-wing YouTuber.
Well, I mean, he continuously tries to get your attention at your campus.
I've debated him twice in the last calendar year.
He's coming on my show this summer.
Let me be clear.
I came to Cambridge to have you ask me that.
I mean, you talk about freedom.
I'm just using my bro is really offended by her asking this.
Freedom of speech to ask you a simple question.
You seem to be dodging it some reason.
Now, the thing is, is that Dean Withers has been annoying.
I think the reason why he also is annoyed by this is because Dean Withers, as you guys know, Charlie Kirk goes to all the colleges, and Dean Withers has been trying to follow his tour.
And what he'll do is he'll like try to get in line or cut the line to fucking get on the mic and talk to Charlie.
So, yeah, that's probably why he's annoyed by this by this nigga, bro.
Hey, fuck Mo for not reading my $10 super chat ratings for the ladies.
By the way, I saw wanted posters of Mo all over Hamburger City and his fists look like croissants.
Okay.
I've debated him twice in the last year, and he's coming on this summer for a long-form discussion.
But is this what I can expect?
Yeah, he's making videos about you avoiding him on your campus debates.
Right.
So let me understand.
Let me tell you how this works.
I do a campus event like a Texas AM University.
I rent it out.
I'm there for three hours.
He shows up demanding to come up to the mic immediately, cutting in line of other students.
It's not Joe Biden's America anymore where you can just cut in line and get whatever you want.
See?
I fucking knew it.
The dude's a fucking brat.
So therefore, I say, excuse me, Dean, we'll talk at another time.
He makes this YouTube video as if I'm scared to debate him, even though I debated him twice in the last year.
Does that sufficiently answer your question?
Yes, it does.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So thank you for coming, Charlie.
My question to you: I mean, I'm a medical student, and so I'm going to throw out the big A word.
I know you get asked about it a lot, but I want to hear it from you.
Your opinion is on abortion.
Interesting.
Life begins at conception.
But about abortion specifically.
Why do you think abortion is wrong specifically?
Well, you agree murder is wrong?
I agree.
Okay, so this is where we get to the question, right?
Because what is it about murder you say is wrong?
Like, why is murder wrong?
Well, because it's a human being, not just because it has consciousness or because it's of a certain age, because it's a human being.
And what is it that gives human beings this moral worth?
Not its consciousness necessarily.
I didn't say it's consciousness.
I know that I can imagine it because it is a human being, because that is a soul.
And what is this soul?
Where does this come from?
This idea that it's Exactly.
I mean, again, the Greeks postulated that it is the entirety of your being.
Okay, you guys can laugh.
I mean, it's true.
I mean, every civilization has had a different belief, but agreed-upon ethical monotheism, which is the Creed of the West and what the birth certificate of my country articulates, that every human being is more than just matter.
It's more than just a clump of cells, but it also has an invisible element to you that will live beyond you.
Guys, Dimi Assal, can you guys like the video?
By the way, we are at 964 likes and we got over 3,000 of you guys watching.
So like the goddamn video, man.
We're going to be doing a longer stream today, as you guys know.
So like the video, ninjas.
Fine.
So, I mean, can you say that comes from the Bible or where else do you get that?
Ethical monotheism, which is the creed of the West.
And again, the Declaration of Independence mentions God four times.
The founders were explicitly believed, not in a secular morality, but a divinely given one, of at least this idea that there is a God and you are not him.
And let me ask you, what is the first stage of human development?
So the first, I mean, this is the thing, right?
We can take it from the sperm being generated in the father and the oocyte being generated in the mother, right?
They fuse at birth, conception, sorry.
The only thing that happens at conception is these two cells fuse.
No, DNA is created.
A zygote.
That's not created.
No, that's not true.
The DNA coding.
The DNA coding at the zygote.
Hold on, time out.
Let me finish.
Does a zygote have a unique marker?
Charlie, does a zygote have a unique marker?
Let me speak.
You have to.
Answer it, yes or no.
Does a zygote have a unique marker?
Define a unique marker.
Meaning, can you differentiate the DNA coding between the mother and the zygote if you examine it under a deoxorbonucleic acid analysis?
Can you?
Only purely because the addition comes from the father.
Oh, so it is something different.
Bro got buck teeth, man.
Created.
DNA is not created.
The father has his own genome.
The mother has her own genome.
They fuse.
This is why you have the same characteristics, similar ones to your mother, similar ones to your father.
That's why you have similar characteristics to your siblings.
DNA is not created, right?
So when you ask me, where does a human being come from?
I can say to you, it starts at conception.
But all conception is these two cells joining, right?
But these two cells were created.
The mother cells were created long before.
They were created when she was a fetus.
So there's none of this DNA being produced, right?
So we can't establish.
The only thing that happens at conception is these two cells fuse.
Now, this idea that that means that for some reason, suddenly that moral worth comes in, but it wasn't there before when you had these two cells who had half the DNA.
But suddenly there's a sense of something magical happens at that point.
It's not magical, Charlie.
We know about this.
Well, hold on, hold on.
Charlie, Charlie, time out.
Hold on.
Charlie.
I promise you, I'm not trying to score points.
I'm not trying to score points on you.
This is changing.
We call it the miracle of life for a reason.
We've not been able to yet replicate human life development outside of the womb.
We call it the miracle of life because, yes, it's something beautiful, the ability to be a woman.
It's magical.
You say magical, is it?
Oh, it's beautiful.
It's an incredible thing that happens, of course.
But it's not incredible in the sense we don't know what's going on.
There's no new DNA coming out of nowhere.
Hold on, but time out.
Isn't there a separate DNA, though, than the mother?
It's from the father.
Okay, yes, but then.
But it's not the father's DNA either.
A new coding is created.
Charlie, you are a blend of the two.
So when did your life begin?
Okay, so when did your life begin?
I mean, again, this comes from what you define as where life starts.
You can say life starts at conception, but I'm telling you, I believe that's just Narvook's very point, right?
That's just the moment these two cells fuse.
Now, you say about this mother thing.
So the way DNA is arranged in a cell is this arranging chromosomes.
Chromosomes are paired up.
So you have one from the mother, one from the father, typically in a healthy individual, right?
Now, you can take those maternal chromosomes out, and you can find that this is who the person's mother is.
And you can do the same with the father.
Now, the reason you are different to your mother and father is because some of those chromosomes express genes that are different from each other.
And so those genes interact and that's what gives rise to you, right?
But there's no space for any kind of moral framework to come into that until you consider that a human being is capable of consciousness and of suffering.
But unless you, if you take that out of the equation, the fact that these two DNA, you know, whatever they call molecules, right?
DNA molecules are fusing that does not suddenly flip a switch that attributes moral worth to that individual I mean Charlie could just tell him I'm a Christian fuck off honestly and just end it right there Like, hey, Libtard, I'm a Christian.
I don't give a fuck what you think.
It's wrong.
Done.
Get the fuck out of here.
Give him the fucking quick little this is gonna change his mind on this.
You know what I mean?
Like, Christians are pro-life.
It is what it is.
Like, I mean, I'm just saying, I'm not trying to score points with them.
Yeah, you are, with your buck teeth, bro.
By what moral standard do you believe that?
I believe that if an individual is capable of suffering, then it's wrong.
Now, can I explain my opinion on abortion, just so you can understand?
I would agree, as many reasonable people would, that at nine months, it's unreasonable to expect someone to get an abortion, right?
Unless you have some extreme circumstances.
But for an elective abortion, it seems a bit radical to me.
But it also seems radical to say that a woman who has just, you know, those cells have just fused to deny her an abortion also seems wrong to me.
Because that, that, you know, that zygote is not capable of suffering, as far as we know.
So you're by again, by what moral standard?
Is that just your opinion?
Where did you get that moral standard from?
Because suffering is a bad thing.
We all know suffering is a bad thing.
That's an objective fact, right?
Well, not.
Okay, so you do believe in objective morality.
I believe that suffering is an objectively negative thing.
So if you can't feel it, is it okay?
What do you mean if you can't?
If you can't feel the pain, is it okay to inflict the pain?
In the sense that if no one's suffering from it, if you have a scenario when nobody is suffering from something, then yes, of course.
There's no a moral, something is only a moral question if it affects someone's well-being.
So let me just make sure I understand this correctly.
That if it doesn't affect their well-being, so dementia patients that don't know who they are or where they're from, can we execute dementia patients because they're confused about their well-being?
Can you imagine a scenario?
Or Alzheimer's patients.
Alzheimer's patients don't really know much about anything.
Can we schedule them for execution because they can't technically suffer?
Can I respond?
So can you imagine a scenario where we lived in a society where we killed people when they, you know, they underwent dementia, they suffered from dementia, were incapable of suffering, and we killed them, right?
That would not, that does not, it's not a scenario that involves an absence of suffering.
There's still suffering involved.
People's, imagine you grow up thinking, my dad could be killed at any moment because he's going to get dementia.
Imagine living your life thinking, I could get dementia and suddenly I'd be killed by my state.
Imagine a world where you slaughter a million babies every year in America.
Charlie, Charlie, it's not slaughtered, that's the problem.
Hold on, it's a forcible removal from the umbilical cord of another human life.
Again, we have clarity but not agreement.
Biologically, you know that your entire coding began at conception.
Your coding.
No, no, that's what I'm denying, I disagree with that.
When those two cells fused together to use your terminology, that is where the process of...
It's scientifically accepted terminology.
In the interest of time, can we bring this question to a close?
The process of human development objectively begins at that moment, therefore those human beings are deserving of human rights.
Would we keep going or do you want to...
No, thank you.
That's...
Yeah, you can finish.
The process of development begins from the moment the sperm is being generated in the father, the moment the eggs are being generated in the mother.
To say that suddenly the moral worth switches on when they fuse doesn't make any sense.
That's just a point you've taken...
It makes perfect sense because that is when your journey as a human being...
When the sperm and egg were separate, you were not yet a fused human being.
You were not created uniquely in any image.
DNA existed.
Your DNA existed.
I thought...
Well, no, the parts of your DNA existed.
Your DNA did not exist.
It's like saying that we have a full car just because we have all the parts.
It was not yet put together until conception happens and the zygote was formed.
Thank you.
I think we have to give this functionality.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
You know about Patriot Mobile and what they stand for.
I've talked to you about their commitment to family, faith, and free, especially through federally fundamental funding.
At of all, Kirk Trufan.
So, first of all, my here we go.
We got a fucking call line guy.
First question, or my only question is: you've advocated and applauded the reducing and removing of public funding for universities on the grounds they promote ideological biases.
Given that universities play a critical role in driving national innovation, research, and upward mobility, especially through federally funded grants, how do you reconcile this position with the broader societal value that higher education institutes offer?
Well, they can, but in Harvard's case, for example, is getting their funding pulled, they have a $50 billion endowment.
Just so we are clear, in pounds, that would be like, what, $42 billion, $45 billion?
I mean, I'm trying to learn the conversion rate here.
I mean, it's an extraordinary amount of money.
They can either use their endowments to fund it.
And if you have certain behavior and certain practices, then you should not get federal funding.
Harvard is in direct violation of the United States Supreme Court fair admissions case, which says you cannot discriminate people based on the color of their skin.
Go ahead.
But isn't the whole point of it?
You can't use endowments like that.
The point of end They can.
The point of an endowment is to manage a fund through perpetuity.
Cambridge has an endowment, and that endowment allows professorships to be funded to allow for research into sciences.
That's the whole point of it.
Hold on.
You just said it funds research into sciences.
That's what they should do with their monstrosity of an endowment.
Yeah, but the endowment is google.
The interest alone on their endowment could fund the entire research and development budget of most Ivy League schools.
They have a $50 billion endowment.
Even like a podunk money manager in America can earn a 7% to 10% investment in the markets the last couple of years.
That's $5 billion of returns that that endowment could then reinvest in whatever they want.
Instead, Harvard has become a hedge fund with a radical school attached.
And I think now, here's the thing.
He is correct that Harvard has a fuck ton of money.
I've known about this for years.
I remember I told you guys a story before when I was a rower that Harvard literally had a wait list to donate a boat.
So these empockers that they use to row, right?
These things right here, which I'll show you guys real quick, what they like these boats right here, one of these like eights, right?
Like an eight that they use like at the Olympics and stuff like that, these yellow boats, these empockers, which are like the best boats that you can get for racing because they're lightweight and high quality.
These boats are like $50,000, right?
For one of these boats.
You have to get on a list to be able to donate one.
That's how much money they have.
And that's just for the rowing program.
Okay.
We haven't even talked about all the other sports and all the other places they get money from.
So the point is that Harvard got a lot of fucking money.
Now, with that said, I see what Charlie's saying.
Yo, they don't abide by certain rules, so we should cut their funding.
But here's the problem.
It wasn't until they allowed the Israel protests to happen that they started to give a fuck about any of this stuff.
That is a key distinction, my friend.
None of this stuff was brought up or cared about until they started fucking protesting.
Israel, talking about Nanyahu, talking about the Gaza genocide that's going on right now.
That's when they started saying, you know what?
Let's just starve Harvard of their money.
They get a bunch of money anyway.
Who cares?
Let's go after them.
That's when they started caring.
That's why they started pulling their funding.
Trump talked about pulling their funding as well.
Christy Noam is going to remove them from the CEVAS program.
For those of you that don't know, Student Exchange Visitor Information System or info system, whatever it is.
Basically, that's what allows foreign students to come to the United States on their F1 visas.
Christy Noam is going to pull Harvard from that.
She's been threatening to do that because they don't want to go ahead and bend the knee to the U.S. government trying to restrict their free speech and their ability to assemble.
So that's where we are right now when it comes to Harvard.
So it's not that it's these DEI practices that Charlie's alleging.
That's not what got Harvard in trouble.
It's that they were one of the premier campuses that allowed the protests against Israel.
That is one of the main reasons.
And if you don't believe me, a woman named Claudine Gay got fired from Harvard last year for this after Bill Ackman and other Zionist Jewish billionaires, alumni, put an enormous amount of pressure on the school to get rid of her because they didn't feel like she was doing enough to stop the protests on campus.
And this was obviously during the Biden administration, right?
But now, with Trump in, he's pushing these anti-Semitism bills, which, by the way, I've been telling you guys about for almost a year through a thing called Project Esther.
I've been talking about Project Esther for a very long time since even before Trump became president.
And Project Esther, they outlined Project Esther, they outlined, okay, their plan to crack down on anti-Semitism on college campuses.
And I'll show you guys what I mean by this.
So, and it was created by the Heritage Foundation.
So, you go, Project Esther.
Here it is.
Project Esther, a national strategy to combat anti-Semitism.
America's virtually anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American pro-Palestinian movement as part of a global Hamas support network, HSN, that is trying to compel the U.S. government to abandon its long-standing support for Israel, supported by activists and funders dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and democracy.
The HSN benefits from the support and trading of America's overseas enemies and seeks to achieve its goals by taking advantage of our open society, corrupting our education system, leveraging the American media, co-opting the government, and relying on the American Jewish community's complacency.
It's kind of interesting because that's exactly what the Jewish lobby is doing.
But they're saying that that's the Palestinian network.
That's interesting.
But anyway, you guys get the point.
When was this put out?
October 7th, 2024.
Okay.
And I've been talking about this for a minute, guys.
All right.
But this is what it is.
And they have this whole thing here.
It's basically from the same people that the same people that made Project 2025.
And a part of this Project Esther was talking about combating the college campuses.
So this has been an effect that's been going on for a very, very long time, Chad.
So for Charlie to say, oh, yeah, we're punishing Harvard because they practice too much DEI, that's not true, bro.
That's disingenuous.
That is not the real reason they're targeting them for their money.
It's because of the anti-Semitism.
Christy Noam, I showed you guys a story the other day, right?
What did she say?
Oh, yeah.
Harvard is the location where they do CC, they're pro-CCP and do CCP demonstrations.
Bro, you guys didn't give a fuck about the CCP when they were doing that shit before.
It wasn't until they started wearing the kefeas and talking about Palestine and this is a fucking genocide and protesting that Harvard started to give a fuck.
That's very wrong for U.S. Excuse me that Christine Noam started to give a fucking U.S. taxpayers to continue to subsidize.
But it's not just Harvard.
You've called on colleges being a scam.
Let's see if this fucking Jeet goes ahead and confronts Charlie on this mischaracterization of why they're going after Harvard.
It's not because of the DEI practices, bro.
I promise y'all's not because of the fucking DEI practices, man.
You've constantly attacked higher education institutes.
You've attacked liberal arts as a scam.
For example, like a lot of conservatives, Peter Thiel studied philosophy at Stanford.
Ronald Reagan studies sociology.
A lot of them did study liberal arts, and you keep undermining these august institutions, which have provided a lot to society.
Like society's backbones have been universities and higher learning institutes, and yet you keep attacking them.
Well, they used to be largely.
But again, I don't want to speak too much about this country, but in America, they don't represent fundamental American values.
You know, Peter Thiel, after he wrote, graduated Stanford, wrote an entire book criticizing college and then paying people not to go to college.
So Peter Thiel, who spoke at this very school, and you guys had a great conversation with him, do you know that he believes college is such a scam?
He would pay people $100,000 a year for 20 years straight not to go to college.
So not exactly a good argument in your favor.
Peter Thiel, who got a philosophy degree, made billions of dollars and has now forked over tens of millions of dollars for people not to go to U.S. universities and colleges.
But it's not just Peter Thiel.
I know, but you mentioned him.
I didn't.
But to complete the point, is that yes.
Thomas went to liberal arts.
Look, in America, there are far too many people going to college.
We need people to become welders, electricians, people that work with their hands.
There is a major trade deficit problem in the United States.
We have 11 million well-paying jobs that we cannot find enough labor for.
And instead, we have a lot of people going to university to go study North African lesbian poetry.
It might sound good, but it doesn't necessarily, A, either development, the content, the character, or the development of the soul.
And B, it does not necessarily also give you the skills necessary.
Some college is good for you.
I'm a big proponent of Hillsdale College.
Guys, I believe Hillsdale College is America's greatest college, and I'm a big proponent of that.
But I would ask a question, in your own words, what do you believe the purpose of college is?
It's critical engagement.
But coming back to your point on lesbian poetry or whatever.
North African lesbian poetry.
North African lesbian poetry.
So in the morning, I actually had a lecture on development policy.
And one of the key authors on sort of development economics is Lusbaum, who talks about how liberal arts sort of engages you critically.
Now, here's the thing when it comes to college.
The reason why college is a scam, and I'm going to have to agree with Charlie on this to a degree, right?
So not all college is a scam, but a lot of it is.
And the reason for that is because college has become an acceptable way.
to spend four years being a degenerate.
Let's just be honest, right?
It used to be for you to be able to get a good job.
You need to go to college.
Not everyone had a college degree because so it made it a bit more less competitive so that if you did have a college degree, you'd be pretty much rest assured you can get yourself an entry-level job, right?
But now, since we've made college effectively like really a booming business, colleges have opened up everywhere.
They accept everybody.
Women have entered the college student body in force.
Women dominate college attendance now.
And now it's not necessarily looked at as a way to achieve a skill set to be able to get a job.
Rather, it's a way to spend four years of your life as an adult fucking off and then maybe finding a job after the fact if you majored in the right thing.
So the reality is a lot of these schools have a bunch of bullshit majors, right?
To just collect your money.
Now, I've told you guys before, and I'll say it again.
If you're going to go to college and you're going to major in something that actually helps the world or there's a job at the end of that line, that makes sense.
Be an accountant, get into an engineer or something like that, something that you can get a job with, or you're going to try to be a doctor, try to be a lawyer, where you are required to have a degree to get that job.
Fine.
I have no problem with that because you have an idea of what you want to do.
But a lot of people just go get some bullshit degree, political science or whatever, and they don't really do anything with it, right?
So unless you're going to go ahead and pursue a higher level degree that will ensure that you get a job, a lot of people use college as an excuse to do some bullshit.
So it used to be the people that he's talking about, Reagan, all these other people, when you got a degree back then, you could actually get a job.
Nowadays, you can't, right?
So college degrees don't have the same power that they used to have, not even like 20 years ago.
I remember when I was growing up, when I graduated high school in 2008, if you don't go to college, they looked at you like, dude, you're a loser.
You're a failure.
Now, it's the norm to not go to college, right?
People are kind of waking up and getting red-pilled on how university is kind of a scam.
Now, if someone like me went to like, you know, a very good school, very prestigious school, for those of you that, you know, don't know, I went to Northeast University of Boston, right?
You know, I went to a good school that pretty much, that's their gig is to have the co-op program making sure you get a job after the fact.
But a lot of these other schools are fucking retarded and don't actually set you up for a job, guys.
So, but I would tell people, if you don't know what you want to do, don't go to school.
Also, another big lie that they tell you, oh, don't go to community college.
No, absolutely go to community college if you don't have money like that or you want to kind of, you don't know what you want to do yet.
At least save money and don't put yourself into crazy debt, okay?
Like, that's another thing that they tell you all the time.
Oh, no, spend all four of your years at a big university and put yourself in crazy debt.
Fuck no, bro.
Don't do that shit.
Community colleges are a great way to save money, get some college credits, and kind of figure out what you want to do.
And, you know, a lot of the times it's affordable where you don't have to take out crazy loans or put yourself in wild debt to be able to go ahead and get those credits, unlike at a big private school or big state school.
But have an idea of what you want to do, chat.
Have an idea of what you want to do.
And that is why college is a scam now, because they tell you you could go in not knowing what you want to do and then find a job at the end of the road or major in some bullshit like liberal arts or liberal studies.
The rule of thumb is this, guys.
If you want to go to college, if the major ends in studies or arts, it's a fucking L. Don't fucking do it.
It's a big waste of time.
All right.
One could argue even North African lesbian poetry.
I don't think that's a degree.
I think that's just a module within a degree.
Also, guys, do me a solid.
Like the video.
We got almost 4,000 of you guys watching live right now.
Do me a salad.
Like the video on YouTube.
And let's get to 3,000 likes.
Maybe.
Yeah.
That makes you.
The fact you don't know shows how rotten to the core universities have become.
You're taking one example and telling conservatives and hordes of young people that college is a scam.
College isn't a scam.
I mean, I took my mom down to a pub just down the road where Watson and Crick announced DNA.
College!
That's three.
Okay, wait, wait.
If college is a scam, then DNA wouldn't have been discovered.
Cancer reasons.
Hold on a second.
Yes, you're right.
At this specific university, you guys split the atom.
You had Sir Isaac Newton.
You had some of the greatest minds of the West.
I don't know about what's happening here, and I'm not going to.
Yeah, but what this fucking dumbass Pajit doesn't understand is that Oxford, Harvard, et cetera.
This is cream of the crop.
These are schools where you go to school like this, you're going to get a job, which, by the way, guys, if you get accepted to an Ivy League school, all right?
You get accepted to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, Cornell, Columbia, UPenn, Dartmouth.
Okay?
I think I've named all of them.
And I think did I say Cornell?
I think I named all of them, pretty much.
You know, you get a scholarship or you get to go to school, any of these schools, take that opportunity, right?
MIT, Stanford, any of these schools?
Yeah, go.
Because you're going to get a job going to those schools, right?
But that's the top 5% of schools.
The other 95 are a waste of fucking money, bro.
We're going to be honest.
Gonna criticize it.
But at most colleges in the West, they've gone away from places of inquiry and appreciation of what is good and what is beautiful and into this incessant oppression Olympics of trying to deconstruct the core canon that is our birth certificate.
I don't know if that's happening here.
It's certainly that's not true.
In America, it is objectively true, okay?
That isn't true.
No, first of all, they removed Western civilization as a core course in Stanford in the 1990s.
They tried to bring it back with petitions, and the university said, no, teaching Western civilization is racist.
Shakespeare is not taught at major.
Let me finish.
Shakespeare is not taught at major universities across America because it's deemed as racist.
Some dumbass said Myron would never get into an Ivy.
You know what?
I'll tell you guys this.
I was thinking about applying to Harvard.
I'm going to keep it.
That's what you guys.
I thought about applying to Harvard and majoring in female studies.
How funny would that be if I majored in female studies?
I would truly become the doctor.
And then I call myself Dr. Gaines.
And I'd be literally like I would be Dr. Misogyny, bro.
How fucking lit would that be?
I'm legitimately thinking about going in at pursuing a master's degree at Harvard, right?
Go for like a year or two, do that shit online, and fucking, you know, get my degree in women's studies, bro.
I'm dead ass thinking about it, chat.
I don't know if Harvard would accept me.
I do got good.
I do, I did graduate with good grades.
I probably need a recommendation and shit, but once they do a research on me and figure out who I am, I don't know, bro.
Niggas got to say fuck.
Now you're getting around.
I was talking about this shit with my guy, Chad.
As you guys remember, last week when I was in New York City, I was with Chad.
He's a Harvard grad.
He did his, he got to the Kenny School, the political science school there.
He got his master's degree.
And I was asking him, I was like, bro, I'm legitimately thinking about going back to school and getting a degree for an Ivy League school because it is something that's always been on my bucket list.
I've always wanted to get an Ivy League degree.
Well, more for bragging rights.
But if I got one, right?
One of the, I'd apply to all the Ivy's.
I'd apply to all the Ivies, right?
If I got one, I would major in fucking women's studies.
All right.
And then I would literally be able to be the fucking God king when it comes to misogyny.
I would be able to say, I got a degree on you, sluts, okay?
From fucking Princeton or Harvard or Yale or UPenn or one of these fucking schools.
Could you guys imagine?
Can you guys imagine I got a fucking degree from Harvard on women's studies and I'd be debating these hoes?
Bruh, how funny would that be?
I'm dead ass thinking about doing it, chat.
Maybe I'll fill out my Harvard application on stream.
Maybe I'll do that shit.
All jokes aside, I'm dead ass thinking about it.
I am not kidding around.
You guys think I'm trolling?
I'm dead ass serious.
I think I could do it because I went to a very good undergrad school.
Let me see here.
Let me see.
UC Berkeley.
Let's see here.
They got an 11% acceptance rate.
Yeah, Northeastern's better, bro.
Let's go, Huskies, man.
6.8% acceptance rate, bro.
And then Harvard's probably like 1% or 2% acceptance rate.
What is it?
3% acceptance rate for Harvard.
You know what?
You know what has a very nice campus, guys?
Princeton, bro.
Let's see what their acceptance rate is.
5.7.
Hmm, maybe Columbia.
3.9.
That makes sense because in New York City, niggas want to go there.
Yale, I'd be close to my parents.
What's this?
4.6.
Yeah.
But yeah, I'm dead ass thinking about doing it, chat.
We'll see what happens.
Maybe I'll do it, man.
Could you imagine?
I got a degree from.
Let's see if, does Harvard even.
Let me see here.
Let's see.
Let's see.
Harvey Divers, Office of Conservation Major, and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality.
Okay, wait, hold on.
It's a concentration major in studies of women, gender, and sexuality for undergraduate students and a secondary field certificate for graduate students.
However, Harvard's WGS program does not offer a master's degree directly.
Okay, let's see if Princeton has it.
Okay, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program was originally called Women's Studies, so So Prince offers a graduate certificate in GSS.
Okay, which basically is women's studies enrolled in a degree granting department.
This specific allows graduate students to develop substantially mythological theory.
Okay.
All right, niggas, we might have to go to Princeton, baby.
We might have to go to Princeton, niggas.
Let's see.
let's try Yale.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Yale does offer a master of arts degree in women's gender and sexuality studies.
Students can pursue a combined PhD with partner departments or a graduate student with WGSS.
So women's gender and sexuality studies.
All right, niggas, we might have to do Yale then.
So Master of Arts, MA, and WGSS.
All right, niggas, I think we Yale time now.
I think we're Yale, niggas.
Could you imagine that?
I'm the doctor of misogyny?
Bruh.
I'd have to keep a low profile, though.
Like, I'd have to not, I don't think I'd have to put, I wouldn't put any of my podcast shit in the application, bro.
Niggas know who I am.
That'll fuck my shit up.
All right, let's get back into this, Ben.
I talked to some students earlier in the English department, and they said, hey, I'm studying Shakespeare.
I said, that's refreshing because in a lot of U.S. schools, they don't teach Shakespeare because he's called racist.
You would be surprised at how wretched to the core some of these colleges have become in America.
If you look at the Global Innovation Index, America, which is predominantly, a lot of their majors are in humanities and liberal arts.
They're number two on the Global Innovation Index.
China is somewhere near 13.
If you look at every metric, Fortune 1000 CEOs, 40% did humanities and liberal arts.
There is a value in liberal arts, yet you're criticizing.
And I'm going to keep on criticizing it.
Also, the vast majority of liberal arts graduates do not respect freedom of speech.
That is an empirical poll.
All right, so this is what I'm going to do, chat.
I'm going to tell Angie to start the process of applying to Yale for me for this.
We're going to do it, baby.
We're going to apply to Yale, Harvard, and Princeton.
We're going to apply to all three.
I'm going to tell Angie on the side to start the process of fucking getting my transcripts and everything.
Let's fucking do it.
Let's apply, niggas.
What's the worst that can happen?
Sorry, we can't let you in.
We heard you're a misogynist increasingly do not have reverence or gratitude for the United States of America.
They don't care about the core values of the U.S. Constitution.
If you want to go to college, that's fine.
But in our country, 40% of kids that enter college do not graduate.
The kids that do graduate, half of them end up getting jobs that do not require any sort of college degree.
There are all these made-up degrees in America.
I know it's different than the experience you might be having here.
Your tutoring system here is objectively great.
I'm glad you guys have it.
The class sizes in America are 400 to 500 students, sometimes per introductory course, to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt, study things that don't matter to find jobs that do not exist.
And so let me just make one final point is that, of course, some people should be going to college.
But generally in the United States of America, it has become a racket of debt.
It has become a burden and a place where we're actually not putting our best and brightest into the job field itself to be equipped for the jobs of the future.
Instead, we have a lot of priests at Starbucks with philosophy degrees.
You also mentioned indoctrination.
As per the Oxford dictionary's definition of indoctrination, it means that you take a belief and you can't critically observe that belief.
Turning Point USA has over 30,000 chapters, 3,000.
3,000 chapters across U.S. universities.
So are you arguing that students, including conservatives, lack the critical ski thinking skills to sort of decide political ideologies, political beliefs, that they're so dumbfounded that they can't decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong?
And that your whole premise is on the fact that students like us, we lack critical thought in deciding what is taught in schools.
Again, I'm not using Cambridge as the school that I think of, but in America, we have millions of people that go to these massive state schools that have humanities departments, that are not reading the great books, that do not have a tutoring system, that are unfortunately laced with the most anti-Western thought imaginable.
I don't really quite follow what one thing has to do with the other, why 3,000 chapters has something to do with your indictment.
Maybe you can clarify, but I think we're out of time.
In general, colleges should be a place that lifts you up to what is good, true, and beautiful.
To study the great things that have been, to develop your soul and develop your character.
Character in Greek literally means like tattoo, the etched within you.
Far too often, colleges create ungrateful, pessimistic, and nihilistic revolutionaries that want to tear down what was before and instead have no alternative to build the future, and the West is suffering because of it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I disagree, but thank you very much.
Thanks, sir.
Yeah, the problem is that they're debating this shit He's right.
A lot of schools are a fucking big waste of time that cultivates fucking retards.
I mean, you guys saw at USC that one girl was an idiot.
You guys see me debate these guys because they're absolutely morons.
To meet you, Charlie.
I hope you can understand first rule.
I'm a little nervous.
There's a very real chance I could wake up tomorrow, front page of YouTube.
Charlie Kirk owns Man Bun Idiot with Facts and Logic.
Destroys.
Yeah, destroys.
So my question is, I agree that stable monogamous relationships often produce the best outcomes for society.
But if that structure really works for everyone, why do we consistently see societies, once they become safer and more prosperous, move away from traditional monogamy?
And why do so many marriages still end in divorce, even among people who generally try to make it work?
And just one final framing there.
If you believe in free markets because they are decentralized and they adapt to reality without top-down control, and given the individual ability to form health.
Sorry guys, I just realized that the YouTube chat wasn't showing on screen.
It's up now.
So that chat's going to be flying, bro.
Sorry about that, guys.
The long-term pair bonds vary significantly with factors like genetics and ecologically calibrated attachment styles.
Why do you reject top-down control and economics, but not extend that same rejection to human behavior in terms of marriage?
Okay, so the first one, the second law of thermodynamics answers your question, is that it's the law of decay.
Societies tend to decay against the roots that created them.
For example, as a side note, here in this country, you guys invented the idea of free speech.
You brought it to the world.
You guys do not have free speech in this country anymore.
30 people a day are arrested in the UK for inflammatory social media posts.
Someone by the name of Lucy Connolly is currently facing prison time for a Facebook post that was critical of migrants.
It is normal, unfortunately, for civilizations to go.
Yeah, England is cooked, bro.
England really is cook in that regards.
They're fucking literally cooked.
That's why I was like, I was like, damn, should I even go?
On the last time, on the last trip.
Get away from.
Yeah, what do you guys think?
You guys want to see me debate at Oxford, man?
What do you got?
Would you guys like to see me debate at Oxford?
That might be interesting.
It's a good debate at Oxford.
How they once operated and how they once were.
Now, to your question, does that answer the first part of your question?
You're saying why do they get away from monogamy?
I want to make sure I'm answering your question.
I would say I don't feel that that's a full answer.
Okay, so you're asking why do they get away from what works?
Is that correct?
Yes.
Yes.
Well, why do societies make this change once they become more prosperous?
Oh, yeah, okay.
I mean, because prosperity leads to degeneracy, for sure.
That would be the answer.
And so once you are prosperous, you tend to no longer have the moral guardrails or the limitations.
Let's just say you no longer have delayed gratification because you have instant gratification, because you have a surplus of goods, and then you have a decline of a transcendent moral order.
The second part of the question, can you remind me, please, what the second question was?
Yeah.
About markets?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Well, for example, you have to, I believe in intervention in markets if there is something that is improper morally.
So for example, I do not believe that you should be able to scam your neighbor or have misleading advertising because I believe in a transcendent moral standard.
And the same goes for my personal views on marriage.
Okay, so I think we largely agree on the foundation.
I'd like to propose something that you might like to think about.
So firstly, I absolutely acknowledge that, again, if everyone in society was able to maintain healthy long-term pair bonds, that would be best.
Again, there's strong data showing that independent of socioeconomic factors, broken homes are some of the strongest predictors of poor life outcomes.
We totally agree.
Yes.
And even, I'm not sure if many people here are aware of this, but if you track, you know, as countries become more socially egalitarian, somewhat surprisingly, rates of female depression and anxiety also spike disproportionately.
So I think one of the problems here is that when you try and impose more absolutism, inevitably, again, due to variance in attachment issues, due to industrialized culture, absent parents, screens, you know, raising kids, around 50% of adults in the West develop attachment disorders, which make it very difficult to maintain long-term pair bonds.
And then additionally, you have things like variation in octetocin receptors, density, and shape, also invasive pressing.
There are going to be, even, you know, even if there's 5% of people who feel that these rules really do not fit them, they will push back.
And this will create ideologies that then grow into more wider appealing ideologies, which then leads to this change.
I think this is what happened in the sexual revolution.
It started with a push for female autonomy.
And then it was almost morphed into a really exaggerated expression of pushing for maximizing individual freedom.
And I think that when you try and impose moral absolutism this way, it just inevitably causes pushback.
And I think if you were to, as someone with a platform, instead say, hey, monogamy is great.
Yes, that's why I always say every single problem, you know, when it comes to progressivism or radical leftism or liberalism always came from feminism.
That's what I mean, because it started with feminism.
It went from, oh, let's make women equal to men to, oh, let's go ahead and say that women are better than men.
And now we've overcorrected.
Now we got this crazy fucking society now where women aren't held accountable.
They're able to go ahead and double dip where they can be treated like a lady, but also act like a fucking man.
They're rude.
They're insufferable.
I mean, hell, you guys saw yesterday had to go a bunch of those fucking chicks off.
Behaving like fucking orangutans.
Absolutely wild.
Right?
Rude as fuck.
Can't even have a civilized goddamn show.
So yeah.
Frank's still asleep, guys.
When he wakes up, I'll show him to y'all ninjas.
This nigga's slumped though, man.
He's dead.
I'm going to take a picture to show you guys what this nigga looks like right now.
It works best for most people.
But I also understand there are some people it doesn't work so well for.
The more people would hear the message that you want to push.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
That's an interesting.
I've actually never gotten that question before.
It's very thoughtful.
Would you say you're against moral absolutism then?
Yes, yes, I would.
Are you against that?
Absolutely.
This dude is fucking dead.
He's like slumped.
Can y'all see that?
That's him right there right now.
That's him just lying there.
Bro, it's cooked.
No, I'm very open to having my mind changed.
And so it's not an absolute thing.
Well, I'm against moral absolutism.
Are you against moral absolutism?
Absolutely.
No.
Okay, so then you're consistent.
So I think I'll just kind of say it's preference, not about preference, and you could basically do whatever you prefer.
There is no transcendent moral order.
Well, I think what you're doing, though, is slightly unfairly putting me into a loop because I'm very open to having my mind changed.
What I'm saying, though, is that by definitionally, and this is something that will keep on coming back, you must choose what moral standard we live by.
I'm very clear as to what moral standard.
The lie of the West and of modernity the last 30 years is that we're going to have you live and let live and there will be no moral standard.
That itself is a moral standard and it's a really bad one.
And to your point that yes, it creates more suffering, it creates more despair.
And no, I disagree with what you say and I respect the heart of which you're saying it.
I will say that I have a moral obligation not to accommodate when people fall short, but instead try to lift them up towards the standard that is true and that I know that works.
So where I'd push this is I'd ask you, you describe people falling short when they fail to engage in long-term monogamy.
What do you think causes that?
Why do you think some people struggle?
Many reasons.
Economic is one of them, but the biggest is the death of religion and the death of Christianity in the West.
As America, I'll just talk about America.
The UK is unfortunately far less churched than America.
But as America has become less churched, so many of these social ills rise.
So one thing I would say, I study the evolution of behavior, in particular sexual romantic behavior.
If you track all the different hunter-gatherer cultures that we can study, and we track how agriculture shapes things, you see that ecological conditions really reliably predict the prevalence of monogamy, certain marriage systems.
And what I think is what we refer to as attachment issues.
They seem to be an ecological calibration to an environment.
In environments that are more unstable, it's less optimal for an individual to grow up the tendency to rely on long-term pair bonds.
And I think there's a mismatch with the modern world.
Again, coming back to industrialization, there are so many people who raise kids as absent parents.
Daycare is massively linked to attachment issues.
This then causes people to struggle to born long term.
And then again, coming back to the genetic part, there's again real research showing that, especially fasopressing mutations and oxytocin mutations, some people really just do not have the proclivity for this.
What brings stability?
Because you say stability is a good thing.
What would bring stability?
So, first of all, I would say we had what you might consider stability in the previous century, and then it became yo, bro.
Said all that instead of just saying women are sluts now.
Like, it's fucking simple.
Like, bro, oh, yeah, all these different patterns and things have changed ecologically.
Nigga, bitches are whores now.
How about that?
Let's just call a spade a fucking spade, man.
Why is everyone scared to just say that thanks to the sexual revolution and women becoming equal to men, they're starting to behave like men, being more promiscuous.
And what they're doing is they're more focused on chasing your career, having fun, doing drugs, and fucking dudes, right?
Than having a family.
That's what it is.
It's very fucking simple.
All right?
Women control the sexual marketplace.
They're the ones that control the sexual marketplace.
It's not the men.
And the men are not the ones doing the divorces.
The men are not the ones breaking up relationships.
So who is it?
It's the women.
Now, with that said, why is it that we've seen a rise in male loneliness and men not having sexual partners or their sexual partners dropping off?
It's because women are not having sex with them.
Average men no longer qualify for average women.
This was actually a big part of the reason why I got into a big fucking argument with the dumb bitches yesterday.
Every single girl on the panel wanted a guy making like $100,000 to $200,000 per year, except for one.
And when I said, look, what separates you from the other women at this table?
Because we did the whole fucking fingerprint, the finger thing.
And they're all the fucking same.
Shout out to you for gifting 10 subs, by the way, bro.
I appreciate that.
That is my guy, Dad of 12.
I appreciate that, man.
10 gifted subs.
Shout out to you, Data.
Really appreciate that.
Which, by the way, guys, if you guys are watching the stream right now and you are getting ads or whatever on Rumble, sub to the channel.
Sub to the channel, you won't get ads anymore.
It's only five bucks.
All right.
And it helps me out too.
Helps me out quite a bit.
But anyway, so going back to what I was saying, I like the video too, but by the way, guys, I'm going to be doing a longer stream with you guys.
I love y'all ninjas.
We only got 1600 likes.
Let's get to 3,000, guys.
Smash that like button, please.
Right?
Anyway, so yeah, when I got into this argument with the girls, there's an enormous amount of disconnect from modern women on what they want versus what they actually qualify for.
And most importantly, they don't understand how few of these men there are.
It's incredible to me that women really think that they deserve a top 1% guy and then they're going to get him.
He's going to be monogamous to them and he's going to marry them.
No.
But again, when this guy's talking about these problems with relationships and stability, he doesn't understand that the main problem is not the men.
It's the fucking women, bro.
It's the women.
There's plenty of guys out there that would be happy to support a woman and take care of her and not have her work.
He might make 50, 60K per year.
But for a lot of women, that's not enough.
It's not enough.
Came unstable.
And then things.
Why?
I'm saying because moral absolutism was imposed.
Moral absolutism was lost.
You see, modernity rose.
We started to teach our kids moral relativism and we got rid of moral absolutes.
So it's the opposite.
So why was it lost?
Was it lost because people stopped pushing this question to a class?
Why was it lost?
That's a question for far smarter minds.
I can only tell you that it was.
In America, it's honestly one of the worst decisions, not just worst ideas ever, which is modern feminism.
Largely bam.
There you go, Charlie.
Now you're hitting it because feminism is what's led to all these problems that this guy is too scared to say.
Notice how this guy didn't want to say any of that stuff, chat.
You guys caught on to that?
That he did not want to identify the problem.
He just gave a bunch of fancy filler academic worlds, words, excuse me, a bunch of fancy academic words to substantiate and be like, oh, yeah.
You know, we have issues because ecological problems, blah, blah, blah.
No, nigga, these bitches are just whores, bro.
Sometimes you just got to be able to speak in layman terms of call like it is.
Now, Charlie is actually identifying the problem, which is fucking feminism.
But these goddamn academics are terrified to have this conversation because they understand that the university world, the academic world is run by fucking women, bro.
It's run by women.
If you guys don't believe me, last week, I did a breakdown with my guy, Chad.
They brought in a psychologist or a psychiatrist, whatever, to talk about domestic violence in relationships.
And she gave everything from the female frame to testify in Diddy's trial.
The whole psychology, psychiatrist world is dominated by women now.
Now you got stupid ass terms like verbal violence and emotional intelligence, all this other bullshit, right?
So men in the academic world are absolutely terrified to criticize feminism.
You guys caught on to that?
He just didn't want to say it.
Charlie's saying it, but this guy did not want to say it.
Anyway, we got It's Maddie B, gifted 10 subs.
Appreciate that.
King of 727 gifted a sub.
Appreciate that, my friend.
Mr. Magneto says, hey, Mario, first off, I think you getting an 90-lead degree in women's studies is a brilliant idea.
I have to ask, are you really prepared to sit through that much propaganda and horseshit?
Yeah, I would do it.
I'll do it.
It might take me two years to do it because obviously I would do it online and shit like that, but I think it would be worth it.
I think it would be worth it to get a degree in women's studies.
It'll be fucking hilarious, too.
It'll be hilarious.
From Betty Friedan's feminist critique, feminist mystique.
And it'll give me even better insight to like the academic world than how it's run by fucking women.
Mystique, I'm sorry, feminist mystique, which acted as if every woman who's in a monogamous marriage in the States is in some sort of tyrannical environment.
And it has led to the women of the West being the most miserable, most depressed, most suicidal.
Keep it to hard work and honesty, and you're 100% right about Harvard.
I appreciate that, X.com.
A $50 super chat from X. And by the way, guys, all $50 chats and above, you get a down to Marco.
I appreciate that.
Or gifted subs.
I think that's $20 and above, I think, is like $50 or $100 or whatever.
So shout out to you X.com.
Myrongainsx.com or rumble.com, guys.
Best way to support the show, as you guys know.
I'm completely demonetized and it sucks, but I'm still here for you guys anyway, regardless.
I barely slept last night, by the way, chat.
I closed on my 23rd or 24th house today.
So that's another, that's a big one.
You know, buying more houses so that I can, you know, obviously invest and I can keep doing this type of content for you guys and not have to worry so much or rely on AdSense.
Because obviously when you speak about the things that I speak about and you're as raw as I am, they're going to try to go ahead and fucking cancel you everywhere.
So, you know, I've been really working hard to build up my real estate portfolio.
It has been a little bit harder with obviously being demonetized and shit like that, but you guys know I keep my spending low.
I save a lot of my money.
I put it all into real estate.
I don't buy no stupid ass nigga shit.
So episode coming very soon for you guys.
Don't think I forgot.
We're going to do the episode on commercial real estate.
We're going to do the episode on residential real estate on the last two deals that I did and comparing them for you guys.
Now that I close on this one today, I'm going to go ahead and get my team ready, my lawyers, et cetera.
And I'm going to, honestly, guys, what I'm thinking of doing, my plan is this.
I'm going to call them all in a Zoom call.
Everybody.
I have two lawyers that I deal with, one here in Miami, one in Connecticut.
I have a real estate agent that I deal with in Connecticut, then obviously Roger here in Miami.
Then I got my parents.
What I'm thinking of doing is putting them all on a Zoom call for you guys and just kind of going through how I find deals.
And you guys can listen to my, us just kind of chop it up about how we find the deals, what we do, et cetera.
I get my brother on the call and shit like that as well.
So I'm going to organize that for y'all where we figure this stuff, where, you know, you guys kind of get to see how I do my deals and my team and shit like that because you are going to need a team, guys, once you start getting a real real estate portfolio.
You know, we got like 20 something now.
So, and I knew that this was going to come.
I knew that, you know, at some point YouTube was going to give us a hard time or cancellation or whatever might come.
So I knew that early, early on when I left my government job.
So I was like, let me go ahead and buy some real estate and, you know, put myself in a position where, God forbid, something happens, you know, I'll still have residual income coming in because obviously we get no AdSense money.
But we're still streaming.
You know what I mean?
I'm still doing these streams damn near for free.
So I really appreciate MyronGainsX.com or Rumble Rants and Castle Club.
Castle Club guys, I fucking love you.
I'll give you guys a down to Marco.
So yeah.
So yeah, man.
Anyway, we go hard in a pain, baby.
We go hard in the paint.
I don't know.
Oh, and then let me look here real quick.
I'll read some of these chats.
Mr. Magneto read that one.
Rec Ton says $5 for the Frank Cam Fund.
Okay.
I do have space maybe for one more camera.
Your boy Lem says, but I think a lot of the students recognize you as soon as you enter the class.
These NPCs wouldn't care, but they know you and what you do.
Watch out now, Myron.
They could make it uncomfortable for you around them in the class.
Nah, bro.
They won't do shit, bro.
These college niggas are pussies.
Don't worry about that.
Hydrogen and oxygen are two different elements, but when you fuse together, they make something completely different.
H2O when the parents' DNA come together, it makes a completely different in your life, okay?
Uncle Adolph.
Hey, Myron, I'm a Muslim guy that's getting ready to vet a woman for marriage.
I'm going to follow your method of vetting for six to 12 months.
We'll probably do more.
What can you advise me to vet this woman properly during this time?
More than likely, you won't be having sex because of the religion as well.
Any advice?
See how much of a see how much she does for you without you having to say much.
That's a good way to test it.
Bobby Truma says, Yo, Myra, just shot you a reel on IG, minute long and right in line with the feminist madness you're breaking down.
TechCot, these 304s are more delusion than ever, and this cliff shows it clear as day.
Would be fire of your crack.
I could toss it on Twitter too if it's better.
Salute.
Yeah, send it to me on Twitter, bro.
And give me your username on X because I get a lot of DMs, bro.
Prescription drug-addicted cohort on the planet.
And I think we need to appropriately challenge feminism.
Guys, like the video.
Let's get to 4,000 live viewers to get to 4,000 live viewers.
We need you guys to like the goddamn video.
Let's hit 3,000 likes, man.
Let's get 3,000 likes on this bitch.
I really don't want to have to stop the show.
Just like the goddamn video.
This video is demonetized.
I make no money on AdSense.
So when you guys watch it back and you get all those ads, YouTube is not giving me that money.
Welcome!
Punch!
Bitch ass niggas.
So like the video.
That's all I'm asking, guys.
Pretty much at this point, YouTube is being used for marketing.
And tell young women that it's open.
Free marketing.
My husband gave me permission to support your stream.
I appreciate that, Alexia.
Shout out to your husband.
Thank you so much.
W couple.
It's always fantastic to see women that are in long-term relationships with men watching the show.
Love you guys.
Truly do.
The smart ladies that watch the show that have a man.
I fucking love y'all because you guys show that I'm not a crazy man and women can actually take my advice and become successful.
So I appreciate you.
Okay.
In fact, it's courageous to get married and have children again.
I think it would solve a lot of our problems.
All right, shit, here we go.
So I'm a feminist.
Oh, Lord.
All right, let me go ahead and get a fucking, I got to get another monster for this one.
Oh, Frank's awake now.
Frank, you up?
Come here, nigga.
They want to see you, bro.
You want to give you a Roman?
He's good, guys.
He's good.
He's a little tired, but he's awake.
How are you, buddy?
Give me a kiss.
I fucking love this guy so much, chat.
You guys don't realize.
Like, I fucking love this nigga.
He's the smartest dog in the world.
I don't care what anybody says.
He's the most handsome dog in the world.
Right?
All these dumbass dogs in Brickle or Miami niggas on their leash.
Meanwhile, Frank is just chilling.
He's the master race dog.
okay buddy all right Here we go, ninjas.
We got the feminists in the house.
Guys, smash that like button.
Let's get to 2,500 before we start watching this part.
Let's get to 2,500.
I'm not going to start this thing up until we get to 2,500.
Smash that like button, ninjas.
Smash the like button.
We got almost 4,000 of you guys watching on YouTube.
We got another 1,500 or so watching.
You guys watching on Rumble?
We literally got, what?
How many of y'all in here?
Like almost 5,000 of you guys watching.
Like the goddamn video.
I barely slept.
Closed on a deal today.
Fucking, you know, I'm still here.
Feel like crap, but I'm here.
No excuses.
Okay.
Like the video, my guys.
I texted Angie and told her to apply to the Ivy League schools for me.
Start the process.
Them niggas are going to charge me a bag.
So you guys know, like, every application is like 500 to 1,000 bucks, bro.
This shit will cost me some bread, man.
But it's fine.
I'm going to apply to all the Ivy League schools.
See what happens.
I hope they don't deny me.
I'm going to have to, like, fucking, maybe I got to use like a different name or some shit.
I don't know.
Because if they google me, bro, it might not be good.
They find out who I am.
So we'll figure that out, though.
Like the video, guys.
We got 2,000 likes.
Let's get to 2,500.
2,500.
I'll start.
Get back on the stream.
This chick right here is a feminist.
You already know what time it is, niggas.
This is going to be hilarious and glorious.
And then after this, just so you guys know, we're going to watch Andrew Wilson debate this fucking girl, aka what I call the ghoul.
This retard over here.
We're going to watch this next.
I would say me and Andrew Wilson are probably the best destroyers of feminism on the internet.
Use Frank as my name.
Oh, man.
All right, guys, we're at 20 almost 2,100 likes.
Let's get to 2,500, guys.
2,100.
We're going to start this thing back up.
Spooky says, I appreciate what you do.
I have family that like you and those that don't.
I don't care.
I appreciate what you do and say.
I'm a believer in Christ, so I may not be agree with everything, although you shed light on a lot via Israel and my 13-year relationship.
Hey, man, no worries, bro.
You don't have to agree with everything.
I don't expect you guys to agree with everything I say, of course.
Yeah, I just shot you a real and IG minute long and right in line with the feminist madness you're breaking down.
Check out.
Oh, yeah, I saw that already.
Yeah, you got to send me your username, though, bro.
Send in another chat with your Twitter username and I'll pull it up.
Come on, guys.
What are we at?
We're at 2,100.
All right, let's get to 23.
I'll do you guys a solid.
I'm in a good mood.
I'll get you guys to 23.
Let's get 200 more, not even like 150 more likes, and we're going to start this bitch up and we're going to start cooking.
I got my white monster in here as we watch Charlie debate this white girl.
So, so yeah.
No, Chad, I'm not trolling.
I'm going to actually have Angie apply to me for all these Ivy League schools.
I actually will do it.
Actually, we'll do it.
I got to get my fucking college transcripts, though.
I got to contact Northeastern and get my transcripts and we'll do it.
But I'm literally going to apply to all of them and figure out what we're going to do here.
Could you imagine if I stream on campus or stream from campus?
I'm going to have to wear a fucking hat, hide who I am, and shit.
The feminists find out who I am.
I'm like, oh, get him out of here.
Get him out of here.
All right, we're at 2,200 niggas.
Let's go.
85 more.
85 more.
We got almost 4,000 of you guys in here.
We got roughly almost 6,000 of you guys watching the stream right now.
No bots, by the way.
All these niggas botting on that streamer university shit.
I'm like one of the few streamers that has never once fucking bought it and I never will.
That shit's so lame, dude.
All these streamers be bottom, bro.
Absolutely crazy.
Also, while we wait for you guys to hit the 2300, I am going to be doing an event with Uncensored America this fucking Friday.
Cobbs is out, but it's fine.
We're going to set up a fucking table on the streets and hit the road, baby.
So it's going to be lit.
It's going to be a good time.
We're going to set up the speaker.
The mics is going to be fucking lit.
It's going to be a good time.
All right.
So, yeah.
We're at 2258.
Come on, guys.
Let's go.
Hit that 2,300.
Hit that 2,300 ninjas.
Alden says, You're arguably the freaking best creator on here.
Greetings from Bosnia.
Shout out to you, bro.
Shout out to you, man.
I'm assuming if you're in Bosnia, more than likely, you're probably Muslim.
Shout out to you, Salam Michelin.
Just sent it on Twitter, Bobby Tramo.
Okay, I'll look.
So, yeah.
What are we at?
2273.
All right.
That's close enough.
So this chick is a feminist.
Let's see what she got to say.
She got the American flag sweater on.
My question is about the role of women, though.
What should women's role in public and private life look like?
And what are the material benefits of that?
Well, thank you for that.
Can I take it?
All right, let's see what Charlie's stance is on here.
I'm going to assume that he's probably going to be very close to what I think their role should be, but let's see what he says.
So the question is: what should women's role in public and private life look like?
And what are material benefits?
Well, thank you for that.
Can I take it?
I don't even want to take this detour, but can we both agree on what a woman is?
Yes.
An adult human female is a biological state of being that is also socially experienced.
Can I please elucidate just one example of that social experience?
What the fuck?
But you ain't even let him answer.
What the fuck is that?
Bruh.
Holly.
Want to take this detour, but can we both agree on what a woman is?
Yes.
An adult human female is a biological state of being that is also socially experienced.
Can I please elucidate just one example of that social experience?
Yeah, I was going to answer your question, but sure, go ahead.
Yeah, she won't even let him answer.
Okay, okay.
So let's say you're a member of a tribe and that in that tribe, you have the biological female anatomy.
And in order to become a woman in that tribe, you have to also get a tattoo.
That's a social experience that's mapped onto biological reality.
So can a woman have a prostate?
Can a woman have a prostate?
Biologically speaking, a woman is an adult human female that has a biological reality, but it's also social experience, right?
So I don't.
It's super easy.
Like, can a woman have a prostate?
So, as per my definition of woman, bro, per my definition, isn't it amazing how liberals cannot just answer simple fucking questions?
I would say that people who have a prostate are biologically male, but they can sometimes be socially treated as women.
Okay, got it.
So, so, so, so, women can have prostates.
Got it.
Okay.
Um, that's so you're a feminist that actually isn't just fighting for women, you're also fighting for men.
So, yes, yeah, men also experience harms from uh patriarchy, but I argue.
We're talking about the same feminism, though, just make sure.
Yeah, sure, go ahead.
So, men also experience harm from patriarchal domination, but I would argue that those harms come from that system of domination itself.
In the same way, for example, this isn't a threat, but if I reached across and punched you in the face, then my hand might hurt, right?
So, are we understanding that there are dumb like patterns of power?
So, I would also fight for the rights of men as a feminist, just as I would fight for the rights of women.
Sure.
You think women are happier than they were 40 years ago?
I think I would have a few responses to that.
I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today because not because they have more rights or because of feminism, but because they're under dual pressure to both excel professionally and also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations.
So, for example, studies like the OECD's Better Life Index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements.
Hold on, chat.
Let me fuck in because I'm really got to pay attention.
This bitch is yapping, and I got to make sure I stay sharp.
So, hold on, Bobby Trauma.
Let me find this goddamn message you sent me real quick.
Bro, this better be good, nigga.
I'm going to be pissed if this is trash.
I've been fucking looking for your tweet here.
He's a Cast Club member, so you know, you guys get a little bit more love.
Bobby, let me look here.
Chat's probably gonna be putting Al Bobby in the chat here in a second, but look, let me see here.
This better be good, nigga.
I'm going to be pissed if it's not.
Okay.
All right.
Let's go back a little bit.
Let's go back a little bit here.
Play this from the beginning.
I'm going to have this other thing queued up here.
Niggas are putting out Bobby in the chat already.
I knew that was coming, bro.
Dude, that was coming, man.
The nigga was going to tell me fucking oh, man.
The chat is relentless, man.
The chat is relentless.
All right.
I got the video here.
Okay.
let me open this up All right.
Let's go back here.
Now, let's get back into this.
Let's go through this line by line, chat.
Like the video, man.
Got 4,000 plus of you guys in here, 5,000, almost 5,500.
Let's go.
Think women are happier than they were 40 years ago?
I think I would have a few responses to that.
Men can have prostates.
Got it.
Okay, they finished the prostate talk.
Let's get to it.
So you're a feminist that actually isn't just fighting for women, you're also fighting for men.
So, yes, yeah.
Men also experience harms from patriarchy, but I argue that.
We're talking about the same feminism, though, just to make sure.
Yeah, sure, go ahead.
So, men also experience harm from patriarchal domination, but I would argue that those harms come from that system of domination itself.
In the same way, for example, this isn't a threat, but if I reached across and punched you in the face, then my hand might hurt.
Right?
So, are we understanding that there are patterns of power?
So, I would also fight for the rights of men as a feminist, just as I would fight for the rights of women.
Sure.
You think women are happier than they were 40 years ago?
I think.
Now, let me tell you guys this.
When feminists say this, that's deceptive practice.
Oh, yeah, I fight for the rights of men, blah, blah, blah.
They typically don't because the reality is that you can't fight for both, right?
And this is kind of the evil side, right?
When it comes to genders and feminism versus misogyny, whatever the fuck it may be, the battle of the genders, it's an adversarial situation.
It's an adversarial setup.
So to advocate for one inevitably puts the other one in a lesser power, okay?
So for example, when I advocate for men and I tell them you need to be strong leaders and you need to adhere to your your duties, protect and provide, et cetera, I am putting you in a position of dominance over the woman, right?
Now, the woman gets an enormous amount of benefit from it.
Don't fucking get it twisted.
She gets to live without working.
She takes care of the house, etc.
But what I've done is I've given you the responsibility, which inevitably also puts the power in your hands.
But here's the problem with feminists.
When they fight, right, for women, what they're really fighting for is they're fighting for the ability to double dip, okay?
They're fighting for the ability to say, yo, women should be able to behave like men and do whatever men do, while simultaneously not dealing with the ramifications of what men do.
Okay?
So, in other words, you could work and get all the same rights and privileges as man, but also we want to reserve the right to be a lady when we feel like it as well.
That is what feminism really is.
So, when people like her say, oh, yeah, I also advocate for men, no, that's not true.
Because for you to advocate for women and make them equal to men, you are inevitably going to take authority from men.
There can't be two leaders.
So, since there can't be two leaders and there can only be one, that means that realistically speaking, you can only really advocate for one side to give them more authority.
And that is the women.
But while they're trying to get that authority, they're trying to circumvent the responsibility that comes alongside it.
And that, my friends, okay, is why feminism is so pernicious.
Because what's going on with feminism is they're trying to sit there and tell you that they're equal.
They're basically trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, saying, look, it fits when it fucking doesn't.
I'll give you an example of what I mean by this.
Women will sit there and say, we're equal to men and we need all the same, you know, situations set up for us.
But how many times have you seen it where female police officers are absolutely incapable of doing the job properly?
And they put their male counterparts in danger, right?
But once again, feminism, its ugly head, trying to put a square fuck, a circle peg, or sorry, a circle peg into a square hole.
It's not going to fit.
But feminism tells you and sits there and tells you it will fit and keep trying to put it in there, but it doesn't.
Right?
Or women in the armed services, right?
Where they can't do the same thing as a man.
This is why they're not in any of the elite units.
There ain't no female Navy SEALs.
They have to water down the fucking Ranger standards so they can get in, right?
So we lie to ourselves and say women could do what men do to make them feel better.
But the reality is that they can't compete with us at all.
That's why you have to have different standards.
This is why I always say feminism inevitably benefits women.
Because, not feminism, sexism.
Sexism inevitably benefits women.
And the reason why is because sexism, right, allows us to create another standard for women only.
That's mediocre.
Now, some people might say, man, that's insensitive.
You're saying that women are inferior.
Yeah, they are.
They are.
We need to start having real conversations in America about this shit.
Okay?
They are inferior.
They are.
Physically, they're inferior.
In many things, they're inferior.
The world was not built by women.
And I'm not going to fucking sit here and say, oh, well, I think that they're equal to us.
And yeah, they can do everything a man can do.
No, they fucking can't.
Okay?
There's a reason why.
You watch the movie fucking Mulan.
They're not over there saying, be a woman.
No.
Fuck out of here.
The name of the song is Be a Man.
You must be swift.
Right?
Remember that shit?
Be a man.
You must be swift.
Remember that shit?
There ain't no songs about be a woman.
Nobody gives a fuck about being a woman.
Being a woman is easy.
They live life on easy mode, especially in 2025.
The fuck out of here, bro.
And this is why feminists hate me so much, because I know when they say bullshit like, oh yeah, I also advocate for men.
No, you don't.
If you advocate for women, it is damn near impossible for you to advocate for men.
Because in order for you to advocate for women, you must take away the authority of the men.
Anyway, let's keep cooking here.
I would have a few responses to that.
I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today because not because they have more rights or because of feminism, but because they're under dual pressure to both excel professionally and also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations.
So, for example, okay, okay, but see, I love how she just you guys catch what she did there.
I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today because I think that are women happier more now than they were 40 years ago.
Fight for the rights of women.
Sure.
You think women are happier than they were 40 years ago?
I think I would have a few responses to that.
They're not, but let's see what she copes and says.
I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today because not because they have more rights or because of feminism, but because they're under dual pressure to both excel professionally.
Okay.
See, oh, God.
Well, how did they excel professionally?
How did they get into that position where they have more pressure to excel on them professionally?
I'll tell you.
Why?
Because of feminism, bro.
It's simple.
Like, if you go ahead and you look at a woman that's in the professional world, okay?
That her being in the professional world, sitting in that fucking cubicle, suffering and hating her fucking life, that is a logical conclusion of what feminism has been fighting for the entire fucking time.
For her to be a professional in the fucking first place is the ultimate manifestation of what feminism is, which is basically to say, I can do and be a man.
I can do and be just like a man.
That's what it is.
So she almost kind of just defeated herself in making that statement.
It's not that they have more rights and privileges, but yeah, in the professional world, how did they get to the professional world, dummy?
What?
Also, because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations.
So for example, studies like the OECD's better life index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with higher gender inequality.
So I would argue that what you're calling unhappiness is actually visibility because now we hear women expressing dissatisfaction, whereas in the 50s, we prescribed them valium and we lobotomize.
Hey, well, you know what?
Sometimes niggas just don't want to hear y'all talk about it.
Like right now, bro, imagine being with this chick, her over here, like just being argumentative.
Yeah.
That's.
I like that side step that she gave, though.
She's like, oh, well, actually, in these countries, what was her argument that she made?
Let's see here.
We prescribed them valium and we looked because now we hear what I would argue also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around both excel professionally and also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations.
So for example, outdated expectations.
That's funny.
You know, it's funny because like if I told her, hey, a man is supposed to protect you, right?
She wouldn't say that's outdated.
She would say, oh, no, yeah, men are supposed to protect women because they're stronger.
But, you know, being in the house and having house duties, that's outdated.
For example, studies like the OECD's Better Life Index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with higher gender inequality.
With higher gender inequality?
Let's see here.
So studies like Better Life Index show that.
Expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with higher gender inequality.
So I would argue that what you're calling unhappiness is actually visibility, because now we hear women expressing dissatisfaction, whereas in the 50s we prescribed them Valium and we lobotomized them.
That's a fucking crazy cope.
So he said, so she's basically saying that because they have the ability to speak now, they could be more outward about their dissatisfaction versus before they were dissatisfied as well.
And they just couldn't talk about it because of volume.
Okay, fantastic.
Interesting where they it seems like they had better rates because look at this study right here.
This study actually hurts her argument.
So she's show that women's life expectancy.
We'll go back through this.
For example, studies like the OECD's better life index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with high so they rose in those countries with higher gender inequality with higher gender inequality.
So they're doing better.
So I would argue that what you're calling unhappiness is actually her own argument.
What the fuck is wrong with this woman?
Actually visibility because now we hear women expressing dissatisfaction whereas in the 50s we prescribed them valium and we lobotomize That's not even really an argument.
What the fuck?
Yeah.
That's um that's really rich.
I didn't know women not to complain 50 years ago.
That's funny.
Um, so they could put, yo, they've been complaining since forever.
Bro, guys, I'll kid you now.
I went to this museum with Angie in LA, right?
It's called like the medieval torture museum.
There, I kid you not, there was this fucking contraption, like this metal contraption that men would put on their wives to get them to be quiet.
Like, if they talk too much, they just put this fucking contraption on him, bro.
Why would that thing need to be invented in the medieval times, nigga?
Why would it need to be invented?
Because so, what this woman's over here is saying, women can't attack back then.
Yeah, they did, and they talked so goddamn much, niggas needed to create punishment tools for them.
So, I don't know what the fuck this woman's talking about.
Women have been bitching for a long ass time, bro.
The black plague is going on, and bitches are still yapping.
I'm kidding, I'm not kidding, guys.
There were literally contraptions made in the medieval times.
There's this museum me and Angie went to in LA.
It's called like the torture museum or some shit, and there was one made to put on your wife when she talked too much, not kidding around.
So, female yap has been a problem for centuries.
I'm dead ass.
I'm not even kidding around, bro.
So, we've always been.
Hold on a second.
Why are suicide rates going up more for women?
I think that incurs.
Why is that?
I think that even if both men and women have become unhappier, men's suicide rates have risen as well, and that's also been exponential.
Can you at least well, also, because men actually go through with the suicides, women, women are pussies.
You guys, like, uh, you know, you don't slit yourself correctly, whatever.
I'm just kidding, but all jokes aside, um, women are far less likely to actually complete the suicide, they'll puss out more.
The men, uh, them niggas really do them niggas really do do it, you know.
They pull the trigger, um, no point intended.
Offers only one potential explanation.
There could be also other explanations, of course, obviously, but feminism is the glaring thing in front of us where we have fertility rates down, we have marriage rates down, we have unhappiness up, and we did something in the 1960s out of the universities.
And her dumbass study actually proved that women were happier where the gender inequality was higher.
So, she actually defeated her own argument by saying that thing with the OCDE study or whatever the fuck she mentioned.
Of Brady Fredan and Gloria Steinem, and all these feminists that basically Gloria Steinem in case you guys were wondering, every single life,
early life police said you're trapped in a home, go get a job, freeze your eggs, take birth control, and all of a sudden, women are way unhappier than they were 40 years ago.
And I just have to ask the question: why is that?
Is it working?
And maybe there are biological differences between men and women that we should respect.
And that deep down, a lot of women want to get married and have children.
In fact, we should applaud it and we should support it and we should and they want to do it deep down, but they're shamed for doing so.
Notice how she said outdated roles.
Did you guys catch on to that when she said that?
Even the way that she describes a woman's role, it's in a pejorative sense.
Oh, outdated duties.
But our duties aren't outdated.
We're still supposed to protect and provide, right?
Our duties are never outdated, right?
But their duties are outdated.
So they can go ahead and circumvent them.
Say, it means nothing if you're going to go be a CEO of some shoe company or be some banker in London.
What matters if you raise children and you have something to pass?
Name of the song, guys, is called Early Life by Lucas Gage.
Go show him some love.
It's called Early Life by Lucas Gage is the name of the song.
That is the song that I use for the intro and outro of the show now so that I don't get hit with copyright.
Yo, look, I love Yay and stuff, but bro, they hit me with copyright shit.
It's fucking annoying.
Guys, we're at 2,500 likes, 4,200 of you guys watching right now.
I guess it could be anywhere else in the world, but you guys are here.
So do me a favor.
Like the goddamn video, niggas.
Like the video, smash the like button.
Let's get to 3,000 likes.
I think I would bring two points to that.
The first one is just really simple, which is that you can ascribe liberalism all you want as a cause of the unhappiness.
I would argue something else.
I would say that it's certain economic policy that has very little to do with the social acceptance of alternative lifestyles.
I would say that we can recognize that income inequality of wait, what?
Hold on.
This bitch is reading this off chat GT GPT, by the way.
I would say that it's certain economic policy that has very little.
Certain economic policy.
Okay, what's certain economic policy?
Little to do with the social acceptance of alternative lifestyles.
I would say that we can recognize that income inequality across the world.
All right, let's talk about the economic shit that she's talking about.
Thanks to feminism, it's double the workplace.
When you double the workplace, you don't have to pay your employees as much.
And what women don't realize is by them entering the workforce, they actually kind of shot themselves in the foot because now they're competing with men that they didn't have to compete with for a wage that they, quite frankly, didn't even need in the first place.
So who wins?
The employers win because now they got cheap labor because the workforce is effectively doubled.
This is why jobs that are manual labor, jobs that women don't dominate in or women don't try to go into are still high paying.
You want to get a blue collar job?
Plumber, electrician, firefighter, police officer, any of these jobs that are male-dominated, guess what?
They still pay a high wage and they still can, you can still make six figures a year doing these jobs with a high school diploma, no college education.
You want to know why?
Because women have not infected these positions.
Falcon!
Punch!
Because men can do them, so they stay high-paying.
But the jobs where men and women can both go into doubles the workforce.
So now women, so they decide, oh, you know, we could pay our niggas less because we got double the workforce.
It's a vast swing of Western countries has increased, which causes all kinds of social ills.
A lack of social cohesion.
Housing price growth doesn't correspond with wage growth.
Monopolies increasingly become.
Yeah, but why is the wage growth not going up?
See, she's like identifying these problems, but what she doesn't realize is that a lot of these problems are coming from the feminism.
Kind of emboldened to interfere with politics and monopolies don't prioritize social health either.
I think that those offer more compelling reasons for a decline in happiness than an increase in freedoms because just okay, you don't need to go to a doctor to be fucking happy.
Okay?
Like if you're going to a doctor, like the best scenario is you don't go to a fucking doctor ever.
Okay?
So that's not why people are less happy either.
Notice how she went ahead and just like gave all these other reasons for why female happiness can be down besides attacking the main problem.
Now, am I saying that these other things she mentioned might not be contributors?
Absolutely, they can be.
They can absolutely be contributors, but they pale in comparison to the main problem, which is liberalism and feminism.
But she does not want to admit this.
And this is something in the academic world, they don't want to admit, because for them to admit that progressivism and liberalism and feminism is the reason why so many women are unhappy, it would be antithetical to their bottom line, which is what?
Academia relies upon stupid women enrolling into their fucking schools.
Okay?
This is why college attendance nowadays is dominated by fucking females because women buy that fucking lifestyle of being able to be a war for four years, party college, et cetera, and get the college lifestyle.
They buy that hook line and fucking sinker.
So they're not going to go ahead and say, you know what?
The reason why you bitches are not happy is because you guys are a little bit too educated and you guys are spending way too much time trying to be men and you know trying to get a professional career when you're not really built for that.
No.
No, they're not going to do that.
That's antithetical to their fucking bottom line.
They're trying to make money.
Education is a fucking business at the end of the day.
Okay?
So they're not going to go ahead and point the finger at the main corporate, which is what?
Progressivism, leftism, liberalism, feminism, all the fucking isms that was created by them niggas.
They don't want to point to that because the academic world is heavily propped up by what?
The female fucking dollar.
Okay, guys?
College attendance is dominated by females now.
And by the time in the next 10 years or so, we're going to be seeing three out of four college graduates be women out of the four.
Because right now it's about 60% of college campuses are women majority.
And you're going to see that number continue to increase.
Let's get back to it.
One more thing.
On an intuitive basis, generally speaking, people want more freedom, not less.
So if that's true, why is it, do you agree that the happiest women of the West are married with kids?
I would have to look into it, but I think there are certain they are.
objectively we know that, right?
The women with...
I'm 34, a registered nurse for two years, ex-security guard for eight years.
I live in Burbank, California, with 25K saves, 630 credit, $0 debt, net $6K a month.
I pay $1,100, one bedroom.
I want my property.
Want to buy property later flip.
Maybe a condo.
I don't have an advisor.
Can you guide me?
Get your credit score up, bro.
Get your credit score up.
630 credit is not good.
Okay.
You need to get into the 700s if you want to get the best interest rates.
Back to the debate.
Shout out to you, by the way.
Appreciate that support.
But step one, bro, you got to get your credit score into the 750, 760s to get the best interest rates.
Kids are not the ones tearing down statues, right?
They're the ones that actually have obligations.
Does tearing down statues correspond to some kind of smiles per capita data set that I wasn't aware of?
Again, it's like, it's a little bit of a one-line.
Oh, that's a snarky fucking remark that had nothing to do with what he's saying.
The happy and the grateful.
The happy and the grateful usually don't go burn down Wendy's in their spare time, of which we saw in our country all throughout a single summer.
But as a side note, you would agree objectively, study after study, survey after survey, that the women of the West that are married and have children, especially a lot of children, are far happier than even the ones that earn more money correlated at the same age.
So I also don't think that happiness is a very good metric, and neither do you, because you think gay people shouldn't just pursue happiness by being gay.
They have other moralistic considerations to be making.
So I don't think smiles per capita is a particularly convincing way to measure whether or not we should encourage women to be autonomous.
I think we should maximize agency within a fair system that has reasonable parameters because it's expedient, it's good for the economy, it's logical, it's the moral thing because if we can't prove the material harms, we shouldn't discourage it.
This is a perfect example of like talking fast does not make you smarter and or a better debater.
She's just obfuscating from the real problem, which is typically just coming down to women are happier when they're in a family than they are in the workforce.
And she's trying to fucking come up with all this cope and mental gymnastics for why, you know, that is not the reason why women are sad that they don't have families.
And also self-reported studies is a really flawed way to do psychology.
Here we go.
It's the week before my university exams right now, and I'm standing here explaining the basic methodology behind survey collection in sociology, which you don't even think is a real subject to Charlie Kirk.
Yeah, it's a bullshit subject.
If I took one of those surveys right now, I'd check extremely miserable, but so would a Palestinian child who's been taunted to miseries.
How are we going to?
You're going to say extremely miserable?
No, I'm kind of making a joke.
No, I mean, but seriously, like, as a.
Here we go.
He's about to cook her because when he says that these kids are ungrateful, here we go.
Hold on.
I mean, like, that's an important point, though, is that the women in the West have it the best in the world.
And yet they.
And white women have it the real best in the fucking world, if we're going to be honest about this shit.
She belongs to the street.
Because let's keep it a thousand.
White women are able to double dip and claim the victim card and run with the minorities when it suits them, but they also get the benefits of the white privilege that they make fun of their male counterparts for having.
So white women are actually some of the biggest fucking scammers when it comes to this whole social rights bullshit because they're able to literally get the best of both worlds.
While putting all the blame on white men.
Way unhappier than women of sub-Saharan Africa.
There's something fundamentally wrong here.
Because the women of sub-Saharan Africa have something that a lot of women in the West do not have.
The women in the West have cats and they have good jobs and wine.
And the women of Sub-Saharan Africa, they have a belief in the divine and they have kids.
And maybe there's a biological undercurrent that is keeping a lot of women from realizing their full potential.
And so without reading your phone and just like, you know, connecting.
There you go.
Yeah.
Yeah, bitch.
Stop reading your phone.
You are not as smart as you think you are.
I'm shocked that he didn't call her out on that earlier.
I'm not really reading my phone.
Well, you.
Yes, you are.
Get the fuck out of here.
You're reading your phone.
It's fine.
Sure.
Then you can answer without it.
Fair enough.
Would you agree that it's a good thing that more women get married and have children in the West?
I would ask you, would you say that a sub-Saharan African woman who's experienced female genital mutilation mutilation?
What is she talking about?
What the fuck is she talking about?
He's clearly not talking about those women.
But see how she fucking just completely deflected?
And checks extremely happy in a survey.
And I also would check extremely happy in a survey.
Who do you think would be objectively more happy even if they both check the same answer?
Okay, so I fully, if you want to talk about how Islam mistreats women, we could talk all day long.
Like, I'm all for that.
Me too.
Okay, good.
So we agree.
We actually agree, many things.
We should shut off Muslim immigration to the UK, right?
We totally agree.
I think that all religious fundamentalism is bad.
And if you take that logic, we should.
All religion fundamentalism is bad.
Should also not allow evangelical Christians in the Sahel.
Okay, hold on.
Hold on a second.
Come on.
That's funny.
Yeah, the evangelical Christians, man.
Hey, man, y'all niggas are getting scammed by them boys, but Schofield Bible guys.
Can you show me a single show me what would your example?
Because I have 50 of a single Christian country that you would say mistreats women, right?
America.
Oh, really?
We had a female woman vice president.
We had a female vice president, a female speaker of the house.
Women earn more than men in America.
In Rwanda, female representation.
Bitch, he's not talking about Rwanda.
The fuck?
First, she said, oh, it's America.
Then he goes ahead and shows how women in America have it fucking great.
Then she goes and starts talking about Rwanda.
Bro, this woman is a professional deflector.
Yo, you know what her name is?
Mirror Force.
That's what I'm going to start calling her.
You niggas ever play fucking you guys ever play Yu-Gi-Oh!
back in the day?
Remember this card right here?
Remember this card?
Bruh.
Holly.
When an opponent's attack, when an opponent's monster declares an attack, destroy all attack position monster your opponent controls.
That's what this chick is, bro.
But she ain't destroying nothing.
She's just deflecting, deflecting, deflecting.
And government outseeds like, supersedes the UK by quite a lot.
Do women get treated better in Rwanda?
Okay, that's a terrible example to use.
He was specifically using a first world country, right?
Because the argument was on Christianity and showing that women have it well in America.
And here's the thing: she said that in America they have it bad.
So that's why he responded: like, what are you talking about?
And she just totally deflected into fucking Rwanda.
What the hell is that?
I beat Super off of this.
Like, is Rwanda Islamic?
Like, I'm not totally sure I don't think it is.
Like, is it?
Like, I don't know, actually.
I think Rwanda, if I'm not mistaken, is a Christian country.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, so they are a Christian country.
It's not.
So, again, we were just on Islam.
No, they are.
They are.
Largest faith is Catholicism.
There have been significant changes in the nation's religious demographics over the genocide, which conversed with many conversions to evangelical Christianity and to a lesser degree Islam.
So yeah, it's Catholicism by far.
It's a little bit of side note, but you must be morally clear because you brought up that.
But she didn't make a point whatsoever.
Like, that was, let's play this back again.
Look at this fucking deceptive man.
Veteran Rwanda?
Women earn a country that you would say mistreats.
With your example, because I have 50 of a single Christian country that you would say, so he says a single Christian country mistreats women, right?
Yeah, mistreats women.
America.
Oh, really?
She says America.
Literally picked the worst fucking country.
We had a female woman vice president.
So he responds to that and totally buries her because what he says here is true.
We got a female speaker of the house, female vice president, which, by the way, speaker of the house is the third most powerful person in the American government, by the way.
If the president and the vice president died, the speaker of the house assumes the president of the United States, by the way.
A lot of people don't know that.
So what the fuck is she talking about?
We had a female vice president, a female speaker of the house.
Women earn more than men in America.
Rwanda.
And in a lot of places they do.
Not everywhere, but in a lot of places, women do out-earn men.
In Rwanda, female representative.
And then she goes into fucking Rwanda.
Bitch, you're the one that said America and he proved you wrong.
And then you totally fucking deflect and go on to Rwanda.
What does that even have to do with anything?
What?
Are you trying to insinuate?
Oh, well, Rwanda has a bunch of women in government.
And look at that.
They suck.
That's not the point that he made, though.
You're the one that brought up America and he fucking destroyed you.
Patient in government outseeds, like, supersedes the UK by quite a lot.
Do women get treated better in Rwanda?
Okay, I might beat Super off of this.
Like, it was Rwanda Islamic.
Like, I'm not totally sure.
I don't think it is.
Like, is it?
Like, I don't know, actually.
It's a Catholic country, which is why she brought it up.
But that's not the point.
She said America and he responded to America.
It's not.
So, again, we were just on Islam.
It's a little bit of a side note, but you must be morally clear because you brought up female genital mutilation, which is a teaching of the Islamic faith.
But as a side note, like, again, this is very important, which is, I'm not here to require you to do anything or not.
I'm making a simple observation, which is objectively true regardless.
The women of the West are miserable.
You know what I find interesting?
Charlie always shits on Islam, but could you imagine if you shit on Judaism like this?
Oh, Lord.
That would not go over well.
You can absolutely criticize the Quran.
You could criticize the Islamic faith, but if you criticize Judaism, oh, man.
Miserable.
And they're miserable for a reason.
Because we've told them to suppress how they are made by God and pursue something else and get a bunch of trinkets and get a bunch of promotions.
And they end up at 38 years old with a big flat in London and they're miserable.
And we should tell them to stop freezing their eggs and start finding their partner earlier and have lots of babies.
Yeah, okay.
I think I bring two just final points to this.
First one is just really intuitive, right?
Which is that if you actually care about women's happiness, then the solution is to structurally support them.
That means universal child care, shared legally enforceable parental leave.
And in Nordic countries where women have high workforce participation and also some state support, they report higher life satisfaction than in more conservative countries, including America.
So if your metric is happening, it doesn't matter.
So our satisfaction surveys bullshit to nothing.
You got her there.
Because you told me that.
Do you acknowledge satisfaction surveys or not?
Just told me that they're BS.
Do you think they're objective?
We can use that as data?
She only uses it when it benefits her argument, of course.
I don't think that is the only sole data set, but it isn't.
You told me they're so flawed and you self-report.
Okay, by the macro self-satisfaction data, I am correct.
And you are right.
When you have paid family leave, you are happier.
I'm actually a proponent of that.
At turning point, you would say we pay for six months when somebody has a child.
I think there's a lot of agreement we can have on that.
We need to encourage having more children.
I think the Hungarian child policy is phenomenal.
But she's missing the part where they're having the kid.
Notice how she missed that part.
She's like, Yeah, you need to have the stuff so you can take care of the kid.
But you're missing the point.
The kid is the source of the happiness.
Okay?
The kid is the source of the happiness.
That is where the happiness comes from.
Now, you know, I would argue most women would stay home with the kid if they didn't need to work.
Okay?
The reason why they work and they have high workforce participation is because they need to work.
But if they didn't need to work and they didn't need all this fucking, you know, socialist type childcare, they would be fine.
But the point is that women get happy from having kids.
That's what she's missing.
She's starting at three, but she's not going one, two, three.
Does that make sense, chat?
She's just going, she's just starting at three instead of realizing that one is a kid being born, you having the kid, and then you being able to have that kid and be able to work while also having that balance.
But the kid is the root of the happiness.
And the only reason you're working is because you need to.
But if you didn't need to work and you had a man that could take care of you, financially, you would be even more happy.
Look at that, because the greatest thing that is plaguing the West is we're not having enough kids.
And it's not just bad because we won't have a future.
It's also bad because the present is awfully miserable for too many women as well.
Okay, in which case I think we get...
Do I start bringing this to a close, please?
Okay, I think just one final thing, which is that in which case we get to a really interesting argument about what kind of, what parts of womanhood can be demarcated to the social and what kinds of womanhood can be demarcated to biological.
So, for example, my anatomy is demarcated to the biological.
But the fact that I might potentially be a better nurturer than a man, I would demarcate that to the social.
You might demarcate that to the biological, in which case we have differing moral scales of value.
I would ask why we should necessarily prioritize your moral scale of value, which prioritizes things like the birth rate, when in actual fact, there are various other moral scales of value.
And if you yourself are a free market American, why is it the case that you would because we're put on earth to have kids, you dumb bitch.
That is why, okay?
Using this fucking fancy academic language of demarcate and your value versus my value, why is your preference more important than mine?
It's not even about his preference being more important than yours.
It is why we are put on earth.
It is the reason why you get baby rabies at 28 years old.
It is the reason why dudes get horny every time they see chicks.
This goes further than the social programming.
We're talking about the biological programming that you are ingrained with, woman.
Okay?
You're not put on earth to go to fucking school and get an education and yap at a fucking debate table like you are right now.
This is a privilege that we get to enjoy being in modernity.
But the reality is this is not what you're built for.
Okay.
We only see women are able to do dumb shit like this and have these conversations or whatever when we have the utmost safety, the utmost civilized world, etc.
But as soon as the power turns out, boom, what do we do?
We regress back to the real human nature.
And I'll tell you guys this: that feminism goes out the fucking window when shit gets real.
Okay?
So the only reason you even have the privilege of saying something stupid about, well, why is it that your need for increasing the birth rate is more important than mine of pursuing an education is because what Charlie is talking about continues to perpetuate civilization.
What you're talking about continues to perpetuate wine sales and cat purchases.
Okay?
That's why.
And fucking credible.
Incredible, bro.
But not like the previous speaker noticed.
I've already answered.
She thinks using a bunch of academic language and yapping and speaking quickly while looking at her phone makes her more intelligent.
No, bro.
No.
Then personal freedoms towards all spheres, including a private sphere.
I believe in absolute claims.
And it's absolutely wrong and bad when a society stops having kids to replace their own population.
And then you have to import the third world and you become the third world.
It's bad.
I disagree with it.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
She disagrees with it.
Oh, wow.
Charlie's correct.
If you're using immigrants to repopulate, that's a problem because they come in and they bring their culture, their backwards culture, and fuck your shit up.
Mr. Kirk, you have spoken to Donald Trump.
Is this what I'm saying?
I think Charlie Bitter.
I think her, she just used a bunch of stupid academic fluffer language to try to make herself sound more intelligent, which is what a lot of these people fucking do.
And yeah, I think when it came to the real argument, she couldn't.
She didn't really have any.
She just deflected a whole bunch.
I'm sorry.
You've spoken to Donald Trump.
I'm going to be quite vocal about this.
A supportive of Donald Trump.
Yes, sir.
That's right.
One of his main donors.
Man, he has a direct line of Trump, man.
Trump was at TPUSA, Chad.
When I was there to emphasize, that boy Trump was there.
Drain the swamp, get rid of the grift, ensure that we have a more functioning, more efficient federal budget.
According to the Financial Times yesterday, Ronald Trump and Elon Musk, among others, have cut roughly $37 billion from the Federal Rights.
You know what's funny, guys?
Like, she did all that debating, and I can't even really remember one salient or cogent point she made.
Just a whole bunch of academic filler words, mumbo-jumbo word salad, bro.
I can't understand.
I don't even know one real point she made.
Not one.
And that's what they do.
Just barrage you with these fucking, you know, Oxford dictionary words and think, oh, yeah, I won today, but they're more intelligent.
Federal government budget.
This is a contested figure, of course.
Some of these have already been paid out, et cetera.
It's likely to be low, but they've assumed about 37 billion.
On the top of this, he has engaged in and tried to push tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy that would amount.
Charlie should continue criticizing them because it's the biggest threat to America.
You can't be Muslim and American at the same time.
Actually, Cohen, the biggest threat to America is influenced by you, motherfuckers, Mr. Cohen.
That's actually the biggest threat to America.
You guys are trying to get us dragged into a war right now with the Middle East in World War III.
You guys are the fucking biggest threat to America.
The fucking Zionist lobby is by far one of the biggest and most dangerous and pernicious fucking institutions in America.
To several hundred billion dollars in terms of tax breaks for the wealthy.
Along with this, he has cut.
Muslims don't have the influence or power to actually change things in America like you guys do.
So nice try, dumbass.
But by far the biggest threat is organized Zionism lobbying.
That's what the biggest fucking threat is because you guys actually get us into wars.
And wars can lead to nuclear warfare, which is not good for anybody.
Money-making institutions such as the Department of Natural Reserves and all this kind of thing that bring in about $40 billion, it costs about $5 billion.
And the IRS, which brings in a huge amount of money relative to the amount of money it spends.
With all of this in mind, is it not fair to say Donald Trump has engaged in a smash and grab for the ultra-rich, for the billionaires that stock his cabinet, for all these people against the modern Americans that you claim to represent?
Okay, how much do you know about his suggested tax plan?
Pardon?
His suggested tax plan?
Some.
I won't say anything.
He has suggested to raise taxes on the wealthy 37% to 40%.
What about federal income?
Federal income tax.
Capital gains.
He's the first.
Capital gains will stay where it is.
But he's the first Republican president that we have in George H.W. Bush that's recommending to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
Number two, a lot of those cuts, I wish it would be even more than $37 billion, have not yet been full realized.
In America, again, I don't know how applicable this will be, but the people watching online, he's advocating for no tax on tips.
So when you get tipped, we have a big tipping culture in America.
He's advocating for no tax.
I can understand where you're coming from here, Charlie.
Can I see where you're at?
It's popular on the face of it.
Donald Trump and Republicans of his IRC claim that the federal budget is something we should be very considered about, and the debt and the cost of maintenance on that debt.
Even if we don't regard any sense of tax increases or tax reduce on the ultra-wealthy, the fact that he is engaging in and defunding money-making institutions such as the IRS exacerbates and increases this problem of debt dependency that the United States has.
It is now the largest single problem in the federal budget.
Why would you support a man that is exacerbating this issue he claims to care about so much?
Right, I was answering the question.
I mean, first of all, his suggested budget cuts $1.5 trillion.
I wish it should be even more.
That is not true.
No, it is.
Okay, you could look it up.
$1.5 trillion would be the equivalent of cutting the entire American military budget and a half.
Where is he getting?
This is number essentially pulled out of $1.59.
Again, the way that we do budgeting in America in a reconciliation process is over multiple budget cycles.
So we're doing three budgets this year.
I don't know how interested people will be in this.
But again, it's wonky.
But again, it literally has $1.5 trillion through this reconciliation process with the largest middle-class tax cut in history.
I wish the cuts would be even more.
Also, to say he's just doing the pandering of the ultra-wealthy, he's advocating for raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
We'll see if that materializes.
That is an income tax.
The ultra-wealthy generally do not take a large portion of their income from an income tax and take it instead from capital gains.
Well, fundamentally, increasing an 8% tax on Elon Musk, who takes $10,000 as a salary or something stupid, will not make any material difference.
This is a straw man argument, and it is obfuscating from the fundamental issue of the government for and run by oligarchs.
It's funny you say that.
You do know the richest people in America vote Democrat almost 85%.
That is fundamentally not true.
Can I finish education?
Okay, again, nine out of ten of the wealthiest counties in America vote Democrat.
If you earn more than $300,000 a year, you have like, you vote Democrat at a 75% clip.
I mean, it is so overwhelmingly the Democrat Party's the party of the rich.
Secondly, though, he's going out of his way to cut taxes for working people.
No tax on tips, no tax on overtimes, the extension of the middle-class tax relief.
Again, I don't know how interesting this is for a UK audience, but more broadly, I was prepared.
Yeah, I'm actually shocked that they're talking about this in the United Kingdom.
President Trump is doing the impossible, something I hope.
This guy just doesn't like Trump very clearly.
I hope your government does.
He is trying to cut taxes for middle-class people while also trying to balance the budget.
I wish he would cut taxes even more.
It's an ambitious project.
We fought wars in the Middle East, largely serving Saudi interests, confronting their enemies on their behalf.
All right, nigga.
Okay, bro.
Yeah, because we're going to go to war with Iran for Saudi Arabia, right?
Get the fuck out of here, man.
Bro.
Can I support him completely in that endeavor?
The extent to which he's attempting to balance the budget is not.
And before you say Iran and Saudi Arabia are enemies, they actually normalized relations last year.
So, um, yeah, you're a retard.
Mr. Cohen.
Necessarily true, given that the budget is currently at a higher deficit this time, this current year, as it was at any point under Biden, or I think any other president in.
Glakizhi says, uh, you're going to speak on the escalation with Russia, the assassination attempt and his response.
Yeah, we could talk about it after.
Maybe I'll do it before I do the Andrew Wilson debate.
History.
I would also point to the fact that suggesting that Democrats overwhelmingly vote wealthy people overwhelmingly vote Democrats is true to a point.
After a certain income, they overwhelmingly evoke Republican because the tax breaks, kind of business interests, and all of that.
Guys, we got 2,700 likes and we got 4,200 of you guys watching the stream right now.
Do me a favor, guys, like the goddamn video.
We're going to be going for a while.
We already got 33,000 views here, man.
Happy to have you guys here.
But like the video, let's get to 3,000 likes and just the best that Republicans offer them.
Given he is attempting, in your own words, to balance the budget, again, coming back to the root issue, why is he defunding the IRS, which brings in money?
Why is he defunding national parks, which makes money?
Why is he engaging in all of this if he is trying to balance the budget?
First of all, some of them, can I just finish my statement?
Is it perhaps because when he defunds the IRS, the wealthiest people, the people that fund his super PACs, people that buy his Trump coins, people that are in fact in his cabinet, generally pay a lower de facto rate of tax because the IRS can no longer fund to actually investigate and audit them.
Okay, so by defunding, again, the IRS is our tax collection agency, if you guys don't know, it's the Internal Revenue Service.
I don't know what it's called here in the UK.
So the equivalent is, number two, that you're not totally wrong about one portion of this, which is that more agents do equal more revenue.
You have to have a tension, though, of do you want to grow the IRS by 87,000 extra agents, which Joe Biden did.
He's trying to peel that back.
Do you believe in, or do you know the Laffer curve?
Are you familiar with it?
I can't say I'm afraid of it.
It's a belief that if you lower taxes, you can actually increase revenues because compliance goes up and economic growth goes up.
We saw this in the United States during Ronald Reagan during a massive tax cut.
It's again, it's called the Laffer curve.
And so that's actually debated just because you cut taxes, you're going to run a deficit.
But you're not totally incorrect.
You are correct.
And I will admit this point: that when you have less IRS agents, you are going to have less revenue.
And I think that it's a good thing generally to have less IRS agents looking into the particulars of Americans.
And we have a history over the last 10 years right now.
Initially, the richest Americans.
Well, not necessarily.
That's the thing.
Is that the richest Americans actually are able to hire the tax attorneys and the accountants to get through IRS issues and get to settlement?
What we see in the data is it actually ends up with middle-class Americans because they do not have the same infrastructure to deal with a very intense IRS agent.
All right.
I'm going to say one of the last thing I think I'm taking too much of your time.
I think it is interesting to suggest that Donald Trump is the only president that is going to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
I've already pointed out the percentage of the potential flaws in that.
I would also draw the audience's attention to the fact that Donald Trump is overwhelmingly backed by, supported by, funded by, and in fact, SAC's cabinet, as I have mentioned by billionaires, and you yourself in Turing Point USA relies relatively heavily on the ultra-wealthy to get their donations.
Somewhat.
For example, Foster Freeze, although sadly trusted.
Yeah, we also have When you were founding, you were overtly reliant on this.
So I would just like to point out that inconsistency.
Thank you, Philip.
Thank you.
Yeah, great.
Thanks.
This might be one of the professors.
Let's see.
Bro, don't even know where the mic is.
Marvelous.
Thank you.
A very, very short question.
Israel versus Hamas.
Good guy versus bad guy.
Russia versus Ukraine.
Who's the good guy and who's the bad guy?
Both are bad, one is worse.
Which way around?
Russia is worse than Ukraine.
Okay, so why haven't we pursued that?
What do you mean?
Well, it seems to me that in the whole of the current U.S. proposition, that Ukraine is being the bad guy.
In what way?
We funded Ukraine upwards to $200 billion.
Absolutely.
We just signed a mineral deal with Ukraine, not Russia.
But you are expecting Ukraine to give up 20% of its territory to someone who invaded it.
Well, is Crimea part of Russia or Ukraine?
Ukraine.
That's where we don't agree.
Well, I'm afraid that's part of international treaty.
That's not up for grants.
Well, it's interesting.
I mean, that's even Zelensky has said he's willing to give up Ukraine.
America signed the agreement that gave Ukraine Crimea.
Right.
When the Soviet Union ended.
Right.
It was done.
First of all, it never should have been done.
It was largely ceremonial.
However, it was annexed under Obama.
Yes, and it was a mistake.
And it should be given back to Russia as a sign of good gesture to end this conflict.
But who's currently controlling Crimea?
Where was the Russian Navy headquartered in World War II?
Where was the end of World War II stand?
This is very important.
I'm not doubting that.
I'm just saying that if we're being logical on what has happened, that you are now arguing against that flag.
And I don't understand it.
Crimea is Russian, bro.
Like, the people that live there are ethnically Russian.
Most of Eastern Europe is ethnically Russian.
I'm sorry, Eastern Ukraine.
Like, it's Russian, bro.
Like, at the end of the day, this whole thing of let's send for Ukraine, it's an owl, man.
And we only have ourselves to blame for this shit.
We've been promising Russia for fucking decades that we would not expand NATO, and we have, and then they fucking came back and attacked.
Here's another hot take.
Some of you guys might or might not agree with me here in the fucking chat, but I'm going to fucking say it.
Putin had more justification to invade Ukraine than we had to invade Iraq.
And I know some people are not going to like to hear that, but that's the reality.
Because in one situation, Iraq posed no real threat to us whatso fucking ever.
They didn't have nuclear bombs.
They didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
The only reason that we went and attacked them because dumbass Nanyao came in and said, if we take out Saddam, it's going to cause positive reverberations all across the region.
Remember that shit when he said that in 2002?
And then we went ahead and invaded it, and then we've been stuck in the Middle East ever fucking since.
Okay?
They posed no strategic threat to the United States.
However, Ukraine did pose significant security threats to Russia.
As NATO was expanding and we were setting up missiles and all this other bullshit in Ukraine, the NATO forces were there, we were getting closer and closer to Moscow.
So I would argue, if we're going to sit here and say, we condemn Russia for invading, guess what?
We're even more guilty for invading Iraq.
And you could take that one to the fucking bank.
Actually, why is Ukraine the bad guy?
No, I said they're bad.
They're not the bad guy.
Yeah, well, you said they were both bad, but one was more bad.
Correct.
Yes.
So why is Ukraine bad?
Well, there's a lot wrong with Ukraine.
First of all, they're not.
They're the most corrupt country in Europe.
They take their money from their taxpayers and they're supposed to build roads and make the country better, but it goes to fucking oligarchs, Jewish oligarchs at that, by the way.
Right?
Kolominsky and all these other weirdos.
Yeah, bro.
It's a fucked up country.
One of the poorest countries in Europe, right?
Alongside, what's another poor country?
Romania, Ukraine, Moldova, right?
Ukraine might be the poorest country in Europe now, alongside Moldova.
So, dude, like, absolutely cooked.
The only reason that we give Ukraine so much support is because they're kind of our front lines against Russia.
We use them as a proxy.
Not a democracy.
And Putin said, fuck that shit.
You guys are fucking up my national security.
I'm going in here.
It is what it is, man.
We shouldn't have kept expanding NATO.
NATO's a waste of time anyway.
I don't know why the fuck we contribute so much to it.
Zelensky refuses to hold an election.
Well, no, he can't hold an election.
Oh, wait, did Churchill hold an election during the war?
Because under his constitution.
Lincoln held election during the war.
That's not true.
He can call an election.
He can call a snap election.
He's full dictator of the country.
No.
Because he knows that the people of Ukraine would kick him out immediately because he's deeply unpopular.
In fact, if he wanted to show a statement to the world, he would call an election and win by 80% and say, see, I'm super popular.
So that's number one.
I have a problem with that.
I have a problem with a person being propped up as a government we're sending $200 billion to that refuses even to face his voters.
Okay, I can't agree with you thank you on that at all.
Constitutionally, Ukraine is not able to hold an election.
Well, Nanyao is kind of doing the same thing, Charlie, but you don't shit on him for that.
Not holding elections, you know, just taking absolute power, being a dictator.
Nanyao is kind of doing the same thing, bro.
And Nanyao was in the middle of a corruption trial when October 7 broke out.
And now he conveniently doesn't have to deal with that.
So come on, Charlie.
Because it's under military law at the moment.
And that's just a matter of time.
Again, he can, as a prime minister or president, he can do whatever he wants.
He can't.
We're going to just go back to the city.
He can't get an executive order and change their constitution.
Neither can the American president either.
So, okay, hopefully this will happen.
He could even do a ceremonial election to see where he actually stands with the people.
I think we call those opinion polls.
Yes, and they're very negative.
Again, but you would agree that a person that holds on to power without the election of the sovereign is pretty questionable.
No, not in those circumstances.
Okay.
Then we disagree.
No, okay.
That's fine.
That's fine.
But give me another reason why you couldn't.
They are the most corrupt country in Europe that never even met the most remote standards of joining NATO.
Do you not know where a lot of this money is going?
I don't disagree that there is a problem with corruption, but the most corrupt country in Europe.
Are you sure about that?
I'd have to think, I'd have to double or triple think about that, but they're very corrupt.
So it's a little bit down, so it's not absolutely correct.
I mean, well, would you say corruption, right?
I mean, you know, let's face it, we are talking about comparison with some of the states you're doing business with in the Gulf.
Of course, but we're not giving them money.
They're giving us money.
That's a difference, right?
Saudi Arabia is fine.
Well, hold on a second.
It's morally acceptable.
Take money from corrupt people.
Well, hold on.
First of all, as far as morally acceptable, you do what's best in the benefit of your country.
And so, for example, we were allied with Russia during the Second World War, and I'm glad we were.
And I would ask you, don't forget, how much money is too much money to send to Ukraine?
We're at 200 billion right now.
I don't think you have to send any more money to Ukraine.
We agree.
I think you have to agree to support them as a free country and perhaps sell them weapons.
I'm not very happy to sell weapons to less free countries.
And I think Europe will pick up the slank as we ought to.
And I don't disagree with some of the comments about Europe not looking after its own security.
I just don't get this approach, which was supposedly to end the war quickly, which now seems to be elongating it.
And in doing so, it's throwing up a smokescreen of very variable facts, if they are facts at all, about how things occurred, which actually isn't helping things.
And if people can't see that Putin is stalling, I'm just agree with you.
I think he might be stalling.
And therefore, and I think even your president has acknowledged the fact that he thinks he might be stalling.
That's correct.
So we don't have a disagreement there.
No, no, we don't.
No, I mean, there's no disagreement about the efficacy of tactics.
And we don't know.
And I'm willing to say we could be wrong.
No.
Well, of course you could be wrong in life.
I mean, we could all be wrong.
But actually bringing that war to an end consistently.
Well, the reason why he's stalling is because he can.
That's why.
Let's just be very honest here, guys, okay?
The reality is simply this: he's winning the war.
He's got all the leverage.
He wants to get certain territory, and he's not going to stop until he gets that territory.
And really, the other countries are powerless to stop him.
It is what it is.
He's keeping everyone at bay because if anyone actually interferes with their actual actual real military, he has nuclear weapons.
So that's an enormous deterrent.
So what that forces Ukraine to do is all they're getting is aid.
They're getting weapons.
They're getting maybe some training and some stuff like that.
But they're not getting everything because they know that if the NATO powers know that if they bring their real soldiers in, right, or bring NATO troops in and actually get on the ground and have boots on the ground and actually fight, we're talking about escalating things to a point where you're escalating against a nuclear power.
And Russia has the capability of destroying all these other European countries.
So them having nuclear weapons is keeping the other NATO powers at bay and making it where they're only stuck in an assist position of giving aid and money and weapons, but they can't actually fight it out.
This is why Ukraine is struggling to find soldiers to help fight this war.
So he doesn't have to come to the table.
He doesn't have to negotiate, right?
And we all have ourselves to blame for this.
Really?
NATO got drunk with power, expanded too much.
He kept warning them.
And now this is what happens.
Fuck around and find out quite literally against us now.
So we're in a bad position.
And he has no reason to negotiate.
That's why Trump struck this mineral deal because he could not solve this problem as fast as he thought he could.
So he's like, you know what?
If we're going to keep supporting, because here's the thing, Trump's thing.
Trump came in and said, yo, we're spending way too much money on this.
We've got to end the war.
He tells Putin, hey, we're going to give you guys this amount of land, blah, blah.
Putin's like, nah, that's not good enough.
And he doesn't have to negotiate.
He really doesn't.
We're the ones in a weak position here.
He's winning the war.
He has the leverage.
He has the territory.
And they got the meat grinder of a bunch of troops.
So they can let time go ahead and work to their advantage.
That's where we are.
They don't have to negotiate, chat.
And the reason why Trump struck the mineral deal is because he's like, damn, if we're going to stay in this conflict longer, at least we might as well make some money in it or offset some of the money that we're spending on this conflict.
That's why he struck the mineral deal.
That's the real reason he struck it.
Actually, isn't going very well.
And I would just suggest to you that whatever tactics have been used are perhaps not the best.
And they are certainly inconsistent with what's going on in the Middle East and how America has been treating politics in the Middle East.
But I don't.
I've had enough of your time.
That's a fair contention.
Thank you very much.
Very much indeed.
Thank you.
And the final question that we've got time for today is from Sammy McDonald from St. John's College.
Thank you.
I remember seeing a clips of this guy.
This is a Palestine guy.
Dude looks crazy.
I ain't gonna lie.
That hair is wild.
Good evening, Mr. Kirk.
You've obviously devoted a lot of your life to electing, keeping in power Donald Trump.
And you did so partly because you said Trump would put Americans first and take them out of foreign conflicts.
Should we see how that is going at the moment?
Currently, Trump has just accepted a $400 million debt from Qatar, which we're assured is perfectly above board.
Billions in arms are going to Saudi Arabia, which they're using to bomb and starve Yemeni children.
Not sure how that's in the interest of the United States, but it might be in the interest of the $5.5 billion deal his fail sons are receiving.
At the same time, this great president of peace has greenlit mass killings not just in Yemen, but in Gaza, where he greenlit an invasion called Operation Gideon's Chariot with the express aim of wiping out the Gazan population.
I told you guys about this operation.
Started up last week.
And they are absolutely running another campaign that's going to be even worse as Gideon's chariot.
They are going to 100% occupy Gaza, guys.
And they're sending all of the Palestinians to like one or two areas right now.
Andrew Cohen says, How can you say Israel has more influence on U.S. foreign policy than the Saudis?
We get from the Saudis, we get more from the Saudis than Israel, so it makes sense why we fight worse for them.
Bro, you're a fucking retard.
Did we put boots on the ground in Yemen, bro?
Did we?
No, we didn't.
But we put boots on the ground in fucking Iraq, and who did that benefit?
Israel.
Okay?
This guy is fucking wild.
We don't have a bunch of Saudi lobbyists that control our politicians and ensure that we pass legislation that benefits Saudi Arabia, bro.
Yo, I love, bro.
I love how these fucking Zionists come in my chat and try to sit here and tell me, no, it's the Saudis, bro.
They influence.
Shut the fuck up.
Shut up.
You guys are so fucking mad that we're exposing you niggas for literally running this country and subverting our government for fucking decades.
And now people are finally starting to wake up.
And you motherfuckers want to come in here and run fucking cover and say, no, it's actually Qatar.
It's the Saudis.
They're the ones that run American politics.
Shut the fuck up, bro.
Population.
You promised to put America first.
Haven't you and your ilk sold America out?
No.
Yeah.
Well, I'm glad you have great intellectual substance and can answer.
Because it's all the culture wars for you, isn't it?
The second someone actually tells you what you're doing, which you just read.
Can you calm down a little bit, like just a little bit?
Pounding the table, you're all over the place.
No, you want me to go piece by piece, or would you like me to talk slower?
I think you can.
Joe Biden gave the government well, can it's going well?
Can you not interrupt me?
I allowed you to talk uninterrupted.
You're famous for not interrupting.
Yeah, I haven't interrupted a single person here today.
Yeah, that's true.
Charlie didn't let him interrupt.
This guy's being a little bitch about that.
Like, bro, let the guy talk.
Can I speak on interruption?
I actually agree with this guy on the foreign policy side, but let Charlie talk, bro.
Interrupted, actually.
He is convening a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
I believe we will see an end to that war.
Number two, he's actually talking to Iran and discouraging Israel to strike the interior of Iran and has stopped many other international countries to do the same.
Number three, can you give him credit for ending the Indian-Pakistan war?
Both of them said he didn't do that.
Well, hold on.
Let's go back.
No, no, no, that's in Russia-Ukraine.
Can I speak now?
Yes, but the Indian-Pakistan thing, you got to go deeper than that.
Let's go with, let's go in order.
Is a peace summit where the main person in question, Russia, doesn't show up.
Is that a success, Mr. Kirk?
I'm not even sure.
I'm not even sure.
Is that a success?
Well, again, these are ongoing negotiations, and it's a lot better than when your prime minister, Boris Johnson, went alongside our Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, to Istanbul and unnecessarily blew up a potential Russian peace deal, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians, one of the great unnecessary wars of the modern era.
Donald Trump believes in conversation and police through strength.
He has been president for well over 120 to 130 days, and he has already ended a war between two nuclear conflicts of India-Pakistan.
He has secured our own U.S.-southern border while we were being invaded by foreign powers.
And thirdly, he is brokering a potential settlement with Iran that will prevent a major escalation in the Middle East.
And finally, it is very difficult, but I believe they'll get it done, that will finally see an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war.
I'm just going to disregard the enormous lies you just put out there about Russia and Ukraine.
But do you really think leverage negotiations work if you cut off all your leverage and scream at one party in the Oval Office?
Don't you think that has just emboldened Russia?
Because look at the approach.
Putin thinks so much of your glorious president, he can't even be asked to show up.
You have elected or helped elect somebody who is at best an idiot and at worst is deeply corrupt.
Okay, again, so Trump and Putin had a two-hour phone call today.
You'll acknowledge that's a good thing.
The pursuit of peace can sometimes be a winding road, and it's a lot better than sending hundreds of billions of dollars further into the killing fields of eastern Ukraine, something that tragically both the UK government and the U.S. government has been unnecessarily supporting for a couple of years.
President Trump wants to see a brokerage, an ending of this settlement.
I pray we can get it.
It's very complicated because of the mess that Joe Biden left, which was an active kinetic war with a nuclear power sending American-made missiles into the interior of Russia.
So President Trump has already ended a war.
He's ended an invasion.
He's only 130 days into this.
And I believe.
And also, I mean, you know, this guy's trying to write off the fact that Trump talked to him on the phone for two hours.
That's a big fucking deal.
Guys, keep in mind, during the Biden administration, he had not talked to Putin for years.
Okay?
There was zero talk with Russia, zero talk with the Kremlin, zero talk with Putin.
So the fact that he spoke to him on the phone for two hours is a development.
Now, is he going to end this war anytime soon?
I don't know, chat.
I'll be honest with y'all.
But he's doing a lot better than fucking than Biden did.
We do not know.
At this point, we are merely speculating, which I think we should not spend our time doing that, because eventually one of us will be right.
I believe we'll be right, and I believe we'll see an end to this war.
Can we just talk about 100 billions worth of weapons?
Because you dodged my question on what was going on in the Middle East, where Trump has just signed enormous arms contracts with Saudi Arabia and with Qatar.
And I noticed you ignored the fact that this might have had anything to do with the blatant corruption going on through the Trump coin and going on through giving the very competent sons of Donald Trump billions of investment from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
This is something that is directly embroiling Americans into conflict, but is importantly killing many innocent people.
Those nations have been known to terrorize innocent civilian populations.
So if you're coming to me and you're objecting to America selling weaponry, why are you defending shilling for the Saudis?
Well, hold on.
One is sending weaponry.
One is purchasing.
Secondly, you do know that the biggest purchase that was announced.
I ain't going to lie.
This guy with the red hair does look kind of crazy, bro.
I don't know what's wrong with Bro's lips.
It's look like he got punched in the face or something.
But anyway, let's keep going.
We've heard of Qatar Airways.
They purchase $100 billion of commercial airways.
You are right.
There were some weapons contracts.
But I guess the question is: would you rather have Saudi Arabia buy weapons from America or China?
I'd rather they not have American weaponry at cut price rates.
I disagree.
Let's talk about Qatar for a second.
Okay, fine.
You mentioned Qatar.
You've been talking a lot about Hamas and the evils of Hamas.
Can I ask you, who's the main funder of Hamas?
Well, the Palestate?
Well, the West actually funds Hamas.
Which state?
Well, Iran funds Hamas.
No, no, no.
Where are the Hamas leaders?
And also, Qatar funds Hamas.
It is a combination of international police organizations.
Hold on, first of all, it was not given to him personally.
I understand the optics of it, but it was not given to him personally.
It was given to the U.S. government.
And under that standard, no U.S. government should ever receive any gifts from any foreign countries whatsoever.
It's not given to him personally and not a violation of the moment.
He's not going to give it to his personal libraries.
He's actually.
Okay, again, he sent out a statement.
This is way too in the weeds.
If you want to keep on going it, we can.
It's a fundamental moral principle.
So, under that fundamental moral principle, then, can you acknowledge, though, that President Trump is getting more done in a less period of time than any president we've seen, while our prior president did not even know what year he got elected?
You understand the contrast here.
What about issues again?
I'm not a defender of the world.
No, I'm not saying President Trump is far better than the person you spent millions on.
I will defend every day of someone who ends an invasion who brings down the price of oil, who is revitalizing the American economy, who's brokering peace, who stopped the potential nuclear war, who is bringing Iran to the table and bringing Russia to the table, someone who does not want armed conflicts with the greatest powers of our time.
I will defend that endlessly in a fantasy world of your own creation.
So, it's quite hard to engage that, but then disprove it.
But let's check on how Trump is doing in terms of diplomacy.
Look, with the war in the Middle East, do you think it was a defensible decision to tell the Israelis you wanted Trump Gaza to agree for Israel to invade the Gaza Strip and to continue to murder thousands of innocent children and civilians in a pointless war?
Is that in America's interest?
Is that in humanity?
Well, first of all, you should know some about Trump.
There's something if you realize with Trump over the last 10 years, he is quite the social media user and uses hyperbolic language at times.
But let me ask you: in the conflict of Israel versus Hamas, who's the good guy?
I believe both Hamas and the Israeli government are evil, but I think also that there is no justification.
Are they equally justification for the murder and mutilation of thousands of innocent people and children?
Like the futile.
There is no justification.
Yeah, I can agree with him on that.
Here's the thing, though.
I find it interesting.
Like, see, Charlie's in a hard spot here because this is the problem.
Since Turning Point USA is so in bed with the Trump organization, the Trump administration, he has to defend all of Trump's bullshit policies.
And this is a problem when you're, you know, one of these political commentators where you have an allegiance to a party or to a candidate, whatever.
Kirk cannot criticize Trump.
He can't.
He is in bed with the Trump administration.
I mean, I would argue that Charlie Kirk was a pivotal person in helping Trump secure the young man's vote.
Turning point USA was huge in the Trump administration getting him elected.
So Kirk is in a rock in a hard place because he can't criticize Trump here, guys.
So this guy is basically kind of beating up on him a bit on the bad sides of Trump when it comes to Middle Eastern foreign policy.
And Kirk really can't do much because even if he disagrees with it, he can't say it outwardly.
So, you know, he's putting a pretty bad spot here because I mean, I agree mostly what this ginger weirdo here is saying a lot with the Middle Eastern stuff.
I mean, I agree that most of Trump's moves in the Middle East is a fucking failure.
But that's because the Israel lobby control.
The Israel lobby has an enormous amount of influence on Trump, unfortunately.
And like I told you guys before, I explained to y'all that if Trump did not win this election, he'd be in federal prison right now.
So he had to strike a deal with the Adelsons, with the tech bros, with the Silicon Valley Jews and Zionists.
It is what it is, man.
But this is putting Charlie in a hard spot because now he's got to defend even the bad policies that Trump has in place.
For invading hospitals, for bombing innocent populations, and dragging out a war which is damaging Israel and the West.
You've made that point.
It's not a point.
It's a moral truth.
Okay, yeah.
It was also a moral truth that the war started because 1,300 Jews were killed and 200 were taken hostage.
When you declare war on Israel, expect a firestorm in reaction.
Let me finish.
I let you talk.
Israel had its holiest day of the calendar year, besides Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, Samat Torah, the 50-year anniversary of the six-day war.
On Shabbat, Hamas invaded Israel.
As usual, this is the typical Zionist talking point.
They always start with October 7th.
They never start with what led to October 7th.
Keep this in mind, guys.
Every time you have a pro-Israel apologist speaking, they're going to start on October 7th.
They never talk about the Nakba.
They never talk about them taking land.
They never talk about the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
They never talk about the Abraham Accords.
They never talk about Netanyahu trying to destroy the Oslo Accords that Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak were being signed in the 90s under Clinton.
They never talk about any of that stuff.
They just started October 7th as if Hamas just attacked these Israelis for no fucking reason.
They always started October 7th, dude.
And by the way, 1,300 Israelis were not killed by Hamas.
It was far less because we know that the Hannibal Directive was activated that day.
We know that people were kidnapped that day.
So it was not 1,300 killed by Hamas.
Now, did Hamas kill innocent people that day?
Absolutely.
Is that deplorable?
Absolutely.
Unacceptable kill innocent people, regardless of where they're from.
But the point is this: the Israelis don't understand and don't cherish life the way that I do, where I look at both Israeli life and Palestinian life as being precious.
They only look at Israeli life as being precious.
Okay?
And in this case, they don't even look at Israeli life as being precious if it means that that Israeli life is going to be kidnapped by Palestinians and used for hostage leverage later on, hence the Hannibal Directive.
So they don't even care about their own fucking people.
So the reality is to say Hamas killed 1,300 people is a lie.
They did not.
We know for a fact that Apache helicopter shot hellfire missiles and killed a significant amount of Israelis on that day.
We know that for a fact.
We know that tanks were shooting into the kibbutzes on October 7th, not really giving a fuck who was in there.
They're more concerned with Israelis not being taken as hostage to create a diplomacy nightmare than actually ensuring that the hostages weren't being kidnapped or rescuing the hostages.
So when Kirk says 1,300 Israelis were killed on October 7th, that's not true.
And that to start it October 7th is absolutely fucking ludicrous.
Absolutely ludicrous.
That's basically telling the story from the beginning, from the middle.
You cannot do that, Charlie.
And this is what every single Zionist apologist does.
They always started October 7th.
And the problem is that they don't want to start from before that because they understand that if you go back, then you realize that Israel is not as innocent as you think.
Israel deciding to go recklessly to music concerts, to homes, to kibbutz, and taking 200-plus hostages.
They knew what they were doing.
In one of the most cloistered urban environments on the planet, 2 million people live in a place where it's impossible to wage war.
Impossible.
Where they wear civilian clothing, they violate every tenant of the Geneva Convention.
And the IDF, when they do something right, they get no credit.
When they do life-saving surgeries of a Gazan child, they get no credit.
When they drive leaflets, drop leaflets, they get no credit.
But when they happen to bomb a place where they are operating their military from, which we now know from third-party verified sources, hundreds of Hamas military operations are in mosques, schools, and hospitals.
I'm sorry, the country where they were living in relative peace on October 6th, that all of a sudden we had a war and Hamas started the war.
And I don't see people that were really upset about the 2 million Germans that were killed in World War II civilians.
A tragic truth of war is that civilians die.
I don't like it and you don't like it.
And they brought it upon themselves.
The only operation in entity to blame is the leadership of Hamas, not the Israeli government, for fighting this defensive war after they were invaded.
Notice how he said, one of the ugly things about war is that civilians die.
But didn't he just say that 1,300 civilians were killed?
So notice how he's putting far more care and attention to the 1,300 that were killed versus the tens of thousands that were killed after the fact.
And that's the problem when these Zionist apologists, man, they don't value Palestinian life.
They won't admit it.
Sometimes they do, but they don't give a fuck about Palestinian life.
Because he's saying, in other words, these 1,300 that were killed justify the 50 to 100,000 plus that were killed.
That's what he's basically saying here.
It's not symmetrical whatso fucking ever.
No defender, the terrible pogrom that was launched against Jews on that day.
But the justification for the death of innocents cannot be an infinite cycle of bloodlust.
It cannot be killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians with a war with no end in sight, people who were not complicit in those atrocities.
It cannot be bombing hospitals which children use.
It cannot be bombing hospitals in which cancer patients are dying and starving in there.
The deaths that have been inflicted, nobody knows the true toll, but somewhere between 50 and 100,000 people lie dead under the rubble.
And what is left for Gaza except for it to continue to suffer under Hamas?
Because it turns out Netanyahu's political strategy has not worked.
It has entrenched Hamas within the territories.
To be a Christian, I would have thought, Mr. Kirk, would never have involved suggesting that the price for an atrocity must be an infinite cycle of bloodlust, that innocent people and the young population must be killed to avenge some kind of providential press.
How can you call yourself a Christian?
Well, you just did.
I want to make sure we get our moral clarity straight before we proceed.
No one likes what's happening in Gaza.
No one with a heart or a soul or a mind likes when kids die.
But you must understand who started the conflict so that you could end it correctly.
And until Hamas brokers an unconditional surrender, of which they are unwilling to do, they could release the hostages and drop their weapons and their lives would be spared.
Instead, they are using children of Gaza as cannon fodder, financed by the Iranian mullahs and dragging the entire world into this conflict.
I don't even know what we're debating at this point, other than I believe that Israel, I believe the facts, Israel was unconditionally attacked on October 7th.
They're responding in kind.
And I would just ask you a very simple moral question: How should Israel have responded?
Oh, shit, here we go.
Let's see what he says, and I'll tell you guys.
Not with the blanket carpet bombing of the city, not with bombing hospitals.
Of course, some kind of military operation might have been necessary, but not murder on this scale.
There is no justification for what is happening with the enormous death toll that is being produced.
I really cannot see how you come here and you have the ghoul to lecture us on Christian morality and then sit here and justify the murder of thousands of civilians.
And is it working?
It's a mass dispenser.
You never said that.
You just did.
Well, no, this is your home.
In war, these are called casualties of a war.
Thanks to stopping this.
I'm not going to justify every military maneuver of a 100,000-person army.
Casualties of war when it's Israelis killing Palestinians, but an atrocity when 1,300 Israelis are killed.
Interesting.
Instead, what I will do is I'll be clear that there is a good guy and there is a bad guy.
I'm, I honestly...
Isn't that the morality of a child?
Well, hold on.
It's interesting you say that.
Because a child who knows that Israel is the good guy, Hamas is bad, has a lot more wisdom than a student like yourself at Cambridge University.
I will be glad that I will not have been somebody who has defended the genocide of the Palestinian people.
And I think you will have to reckon one day that you have reckoned.
Interesting.
I want to tell you this.
So can you tell me what African country is currently ongoing a civil war?
Believe it or not, I know about Sudan.
Good media.
How about what Southeast Asian country has an ethnic cleansing going on right now?
Good.
And you have strong opinions on both sides?
Unlike you, I take an effort to be informed about foreign policy and to come to conclusions.
You are a culture warrior.
I believe when everything is done, Mr. Kirk, people will see you and the people you've supported as corrupt, as selling the country out to the lowest bidder, and of doing irreparable damage to a country I'm sure we all deep down love.
The difference is when.
Kirk, let him just walk off like that.
I don't say anything.
That's fucking pathetic.
Should have said something, bro.
So here's the thing.
Since the guy couldn't answer the question, this is what Israel should have done, right?
They have the ability to have missiles, guys, that can take out floors.
They have precise targeting.
This is a fucking country that ran bombs in pagers and walkie-talkies for 10 fucking years.
Okay?
They do intelligence operations where they're killing members of Hamas all the time secretly, right?
They're doing clandestine operations.
They're doing false flags.
They literally assassinated Ismail Hanea in Tehran, Iran.
Okay?
They killed them in the ops place.
All right?
So Israel has a capability of doing these high-level operations.
So for them to sit there and just carbo-bomb Gaza, right, and say, oh, self-defense when they have way more capability is completely unacceptable because I know that Israeli intelligence and Israeli military are far more capable than that.
Israel has one of the best intelligence agencies in the world.
I would put them right there with the CIA.
Be honest with you guys.
I'll put them right there with the CIA.
Mossad and Amman and Shinbet and UNIT 8200, et cetera.
They have some of the best intelligence agencies in the fucking world.
So when they say, oh, what should have Israel done?
Well, for one, you have these precise bombs.
For two, you have informants all over the fucking place.
For three, you guys have the capability of doing these clandestine operations.
For four, you have a bunch of Palestinian agents, right, that speak perfect Arabic, are Palestinian and Israelis that can go in and fucking do shit undercover.
So, yes, it would have been slower, but they could have got it done.
But here's the thing: Netanyahu needed something to justify a war in the Middle East to go after Iran, and October 7th was it.
That's the reality.
That's the reality.
And they wanted to get rid of these guys in Gaza and take over Gaza anyway.
So they killed two birds with one stone.
They get the war that they wanted in the Middle East.
And now they're able to have a justification for occupying Gaza under the premise of self-defense.
That's why they're bombing it indiscriminately and they don't give a fuck.
Here's the other thing, too.
They're bombing Gaza above ground, but they complain and say, Oh, well, they're hiding amongst the population in tunnels.
So, if they're hiding in tunnels, why the fuck are you guys bombing above ground?
I'll tell you why.
Because the goal the whole time was to take over that area, it was to occupy the Gaza Strip like we see right now.
Okay, that is why.
So, anyway, very, very interesting.
But, Charlie, I find it interesting how Charlie is so much more interested in the Israeli lives versus the Palestinian lives.
And he always starts at October 7th.
I missed the best part.
What are you talking about?
The difference is when we get our way, we'll still have a country and your country will be a third world hellhole.
Yeah, England is cooked, England is cooked.
Okay, let's go here.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever had to answer.
Oh, my position on feminism is that it's terrible for society.
As we go through, all right, this is them giving their positions.
All right, now we're gonna segue into the next topic, guys.
We got 4,200 of you guys in here.
We got a longer stream for you, ninjas.
It's debate night.
I might make a certain night that's debate night for you guys.
Maybe we'll make like Tuesdays or Thursdays debate night for you, ninjas, where I just analyze debates.
Seems like you guys really like this stuff, guys.
Um, like the video, let's get to 4,000 likes.
We're 1,000 away.
We got 4,200 you guys watching on YouTube.
We got another 1,600.
We got about 6,000, roughly, yeah, almost 6,000 you guys in here.
So, guys, do me a favor, like the goddamn video.
All right, smash that like button, smash that goddamn like button, ninjas.
I'll read some of these chats.
Um, we got here, um, time again says, Hello, Myron Felicity, Nees American here in the tech industry, serious about pivoting to faceless YouTube.
I'm curious if you have any advice or even tidbits that not many consider before I'm seeing this space.
I could reach out in DMs if it's easier.
Um, we have an episode, bro, on um, on automating on YouTube, like, um, with different types of uh, like having one of these automated channels.
Uh, go ahead and watch it.
I forget who the guy is that we did it with, but go check him out.
Type in like automation on YouTube and you'll and you'll see it.
It's a video that we did a couple, like a year ago or so.
Um, let's see what else we got here.
Smash that like button, guys.
We're at 3,000.
Let's get to 4,000.
Um, let's see what else here, uh, chats.
We got guys, 5,000 up.
Valexia says, Didn't Israel start the war with Russia and Ukraine so that Israel can prevent their adversaries getting possible aid from Russia like a distraction?
No, I don't think so, bro.
I don't think so.
Um, let me give me one sec here.
I'll also have this video ready as well since you guys...
Where the hell did it go?
At the core of this breakdown is digital leverage.
Okay, so we'll watch this real quick.
This is what drama said before, and this just traps the chat.
The chat's gonna make fun of you, bro.
Women used to need male protection, provision, and leadership.
Now, all they need is a phone, a filter, and a follower count.
That little rectangle in their hand gave them access to attention, validation, and resources from men worldwide.
So, why settle for one man when the algorithm can drip feed you dopamine 24/7?
This changed the dating market forever.
Men didn't get worse, women just gained options.
The average guy didn't fall off, he got outhyped.
He's not competing with the neighbor anymore, he's competing with celebrities, blue checks, and six-figure earners who slide into DMs from three times.
This nigga watches Fresh Shafit.
And the cool twist, that power isn't even real, it's artificial status propped up by thirsty simps and temporary trends.
All right, bro.
We've all heard this before.
Nigga really sent me a video of my own talking points.
All right, uh, that wasn't the full debate.
They removed that kid's comments about Gaza, the part where Kirk Simps for Israel and the flex mod.
I'm on Castle Club.
I have the link to the full debate.
Um, where is it?
Uh, our got me uh, cover zone.
Hey, Mar, and you're gonna also finish the stream with Jordan Peterson 28th.
Probably not, bro.
That shit sucks.
It was disappointing to watch.
Rolo said you have been invited to UK.
I don't know.
Slot says, Andrew Wilson would destroy these broads.
Okay, Let the same people fight over their rocks and keep America out of it.
America first.
All right, straightway, Mel.
Through this, I'll kind of flesh that view out using what I call force doctrine so that you can understand why I have that same set.
But force doctrine basically just states that while feminism definitionally is the movement towards egalitarianism and equity for the removal of patriarchal systems, that feminists will always have to appeal to patriarchy in order to try to remove patriarchy, which is ironically hilarious.
But a few things I wanted to get to first is that I went through several hours of my opponent's content, and I've actually not ever seen her make a single argument for anything that she believes.
I've seen her assert a lot of things, but not an argument for anything she actually believes.
So I have some notes here, and I was hoping she could help me clear some of these things up.
From the surrounded September 8th, 2024 episode, she says abortion is murder.
Or I'm sorry, the prompt is abortion is murder and should be illegal.
She asked for a viability time for 20 weeks and thinks abortion before 20 weeks is acceptable.
She says the fetus is technically classified as a parasite.
The fetus cannot exist outside of the womb and therefore is a parasite.
The actual definitions don't support this.
An organism living in on or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, multiply.
That would be an actual definition of a parasite or someone or something that resembles a biological parasite living off of being dependent on or exploring another.
Fetuses can't fit that definitionally.
Fetus is the same species.
Biological parasites are classified as other, not the same species.
Also, mutual biology.
Mothers and fetus co-adapt, and mothers are actually healthier while they're pregnant.
So they can't really be a parasite.
And parasites are rarely temporary, and fetuses are.
So none of that fits the criteria for a parasite.
Myron, please don't read this chat.
I'm sorry, nutrient streak of unread chats, chat number 12.
Okay, Nigel.
Well, streak is over.
On her video, Middle Ground, Progressives versus Moderates, and this is from January 19th.
She says the prompt is: Does the thousand, guys, let's get to 4,000 now.
Far left make Democrats lose elections.
She said Kamala was not progressive enough, not far left enough.
She talks about how women's rights are being stripped, but didn't give any examples of what those are.
So I'm actually really confused about a lot of her positions, including in her rematch against Charlie Kirk.
That happened March 5th, 2025, why DEI is unlawful.
Her rebuttal to Kirk was bizarre.
It just had something to do with there's no racial factor in DEI, even though Kirk gave a pretty good rebuttal for that.
So I'd like her to kind of dive into what she actually believes within the paradigm of feminism.
But for my positive position, I will say I have a logical argument called force doctrine.
And my logical argument called force doctrine refutes the feminist ideology and it just works as I explained before that patriarchy must always be appealed to in order to try to eliminate patriarchy.
Women can't enforce their own rights collectively and men can.
Therefore, women always have to appeal collectively to men for their rights.
So you're always going to essentially have a patriarch.
I agree 100%.
I make this argument all the time on the show.
And honestly, this defeats feminist rhetoric immediately.
Patriarchy through force doctrine, and there's nothing women can do about that.
So I'm willing to logically go through that and have it examined rigorously.
But I'm hoping that with that, you can also just.
I also add in that men create everything.
So Andrew uses the force doctrine, which I think is a fantastic argument.
I use it as well.
But I also add in the fact that men contribute far more to society than women do, significantly more.
And that's a fact.
Men are the majority of revolutionary inventors.
They are the ones that make a lot of, that make pretty much everything that allows us to live the comfortable modern life that we live now.
Women don't really invent and/or create anything innovating.
Rather, they just kind of hang out and chill and enjoy the benefits that men have created for them and then go and try to say that, oh, yeah, feminism is great when they don't really do anything.
So I add in the fact also that men contribute far more to society than women do as well.
Describe your positions so that I understand them better.
All right, let's see her positions.
Me and Andrew agree 100% when it comes to the problems with feminism.
And this one, honestly, I think if it was us two against anybody, it would be really bad for the other party.
All right.
Thank you, Andrew.
If you'd like to give your opening statement, yes, thank you, Andrew.
You know, I do think that that is an interesting claim that I don't, you know, state my arguments because I've actually been watching some of your content and I've noticed kind of a similar trend as well within these debates.
Bruh.
He literally gives his positions before every single debate and gives a fucking monologue, you lying fucking whore.
Bro, I've moderated multiple debates for Andrew Wilson, and I know this for a fact since I'm the moderator.
When I contact him and the other debater, I literally ask, how much time do you guys want to give your monologue?
And he gets, what, typically three to five minutes, and he states his position every single time at the beginning of the debate.
And that is a lie that this girl is giving.
And I don't know that from intimate knowledge of moderating debates for him.
So that's not true whatsoever that she's saying that.
Oh, he doesn't give his position either.
That's not true.
It's where you will ask your debater questions, but will not put forth your argument, including in your opening statement.
You know, you state for its doctrine, but instead of elaborating on it.
Liar.
Liar, man.
Wow.
Dude, she's been talking for just a few seconds and she's lying already.
Wow.
Holy.
Why don't you consistently talk about what I've talked about, which only one of those topics was actually related to feminism?
Now, when it comes to my actual beliefs, I think my goal and my hope for this country is to see us advance as a society.
I would like to see everyone.
Oh, we're at the front page of Rumble Baby.
Let's go.
Women have bodily autonomy, and I would like for the vast majority of people, if not everyone, to have their basic needs met.
And I would like to mitigate any unnecessary conflict between the citizens of this country, genuinely.
I think that my main issue with the manosphere and with your forced doctrine principle is that it promotes and spreads divisiveness against men and women.
It promotes and spreads violence against men and women.
And it exaggerates and focuses the differences between the genders.
Okay, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Number one, divisiveness.
Okay, that is subjective.
Some people might look at it as divisiveness.
Other people might look at it as just being truthful, okay?
Because men and women are objectively different.
That is not a thought.
That's not my opinion.
That is a fact.
If you want to look at it from the perspective of it's divisive, well, that's your subjective interpretation of it, okay?
But other people might look at it as, hey, this allows us to better understand one another because we are not the same.
That's number one.
And another thing she said, it promotes violence.
No, it doesn't.
If anything, it puts out there that men are physically superior to women and we need to protect them.
So actually, that's not what it is.
Why do you think we have police, we have law enforcement, we have the military, et cetera?
It's to promote the protection of women.
What are you talking about?
The force doctrine is literally in place to protect women because since men, right, or people, human beings in general, perpetrate violence against each other, you need the monopoly of force to be held by a certain group of people, aka the military and the police, to enforce the law and protect said women.
What are you talking about, lady?
I think that men and women, I mean, I don't think I know men and women are the same species.
We are 99% genetically similar.
And the obsessive need to define and separate people.
Yeah, same species, but we are different within that species.
Well, based on one singular chromosome is doing both men and women a disservice, socially, economically, and politically, which we can get into.
Well, that chromosome is a big fucking difference.
She's understanding the difference of that chromosome and what it does.
It changes the way we think.
It changes the way we view the world.
It changes the way that we behave.
It changes the way that our biology is.
It changes the way we look.
That chromosome does quite a bit.
And to sit there and just write it off as like, we're still the same species.
Yes, we are the same species, but we are different within that species.
I'm ready to open it up if you want to.
Yeah.
She's already given a bunch of lies.
Number one, she said that Andrew doesn't state his position.
That's not true whatsoever.
He just literally stated his position of the force doctrine.
I think that's pretty self-explanatory, and he explained it.
If she wants a bit more of a deeper thing, that's fine.
But she didn't watch any of his contests.
She's fucking lying.
Because if she did, he literally gives his position at the beginning of your debate.
And the differences between the genders, I think that men and women, I mean, I don't think I know men and women are the same species.
We are 99% genetically similar.
And the obsessive need to define and separate people based on one singular chromosome is doing both men and women a disservice, socially economically.
Okay, so let's not separate them.
Let's just let men go into women's bathrooms.
Let's just let men compete in female sports.
Let's just let men go ahead and engage in female spaces.
Yeah, no problem, right?
Economically and politically, which we can get into.
I'm ready to open it up if you want to.
Yeah.
I guess actually, I'd love to start with a question for you.
I would like to go back to the forced doctrine theory, if we can.
I just kind of want to understand more.
I know you've talked a lot about the equal force objection in the past.
You've said men have essentially a monopoly on force.
If I'm correct.
Okay, perfect.
Do you want me to walk you through the argument?
No, I'm going to elaborate.
Thank you.
And that rights exist through.
You just bitched about him not elaborating a second ago, and he's offering to do it.
And now you're saying no, no, thank you.
Holy.
Guys, let's smash that like button.
Let's get to 4,000 likes, guys.
Physical force.
And then our legal system is based on physical force.
So I guess I kind of just want to hear you elaborate on that now, if you're welcome.
So you want my argument for the force doctrine?
Yep.
What the fuck?
Bro.
Oh, my God.
So what force doctrine is saying is very simple.
That feminism, if you at least agree with my definition, and it seems broadly feminist view, that it's a movement towards egalitarianism and equity and the removal of patriarchy.
You can't have an oppressed class without an oppressor class, at least not from the Marxist feminist view.
In the case, if women are being oppressed, they're not being oppressed by wolves.
They're being oppressed by men, right?
So if that's the case, then my argument to them is that whatever you believe this oppression is, you will actually have to appeal to men in order to either relinquish whatever this oppression is or concede to whatever it is that they want, because collectively, women actually cannot overthrow any patriarchal systems.
They rely on the force of men.
And so, if men, anytime they want to, decide to remove women's rights, there's actually not anything women can do about it.
But the opposition is not true.
The opposite is not true.
Women cannot collectivize and take away men's rights.
Okay, so are you essentially saying that women do not deserve the right to fight for their own freedom?
Wow, women don't deserve the right.
What?
How did she extrapolate that conclusion from what he stated?
See now, obviously, you know, you guys know I've debated more feminists than anyone on the internet, right?
At this point, thousands.
And it amazes me, no matter how educated, no matter their background, no matter their skin color, where they're from, socioeconomic class, or whatever, they almost always mischaracterize your fucking position.
Nowhere did he say that women don't deserve the right to fight for their freedom.
Nowhere did he say that.
He's objectively stating that women live under a patriarchy and they cannot overthrow said patriarchy because men have the monopoly of force.
It's as simple as that.
And that is an objective fact because men are physically superior to women in every fucking way.
This is a fact.
If it wasn't a fact, we wouldn't need to lower military standards and police standards for women.
If it wasn't a fact, we wouldn't need to have another group of sports for women.
Women would be able to compete with men in said sports.
Yeah, that's an odd claim.
I'm not making an odd claim.
I'm trying to get us to the descriptor first.
So instead of making a prescriptive statement, I'm starting with a descriptive statement.
What is true?
And then we can worry about what should be true after we can determine what is true.
Okay, but I'm trying to see that.
She can't even fuck it.
She doesn't even know where she's at.
Like structurally, how does that work in the real world?
Are you saying that women should not fight for their rights because they listen?
Let's back up so I can just that's incredible that she came to that conclusion.
She has poor, poor comprehension skills.
The fact that that was what she concluded from what he stated is fucking incredible to me.
That tells me that this woman is one of these people that has, you know, I'm educated.
I go to school, et cetera.
One of these academics, but they have poor comprehension skills, just like the other dumb bimbo that was debating against Charlie Kirk.
Distinguish two things.
Okay.
Is ought, right?
So I'm not trying to bridge the is all gap.
I'm trying to start with a Hale Myron Bolshevik Gaines.
Who are you hoping the next president of the U.S. is going to be?
I don't know, bro.
But we need to get rid of these goddamn Zionist-controlled candidates, bro.
I'll tell you that.
Guys, we got 3,100 likes.
Let's get to 4,000 as we continue to break down this debate.
Descriptive claim.
So if we've been going now for four hours, we're cooking.
We're still cooking.
If the descriptive claim is true, then we can move through the prescriptive side of it.
But right now, you would either need to agree with me that descriptively I'm right or that descriptively I'm wrong.
I can't agree with you to say that descriptively you're right until you apply what you're saying in theory to the practice of modern day society.
How does your equal force objection, how does this principle work in society?
What are you saying?
No, I'm saying that because that is the case, that men deserve to have various privileges that they're not given in society, which they should be given in society.
So what are the privileges that you think that men should have that women should not have?
Well, primarily, I think that if you're going to look at an equalization, what I would do prescriptively would be roll voting back.
And that's for both sexes.
I think that rolling voting back for both sexes is a good idea and have some sort of perhaps like one house voting system or one marriage voting system or people who have done some sort of collective service to the state for a voting system.
I think that those things would all be very good systems for everybody.
Now I would apply that.
Hang on.
I would apply that broadly to men and I would apply that to women.
I think that right now men get the shaft because men are required to do a lot of jobs that women.
And I did not see the debate prior to this, guys.
So this is all, I'm watching this fresh with you guys.
I saw a little part of it when I was in New York.
I was like in my Uber going to go do a stream at Academic Studio and I did catch a part of it like towards the middle or end, but I did not see any of this stuff in the beginning.
Women are not, which keeps society going and women are not doing those things.
And because of that.
So in other words, like I said before, men contribute a majority of the infrastructure and the things that keep society going, right, forward.
And women don't.
Yet, women still have a seat at the table of decision-making.
I don't understand why it is that women can nullify their votes and disenfranchise them.
And most importantly, vote to send them to the wars they don't have to go fight in.
Bam.
Agreed 1,000%.
Now, I see where he's going saying, look, we need to put some checks and balances on the men too, maybe make them take a civil service, which I can understand that.
Like potentially women, men that want to vote, like they got to take a civil service exam so they understand how the government works or whatever, because there are a lot of retards.
But for women, I think they need to do more than just take the civil service exam.
They got to do other acts of service to be able to vote.
So you would like to disenfranchise both the men and women?
Mostly.
Most of them, yes.
What would this achieve?
Well, it would be that it would achieve the same thing our founders basically.
Well, we would end up disenfranchising more women than men because men would have a lower barrier to entry to vote, but that's the way it should be because men contribute more to society.
Basically, we wanted to achieve, which is that they thought that you would have to have a stake in the country in order to vote.
But if you live in the country and if you exist in the country and if you're being legislated by the laws that the country is making, don't you have a stake in that?
No, not at all.
No.
Are you fucking stupid?
No.
I mean, amazing how I just paused that both of us just said no immediately.
Yeah, no.
Because by her logic, that means that illegal aliens that are here also have a say in what the fuck happens.
No, thank you.
Stupid.
You don't.
In fact, many times you don't.
Many times many people actually get more back from the state than they put into the state.
So that's at the expense of other people.
Who is that?
So there's lots of people who pay, who get a mass amount back from the government that they never pay to the government.
This can happen through things like social security disability, things like welfare, things like even earned income child credit that you may receive, even though you don't actually pay anything into the system or very little into the system.
But those are, it's a crime to lie on your taxes and commit.
That isn't that tax fraud to claim a dependent.
No, no, no.
That is tax fraud.
No, no, no.
It's not tax fraud.
I'm saying there's people who get more out of the system than they put into the system.
Okay, but they're still at stake because they still live here now.
Are their lives not at stake if we're legislating that?
That wouldn't follow that because they live here, they deserve the right to vote, though.
Yes.
I mean, no taxation without representation.
That's the point of representative democracy is that everyone is representative.
And then how come the founding fathers didn't give everybody the right to vote from the beginning?
I mean, the founding fathers also endorsed and owned slaves.
Do you have that to do with chattel slavery?
Just let her finish.
Go ahead.
I mean, the founding fathers also endorse and own slaves.
Do you believe in chattel slavery?
So you do realize that they could do bad thing, right?
I can agree that's a bad thing, but that has nothing relationally to do with how they set up the system of government.
I mean, I thought this was going to be a debate on feminism.
Honestly, I think that's kind of why.
That's interesting that she just went, well, they had slaves, too.
What does that have to do with anything?
What the fuck?
Oh, because it sounds like you're disenfranchising men.
So who do you think would be, are you trying to get away?
You are.
You're taking away.
I'm not disenfranchising men.
Calm down.
I'll explain.
But if you're taking away the votes of a man because he is not, I guess, landowning, is that what the, what's the critical having a vote?
I think ultimately more men would be voting because they would have more stake.
So can I ask, can every man go to prison?
Yeah.
Okay.
If they commit a crime, they can go to prison?
Yeah.
Everyone can do that.
Yes.
Okay.
And everyone in this country has to abide by the laws of this country.
Otherwise, they will go to prison.
Yes?
Yeah.
Okay.
So why wouldn't they be allowed to vote on the representative that defined those laws?
That is a stake.
If you can go to prison for committing a crime that is created by the government, then you do have a stake legislatively in the laws that the government creates.
Oh, but not everyone, but not everyone is equal because if you go to jail and you become a felon, you actually lose your right to vote, dumbass.
What is she talking about?
Stupid.
What the fuck?
See, this is a problem with egalitarianism.
Do you guys see how, like, to her, like, she's trying to make everybody equal and it just doesn't work in practice?
You see, you see what I'm saying?
She's done this a few times now where she's like, well, everybody equal.
You live here.
Why should you be able to vote?
Because everyone is equal.
Sorry.
Like, that's just how it goes.
Well, you live here, so you should be able to have a voice.
No.
What about all the illegal people that live here?
All the people that don't contribute, that don't pay tax.
No.
The fuck?
All of that you would need to vote.
Yes, you would need to vote.
You want to vote for the representatives that create laws that are just and fair to you.
Why?
Like, you could have.
Because you could go to prison.
That's a huge statement.
Let me show you, right?
Can kings put you in prison?
Yeah.
Can kings also pass just laws?
Sometimes, maybe.
Okay, so if kings pass just laws, why do you need to vote?
Well, why did we find that?
No, no, no.
Answer that question before you ask another one.
I just answered all of yours.
If a king passes just laws, why would you need to vote?
Because a king can also pass unjust laws.
So can legislatures.
Sure, but if you have a stake in that and if you're able to represent for your legislature, you can vote a legislature.
Yeah, but you can also rebel against kings.
So like that's what I'm saying.
Your position doesn't follow.
It doesn't actually follow for you to say that because you can be imprisoned inside of a nation, that that somehow gives you the right to vote.
Well, because you have a stake.
You're saying that.
Hang on.
I'm falsifying your claim.
I'm falsifying your claim.
If you claim kings can make just laws, right?
Yes.
Then I don't understand.
Why would people need to vote when kings are making just laws?
Well, then why would we leave the monarchy of England?
If kings can make just laws, why would we leave?
Well, in that case, you had a nation apart that had a rebellion against the king.
That's what was going on.
But kings have been rebelled against historically under certain circumstances many times.
So you'd like to go back to feudalism?
Like, you don't believe in democracy?
Well, yeah, that is.
Feudalism is under a monarchy.
It would be called limited democracy, which is exactly what we had here.
Do you think we had feudalism because most people couldn't vote here?
We had limited democracy, and then there were like several many uprisings against that limited democracy because everyone deserved it.
There wasn't uprisings really against that.
The only uprising that I'm aware of in American history against America was the Civil War.
The Civil War, the Civil Rights, the Civil Rights Movement?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
The Civil War wasn't about voting.
Well, I mean, it was about the owning of chattel slaves.
So, not about voting then?
Which is also about human and civil rights.
But not about voting, though.
But voting is a civil rights.
I don't know.
I'm not sure that I believe that it's about freedom.
It's about representation.
Yeah, so one is representation.
So let's back up.
That's what voting is.
Voting is representation and democracy.
I understand, but you haven't actually made the positive case for why people need to be able to vote.
People need to be able to vote because they have a stake in the legislation in this country.
If you can be imprisoned at this country, if you can be robbed of your bodily autonomy by the legislators of this country, then you should be able to have a stake in what the laws that those legislators are making.
Let's see if this makes sense.
Do you agree with me that individually, individual voters don't actually have very much power at all?
Individual voters, no, but that's the point of a collective vote.
Yeah, I'm with you.
So individuals already don't really have very much power just because they can vote, right?
Sure.
So isn't it the case actually that what you're advocating for is political tribalism?
Because you don't have individual power as a voter, you actually have to tribalize with other voters in order to have any sort of collective power, right?
Well, you're taking away power from all the voters.
Answer my question, please.
Tribalism, the idea that you, as the individual, do not have power, right?
You do have to collectivize with other people, right?
Okay, but how is taking away?
Yes or no?
No.
Okay, no.
But here's my question.
How is taking away more people's votes disincentivizing political tribalism?
Yes, because now I have to band with someone, because now I have to band with someone who has a vote.
I don't even get a stake.
So you're saying, because people don't have enough power to vote, I'm going to take what little power they do have.
You're not answering my question, though.
It just doesn't make sense to you.
Yeah, I know, but you got to answer my question.
It just doesn't sound like you believe in.
It sounds like you need to answer my question, though.
It sounds like your question is meant to trap me because can you just answer the question, please?
What's fallacious about my argument?
You're saying that people do not have a stake in this country, therefore they do not have a right to vote.
That's not what I said.
What you're doing is a straw man fallacy.
Can we go back?
Yeah, you can go back.
What I said to you specifically is what you're saying doesn't logically follow.
And when I'm talking about political tribalism, do you agree with me that you do, if you need to have collectives to have actual political power, are you not promoting political tribalism?
If you need to have collective, but that's how voting works.
It's about a majority.
So then you are promoting collective political tribalism, right?
So voting and then the will of the majority is essentially political tribalism, is what you're saying?
Well, it's not really the will of the majority.
Here's what happens.
No, not really.
Do you understand how voting works?
Do you?
Yeah.
Okay, well, then tell me how is the will of the majority when a California legislator gets elected?
Well, everyone who would like to vote can vote.
And then whoever gets the most vote.
What about the people in Georgia?
Well, why would a person in Georgia get to vote on a tribal government?
So it's not really the collective, it's the tribe, right?
But then Georgians get to vote for their state legislature.
It's a tribe then.
And then all of those legislators come together.
So it's a tribe.
So it's a tribe?
It's not a tribe.
But those are called states.
Yeah, states are voting for their own interests, right?
But states will vote for the governors.
Why would I get to vote for the government?
Hold on, pause.
Listen to me.
Why would I get to vote for the governor of, let's say, Tennessee if I don't live in Tennessee?
Makes sense.
Okay.
She can't even agree to basic concepts of defining terminology so that they can have a coherent discussion.
Like, she won't even, she's arguing on shit that doesn't really need to be argued about.
He's just trying to set parameters of, look, this is what the collective tribal.
This is not really an, like, this is retarded.
That she's even arguing this against him.
You know what I'm saying?
It's like they can't even get into the more complex stuff because she's over here worried about semantics and definitions of stuff because she doesn't like the way it makes her feel.
Incredible.
Wow.
So it's almost like it's almost like these individual states, right?
They vote along tribal lines for that state's particular interests, right?
Yes.
And then each state has a representative collective government.
Sure.
In the federal government, right?
You're talking about in our Senate and in our Congress, right?
Yes.
Great.
So let's start with this.
If it is the case that you have California and Nevada, these are two states which are next to each other.
You agree, right?
Yes.
Can these states vote against each other's interests when it comes to resources?
In the federal government, yes.
No, even at the state level, they can, right?
Why would they be able to at the state level?
I can't vote for the Nevada governor.
I can't vote for...
Because perhaps there's something that...
Nevada and Registration.
Perhaps Nevada has some type of, I don't know, assessed tax or something like this that they're able to collect, which disproportionately affects Californians in some way.
They can do that, right?
What law is that?
Whatever it would be.
They can do it.
Does it exist or does it not exist?
Can they do that?
Can they do that?
Is my question.
Can Nevada legislate against California?
No, they're not legislating against.
Listen to my question.
Actually, I want you to repeat my question so I know you actually heard it.
I'm sorry.
I'm not a dog.
Can you repeat it?
Well, it's called stealing a position.
Say the question.
Okay.
Can states vote against other states' interests simply by having a neighboring state, right?
Let's just say, for instance, that you were to have, like, oh, I don't know, trucks which went between Nevada and California, right?
And California took advantage of this by raising taxes on gasoline, but only on the border areas where these goods came in.
This disproportionately hurts Nevada truckers for some reason, right?
They can't do that, right?
Yes, they can do that.
Okay, great.
So in California, if that was beneficial to Californians, they would basically be voting for their tribe against Nevada, right?
But is that happening?
That's trying to use a hypothetical.
No, there's tons and tons of instances where different states do various things, even asking for federal money in overages compared to other states for different problems.
Same thing with disaster support.
They definitely are all trying to support their tribe, right?
So, because states can potentially hypothetically vote against another state's interest, men and women should not have the right to do that.
No, that's not the conclusion.
But that's that was your argument.
No, no, do you know what a descriptor is?
It's one marriage voting system.
Why don't you understand the difference between a descriptor and prescriptor?
What did I prescribe?
What you prescribed is one voting system, is a voting system in which men and women are disenfranchised.
Yeah, what I'm doing right now is I'm giving you descriptors so we can determine if it's tribalism or not because you said it's not tribalism to have collectivism and voting blocks, which is insane.
But what you haven't been able to answer is why disenfranchising more voters is somehow solving political tribalism.
Well, he can't get into that because you won't even agree on what the fuck to discuss.
Like, you won't even agree on terms.
So, he can't even get there and explain it to you because you won't agree on basic terms.
That's one of the big problems fucking here.
It's like, well, I need you to do this.
Well, we need to agree on certain phrases and terminology so that you'll understand what I'm saying.
But she can't even agree on that.
He can't even get to the other real shit.
Incredible, bro.
Let her get to the end of our sentence, please.
Well, let me explain it.
Sure.
The best way that I possibly can.
Your worldview promotes political tribalism.
So, what happens is this: NGOs can go to our government and they can bribe them for voting blocks.
And that's exactly what they do.
Non-government organizations do this, and lobbyists do this.
And what they do is they raid the treasury from people like you and me so that they can bribe certain portions of the electorate in order to incentivize them to collectivize.
That's why black people often vote as a monolith, for instance.
They vote monolithically up to 80-90% together, especially in national, hang on, especially in national elections, because they're promised made certain promises out of the treasury from the electorate, usually at the expense of other forms of voters.
This is 100% tribalism.
So, how are NGOs bribing politicians influencing who black people as individuals choose to vote for?
How did NGOs do that?
I just don't understand how you're saying.
I mean, I agree that NGOs should not be bribing and lobbyists shouldn't be bribing, but instead of your claim that I'm in the middle of my claim.
Okay, well, I'm responding because this is a conversation.
Yeah.
Sure.
So, we're trying to get back to your claim that less people from both sexes should be able to vote.
Yeah, no, that's not where we just were.
That's your initial claim.
Yeah, but now you're just pivoting.
Where we just were.
Well, you're not letting me finish my sentence.
You're pivoting.
We're talking right now about whether tribalism is descriptively true in your voting system.
I understand that, but we're trying to get back to your initial claim because you have a very important claim to defend.
You're trying to vote away from the American people poorly.
But let's get into it.
So, NGOs bribe, lobbyists bribe, and that is impacting who and what politicians are promoting.
I would agree with that statement.
Would you agree with that statement?
Well, not just what they're promoting, but also they are setting the precedent for laws themselves.
Okay, yeah.
So, they actually, I would even argue back that NGOs and private think groups write the laws in which politicians most often execute, and so do bankers as well.
I agree with that.
So, why would take yeah, and a good example of this, guys, is like the Heritage Foundation right now.
I showed you guys Project Esther, right?
Or Project 2025.
Um, these think tanks draft up potential legislation, and then you know, it gets adopted, and then eventually passes a bill.
Uh, let me go ahead.
The mic, the fucking camera went out.
My bad, guys.
Also, the audio should be better, by the way, guys.
Let me know if the audio is good right now.
Um, I've been playing around with it while having myself muted.
It's actually better in here that you guys can almost the camera's off, so then you guys are forced to listen to the audio only.
But, um, but yeah, the mic, the audio should be a little bit better.
Uh, so let's see here.
Let's go back to it, though.
Taking away votes from the average American and singular citizen prevent NGOs and lobbyists from having an ability to impact and predict.
And all right, Mike is low.
I'm going to turn off the mic right now.
Give me one sec.
Now it should be significantly better, and you guys should be able to hear me pretty damn good.
I just turned it.
I just turned it up.
So, you guys should be able to get way better right now.
I'm messing with it on the fader.
So, now it should be better.
It should be better now.
If it's still low, let me know.
Audio is still low?
All right.
Mic is still low.
Oh, no, they're saying better.
Okay.
Well, yeah, I realize that I'm on a delay now.
So, okay.
Let me hold on.
I think I know what to do here.
Let me go ahead and bump this up.
All right.
That should be better right now.
That should be significantly better.
You guys should be able to hear me fine now.
Hopefully, you guys aren't hearing any fucking sound in the back.
Like, no too much, too much gain or any of that other shit.
So, let me know how that is.
Well, you guys should be good now.
Too loud?
Somebody said too loud now.
Create laws.
Yeah.
So if you're, if you move to stakeholder democracy, this idea that you had to have some sort of public service or something like this, it actually.
Yeah, I'll turn the thing back on.
All right, perfect now?
All right, cool.
Collective vice is down.
Like I said before, my power turned out earlier, guys.
So it's completely reset my fucking my mixer, dude.
So that's kind of why Dylan is bullshit right now.
The voting pool, which adds responsibility to the voters who can then be held accountable, which right now voters can't be.
That's why.
That's why it's so important.
Voters can be held.
So you're saying how?
Well, legislators will create laws that hold those voters accountable, the ones who have to follow them.
Do you not have a problem?
Well, that's not you being held accountable.
It is being held accountable.
No, no, no.
So right now, under tribalism, you can get laws passed which affect me, but benefit you.
I can't go like hold you somehow accountable for that.
But that's how a majority of voting work.
That's how it works.
I know, which is why I want limited democracy where we can actually hold people accountable.
I want to be in charge.
How would I be in charge if it's stakeholder democracy?
Well, you said one marriage voting system.
That could be one way of doing it, yes.
Okay, what are the other ways of doing it?
Another good way would be public service.
So who have perhaps up to three to five years unpaid or military service would be good?
So during this public service in which people are working three to five years unpaid, how are they paying for food and groceries and housing?
Yeah, so the state would take care of that.
All right.
I upped up the mic now.
So we should be pretty damn good now.
We should be good right now where you guys should be able to hear everything and it shouldn't be too shitty.
I upped the volume up a bit.
So if it's too loud, let me know if it's too loud, but this should be good.
Just like they do in the military.
The state would take care of that, like they do in the military.
And how do you plan on getting that passed?
What does that have to do with anything?
Well, because I could never get it passed.
We're arguing the ideology of the system.
What does that do with anything?
What's the point in creating an ideology that will never work?
How are you going to get Marxism passed?
You're not.
So aren't you a Marxist?
But you're a Marxist, right?
How did you know that?
Well, I don't know.
That's what your videos seem to imply, that you believe in Marxism.
I've never said that I was in Marxist.
I don't know.
Are you a socialist?
On a certain level.
Okay, how are you going to get socially?
Like, that's silly.
Us making the comparison contrast between like socialism and capitalism has no bearing on whether or not I could somehow get this passed or have some plan to get it passed.
Okay.
I'm arguing about the ideology here.
Do you want to understand my belief or do you just want to guess?
Well, hang on.
What does that do?
Do you know what I just said, though?
Well, I mean, you just called me a Marxist.
Do you agree?
Well, if you're not a Marxist, I said we're doing a comparison contrast of worldviews and ideology.
If we're doing contrast worldview and ideology, it's a non-sequitur to ask me, well, how are you going to get it passed?
What does that do with anything?
Well, why would you create a worldview that fundamentally cannot work in practice?
Well, that's not a worldview that fundamentally cannot work in practice.
Even if I couldn't prescriptively tell you the next political chain of things we do to get there has nothing to do with whether or not the worldview in practice would work.
Well, do you have any practical guesses for how we could apply this to a modern day society?
Well, I just, yeah, I just told you how we would apply it.
You would have stakeholder democracy.
Okay, so that's just so one day we're just going to flip the switch and have that.
Like, I don't understand.
What do you mean?
Okay, you could have an amendment for it.
You could repeal the 19th Amendment.
You could.
So you want to repeal the right to vote.
Or just replace it.
It wouldn't be, what I'm talking about is universal suffrage.
You keep on making a conflation in terms.
You think that because I say universal suffrage, that means no suffrage.
I'm talking about limited suffrage.
So who gets to decide who gets the right to vote?
Didn't I literally just tell you who gets to decide who or who gets to vote?
Okay, so everyone who participates in this public service gets the right to vote.
It could be one evaluate, yes.
Okay.
And anyone could do that.
I think I might have just fixed it.
I just bumped the mic up and then brought the gain down a bit.
So that should hopefully make it where you guys don't hear any background noise.
You guys can hear me, so the gain is lower.
But I turn up the actual mic volume.
So let me know.
Yeah, people could do it if they're willing to give up X amount of years of their lives for unpaid service so that they could then vote.
But it's not unpaid service because the government would be paying for their food and their housing.
Yeah, but you wouldn't be getting anything additional to that.
Okay, well, why not just have civil servants who are already.
Because civil servants have specific jobs to do, like working at the DMV and stuff like that, and working in the Social Security office.
So you're basically saying anyone who does community service should get the right to vote?
No, some sort of civil occupational service under the state that could be like civil firefighting work, maybe.
It could be civil paramedic work.
There's all sorts of different things you can look at for stakeholder democracy.
When we've seen it applied around the world, it's been somewhat successful.
And do the laws apply to everyone in the society or just the people who are going to be able to do it?
Yeah, they still apply to everyone, yeah.
Okay.
So how can you create and apply a law to people who are not represented?
I just don't understand.
Morally, how do you?
You do it all the time with illegal aliens, bro.
What the fuck are you talking about?
There's nothing immoral about it.
There's nothing immoral about it.
I mean, but that's like I would say it's more immoral.
Why is it moral for an 18-year-old to nullify the vote of a 41-year-old if the 18-year-old doesn't even know what they're voting for?
How's that moral?
Well, because an 18-year-old is still subject to the laws of the state.
Yeah, but they don't even know what they're voting for.
Can an 18-year-old go to jail for 20 years?
A 16-year-old can.
Should they be able to vote?
16-year-olds can't go to jail.
Yes, they can.
16-year-olds.
Yeah, they definitely can.
And they can be charged as adults in many jurisdictions as well.
This woman is retarded, bro.
Holy.
Stupid.
It's going to go to jail for life.
Should they be able to vote?
Fucking dumbass.
Guys, let's get to 4,700 likes to go.
I mean, no, but why?
Why not?
Why not?
The laws apply to them, though.
Why would a 16-year-old be going?
Hang on, I don't know.
See, her logic is faulty.
This is why this egalitarianism is bullshit, bro.
This equal representation on everybody, it just doesn't work in practice.
See how she's getting like you, you take her logic and you apply it to the um to the extreme and it makes them look stupid because you murdered someone.
Okay, that's fair.
I mean, if you murder someone, that's all.
So I don't understand.
Why can't he vote?
The laws apply to him.
Why can't he vote?
Yeah, but we all understand this.
No, we all understand it's not an argument.
Why does a 16-year-old get to vote, even though all the lies laws apply to the 16-year-old?
Why does he get to vote?
They start in juvenile detention and then add 18.
So, laws apply to 16-year-olds.
You're retried at 18.
So, laws apply to 16-year-olds?
Some laws, of course.
Okay, great.
Why can't they vote then?
So, babies should get the right to vote?
That's my question to you.
That makes no sense.
Exactly.
So, why do we limit it to 18?
Well, that's the age that we've defined as being a legal adult.
That's the age that we as a country have universally agreed with our right to vote.
Yeah, but what makes that a good idea?
Just because you arbitrarily arbitrarily say, for instance, that because you're 18 and you're an adult, like you can't buy cigarettes, you can't buy beer, you can't rent a car, but you're an adult and now you can vote in the participation of democracy.
At least raise it.
So, you'd like to raise it.
At least raise it.
So, you would like to universally raise the age to vote.
I think that would be a better idea than like not.
No, no, no, no, no.
What I say is at least do that.
But the thing is, like, you're actually inconsistent here.
Your whole argument is to say if laws affect people, they should have a right to vote.
But we have an entire cast of people from the age 17 down who laws apply to and can't vote.
And you just are like, you shrug that off like you didn't contradict yourself.
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with brain development, but we've all like you have to have a not fully developed till what, 25, according to a society in which you don't have an age that someone becomes a legal.
I agree, but why couldn't you have a society in which you had stakeholder democracy?
It would be the same logic.
So, if you're saying that we should not disenfranchise children, why would you then disenfranchise people who are legal adults?
When did I ever make the claim that I wanted children once again?
Mischaracterizing position.
This is really frustrating, man.
Holy shit, bro.
This is really frustrating to see how she constantly mischaracterizes the position, doesn't comprehend what he's trying to say, saying, Oh, well, why should we?
This whole ought argument is retarded, man.
And this is what it is: could, should, or would be, right?
This is what it is.
It's always the could, should, or would, which is what liberals love to fucking say in an ideal world.
But look, when the rubber meets the road, it just doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make practical sense.
Just like communism sounds great on paper.
Everybody gets the same money.
Yeah.
But it doesn't work in actual practice.
Children to be able to vote.
You just said that if everyone should vote.
No, I told you that your view is inconsistent.
If it is the case, propositionally, you say, Andrew, if laws apply to people, they should be able to vote.
Except, oh, I don't know, everybody's 17 and under.
That's inconsistent.
They're not hanging.
It doesn't apply to children.
It's inconsistent and a contradiction.
But laws do apply to people.
What about the laws that don't?
What about the laws that don't?
What about the laws where you're 17 years old and you could be tried as an adult?
Well, those are to protect public freedom.
I mean, but everyone loses civil liberties when they are a danger to the public.
Yeah, but you realize everyone.
Do you understand that you're making a contradiction when you say if laws should apply to all, all people should have a right to vote because they have laws which could be applied.
They could be sent to prison with your example.
That would have to include everyone under the age of 18.
But people under the age of 18 don't go to adults.
Yes, they do all the time.
Yes, they do.
That is all right.
A little bit of a comic relief here for you guys because this girl is fucking frustrating.
Look at this shit.
This nigga bro.
Bruh.
Come around with me.
This nigga fight everybody.
Bro's been training for this for his whole life.
Bro, this nigga fight, everybody.
Bro, he don't give a fuck.
Boom!
He sucked her.
Boom, socked her.
Boom, socks her.
Get out of here, fat bitch.
Oh, shit.
Yo.
And then, yo, look, look, I go, me watch this clip proud, like, yo.
All right, back to the scheduled programming.
That is, yo, if you guys don't follow me on Twitter, you niggas need to follow me on Twitter, bro.
I got no chill on Twitter.
This shit is hilarious, man.
You guys need to fucking follow me on Twitter if you guys would not follow me on Twitter, bro.
I mean, cook it on X, bro.
Oh, man.
I mean, nigga watching that shit with the yo like it's funny because I don't even know sometimes when I like post funny shit and then like somebody will randomly send it to me and I'll look at it and I'll be like oh this is actually kind of fucking funny So, yo, I'm watching that shit with the clan hood on.
Fucking proud as hell.
Tear going down my eye, but y'all niggas can't see it because the hood's on.
Sources of 16 17-year-old tries adults and sent to adult prisons?
Okay, but that's like an exception.
You guys better smash that fucking light video, man.
Like the video, niggas.
Don't do mom.
You guys better smash that fucking like button.
Ain't nobody doing it like me.
I'm fucking here, bro.
We debate, we have scholarly discussions, but we still go ahead and have some fun with the racism.
It's always fucking hilarious.
I want to see those old slashes in the chat, battle.
Let's go, baby.
Exception for exclusively horrific crimes.
I mean, those are violent offenses.
Does the law apply to them or not?
To violent offenders, if you are a threat to public safety, yes.
Everyone who's a vote.
And if the law applies to them and they can be sent to jail, then by your logic, they should be able to vote, which means you're in contradiction.
To those offenders, they are sent to juvenile detention centers until they turn 18 and then they are sent to an adult prison.
They are not a central city.
No, they're sent often to adult centers, even at 17, to adult prisons.
You can be sentenced as an adult, but you can't be sent to an adult prison at the age of 16.
This would depend widely on the state that you're in.
It's not rigorously enforced across the board like you think.
There's not like, I don't think there's federal laws which say that.
But even if it were the case, I'll just grant it.
Well, then that's wrong.
I'll even grant the entire thing.
It still wouldn't matter.
Laws apply to them.
They can still be sent to prison.
They fit both of your criteria.
Therefore, if you say they shouldn't be able to vote, your worldview is in contradiction.
Well, then I think that's wrong.
I don't believe that children should be tried as adults until they have become adults.
So no laws apply to children.
No.
Well, why shouldn't they be able to vote?
A threat to public safety always applies to everyone.
Threats to public safety always apply to everyone.
Yeah, but why shouldn't they be able to vote if laws apply to them?
That's your example.
Laws apply to children, but they are not, in practice, punished in the same way that they apply to adults.
It's applied to them.
Can they be punished?
Of course they can.
Then why can't they vote?
But you have to have some way to maintain societal control.
See how our argument just falls?
This whole equality thing?
Well, children aren't just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want because they're not.
Right.
You need to be able to have some sort of societal control.
So this would mean necessarily disenfranchising some people, wouldn't it?
It would mean necessarily disenfranchising children.
Yes.
No, it would also mean disenfranchising prisoners.
Do you want prisoners to vote on their right to own guns in a prison?
Not their right to own guns in prison.
Well, then you're disenfranchising.
I think that people who were in prison and then leave prison should then have disenfranchised currently under the law, right?
No, they're not.
Yes, they are.
If you're a felon, you can't vote.
Yes.
Oh, well, once they leave, yes.
I do think that that's disenfranchisement.
And I think Florida just rolled that back.
Yeah, but what's wrong with disenfranchising murderers for life?
What's wrong with disenfranchisement?
Well, they would be in jail for life.
No, no, no.
They're out of jail.
They're just felons.
So they can't vote.
Well, yeah, I think that felons should be able to vote once they.
Should felons be able to own guns?
No, because it's not.
Well, I don't understand you.
So you're just again, it's so inconsistent with your disenfranchising.
Do you understand?
What?
Disenfranchisement should exist so long as someone is a threat to public safety.
The reason why prisoners are not allowed to vote who are currently in prison is because they are a threat to public safety.
16 children aren't a threat to public safety.
No, but they're children.
You can't allow anyone to be able to do it.
So you can arbitrarily disenfranchise people based on the fact that you think they're not capable of making good voting decisions, right?
No, a child is legally different than an adult.
Because they can't make sex with a child.
Because they can't.
Because they can't make good decisions.
No, because they're legally classified as a child.
Do you not understand why?
Because they can't make good decisions.
Because they're two and three and four.
They're not legally enforced.
So they can't make good decisions.
No, they can make good decisions, but generally speaking, you can't have children vote.
I agree with you.
But why is it then that if I were to say that I only want 25-year-olds to vote, I would be disenfranchising.
You can say you only want 25-year-olds to vote.
You can't say that.
Do you understand?
You only want one marriage voting system per household.
Well, that's one way.
You want less of both adult men and women.
Do you understand how my view is consistent, but yours isn't?
Because if you were to agree with me that you wanted like, okay, Andrew, I would compromise to 25-year-olds voting.
You've now disenfranchised everyone from the ages of 18 through 24.
If you're considered adult, you should be able to vote.
That's my estate.
If you are considered a legal adult, if you are tried as an adult, if you are allowed to buy a house, have a child.
But that leads to the problem is, is that that leads to political tribalism.
So like, for instance, why is it a healthy society to have men and women who are married voting against each other?
That's a terrible idea.
Because they're both like, but if a man commits a murder, is his, what, does his wife go to jail for that crime?
No.
No, because they're not the same fucking person.
What does that have to do with anything?
If they're different people and they're both tried differently and they both have separate lives and separate bank accounts and separate bodily and physical autonomy, then they should each get a stake in this government.
No.
Well, that literally has nothing to do with what I just asked.
They're not the same as the people.
So real quick.
So why should they be represented?
Remember how I said yes and no to your question?
Can you do that for me?
Remember how I was like, yes, and just answered it?
Can you actually do that for me too?
I don't remember that at all.
You literally just asked me that question.
You said, if a husband's carted off to prison, does her wife go to prison?
I said no.
Okay.
Can you do that for me too?
And then give your explanation?
Because otherwise I don't know your actual position.
So now I'd like to know.
You should listen.
Do you think it's a good idea for wives and husbands to be able to vote against each other's interests?
They should both have a vote, yes.
Well, that's.
That's not what he asked.
But they can vote against each other's interests, right?
It's circumstantial.
They may not.
They might.
Yeah, they may not.
They might.
I agree with that.
But why is it good that that option's even there?
It seems like a terrible idea.
Because in a representative democracy, everyone should be representative of the vote.
Yeah, I get that's a descriptive truth, but you're not telling me why that should be the case.
If I were to give you the counterclaim here, I would say if you had like one household voting or something like this, it would be much more uniform and wouldn't divide families against each other.
And that's exactly what the vote has done.
But they're both subject to the same legislative, like they can both be legislated independent of each other, right?
Well, not really.
One cannot, at that point, make a decision that doesn't affect the other one usually.
Yes, they can.
Not really.
What?
I mean, Roe v.
Wade.
That only affects a woman's body, right?
No?
You think that if a man is married to a woman and she goes and aborts his baby, that doesn't affect him?
Of course it does, but it affects him differently than his body.
But it's still, but that's my whole point is that everything they do in this household is going to affect each other.
Sure.
So you wouldn't want to promote systems which divide husbands against wives.
But they're individuals, no.
What does that do with anything?
Are they the same person or not?
This is not what's in dispute.
Are they the same person or not?
Okay, no.
Then why should they not each have an individual liberty?
What if they get away from it?
Because you don't want to set up systems that divide them against each other.
That's a bad idea.
You can marry someone who doesn't want to vote with you.
But that's.
No.
Do you understand that like people's preferences change over time?
And there could be various reasons in which if you have a tribal type of mentality, like take abortion, for instance.
Abortion is a great one.
Do you think that it's possible that women, for instance, could hold it against their husband and say things like, do this or I'll abort your child?
They could actually do that, right?
Yeah, hypothetically, sure.
Yeah.
And have done that.
That would be immoral.
But you wouldn't say they couldn't go get the abortion, would you?
Would you say a man can't be?
But hang on, hang on.
Answer the question first.
What?
You wouldn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, though, would you?
Well, if it would be disenfranchising millions of other women who aren't.
No, no, no.
Yes or no, please.
You wouldn't say that you would not actually say that they should not be allowed to get the abortion, right?
No, I think everyone should have access to it.
Okay, so even if it were the case that a woman, right, was holding the man basically emotionally hostage with her pregnancy and said, do what I say or I'll get an abortion, right?
You would not make any claim that she could or could not get that abortion, would you?
I would make a claim that what she's doing is immoral, but I wouldn't make a claim that because of the power.
Should anything happen to a woman who does that?
Yeah, I think, I mean, that's blackmailing.
It's not blackmail?
I think on a level, it's emotional blackmail.
So what should happen?
Should they go to jail?
I mean, maybe pay damages or a fine.
A fine?
Yeah.
How much should the fine be?
I don't know.
200 bucks?
How much is an abortion?
They'd be the same as an abortion.
Can I ask you a question?
So just to get this right.
Well, I want to finish this real quick.
No, okay.
And then we can move back.
Well, no, you can't ultimate the inquiry.
But I'm not going to answer your question.
But you can inquire back.
I just want to finish this inquiry.
The line of inquiry.
That's all.
So just to make sure I got this right, you have now said that the tribal voting does indeed pit husband against wife, has a potential to do so, right?
And I've even conceded to specific examples of where it would be in a woman's interest to vote against her husband to have a right to do something which could be used against him later.
And then said, well, the punishment should be like, oh, maybe she pays a fine if something like that happens.
And you're, how are you going to convince people that that's a better system than one household voting?
That's a terrible system.
Because then the leader of that household, the head of that household, has control over the right and the will of every single person in that household.
You're fundamentally denying people free will.
They're not allowed to do it.
Yes, they are.
Because of the fundamental denying of free will, huh?
Because they're both legislated by the same government, and one of them has no say in who is elected into that government.
But still.
That's why you're the man and you're the head of the household and you pay all the bills because you have responsibility, which means you get authority.
Again, this equality bullshit has fucking retarded this chick.
Because you're still, but you're still impacted by laws.
So what?
You're impacted by laws when you're 17.
They can't vote.
You have a consistency issue.
They're at the same extent as an 18-year-old, not at the same extent.
They can have it to the same extent as an 18-year-old.
In very rare exceptions.
But you're not.
Yeah, but they can then.
So you're disenfranchising people.
But look at you.
You're around the fringe.
You're fighting on an exception.
We're talking about the general population.
Even in the general population.
I'm not talking about murderers.
I'm not talking about this.
I'm not talking about school secrets.
I don't think it's generally speaking good idea to let 18 year olds, 19 year olds, 20 year olds to vote, to disenfranchise the votes of people who are politically informed because they're being used as a Guys, as I'm listening to this, I'm going ahead and doing a Jubilee application.
A bunch of you guys sent me this goddamn application for Jubilee, so I'll go ahead and apply, niggas.
A leverage voting block for elitists.
And that's what's actually happening.
What's actually happening was what you just said.
You know, NGOs and lobbyists are lobbying Congress to get various things passed.
And what they do is they try to leverage the votes from a tribalist purview in order to get the things that they want, right?
And 18, 19, 20, 21-year-olds are highly impressionable, right?
So we're 22, 23, 24, 25-year-olds highly impressionable.
And one way that you could eliminate this idea that they could be gone after by the parasitic NGOs who run things is by simply limiting the ability to vote to people who have such a political interest that they actually do social service for up to five years so that then we can trust them with the right to vote.
Okay, I have two statements.
Can you let me get through them?
Sure.
Okay.
So here's number one.
I agree that lobbying generally is bad.
I'm not here for NGOs.
I don't think anyone really is.
I mean, the whole point of why we don't like them is because we want to be represented by our legislators fairly and accurately, and we don't want it to be in the control of a private interest group.
So lobbying is bad.
Yes, generally.
I think that lobbyists and NGOs are not.
But what I don't understand is, if that's the issue, why not ban NGOs?
Why not have a platform that's standing against NGOs and lobbyists?
I think that'd be something great.
If you did that, that'd be awesome.
Yeah, so this is a great question.
But here's the problem, right?
This is the leverage of tribalism and why you can't really do that.
So on social issues, right?
There are NGOs out there, for instance, who have a vested interest in abortions being legal, right?
This goes out into the social ethos.
And now we're battling over the social issue.
We have become tribal, right?
We become tribal.
Then you have NGOs who battle against it, let's say, this social issue.
They also are making a ton of money off of the counter battle, let's say, also utilizing political tribalism.
The whole idea here is divisive tribalism is what enables NGOs to begin with.
They make a ton of money off it, especially off of race hustling and DEI.
So then again, why not just ban NGOs and lobbyists?
Yeah, you can't allow everyone to still have a vote in a representative.
I'm giving you the descriptor of it.
It's hilarious that you keep calling democracy tribalism.
It leads to tribalism, yeah.
Yeah, but I mean...
Full democracy leads to tribalism.
There's no way around it.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, so does sports, sure.
Should we ban sports?
Why would you ban sports?
That's a totally executor.
It makes no sense.
Why would you ban a huge percentage of the population from voting?
Because I would want to avoid political tribalism so that elitists can't exploit low-information voters, which they do right now, in order to enslave the planet.
So you're basically saying that people are too stupid to have the right to vote?
Yes.
That's dumb, dude.
Don't you agree with that?
Yeah, of course I think people are stupid.
Well, then what are you arguing with me about?
If I want a right to vote, then I should give them the right to vote.
Why?
But listen, think about what you just said.
Yeah, dude, I agree that people are too stupid to vote, but give them the right to vote anyway.
I don't think people are too stupid to vote.
Why?
So they're too stupid to function, but you think that people who go and generally cast a ballot are high information voters or they barely even know what the hell they're talking about.
I mean, do you have a statistic on how many of them are?
Yeah, you could do street polls.
A lot of people have no idea what's even going on with the issues.
A lot of people are just bust to poll booths.
They get bribed to do it.
This happens on both sides of the aisle.
Like, how many times have you seen canvassing campaigns who go out there and they're canvassing, they knock on doors, that people don't even know what the hell they're talking about?
So what?
You think we should do an IQ test for everyone to have a bad thing?
That's been suggested, right?
But I have a better plan than an IQ test.
I would not disenfranchise a person from an IQ test actually isn't a bad idea.
Being able to vote because they have like an average IQ.
What I would do is disenfranchise a person to vote if they were low information.
One way I could find out if they were really politically...
All right, submit to the form, niggas.
We'll see what happens.
Motivated is if they sacrificed years of their lives to the state.
I'm not going to lie.
I didn't give the most descript answers, but whatever, bro.
Eight, in order to get that right to vote.
So you want to punish people for being stupid?
No.
I do.
Yeah.
I do.
I literally look at it like this is a meritocracy, bro.
If you're stupid, yeah, you deserve to be punished for that shit.
11 T says, yo, she's easily the stupidest person to ever receive any type of fame.
Someone on YouTube said, Al Trinidad James, facts.
Shout out to you, Honcho, joining Calza Club.
Don DeMarco Free, my friend, welcome to the family.
Eric says, bro, she gets way more annoying when she thinks Andrew's getting mad at retarded ass stupid ass laugh.
Yeah, bro.
Cornell's, Myron, do you think they would give EBT Isha a platform?
She's obviously not well equipped to deal with Andrew, bro.
She's stupid.
Myron, would you ever want this female Rick James bitch on AFTARs?
She wouldn't come on.
Could you rack to PBDN?
His guys racked into the part where the guy asked if he's Christian or not.
I could post it if you would like me to.
Not really.
My please don't read this chat.
Oh, yeah, I got that from before.
And then, all right, then we're caught up.
Guys, remember, five and up is what I'm reading.
I just don't want them to nullify well-informed votes from people who are smart on the issues and understand the issues.
But taking away someone's vote would be punishing them in a sense.
It's not punishing them.
It's actually stopping them from punishing themselves and the rest of society because they're easily exploited by social elites.
That's fair.
I mean, but why not then just target education?
Like, why not then?
We spend 5% of the entire GDP of the United States on education.
It's the highest anywhere in the world.
And we have some of the dumbest people on planet Earth.
Our literacy rate is barely.
You know what the literacy rate is.
Yeah, it's garbage.
It's trash.
And we spend 5%, the biggest GDP on planet Earth.
We spend 5 total percent of our GDP on education.
And you think that education is going to solve the problem of the low information?
The issue is that people are stupid.
Help them be smarter.
There's a lot of that.
You can't force them.
People want to be stupid.
Especially females, if I'm going to be honest.
Is a mixture of genes and environment and nourishment and all sorts of different things.
It's like you can't, this whole progressive idea.
It's the environment and nourishment.
Why not attack?
This whole stupid progressive idea of like you just can just educate people into whatever it is.
It's like, no, you really can't.
Like, there's a lot of people who are just going to be fucking janitors.
Okay.
There's a lot of people.
Yeah.
Okay.
There's a lot of people who are just going to be fucking janitors and who are just going to be fucking toilet bowl cleaners and who are just going to be fucking bartenders and are really not meant to build fucking rocket ships, okay?
No, but they're still subject to laws.
Yeah, but they just say that.
And it's frustrating, but it's just a fact.
If I want free will and they want, and you want free will and we deserve the right to vote, then they do not.
No, no, you're not eliminating free will by this.
You are.
You're protecting the rest of society from low information voters destroying their lives.
Do you think someone else's free will ask if you were to, yeah, but you're not really doing that?
What you're doing.
A vote is an exercise in free will.
Let me ask you this.
If you had to choose for your family, and you knew that you could move them to a place where there was a bunch of people who were highly informed on political processes in the local community, or you can move to a place where people didn't give a shit, right?
Which place would you prefer them to be?
I would prefer them to be on the higher.
Of course, right?
At the place where the people are the most informed.
Speaking of which my mother's climate here, I'm a screener.
Sorry, mom.
Love you.
Now, if you were able to, if these people were able to cast votes and nullify all of the votes of you high information voters, right?
Wouldn't it actually be better for them and for you to disenfranchise their voting so that you guys could actually vote on political and policy issues that made sense?
Well, I don't think that stupid people are nullifying all of the votes of smart people.
Really?
Think about what you just said.
Can you think about it?
Think about what you just said.
Do you think there's more stupid people or smart people?
In this country?
Yeah, that's probably my favorite.
Okay, so you.
Got 6,500 of you guys watching, man.
Welcome to the stream.
If you guys are new here, we're breaking down the debate with Andrew Wilson and this retarded chick.
Very frustrating to listen to her where she won't even acknowledge and or agree on basic shit.
Fucking idiot.
We got 4,100.
Actually, we got what?
60.
Yeah, we got about 6,500 of you guys watching the stream right now, man.
Welcome, guys, to the stream.
Again, the goal is to hit 500K by the end of the year.
Live of five every day, 10K live every time we're live.
You know, the live viewership has been going up.
It's great.
I remember when we started this shit, we were getting like, you know, a little over a thousand.
Now we're sitting, you know, pretty at like 2,000 to 4,000 every time we go live, which is awesome.
And then that's not to include the Rumble numbers.
So, guys, I appreciate it.
We've been growing at a very good rate, man.
You know, we're demonetized on this channel, as you guys know, which kind of blows.
But, you know, we're still grinding, man.
I'm still showing up every single day, despite the fact that I'm demonetized on YouTube.
I don't think any other streamer would ever do this, streaming the amount of time that I stream.
The only thing I ask is that you guys like the video, support the channel.
Let's keep growing this thing because nobody, and I fucking mean that shit, nobody would stream the amount of hours that I stream for fucking free.
I'm telling y'all, bro.
They would not.
Because I am not getting ad sense on this bullshit.
So at all, which kind of blows and it's annoying, but you know, fuck YouTube.
It is what it is.
They're fucking dickheads.
So yeah, just like the video.
That's all I ask, man.
Completely free content.
I'm not getting paid for it.
I'm demonetized.
Shit sucks, but it is what it is.
Smash that like button.
It's the only thing I ask.
And let's keep going.
You really don't think stupid people are nullifying the votes of smart people?
On a certain level, yeah.
At the same time, they still deserve free will.
I can't believe that.
They still have free will.
They don't because they're still subject to positive.
Voting is a privilege.
If you go to Australia and you commit a crime, can you go to jail in Australia?
Yeah.
But you can't vote in Australia, right?
Sure.
So do you see how that makes no sense?
Like what you're saying?
And honestly, guys, if I was just money hungry, what I would do is I would cut the stream and have you guys all come to Rumble and then get the AdSense from Rumble.
But I don't even want to take you guys off YouTube because I know that you guys, like a lot of you guys want to be on YouTube and watch on YouTube.
It's what you enjoy.
And then I know a bunch of you guys want to watch on Rumble.
So I'm trying not to force you guys over to another platform just so that I can make money.
And obviously I'm losing a lot of money by doing that.
But I know a lot of you prefer to watch on YouTube, which is fine.
That's why I don't cut and say, oh, you guys got to come on over to Rumble on this channel so that I can get more AdSense over on Rumble, which, you know, honestly, that's what I should be doing from a business sense.
I should be telling y'all, okay, guys, we're kind of Rumble, come on over.
But I'm not doing that, you know, because I want you guys to be able to watch me wherever you prefer.
Some of you guys are watching on X right now.
I don't even count how many we got watching on X. We got a bunch of you guys watching on X as well.
So the only thing I ask in exchange, despite the fact that I'm getting fucking robbed financially, but it's okay because I do this because I love y'all.
It's not just all about the money.
Only thing I ask is that you guys like the video if you're watching on YouTube.
And yeah, yeah, man.
Because from a business perspective, it's absolutely retarded for me to stream on YouTube as much as I do.
But I do anyway because I love y'all.
And I know a lot of you guys want to watch on YouTube.
And that's fine.
Even though I fucking hate YouTube, I deal with it because you guys prefer it.
Even though it costs me quite a bit of fucking money to do that.
I'm losing a shit ton of money streaming on YouTube and not bringing you guys over to Rumble, but it's fine.
I, you know, keep the people happy.
So only thing I ask in exchange, smash that like video, like button.
Let's keep going.
That means you can travel to another country and endanger people.
Actually, no, Viero Santos, you did not make me a millionaire.
I made myself a millionaire, you fucking dumbass.
Shut the fuck up.
That's right.
You're not even endangering people.
If you're just like drunk in public, you fucking retard.
You can be arrested.
That is a death to public safety.
Public intoxication is a threat to the safety.
That doesn't mean you're going to actually do anything wrong, right?
But you could.
Yeah.
There's retard Viejero Santos saying we made you a millionaire.
Shut the fuck up, nigga.
I made myself a millionaire.
The fuck are you talking about?
Sleepless nights, busting my ass, taking a great risk leaving my fucking past profession, draining out my fucking TSP, buying real estate with it.
Shut the fuck up, dumbass.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I made myself a fucking millionaire, dickhead.
Fuck you.
I mean, drunken people are habitually.
And here's the thing.
I don't censor you, bitch-ass niggas.
I let you guys say the stupid shit that you say so I could roast you dumbasses when you say dumb shit like that in chat.
Or you could break some public ordinance, right?
You could break some public ordinance you didn't know about.
Like you're on a beach, right?
And you're in your shorts and it was supposed to be t-shirts and shorts, you know, something like this.
Yeah, but breaking public ordinances doesn't lead to jail.
It does if you don't pay the fine.
Well, then you should pay the fucking money.
See what I mean, though?
So you are subject to those laws and you are subject to imprisonment based on those laws.
And if that's the case, you can't vote in those countries.
Okay, but you're not a citizen of that country.
You're still a citizen of this country.
If you're a citizen, that's my whole point, though.
You live here and you are subject to the laws of this country for your entire life from birth to death.
Yeah.
You should have.
Why do you want dumb people to disenfranchise your well-informed vote?
That makes no sense.
Not only that, you say that you're actually emboldening them with their free will, right?
It's like, that's so silly because ultimately, these people who are politically low information, they're so low information, you're allowing them to get taken advantage of.
Of course, I don't want dumb people to disenfranchise my vote, but I don't think that the solution to that is a one-marriage voting system or a you have to do public service for five years.
Give me an alternative.
But can't dumb people do that too?
Like, couldn't a dumb person just do some fucking community service for five?
No, because they're smart enough to understand that they need to have skin in the game.
So yes, though they might not necessarily be as intelligent, they're smart enough to realize I need to have skin in the game and voting is earned.
So in that case, they deserve to vote.
Five years and then get paid.
I mean, like, there are dumb people in the army.
Listen, I agree with you that there can be some stupid people who get through the system, but they're not going to be probably low information.
You're not going to go through five years of civil.
Exactly.
They're not going to go through all that bullshit to earn the right to vote to not know what the fuck they're voting for.
They're going to appreciate it more, man.
It's like when you make your kid work for money, they appreciate the dollar way more than if you had just given them an allowance.
Simple shit, man.
Human beings appreciate what they work for.
Civil service like that for the purpose of being able to vote and be low information.
You wouldn't do it.
You have an interest.
That's what the whole point is.
Well, I mean, if you're housing and your food is paid for, I think there are a lot of people who'd be interested in that.
The army.
I mean, that's like exactly.
The army, you have to take the army, you have to take an ASVAB test, and you have to score X amount of a score in order to even be placed in those things.
Big dog.
My boyfriend's a vet.
He talks about some dumb.
Oh, here we go.
She's going to bring her dumbass boyfriend in here in a second.
The fuck is in the army.
I'm sure there's dumb people in the army.
But so they would be.
But to qualify for certain jobs, you can't be.
And for civil service or something like this, Bobby Truman says, we're a W work ethic.
I got you, man.
Mario says, W My, appreciate the content.
Is there any chance of you doing a meetup in San Diego?
I know you hate Cali, but San Diego isn't bad.
I don't know, bro.
I do not know.
Also, guys, the best ways to support this stream is to support either on Rumble, on Rumble Rant or Amarin Gaines X. You could Castle Club in as well, but join Castle Club.
It's better for you to join Castle Club than donating on Castle Club.
They might appreciate the content.
Oh, no, I got that one before already.
All right, let's keep going.
Yes, you can do intelligence tests.
Okay, so you're basically saying there should be an IQ test, and only those who would like to be civil servants pass that IQ test.
Well, I think you should probably implement an IQ test for the military, too, which they do.
Yeah, but people say.
I mean, but they do, unless it's in wartime and they're like, okay, well, we just, you just need a body in here, and then they'll grab anybody off the street.
But yeah.
Can we ask about it right now?
I want to confirm that.
Of course.
Ada.
Do you do IQ tests for the military?
Yeah, I'm the other.
I think I've been in the army board like that.
Wait, you want boyfriend or something?
Sure.
Wait.
Oh, go to the bottom.
It's okay.
Just go around that.
Yeah, there are people who are there who are dumb.
That's true.
This is the part that I saw when I was in the part that I saw when I was in New Jersey when I was in the Uber driving over to what's it called?
To ACT Studio.
If you can't.
I've heard of that.
It's called a Cat Five waiver, right?
They give them a Cat Five waiver.
Can you just in terms of people in the Army and IQ tests, like I've taken the ASVAB, is not a very difficult test, and a lot of people get their ASVABs taken for them.
I knew guys in the Army.
This guy definitely looks like me who are like medically diagnosable with mental deficiencies and were still in the Army doing jobs that in theory required mental faculty.
Sure.
Yeah, the system can get gamed, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
I wouldn't really go that far to be honest with you.
And then also in terms of your...
You don't think the majority of people in the army are stupid, do you?
I think there are a great number of people who join the army because they want a place to live and food, which is the system you just described.
And that's pretty much independent.
They seem to be joining the army based around patriotism, the ability to get paid, the ability to do things like that.
What's that?
Were you in the army?
I was in the army for a very limited amount of time, years and years ago.
How long was that very limited amount of time?
People?
It wasn't very about a year.
About a year.
So what happened?
Well, it doesn't matter what happened.
Oh, but we're talking about service, man.
What about it?
So you want to disenfranchise people based on military service?
I actually know Wynn was in the middle of the money.
What are you talking about?
How would I disenfranchise them based on military service?
It would be the opposite.
Bro wasn't even listening.
Requiring people to serve.
No, it wouldn't require them to serve in the army.
Literally didn't say that.
I'm sorry about that.
Yeah, I literally didn't say that.
Thank you.
Yeah, this guy didn't score high on his fucking ass baby.
He's a retard mouth breather, clearly.
Holy.
Thank you.
Okay.
So now we've established that people in the army can very much be stupid.
Nobody ever disputed you can have stupid people in the army.
Okay, so again, we're trying to go to the bottom.
My question is, we're trying to figure out how this system would work in terms of those who are participating in some sort of civil service.
Yeah, so you would have some type of civil service, right?
Which a person would participate in for at least five years.
Five years?
Yes, unpaid.
Five?
Yes, unpaid.
That's ridiculous.
Why?
Do you think that the person who participated in it for five years unpaid would really want to be politically informed by the end of that?
Yeah.
Maybe, maybe not.
And that's five years of not having, like, that's five years of like housing is paid for.
Service guarantees citizenship.
So can I ask who's paying for five years of millions of people participating in a civil well?
Chances would be pretty good it wouldn't be millions or at least not hundreds of millions of people participating in such a system.
It'd be a very limited thing.
It's like to limit the voting bloc in this country to less than there's 430 million people in this country.
And you'd like to limit it to the people.
330 million.
Hundreds of millions?
It's 330 million in the United States, I think.
336 million or something.
Regardless.
You would still like to limit it to.
I misspoke my bad, but you would still like to limit it to less than.
You would like to limit it to hundreds of thousands of people?
Yeah.
You think it's fair for hundreds of thousands to speak with people to speak on behalf of 360 million people?
Do you think it's fair right now to have 100 senators do that?
No, but we still vote for the Senate.
Yeah, I know.
Do you really think you're getting a little bit of a vote?
Do you think you're really getting political?
Wait, you think you're really getting political representation inside of a state like New York with two people?
I don't live in New York.
I know, but inside the state of New York, do you really think the state of New York is getting adequate political representation on Capitol Hill with two fucking people?
Well, that's why you have the Senate and the House and the House.
Two people who are your senator.
You really think 100 people are representing 330 million people.
At the very top, it's one person who's representing 330 million people.
So are you advocating that we shouldn't have government?
No, what I'm saying to you is that it's very silly for me to look at an argument like you're making and say, oh my God, 100,000 people are going to be in charge or 200,000 people are going to be in charge.
Ultimately, one person's in charge.
So you're saying ultimately one person's in charge.
But there's still checks and balances.
That one person isn't a king.
There still would be checks and balances with limited voting.
There's still checks and balances with limited voting.
Yeah, but we still do not get to decide who is in our legislator.
As a voting body, we do not get to decide who.
You would still have people from within your various communities who would be voters and they would decide who it is that went to represent you on Capitol Hill.
That sounds very expensive and very pointless, if I'm being honest.
How is that expensive?
Okay, fine.
Because you have to pay for all their houses.
And then if you want to do that, there's another way you could do this too.
If you didn't want to do like the civil service way, you could do one vote per household.
That would limit, that would limit the voting significantly.
Hang on.
Okay.
And it would be not expensive at all.
There's even another way that you can do it on top of that.
All righty.
Right?
But let's just start with like one household voting.
Same thing.
Go do it.
You can eliminate whatever this like perceived cost is that you have.
Another thing you could do is just eliminate anybody being able to vote until they reach the same age that they could become president of the United States.
Is that not 35?
So you think that everyone under 35 should lose the right to vote?
Why shouldn't everyone under 35 be?
That's the most boomer shit I've ever seen.
Why shouldn't everybody under 35 be able to be the president of the United States?
Well, because they don't have the.
But they're still.
Why?
Answer the question.
Because they do not yet have the experience in politics to run an entire army.
So just because you can't run.
Okay, Andrew.
But just because you can't run an entire country doesn't mean that you should still not have the right to have one singular vote.
It's one vote.
What are you talking about?
Yes, you can't be the president, but you are still susceptible to the laws.
You can have a kid at 35.
You can have a house at 35.
So what does that do with anything?
But you can't be president.
Below 35.
Legislatively.
Below 35.
From 18 to 34.
All of these people are impacted at the same level.
No, they're not all impacted at the same level.
In fact, I would say.
Can they all go to jail for committing a crime?
Yes, I would say the opposite.
I'd say like people between the ages of 18 and like 25 are mostly living at home, right?
And their parents are the ones who are mostly impacted by legislation, not them.
And their parents.
And their parents should actually probably have more say than them.
Their parents actually have more autonomy than they do because they're dependents on them, right?
Completely dependent upon them.
It's like, if I look at the trends, it seems to me like if you eliminated from 18 to 25 or from 25 to 35, if the founders didn't think you should be president of the United States till you were 35, I don't think they wanted you to vote either.
And you know what?
That's why it was never.
And here's the thing.
Young people nowadays are living with their parents longer and longer and longer.
Living with your parents 20, 30 years ago was like shameful.
But nowadays, with the cost of living going up, with the fact that our boomer parents were able to buy a home at an affordable price back when wages were stable and the housing market wasn't fucking wild, people are millennials, Gen Zers, extras, whatever.
They're not going to be able to have the same quality of life and get that white picket lifestyle that our parents and our grandfather was able to have.
So people are basically living with their parents longer and longer.
So I could see where Andrew's argument is here, where it's like, bro, you niggas live with your parents.
You shouldn't have to vote.
You shouldn't be able to vote.
Z Muslim says I scrub toilets at 72 an hour.
That shouldn't discredit my ability to vote.
Most people having a college education cut from privilege.
I own my own cleaning business not because of my IQ dumb take.
Well, here's the thing.
He said that you got to have skin in the game, bro.
IQ isn't the only thing, and the IQ would be on average.
So you sound like only getting offended right now by that.
Man, how do I increase my IQ and make myself smarter?
Watch educational content only.
That's one of the fastest ways to make yourself less retarded.
Don't watch television like fictional bullshit.
You should be watching stuff that makes you more intelligent.
Documentaries, history stuff, read, listen to stuff on Audible, watch educational content on YouTube.
That's how you do it.
This bitch is dumb as fuck.
Her boyfriend is SimCuck.
And for everyone who hates fat people and are annoyed with this bitch, go watch Andrew Taynor Rumble on God Hates Fat People after the show, of course.
For law, voting rights are affirmed.
This is some old shit.
That's not an argument.
That's not an argument.
Well, I mean, the reason why you're young.
You're old.
Like, you are not applicable to this law.
What did that have to do with anything?
You're trying to govern a group of people that you are not a man.
Again, guys, everything five bucks and up, and I'm reading on air.
I show everything on air, though, even if it's not five bucks, but five bucks and up gets read.
So that's the issue.
So what?
Everyone should be representative of government.
So how old do you think the average person who's in Congress is?
Hell old.
And they're representing all of you.
And I hate that.
So you think that like 19-year-olds are going to be better governing than 60-year-olds?
No, but I think I don't think an 80-year-old would be a representative government.
Yeah, but 80-year-olds are dying in their depends.
They're not governing.
What do you mean?
Yes, they are.
Sleepy Joe.
Sleepy Joe, who is in his 80s, now has cancer and he's not president because he went off the deep end.
I know.
And Trump is in his 70s.
And Mitch McDonald's in his 80s.
All of these people are going to be able to do that.
Your presidents and congressmen are running like between the late 40s to 50s to 60s.
You don't really think that replacing them with 20-year-olds is a good idea, do we?
I don't think we should replace them with 20-year-olds, but why not?
Wait, why not?
Why not?
Well, they'd have to be elected first.
Yeah, I know.
But even if they were, don't you think that would still probably not be the worst idea?
Or that wouldn't be a good idea.
If they were elected through a democratic representative democracy.
Don't you think they would do a worse job, though, than 40, 50, 60 year olds would?
We don't know who it is.
You can't just say universally, I think a 20-year-old would be worse if they are elected democratically.
Why do you think our founders thought that 35 years old was the minimum?
I think the founders thought 35 should be the minimum because you need experience in government to be the head of the government.
No experience in government is even required to become the president of the United States.
Zero.
Sure.
So why this age of 35?
Well, because you have to have lived in this country for long enough to understand it on a base level.
Because they also thought you just didn't have the requisite experience probably in life to govern at all.
That's fair.
To govern the entire country, I would say that.
To govern anybody?
No.
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah.
Really?
I think so.
Why is it that they didn't let people vote?
Why do you think they didn't want people to vote?
I mean, dude, they were kind of fucked up.
I mean, do you really want to base all of your beliefs on the founding fathers?
They own slaves.
So?
So?
The whole world owns slaves.
I'm going to move forward.
Let's see if we're going to move forward here.
We're going to move over to IQ tests for voting.
Let's get out of this.
Defining feminism.
Here we go.
Let's start with defining these terms.
Can we do that?
Sure, yes.
So I define feminism as being a movement towards egalitarianism or equity.
Okay.
With the stated goal of diminishing and eventually destroying patriarchal systems.
Sure.
That seems to be fairly historically accurate and modernly accurate.
Yes.
The movement towards equity, a goal of eliminating patriarchal systems.
Yes.
Okay.
I'll take it.
Okay.
So when I say the word going forward, enforcer, what I mean by that word is people who utilize inside of society.
Which is funny because these patriarchal systems are exactly what allow feminism to flourish.
Feminism only exists within a patriarchy, which creates stability.
Feminism cannot exist when there's anarchy because women are inferior and can't actually utilize force effectively to protect themselves and or a civilization.
The men must do it.
So funny enough, feminism fights for equality and to destabilize the patriarchy, which allows it to exist in the fucking first place.
And that, my friends, defeats feminism right then and there.
It cannot exist without a patriarchy, which is constantly trying to claim oppresses it and wants to overthrow.
Hilarious, isn't it?
I need some form of force in order to either execute laws, right?
Just make that argument every single time with the feminist guys and you will win.
There you go.
That right there just bodies anything.
Or keep people safe in some capacity.
That would be an enforcer.
Okay.
So my argument here is that men, ultimately, are the enforcement arm of everybody's rights, including other men's, and that women always have to appeal to other men.
And so they can't actually get rid of the patriarchy, but must instead comply with the patriarchy.
Okay.
That's my argument.
Sure.
Do you want to repeat that for me just so I can take a little note?
Yeah, that women, basically, feminists always have to appeal to the patriarchy for rights no matter what.
And so feminism isn't even possible.
It's not even a possibility.
Feel to pre-trigger for it.
Okay.
So, can I ask?
Do you believe that free will is a privilege?
Or a right or a privilege?
Do you believe free will is a right or a privilege?
Does free will just mean do whatever you want?
Within the extent that you're not hurting yourself or others or becoming a danger to society.
Well, then, yeah, it sure sounds like you're saying it is.
I'm sorry, what?
Then it would be trivially true that it would have to be.
If you're saying that that means you can do whatever you want unless A, B, C, and D, then it would have to be a privilege.
Well, okay.
So, free will, as I'm defining it, is the right to be with you what you want so long as you are not infringing upon another's free will.
Then it would trivially have to be a privilege.
It would have to be a privilege.
Like, by that logic, there would be no way around it.
It would have to be a privilege.
Yes, because there's constraints on it.
This bitch is retarded.
That would have to be a privilege.
Well, because the second you do infringe on someone's whatever, right?
Yeah.
Do you have free will?
Well, yes, to an extent.
Okay, so free will with some limitations.
Let's say is free will with the limitation.
Then it's not free will.
Well, what do you want to call it, Andrew?
I mean, I would just maybe will.
Okay.
Do you think that human will is a right or a privilege?
I'm not trying to figure out what you mean by this.
Human will.
Like, do you think that we, as a society?
How about maybe I can just do it this way?
I don't believe that human beings have inherent rights.
Okay.
Thank you.
There we go.
Human beings have no inherent rights.
Yeah, correct.
I think instead what we call rights are actually just collective intuitions, which are appealed to to force, and then force enforces them.
Okay.
So all law.
Are you trying to say that basically all laws are enforced through force or just every the reality is, yeah, everything is a privilege because it needs to be backed up by something, right?
It needs to be backed up by something.
And the monopoly of force is what backs it up.
So in this case, you have the freedom of speech as a privilege in America because we are able to have a government and have a monopoly of force which enforces that privilege, though we call it a right.
If you're talking about things from a totally, you know, bird's eye view perspective, objectively speaking, technically it is a privilege because you can't go to other places and have this privilege.
We have it here in the United States because there is a monopoly of force that protects that.
So yes, I agree.
There is no inherent right.
Everything is basically a privilege because it's backed up by force.
At the end of the day, bro, violence is what causes order.
All laws.
All laws are enforced by force.
And we've been civilized so much that we forget that a lot of the times.
We forget that violence is literally why we have peace.
Okay.
So if you think about this, the way that I would say is like, this is why nuclear weapons are so goddamn important.
This is why Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because if Iran had nuclear weapons, that means that Israel cannot go ahead and do the violence that they want and attack Iran.
It is a strategic tool to ensure peace.
You agree with me that rights themselves are a social construction?
I mean, not really.
So my right to own a gun is not a social construction?
Yeah, but I'm talking about free will, not like human.
What is that?
I don't understand, though.
Like you being able to act in will, I wouldn't dispute with.
That's what I'm saying.
You can take actions with your will.
But when you say rights, you're saying that those are privileges, absent duties.
That's a right.
And then a duty, right, would be essentially the opposite of what a right is, right?
Yes.
Okay, so these privileges that you're talking about, I think, if that's what a right is, a privilege.
So check if you have a Prime Site available.
If you have Amazon Prime, you just link it up super quick and easy way to support the show.
All right.
Sure, it sounds like you're saying it is.
I'm sorry, what?
Then it would be trivially true that it would have to be, if you're saying that that means you can do whatever you want unless A, B, C, and D, then it would have to be a privilege.
What we call rights that I would say is like, do you agree with me that rights themselves are a social construction?
I don't understand though.
Like you being able to act.
They're absolutely a social construction.
The fact that she can't concede on that is wild.
They are a social construction because they vary depending on what social group you're with.
For example, in America, you can speak freely against the government because we have a social construction here where we have freedom of speech.
But if you go to Saudi Arabia, you can't criticize the royal family because they have a social construction where you can't.
So rights and free will, as she says, is defined by where you are geographically located a lot, which comes down to what?
Monopoly of force.
Act in will, I wouldn't do it.
Because the Saudi Arabian government, if you criticize them, they'll hit you with a fucking khashogi.
That's what I'm saying.
You can take actions with your will.
But when you say rights, you're saying that those are privileges, absent duties.
That's a right.
And then a duty, right, would be essentially the opposite of what a right is, right?
Yes.
Okay.
Okay, so these privileges that you're talking about, I think, if that's what a right is, a privilege absent of duty, then they all seem like they're privileges.
Okay, but like, you don't think that.
I guess my issue with this argument is that it's claiming that power is based solely on force, which to me seems like it's advocating on behalf of violence.
I mean, in order to enforce and maintain.
Well, yeah, that's what force would be.
Raw force would be violence.
Okay.
So that's what it does.
Like we advocate that police be able to use violence in order to enforce laws, right?
But we would prefer that they avoid it, right?
Yeah, but ultimately, what makes people comply?
The threat of violence, right?
But there are other ways to get people to comply, no?
Yeah, but what if they don't?
Well, I mean, yes, but I feel like that's a bit of an extreme.
No, it's not a bit of an extreme that people don't comply.
But how does the president have power?
He can't threaten violence against the people.
That's all he does.
He is the commander-in-chief of the United States military.
But he can't threaten and compete.
So basically, you believe that we function in a society solely because if we don't, we will be violently hurt by the military.
What?
No.
I believe that all of your privileges that you have in society.
This woman is retarded.
Yes, the president is threatening force because we have nuclear bombs pointed at our adversaries where they know that, and they have nuclear weapons pointed at us.
Russia has a dead hand system where if we attack them, they would launch all their nukes at us and we would basically destroy each other.
This is called mutually assured destruction.
Okay?
So the threat of violence, ironically enough, is what keeps peace.
But again, feminists are too stupid to understand this.
Incredible.
Wow.
Idea that you're calling rights only actually exist because of force, the idea of force.
Yes.
Rights only exist because of force, depending on where you are geographically.
In the United States, we have the right to free speech because we have the force to dictate that through our government.
But other places don't allow the freedom of speech as a right.
And that privilege is basically revoked in that social construct of that group of people because they don't believe in it socially.
So this whole concept of like privilege and rights, it's all social constructs.
It really is all social constructs coming down to where you are and enforced by force.
It's amazing how she doesn't understand this.
But again, you know why women don't understand this?
Because women don't engage in building society or engaging in force or violence a lot of times.
They just look at the world like, ooh, everything is nice and peaceful and safe.
Ooh, this is awesome.
They don't understand the concept of violence to ensure peace.
They don't really understand this concept.
It's very difficult for them to grasp this shit a lot of the times.
Force and force doctrine, and that that is basically 100% men who provide that.
Okay, so you're kind of giving this like might makes right argument.
Just makes, not makes right.
So just might is right.
No, just makes, not makes right.
Right would be a prescriptive ought claim for morality.
I'm making a descriptive claim, which is that descriptively might makes.
So do you not believe that violence is immoral?
Of course not.
Depends on the circumstance.
You generally just don't believe that violence is immoral.
It depends on the circumstance.
I mean, violence in an attempt to control others and you certainly.
Again, that depends on the circumstance.
I think there's plenty of times where you and I would agree that using violence to control others is totally acceptable.
I feel like violence is necessary in self-defense.
No, you don't.
You think that violence is completely acceptable to control prison inmates, probably to execute certain laws and search warrants, to do all sorts of things.
Violence is necessary.
Again, those are both actions in self-defense or defense of others.
How is that if two inmates are fighting?
When you're saying you break up that fight, but it's violence to control others, right?
But it would be in defense of others.
Yeah, but it's still to control others.
It's in defense of others.
What if those people, like inmates, don't want to be defended?
So that's what we're talking about.
Well, I mean, if someone is beating another person to death, I'm sure that the person who is dying...
It's mutual combat.
They both want to do it.
The guards then go and break it up.
They're definitely using violence for control, not die, but fight.
Okay, but if someone is beating someone else to death and you are not going to be able to do that, that's not a good idea.
You see how you negate the claim?
So you move to the next claim?
Can two people be fighting and then you use violence to break that up?
Yes.
Okay, great.
So then you can use violence to control people and it's perfectly acceptable.
It's not acceptable, though, because the reason it's acceptable is because it's in defense of another person.
Those people want to fight.
Who are you defending?
If one of them is dying or if one of them is not.
If one of them is not dying, they just want to fight.
They're not dying, but they just want to fight.
Okay, sure.
So two prison inmates.
But again, you're using these like really, really, really stringently specific things.
Yeah, because if we go too broad and too general, then if we hone it down, then I can negate your stance because what you're saying doesn't actually make logical sense.
But you're honing it down to a specific example that is not representative of the entire population of the United States.
I feel like we should use an example of that.
What is representative of the entire population?
Not two prisoners who choose to fight to the death.
I mean, that's the furthest thing.
No, no, but when you make a claim, you make this claim.
You say, Andrew, violence is only just or your violence isn't justified to control groups of people.
And I'm like, yeah, but you don't even really believe that because I can give you examples of groups of people who you would want to control with violence and you think it's totally acceptable.
And you're like, yeah, that's true.
Well, those people have free jail by committing.
But hang on.
You go, yeah, that's true.
But, right, I still now don't want to use that example.
It's like, that makes no sense.
It's a reputation to your position.
That's why I hone in on it.
Okay, so people, we know this through the Constitution, essentially relinquish their right to free will by threatening the free will of others.
That's why prisoners are allowed to go to jail and that is constitutionally accepted.
Yes.
Say that.
Let me make sure I got that right.
Say that again.
People essentially relinquish their right to free will, the right to walk around and be free in society as a prisoner, because they have committed a crime that is a danger to themselves or others and threatens the fabric of society.
So why do people go to jail?
Why are crimes crimes?
Why are things that are bad?
People go to jail because we force them into jail after they commit crimes, not because they're willingly going to jail for them.
I understand that they're not willingly going to jail, but what I'm saying is the forced relinquishment of free will in this instance is morally acceptable because they have committed a crime that threatens themselves or others.
Yeah, I'm not disputing whether or not it's moral.
That would make my point for me, though.
So I'm not trying to talk about those who have already had their free will relinquished on the basis that they have committed a crime that threatens themselves or others.
I'm trying to talk about people who are not criminals, who have not relinquished their free will, who are here in this country and deserve the right to choose what they do with themselves and their bodies.
No.
Okay, well, I mean, you're making a lot of suppositions there that I just kind of like don't agree with.
Bro, what the fuck is this girl saying, dude?
What the fuck is she talking about?
So you don't think that people deserve the right to bodily autonomy?
No.
What makes someone deserve the right to bodily autonomy?
Well, when you say bodily autonomy, would you agree then that a fetus has bodily autonomy?
I'm talking right now about human beings.
Well, I consider those human beings.
I'm talking right now about people who can talk and walk, who are independent singular organisms.
So people who are in comas, they have no rights.
Dude, you keep doing comas and prisoners and fetuses.
Just talk about a fucking person.
What about just talk about a person who is not an exception, who is not in a medical state of physics?
Yeah, but what we're trying to determine right now is the worldview.
You say people deserve to have a bodily autonomy.
And then you give me the criteria for bodily autonomy, and then I can instantly point to an example where you agree.
That's not what we're trying to do.
What you're trying to do is create a gotcha so you don't have to answer the genuine question that I'm asking.
What's the genuine question you're asking?
The question is, do people, regardless of outliers, does the average person who has not committed a crime, who is not inside of another person, who is not brain dead or in a coma, deserve bodily autonomy?
Depending on what you mean by that.
Bodily autonomy being defined as the ability to choose what you do with your body so long as you are not threatening other people's bodily autonomy.
No.
Why not?
Because I would say that things like laws against unaliving yourself would be completely appropriate and things like this, which would be a violation of your bodily autonomy by your criteria.
So you think that because people can't unalive themselves?
No, I'm saying you gave me the criteria for what bodily autonomy means, right?
You asked me what an objection would be against it, and I just gave you one.
Okay, so let's cut out that outlier.
Do you think that people who are not inside another person, who have not committed a violent crime against themselves or others, and who have not are not currently brain dead and are conscious and capable of perceiving the world, do you think that those people deserve bodily autonomy?
No, based on the example I just gave you.
Just because people have the capacity to unalive themselves, no one deserves bodily autonomy.
By the definition that you just gave, we could not give them bodily autonomy, definitionally by that definition, because...
Definitely by that definition.
Definitionally by that definition, yes.
So I could say definitionally by some other definition, but I'm giving you the referent to your definition.
We don't deserve bodily autonomy.
Not by your definition, because that would prevent us from preventing people from doing suicide and things like this.
So we don't deserve bodily autonomy because under my definition of bodily autonomy, we cannot prevent someone from killing themselves.
But that's not a violent act.
Yeah, that's a real violent act.
Why can't, under my definition, you can't prevent someone from killing themselves?
Because it would violate your rule for what bodily autonomy is.
I said, so long as you are not a threat to yourself or others.
So that includes you.
So you would relinquish your bodily autonomy if you were a threat to yourself.
Then I think that it would then just be trivially true that you don't really mean bodily autonomy anymore because what you do is you say bodily autonomy with all of these exceptions where we can violate bodily autonomy.
But that's like three exceptions.
It's exceptions that.
It's not like three exceptions.
It's many exceptions.
What about somebody who's just like cutting themselves with a razor blade?
Can we stop them?
What about a person who just says that they want to cut off their right arm because they think it'll be fun?
Can we stop them?
She can't even, she doesn't even understand the definition of her own word.
That's funny.
And he's beating her up with her own definition of the word.
Like, there's so many examples I can give you of where we would violate people's bodily autonomy.
What about a person who's having like a manic episode and doesn't want to go to the hospital?
Can we violate their bodily autonomy?
They're either a threat to themselves or others.
So again, that would fall in there.
What if they're not a threat?
What if they're just having like a manic episode?
They don't want to leave their house.
You just perceive it that way.
That happens all the time.
Exactly.
So we violate that whatever you consider by your definition bodily autonomy.
When you say, do people deserve that?
And I say absolutely not by that definition, because I can point to 300 different reasons why we would need to violate it.
So is there any definition of bodily autonomy that you think that a human being...
I'm not aware of a definition of bodily autonomy.
I would agree to that I wouldn't think we should be able to violate.
So, you don't think that people should have the ability to control themselves and their bodies under any circumstance?
I wouldn't say under any circumstance.
So, what's the circumstance in which people should have the right to control their body?
Yeah, so, well, for me, I would say that if it's in some type of case of will, that you could do that.
But, I mean, ultimately, I think free will?
Yeah, no, in case of will.
So, I'm not sure that I believe in some universalized right for bodily autonomy.
And you haven't really given me any definitional reason why I shouldn't.
But I don't understand why you don't believe in bodily autonomy.
Why do you believe that?
Because my understanding of what bodily autonomy is, is that you basically have the right to do whatever you want absent the infringement of somebody else's bodily autonomy.
Yes.
Why don't you think people should?
Because I think that I need to many times infringe on people's bodily autonomy for their good or societies.
Why are you constantly infringing on other people's bodily autonomy?
What are you at?
What do you mean?
What do you just said?
I feel the need to.
Yeah, well, I would use force doctrine for that, meaning voting.
Things like that.
So, when to violate it, when are you forcing my will when I go vote on other people through force doctrine?
No, you're not because they all have a vote.
Not according to you, but I can vote and you can vote, right?
Yes.
Okay, you want abortions to be legal?
Yes.
If I vote against that, am I voting against your bodily autonomy?
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay.
Can we move on now?
No, we can't move on now.
No, we can't move on.
Okay.
Well, Andrew, you still haven't explained why humans don't deserve bodily autonomy.
Like, what?
I just explained it to you.
So then who should control people?
Well, in this case, we would use groupings of laws under, from my view, it would be like Christian ethics.
From your view, it would be like, I don't know, shared bizarre intuitions or whatever, where you think that you're doing what I believe.
Do you believe in God?
I'm on fence.
And it's just intuition.
So everything that you believe probably just insists.
So you believe.
Well, I mean, there's also facts and like physical evidence, but you know.
So you believe.
Facts and physical evidence require an interpreter, right?
Like eyes and ears.
And they require you to interpret them.
So you're saying that facts are different for everyone, regardless of how they interpret it.
Well, they require an interpreter, and the interpreter can interpret them however they choose and then can make moral prescriptions based on those.
But when we get to the moral prescriptions, facts don't change based on your interpretation.
But your moral prescriptions based on the facts do.
That's why they're yeah, they require interpreters.
So I'm not really willing to kind of see the fact that every fact, but you are your own personal interpreter now.
Yeah, I interpret things correct.
Yes, okay, and so do I. That's yeah, I know, but I just don't see facts and then we make judgments about those facts.
Right, but I have an epistemic foundation that I appeal to for foundational morals.
You don't.
So you think that everyone should have to subscribe to the Christian God and that is who decides who has free will?
I think that Christian ethics.
I'm confused as to what that is.
We weren't talking about free will.
Okay, so then what we're talking about.
Okay, so then based on your definition of bodily autonomy, the one that you gave me, we would definitely need to violate it.
And you even agree to that.
Do what?
Just for abortion or what?
No, for the purpose of like suicide, cutting yourself with razor blades, all sorts of various things that you could do to yourself for self-harm that we would step in and violate your bodily autonomy over.
Okay, so outside of those specific examples in which someone is committing an act of harm, which I also removed from my definition of bodily autonomy.
Then I don't consider that bodily autonomy anymore by your definition.
Your definition would have to be something different.
Like the right to go to the fucking grocery store.
Who has that right?
Who are you saying under your standpoint of government, what is it based on your equal force objection can women do that they should not be allowed to do?
So let's untangle some ideas.
When you say who has a right to go to a grocery store, who has an inherent right to go to a grocery store or who has a physical right enforced by men to go to a grocery store?
Which thing are you asking?
What do you mean?
An inherent?
And he's being specific about this because of the topic of discussion.
Right or some external subjective right.
He's correct.
You don't have an inherent right.
You have a privilege that's allow that's given to you through force.
Other people, the ability to conduct force allows you to go to the grocery store unimpeded.
That is enforced.
Which thing are you asking?
I'm saying who has an inherent right to move their body is?
Nobody.
Nobody has an inherent right to do anything.
Nobody.
I agree.
Nobody does have an inherent right to do anything.
Nobody has an inherent right to do anything.
So then how do we gain the physical right to go to the grocery store?
Through force.
Exclusively through force.
Yeah, the only reason.
Yes, because you are able to walk to the grocery store with whether you're walking on a sidewalk or you're driving there because there's roads and there's a sidewalk that's there that was created by a civilization which has organization and force to enforce said organ civilization to operate in a certain way where you can now walk through the grocery store safely and be able to focus on buying apples instead of getting stabbed by someone else that will steal your apples.
That is why force is so important.
It allows you the privilege, not the inherent right, the privilege to be able to go to the grocery store and purchase the apples and then consume them after because there is a monopoly of force which keeps things nice and safe for you to go to the grocery store and get apples.
The fact that she doesn't understand this is fucking wild.
So if like, let's say the Taliban took over like the grocery store area, do you have the right to go to the grocery store now?
No, but that's an awesome.
Then you're agreeing with me.
So then you're saying there's no inherent right.
Sounds like you're advocating for anarchy and the only way that No.
He's saying the force is what stops the fucking anarchy.
You retard.
Holy shit.
See, this is why, bro, this is why women, like, honestly, need to be taken out of certain discourses.
Like, I'm just going to keep it a doubt with you.
Every single female debater that we've heard, the chick that debated with fucking Charlie Kirk earlier, this dumb bitch, like, they just don't understand how the world works.
Like, he's not advocating for anarchy, you fucking dumbass.
He's saying the reason why an anarchy doesn't exist is because the anarchy would be pummeled by the force doctrine of the U.S. military and law enforcement.
So the reason why you have the privilege of going to the fucking grocery store is because there's a threat of force on perpetrators that might attack you while you travel to said grocery store.
What the fuck, man?
Calculum!
Punch!
So fucking stupid.
So fucking dumb.
That's what I mean when I say women just like enjoy the fruits of the labor, but they don't understand what it took to create said labor.
We have civilized society so fucking much that these dumb broads don't understand that it's a privilege for them to be able to go to the fucking grocery store.
It's not a right, you dumb bitch.
Holy shit.
Artificially, though, we're saying it's a right because we live in America.
I have autonomy.
Look, that's cool.
But at the end of the day, that is a social construct that you are afforded here in the United States because there's a monopoly on force against perpetrators who might try to stop or impede your ability to go to said grocery store.
So you can go and buy apples and enjoy eating said apples because there's a monopoly of force that stops the anarchy from attacking you as you go to the grocery store to buy said apples.
Fuck.
God damn.
This is why women's opinions are almost never taken seriously in any real discourse.
So dumb.
They're so fucking dumb.
It's incredible how dumb they are.
This is why, you know, the saying, the phrase, women are to be seen and not be heard, shit like this.
And in this case, I don't even want to see this bitch.
So it's a double whammy because now I got to look at her and I got to listen to her.
Fuck, man.
This fucking ghoul over here, right?
Looks like fucking Rick James from the Dave Chappelle show, right?
Doesn't understand anything.
This is how privileged modern women are.
Incredible, bro.
The reason why you can go to the grocery store and buy Granny Smith apples is because there's strong men that are protecting your privilege of going to the store to buy said apples, you stupid bitch.
Fuck, man.
Not advocating for anarchy.
The only way that people gain a right is through force.
Then we'd all be fighting each other all the time to gain the right to just cooperate for the purpose of force doctrine.
We do it constantly.
What do you mean?
No, we don't.
Because we don't live under a forced doctrine principle.
Yes, we do.
Well, how would old people have the power to do anything?
How would disabled people have the power to do?
Because they have no one defending.
Because it's protected by other people that are stronger than them.
What the fuck?
Calculum punch.
What the fuck?
The old people are able to exist because there's strong young people that protect them, dumbass.
Because they have people who have force, which enable them to do those things.
That's how.
Oh, my God.
See, me and Andrew get it.
Again, I did not see this episode.
So I saw parts of it, but like, this is crazy, bro.
Women struggle so much with understanding force doctrine.
It's wild to me.
But again, the reason why is because they don't contribute to society the same way that men do.
They don't understand these inherent truths, man.
They just don't.
They just don't, bro.
Most women have never been punched in the face, guys.
Do you guys know that?
Most women have never been punched in the face.
That is why they don't understand force.
They just haven't.
They have not been punched in the face.
So then there is power that comes not from force.
If people who do not have the power to force can utilize the strength of others on their behalf.
The strength of others would be force.
Okay, but how did that person at the top doesn't have force, utilize the strength of others?
He's utilizing other people's force.
Okay, but what is he doing to utilize their force?
Because he somehow has power over them.
How?
He doesn't have.
Well, it's agreed to power.
But the thing about power dynamics, which is interesting, is that if you have control over force, if that were to shift, like let's say the president said some shit that you really didn't like and a big-ass mob showed up to take him out, right?
And nobody opposed that.
Who has force doctrine on their side?
That's fair.
So I want to go back to this claim.
You said that.
Hang on, hang on.
Before we go back.
Incredible.
My claim.
Hang on.
Guys, like the video.
Let's get to 3,900 likes.
We've got 3,830.
Let's get to 4,000.
If we get over 100% engagement, that'd be fucking lit.
Wait, wait, wait.
And I would like to just ask.
Hang on, you said that's fair, though, right?
You said that's fair.
No, I'm.
You said that's fair.
I'm responding to the words you're saying.
If you said agreed to power based on force.
Yeah.
And that those who are disabled are protected and their will is protected.
And those who are elderly are protected in their will.
If there's force, yeah.
Then why can't you do the same thing with women?
Why do women now usurp their right to protection and bodily autonomy under a business?
There's not rights.
These aren't rights.
This is for we actually protect their privilege all the time, despite the fact that they don't participate in said protection.
We protect it for them.
Of course, can women manipulate men to use force on their behalf?
Sure.
That's happened before.
Okay.
Great.
But they're always going to have to appeal to men's strength for force.
No matter what.
But I don't think society is intrinsically and implicitly governed by force.
And I think advocating for that.
Which part of society?
Which part of society is not governed by force?
Which part?
I mean, schools aren't governed by people.
Yes, they're governed by force for sure.
Really?
So kids go to school because they're afraid they're going to get hurt?
No, they're not going to school because they're afraid they're going to get hurt.
But there's security guards who are around.
There's police officers who are around.
There's going to be people who enable that nothing bad is going to happen to those kids.
Guys, the name of the song is called Lucas Gage, Early Life, but it's not on fucking Sound Cloud anymore.
They took it off.
Ever Blazer says, Myron, the people want your input on this?
What are you talking about?
What input, bro?
What input, Everblazer?
Several back slaps.
If there was just one person alive, then she might be able to justify autonomy.
We can't have autonomy in an organized civilization.
Force allows slash disallows.
What we can do.
Absolutely.
Yarmire, how's it going?
Thanks, Tom Jones.
When women fight, a titty pops out.
When men fight, someone can die.
Big difference.
She's not getting it.
Yeah, stupid, bro.
Stupid.
My disnauseating.
Obviously, she's stupid.
And Angel in the debate.
Can we move on to please losing brain cells listening to this female Rick James Hoare?
All right.
Well, what do you guys want to see then?
I don't know what you niggas want to see.
Teachers who are there are much stronger than the students to keep potential threats away from the students.
All of it's governed by force.
Okay, but you're talking about force for protection versus.
Let's see what fresh and them are talking about.
I know fresh and them are live right now.
Which part of society is not governed by force?
Which part?
I mean, schools aren't governed by force.
Yes, they're governed by force for sure.
Really?
So kids go to school?
Just going to keep it real.
I ain't going to lie to people.
But, but, I will say this.
If you go hard in life, you will be an extremely wealthy man.
But you have to go hard in life.
And I know you will because you're a horse and horses work fucking hard.
Oh, I know what the horses are really hard.
They're doing readings for people.
Yeah.
All right.
Next one here is going to be Bernie.
Sneeko.
Look what they're lining up, bro, for 100.
You can't get people to fucking give you a $5 fucking Euro pass, bro.
You see how this works?
Yeah, you might have fucking more followers.
You've been at this for a decade, bro.
I've been at this for a few years, but guess what?
They can't get enough for me, and no one gives a fuck about even helping you.
I older.
Keep screaming at your chat.
I call my chat brokeies.
Guess what?
I ain't talking to all of them, but I'm definitely talking to your whole chat.
Oh, shit.
Oh, shit.
Boy, I'm so lost.
They're making fun of Sneeko.
Sneeko live right now?
She didn't put it in the chat, but here we go.
She didn't put in.
Her birthday is actually going to be 15th of March, 1970.
15th of March, 1970.
That's correct.
Oh, what do you know?
Another eight-life path.
Notice how the eights keep donating.
Look at that, Stinko.
They money donate because they got money.
How do you think a dumb tiger like you has money?
You're an eight.
You're born on the eighth.
That's literally the only reason you have a bad.
He's not alive right now.
You have that eight energy.
But you know what the thing about eights?
And I'm going to tell you this to you too, girl.
It's like a roller coaster.
I don't know how they got on this topic, but okay.
What else do we got here?
Let me see here.
Yeah.
Yeah, Sneeko's not on right now.
Yeah, Sneeko's on Sneeko's on party, guys.
So I don't have a party account.
I should can I subscribe?
Oh, I gotta fucking join.
All right, I'll make a party account.
Party's coming up, though, chat.
Party is coming up, man.
Party is coming up.
What do you ninjas, what do you ninjas want?
What do you guys want?
Type in the chat what you guys want.
Let me look here.
I don't know what you mean when you say you want Myron's input on this Everblazer.
Input on what, bro?
Soulless Clothing Co.
says, hello, Myron, you inspire me a lot to not be a piece of shit and get up and do something with my life.
Started my own brand.
Would love to send you a hoodie, bro.
Email me.
Official soul clothing.
Stay blessed, brother.
I appreciate that, man, but I don't wear other people's merch.
Pop-pop goes, would you smash NAMA?
What?
I don't even know what the fuck name is.
On the voting debate, what would you think about the idea of only letting people vote will file a tax return?
Because then women can file tax returns too.
It's forced for the utilization and monopoly of power.
It's all the same thing.
It's not the same thing.
Same.
If you're protecting people's right to be somewhere, then that is a different use of force than...
But they're both forced?
Great, then they're the same thing, force.
Sure, but why are you just because you have a monopoly on force, what gives guys?
We are 60 likes away from hitting 4,000.
Let's get to 4,000 just because.
And we're almost at 50k views as well, man.
Do the will to usurp someone's right to very basic bodily.
They don't have.
And we just hit 263,000 subscribers.
Chat, we are cooking, man.
We are cooking.
Right.
And still demonetized.
Rights.
Cooking while demonetized.
Not by your agreement inherent.
So then what's to stop a bigger, stronger man from just beating the shit out of you?
And now you don't have rights.
Nothing except for police activity.
All right, we'll finish watching this and then we'll do a police activity.
How about that?
Force doctrine.
That's the whole point.
Then why would you want to live in a society in which everybody?
We'll just finish this force doctrine, then we'll go to police activity.
Everyone is like.
I didn't say you have to live in a society in which individuals can get beaten up by somebody who's next to them.
That's what force doctrine is.
No, force doctrine would be like the cops would show up and beat that guy down with billy clubs, drag his ass to prison, then he would get thrown into prison where guards would make sure he stayed there.
Okay, so that's all force.
I don't even know what that means.
What are you asking?
So the force and the power to, I mean, you're basically saying that women do not have the right to, I don't know, because you won't define what rights are, to do really anything.
Okay, I'll tell you again.
What did I say a right is?
A duty.
I'm sorry, a privilege absent a duty.
And you agreed to it four times.
So women have no privilege absent of a duty.
Stop stop.
I just want to point out your lie.
You said I. So you said I keep lying or you keep lying.
Of course, you're so frustrated because she knows she can't win intellectually stupid.
When did I lie, Bookie?
You just said I never defined privilege.
No, you didn't.
Yes, you literally just said that, and I defined it four times.
You didn't say you didn't define privilege.
You didn't define privilege.
You defined right.
Oh, my God.
A privilege.
See, there I go right here.
This is the one I joined in, guys.
This one I joined in.
You can see my chat right here.
This is when I joined into the thing.
Which absent duty is what?
I was losing fucking hair listening to this dumbass chick.
A privilege absent of a duty.
I'd say like free will.
A right.
It's a right.
I defined it multiple times.
So what are you trying to say?
That because women cannot defend physically their right to do things, that they do not deserve rights.
Is that the point?
They can't enforce their own rights.
Okay, so because someone cannot afford their own rights, they don't deserve rights.
Well, they don't have them.
But do they deserve them?
Well, you're at, again, then you're moving into a different claim.
So if you want to get into like what people deserve or don't deserve, right?
We can get into that.
But can we at least agree on the descriptor of how it works first?
No.
Okay.
Because women, I'm trying to understand why women don't deserve rights because they cannot fight.
That's a different claim.
I just asked you if we could agree to the descriptor before we moved to that claim and you said no and then brought that claim up again.
Because the claim doesn't make sense.
I don't understand your claim.
Bro, you're just dumb.
That's what it comes down to.
All right, let's see here.
So suspect will baby gun flee Sacramento Cops and get taken down by canine and shot.
Let's see here.
Now, the OGs, you guys know what this is.
Sometimes I watch police activity and we look at the use of force and we see if it was valid.
So what's abandoned building?
Do you know the address?
So it looks like now I want to call about an abandoned building.
So domestic violence incident involving a woman, they were involving a weapon called respondent suspect.
Okay.
You know his last name?
You're going to do that, Kidman.
You don't do that to people.
You don't kill people step.
okay so catch up on scene you better stop Okay, immediately gets into a foot chase.
Johnny, stop.
I'm going to take you to the ground.
Stop.
Because of verbal commands.
Oh, it looks like he actually got his gun on him.
Not the gun.
Drop it.
Okay, saw a gun.
He's got a gun to his head.
Johnny, stop.
Johnny, stop.
Bro, is running with the guns in his head?
Oh, man.
He's got a gun pointed down like that.
so he doesn't flag his partner.
I'm on the water.
I can't see anything?
No.
I can't see anything?
I see him.
looks like a glock 19 or 17.
So they're looking for him.
I got the water.
We've lost visuals.
Medical police department.
Any and all pedestrians, we need you to come up to the bike trail.
Your hands up at this point.
SAC PD K9.
Johnny Alcoria, we know that you are hiding down there.
We do not want to have to hurt you.
We need you to come out with your hands up, nothing in your hand, and surrender.
You are completely surrounded.
Attention on the ground, attention on the ground.
This is the Sacramento Police Department.
Johnny Valcordage, you are completely surrounded.
We know that you are hiding down by the riverbank.
We need you to come out with your hands up, nothing in your hand, and surrender peacefully.
Sacramento Police Department, canine.
Johnny Valcorda, if you decide to flee, we will send a dog.
That dog will find you, and that dog will bite you.
We do not want to have to hurt you.
Come out now, surrender peacefully, put your hands up in the air and walk off to the bike trail.
Attention on the ground, this is Sacramento Police Department.
Indian Old Manet Street, including first event, we need you to come off to the bike trail at this point.
Carter man says, Yo, Marin, fingers crossed for a guy's remoteization.
But do you think at this point y'all have a decent chance of getting it back and how cooked YouTube is?
Also, Abba is a bitch.
Yeah.
We'll see what happened, bro.
We'll see what happens.
Like I said before, YouTube is fucking trash, bro.
With your hand off.
I think the only in the oh, we got running.
People are running.
People are running on the island over there.
That's kind of crazy saying in the dog knowing that he has a gun.
Yep.
But they're obviously trying to go a less lethal way.
Johnny, hands up.
Chop, chop, shoot, stop.
Johnny, hit.
Get the nut!
He!
Buster!
Oh, shit.
Yeah, that's just dogs didn't catch him in two seconds.
Drop the gun.
Drop the gun!
That dog fucking his ass up, man.
Goddamn.
Give up Johnny.
Give me him.
Stop fighting the dog.
Give me him.
Give me another hand.
Give me another hand.
Hand.
So here's the other guy.
He hits your right.
Hey, Johnny Gunn.
Drop the gun.
Where's he going?
I got the gun.
I got the gun.
Bam.
Okay.
Playing close, cop.
Hey!
Hey, give up, Johnny.
Ah.
So a dog actually bit the hand that had the gun on it.
All right, so they're cutting it to try to find the wound.
All right.
Let me find some time.
I got blood.
He's got one in the arm.
Wonder if this guy survived.
You guys like these police videos, by the way?
I'm thinking about bringing this back to end off the streams, I do react to a couple of police activity videos with you guys.
All right.
I got it.
That's it.
That was fine.
That's, uh...
I think it's just not by that.
Okay.
Anything else?
I don't see any in his chest yet.
I just got this one heavy squirter in his arm.
Tom Joe says, getting closer to my divorce, been taking two years.
Yeah, bro.
Okay, Western was recovered at the scene after investigating examined.
Them both were determined to be imitation firearms.
Hey, again, I told you guys before, you know, what did the police reasonably believe?
Look like a real gun.
So, of course, they're gonna act as if right because they look real.
I ain't gonna lie to you.
I think anybody that has common sense will look at it like it's real.
So, um, you guys are probably wondering, clean shoot, yes, absolutely a clean shoot.
Absolutely a clean shoot.
Let's see if the guy survived.
Um, after seeing treatment, he booked into Sacramento.
Okay, so he landed shortly after and um, not a non-life-threatening injury, so he survived.
This one is crazy right here.
Look at this one.
I watched this one the other day.
This nigga starts going wild.
And this is why traffic stops can just go crazy, bro.
Arn man ransom Taliban and opens fire on Fairfox Cops and fatal traffic stop.
So, these are my partners here.
They're coming up.
I don't want you to get rattled, but it's because hey, we got 4,000 likes.
Let's go, baby.
Let's go.
I'm not even sir.
Hey, I watched you do it.
I'm officially done asking for likes now.
Thank you guys.
We reached 4,000.
Let's fucking go.
I don't give a damn fuck.
Hey, so listen, American.
This is take it.
I take this with you, okay?
So now you want to give me that?
Hey, don't you reach it?
Fuck!
Listen, listen, American.
This is take it.
I take this with you, okay?
No, no, no, no, no.
Bro, that's crazy.
Literally pulled the gun out.
What a retard.
Now you want to give me that?
Hey, don't you reach it?
Fuck!
Listen, listen, American.
This is take it.
I take this with you, okay?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, dude, pulls out a fucking Glock and he racks it before.
I take this with you, okay?
So now you want to give me a break.
Don't you reach it?
That's fucking crazy.
And then, right here, this guy shoots him from the side.
So now you want to give me that.
Hey, don't you reach it?
Fuck.
Absolutely wild *Pewds* Oh god...
Jesus Christ!
That was a heck of a stop, sir!
I have a gun and I'm armed.
I'll let you know.
So he does tell him that he has a gun.
Why did you call me away?
Your inspection sticker expired.
Call Joe Biden or call George Bush.
Bro said, call Joe Biden or call George Bush.
What the fuck?
Don't have a driving license.
Why not?
Go back, sit in the fucking car and leave.
No, sir.
No, go back in the car and sit in the fucking car and leave.
What the fuck is wrong with this nigga, bro?
It doesn't work that way.
Okay, so go ahead, do whatever you want to do.
Can I get your name?
No.
No?
No.
Look at the bullshit that these guys got to deal with, bro.
Hey, shout out to you, Tom Jones.
I appreciate that.
He says, quick reminder, everyone, make sure to have the stream open on both YouTube and Rumble.
I appreciate that, man.
It would help quite a bit if you guys had the stream open on both tabs.
Helps your ninja a lot.
The more every view counts, guys.
Every viewer counts.
You're fucking killing me.
You fucking people don't get a disability.
Fucking oh, I have kids and I have a lot of fucking bullshit things.
What?
Bro's going through it, man.
You fucking treated me this way.
Set idiot.
Let me get a supervisor to my location, please.
You fucking dumbass fucking people.
You fucking ass.
Majestic.
I can't even go back to my fucking country because of you fucking fucking armed.
Every time I'm every time, do you have the registration of the vehicle?
Nothing, nothing.
You got nothing?
Nothing.
All right.
Yeah.
And you don't want to give me your name?
Sir, why?
Look, look, hey, I'm I died when I was serving you with you liars, with you people, with American space.
I served as well, sir.
Yeah.
So you brought me to this.
You fucking people brought me to this goddamn country, and I'm dying every fucking single day.
And I have four children, and we wholly survive because you're a fucking vicious people.
Okay.
Yeah, because I can't get a job.
I can't get a disappointment.
Bro, is really mad as hell, man.
I can't get a job.
And they took my fucking license because I'm not able to pay the insurance.
So why are you fucking trying to kill me?
I'm not trying to.
No, you are.
I'm going to die.
I don't give a damn fuck.
...subjects armed, refusing to give ID.
Don't read for anything, Dave.
Don't unbuckle that.
I'm telling you, don't read!
I'm telling you, don't read.
I don't give a damn fuck.
If you fucking do anything, don't do anything.
Sutta keeps reaching for his weapon.
Yeah, this is very bad.
At this point, honestly, he should have pulled him out of the car.
He should have pulled him out of the car at this point and disarmed him.
Whenever people acting like that, man, you gotta take charge of the situation immediately.
He should have pulled him out of the car and disarmed him.
Sir, I stopped you for a lawful traffic.
I don't give a damn fuck.
You liar.
This thing could go crazy.
No, you lying.
You are new today.
What I'm asking for is dumbass white people.
That accent is crazy.
You lied for 25 years.
You brought me to this country.
I served with special forces.
I lost my old fucking brother.
I lost my everything.
I have nothing.
I'm sorry to hear that.
No, you sorry to hear that.
No, no, don't play that bullshit.
So you don't have to.
Look, he's trying to be nice to him, and the guy's just being a fucking scumbag.
For registration to the vehicle.
You know what?
Listen, man.
You're American, okay?
Yes.
Yes, you are American.
I give you my fucking what do you call that shit?
Take it.
He took my driving license.
They took it away?
Yeah, for no fucking easy.
And I have a whole time with core.
I'll show you the paperwork.
You won't believe.
What do they?
When I call them bullshit bullshit, the system is fucking broke.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, it sounds like you're going through a really rough time.
Man, I should have served with fucking fucking Taliban better than you.
I was concerned in a fucking dumbass fuck when I was concerned about Taliban.
But in America, since 2014, I'm concerned about more about you people.
Because you lie, because you play games.
That's how I'm going deeper, deeper, deeper.
Okay.
Yeah.
So these are my partners here.
They're coming up.
I don't want you to get rattled, but it's because you were reaching for your weapon.
No, no, I'm not even serving.
I watched you do it.
I don't give a damn fuck.
Brings as many people as you can.
Go ahead.
You're not listening.
What I'm talking about.
I am listening to you.
I have four children.
I have four children.
Do not hit your gun.
Yeah, Rob, everybody slow down.
Hey, so listen, American.
This is taking.
So this is good that he got back up.
And you probably don't want to pull him out of the car until he had backup.
I did this with you, okay?
So now you want to give me that?
Hey, no, you reach me.
Go.
Fuck!
Thank you.
Did he get hit?
800 Bradlaw's not fired.
800 Bravo, shots fired.
800 Bravo, signal one.
801.
So that guy over here is the one that cooked his ass.
Smoke that boy.
800 Bravo.
He's not moving right now.
Okay, we're gonna fast forward a little bit.
Hey, Mike, you guys.
Give me at least one.
So obviously, they're isolating the area.
They got the shield up.
Now they're gonna move in.
He's heading towards the vehicle.
in the future of the area.
All right, wait, ready, Sarge?
All right, here we go.
Hey, where's the ambulance staging?
And Karen's the baby there.
They're speeding round 50.
What Barry Meadows?
All right, this taking me.
So this guy, obviously, he's probably medically trained.
I think that's the guy that shot him actually.
He's got the med bag here.
This guy is.
That boy, gone.
You're active.
4, 4, 7.
81 Bravo.
How's that in custody?
Yeah, he's not even rendering AD.
know he's done.
Listen, listen, American.
This is take it.
I take this with you, okay?
No, no, no.
Wow.
What a dumbass man.
And he racked...
I think he only got one shot off.
Alright, there's the guy that had the shots.
Tim Rob, everybody slow down.
He has a perfect, you know, perfect vantage point.
At that point, see, you can see Hezglock is coming up.
Bam.
I think you hit him with three or four.
800 Brown, shots fired.
800 Brown, shots fired.
I'm surprised he stopped shooting.
I would have lit that fucking car up, chat.
I ain't gonna lie to you guys.
I would have dumped the whole mag in that fucking thing.
At that point, you're justified.
800 Bravo, signal one.
I'm gonna make sure that he didn't.
He doesn't fucking get out that car or shoot at the guys.
801.
800 Bravo.
He's not moving right now.
Okay, so we'll read right here what happened.
Basically, his name is Jamal Wally Fairfax, who's argumentative, blah, blah, blah.
So the bullet that Wally fired traveled through the bicep of one officer, then through the forearm of another officer before traveling across the street and shattering the back windshield of another parked car.
Both officers retreated at a local hospital and later released the third officer standing on the passenger side of the vehicle, discharged weapon striking Wally four times while he was transported to a nearby hospital and was later pronounced dead.
I think all of his rounds hit because I think he hit four times.
So crazy, crazy stuff, man.
Oh, Anton Daniels and them are live.
Let's see here.
Let's see what they're talking about.
Well, in regard to Macron's wife, I would be interested in knowing what her health is.
I mean, obviously, we don't know what happened if they had an argument or whatever, but I would be interested in knowing about her health.
What's wrong?
What do you mean?
How does that?
Because with her age, yeah, it like when I, because to me, she I saw like a two-hand kind of like a mush, and honestly, it kind of took me to a little bit of a flashback of my mom, like, and my grandmother.
There's like this agitation that can happen either as a precur, like as a symptom of the just the dementia, the medication, or before you even know something's up, where people get like very aggressive out of kind of nowhere, and they will put their hands on you.
So, for all I know, she could be showing signs of dementia.
So, that's what I'm saying.
72 years old.
You're not really making this argument.
Carrie, I don't think that they would bring it up if that was the case.
Like, it would be too unhinged to have out in public.
And then there was a lady who stepped in front of the plane, like to kind of try to block it.
That lady knew exactly what was going on.
I don't think that was the first time she's seen anything like that.
And she tried to, you know, deflect the attention.
She, I don't really believe what she said.
Any touch of dementia.
Okay, y'all don't have to believe it.
That's okay.
All right, I'll come back to that later.
All right, let's see what else we got here on police activity.
Gunfire ups after Wanda Future shoots deputy in Florida.
Oh, shit.
Hello, how you doing?
Can I pull down here so I can see?
Yeah, sure.
My name is Deborah Trudy, Silicon Sheriff's Office.
All right, the reason why I pulled you over is she failed to come to the police stop sign at the stop sign and you passed the stop bar.
Okay.
Is there any reason why you kind of been looping around?
Because my DPS is like a bunch of people.
We're fighting Blue Kids.
What Blue Kids you guys fight in?
Where are you guys heading?
I'm headed back out to her family's house.
Okay, where's grandma's house?
Hold them over for her.
Stop bar.
Okay.
Yeah, it's close out there.
Very, very close.
I'm very seven.
You can step out of the car, guys.
Do you have idea on your buddy?
Yeah.
24KM 97 97 28, 27 Romeo 400-557-94-3500.
Step out of vehicle for me.
Oh, shit.
She lit his ass up, bro.
This chick right here.
What the fuck?
*Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud* *Loud*
Alright, this is a female *Loud* *Loud* Uh, what sheriff's county is this?
Is that Broward?
It's cold.
What'd you pull him over for?
Okay, yeah, it's cold.
Um, do you have ID on your bud?
24K, I'm not a chef 9-7 20, I'm not a chef That nigga look crazy in this Florida ID, bro.
He looks crazy.
romeo 400-557-94-3500 okay god damn you missed everything Her support hand is blocking the camera.
God damn it.
Yeah, she is.
She, bro, she literally shot all of her rounds.
You can step out of the car and grab it if you need to.
That chick is huge, bro.
What the...
What the fuck?
Bro, this chick's a whale.
Look at this shit, man.
Bruh.
Holly, that's a fucking circle, chat.
Wow.
So this is when he hands his license over to her.
Okay.
Okay, you can pull it out.
do me a favor stand right there okay so I'm watching his hands right here All right, thank you.
Do me a favor, stay behind the car.
Okay, so he starts reaching in the glove compartment or the um the middle console.
This nigga retarded, bro.
Look at him.
He's just looking at him like, yep, let's look like.
I don't know why the fuck.
Maybe he's wanted or some shit like that.
And he knew once he gave his license over, he was cooked.
Silver, stay behind the car.
Bro, fell.
Shot, shot.
Shot fired, shot fired.
Man, move, man, move.
Shot fired, shot fired, shot fired.
Shots fired shots fired.
That trick is just standing in the way.
Come back here now.
Get back here.
I'm hit.
I'm hit.
Yeah, she did a good job.
But I'll tell you this: for one good female, 20 do some bullshit.
Let's see here.
So, he exits the vehicle and points his gun directly to Sergeant Unexistence to charge the service weapon multiple times and really fell and continue to fire his gun as Rolly fell to the ground.
He maintained position of the gun and continued to fire multiple rounds despite being struck twice.
Deputy Tula managed to return fire.
Roll is pronounced deceased at the scene.
DeSoto County Fire Department personnel responded to scene.
Deputy True was airlifted hospital.
He's currently at home recovering.
Per standard protocol, Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigating.
Yeah.
So FDLE guys, they handle all officer-involved shootings.
The Soto County Sheriff's Office conducted an internal investigation to terminate that Deputy True and Nunez comply with both agency policy and state statute.
Sergeant Nunez is returned to duty.
So let's go ahead and get the dash camp for the 10 more time.
Step out of the vehicle for me.
So he gets hit.
It looks like he gets hit somewhere here because he falls right away.
And then she shoots.
Shot fire.
Yeah.
His ass got cooked.
What a dumbass man.
Hold on, let me go back and look at that description.
I want to know why he did that shit.
Was he wanted?
Let's see here.
Okay.
Deputy True asked the driver to step out of the vehicle.
Sergeant Newton's rifle's license, which has passed through a crack window.
Was looking at his license.
Rolly removed the seatbelt.
And after the driver stepped out, Rolly reached for a gun.
W True stopped reaching and really fired.
Much last record.
Okay.
Doesn't say that he was wanted.
Bro, these dudes are idiots, man.
Oh, NYPD's finest.
New York's finest right here.
New York City, I'm 1035 Uncle.
I'm on 30th Avenue, 33rd Street in Queens, Sorry.
So, just on clear, that was 33 Avenue and what?
No, 30th Avenue and 33rd Street 30 Avenue and 33rd Street.
Okay, there's a guy with a knife walking around the neighborhood.
I'm going to go on my knife.
And he's outside first?
He's in black jeans.
Hold on one moment.
The man is he black, white, Asian, French Indian?
Some kind of tan.
I don't know what he is.
I don't know.
All right, let me hear myself.
Slim, what's he wearing?
Uh, hey, Martin, have you been seeing how more and more Mexican artists with P101 visas are being getting revoked?
We had one the other day who was denied aborting international friend from Mexico and tried to come in through a land border.
He didn't make it in.
Oh, shit.
I didn't hear about that, bro.
Did not hear about that.
Black jeans, brown vest, carrying a white bag.
So, I should have black jeans, brown vest, and white bag.
Burgundy shirt, yeah.
He's in a like a baby blue hat.
He's walking around the neighborhood like looking at people.
You better hurry up.
So give me not delaying police response.
And he has a mask on.
Yep.
He's walking towards 32nd Street now.
I'm kind of following him.
Mel is walking.
Let's move forward here.
All right, so here's this guy walking.
Bro, got a mask on, bro.
People in New York City are weird, man.
I'll be honest with you guys.
People are so fucking weird in New York City, man.
I'm so fucking weird in New York City.
I'm so fucking fucked up.
Put the knife down.
Put the knife fucking down.
Put the knife down.
Put the knife down.
3-1 and 3-0.
3-1 at 300.
Put the knife down.
Put the knife down, sir.
Sir, put the fucking knife down.
Put the fucking knife down.
Put the fucking knife down.
Sir, put the knife down.
Get on the ground.
Get on the fucking ground.
Niggas hit him with the taser.
Put the knife down, sir.
Yeah, he cooked.
Absolutely cooked.
I like that, sir.
Yeah, and they teach you in academy, man.
They can close the distance on you with a knife so fast, guys.
So all three of them shoot at him.
Yeah, he cooked.
Put the fucking neck down!
Put the knife down.
Put the knife fucking down.
Put the knife down.
Put the knife down.
3-1 and 3-0.
3-1 at 3-0.
Put the knife down.
Put the knife down.
Put the knife down, sir.
Sir, put the fucking knife down.
Put the fucking knife down.
Put the fucking knife down.
Look at this nigga.
What is he a power ranger or some shit?
What the fuck?
Get on the ground.
Get on the fucking ground.
So they try to taser.
Put the knife down.
Yeah, air fried.
It's on fire.
No!
*thud*
Clean shoot though, chat.
That's my determination.
Clean shoot.
Shouldn't have done that shit.
Dumb fuck.
Holy.
They're giving him lawful commands.
They're giving him commands.
Telling him, stop.
Drop the knife.
He's not listening.
Look at this guy, bro.
He doesn't go down.
Put that knife down.
Don't shoot the task.
Bro, thinks he's a power ranger, man.
Shoot the taser eyes back.
to the Taser on the back.
Taser has no effect.
They tried.
This guy tries to taser.
So we got less lethal and then lethal right here.
So he grabs his taser.
He runs at him.
So they start shooting.
Holy shit, man.
He's hyped up.
Don't fucking move.
Don't fucking move.
What's up?
Okay.
Did he have a gun?
A knife.
Just a knife?
Okay, where'd he go?
Go, go, go.
We want to drill.
We're here.
We're here.
We're there.
Central, get units here now.
Get units here now.
Get down.
Get down.
Get down the fucking ground right now.
Get down the fucking ground.
Get down the fucking ground right now.
Get down the fucking ground right now.
Get down the ground.
Central, get units here now.
Central, get units here now.
Get out of the fucking ground right now.
Get out of the fucking ground.
Put the fucking knife down.
Shots fired sister.
Shots fired shots first.
30031.
Shots fired.
Don't fucking move.
I think this is the guy that did the main.
He ran at him.
Yeah.
Shots fired, sister, shots fired, shots fired.
3031.
Shots fired.
Don't fucking move.
He had a knife?
Okay.
Did he have a gun?
A knife.
Just a knife?
Okay, where'd he go?
All right.
So.
All right.
Get out the fucking crowd right now!
Get out of the fucking ground.
Put the fucking hands down!
Fuck.
All right, fight.
He's like, fuck, man.
Now I gotta have to shoot this guy.
Now I got a bunch of paperwork I gotta do, man.
Damn it.
They're like, goddamn.
Don't fucking move.
We'll put the knife down.
God damn.
Air fried, bro.
Let's see here.
What else do we got?
Apparently, a fight broke out in front of the courthouse.
So I got this video from as you guys know watching the world.
Shout out to him.
Let me see here.
Was under the rest and against her will.
She was not trying to go because he said at one point, I didn't want to go, but I had no choice but to go.
So this is the front of the courthouse right here.
Okay.
Speaking of rules, the first time...
So when Tail Ruby gets rushed knife with a white guy who's finally been flying fame off the DNA to act like they're a victim, what the hell happened here?
What's the fight, bro?
There's no problem.
Y'all be like hope.
Oh my gosh.
He kidnapped her.
What her being is like, push him away.
So, bro, I get out of the elevator right now.
So boom.
So look, after all of that, right?
She said she was walking away before she turned.
Okay.
Okay.
I think this was after the flattest shit.
Gene deal did that to you?
So, bro, I get out of the elevator, right?
Yeah, Gene did it right here.
I'm not walking to go get my phone.
You understand?
I'm walking to go get my bottle and shit.
You know what we gotta do?
I don't know what's going on here, bro.
Okay.
We'll do one more of these guys and then probably call it a night.
We've been gone for about six hours now.
Let's see.
that was another good one that happened yeah Baltimore police.
God damn.
I'm gonna shoot you, bro.
I'm gonna shoot you.
Put it down!
Oh, she's fine!
She's fine!
She's fine!
She's fired.
She's fine.
Oh, he's running, bro.
I'll put it normal speed.
Let me put this shit at normal speed for you guys.
This is probably one of their gang task forces or some shit.
Yeah, they just hop out, start chasing after him.
Yeah, these are investigators.
Here he is right here.
Up, yeah, you can see he has his gun pointed at them.
Yeah, he's about to get air fried right now.
Shots fired, shots fired.
Shots fired, shits fired!
Shots fired, shots fired, shots fired.
All right, let's see here.
Hi, Mark Howell.
He started running away.
They saw that he had a gun.
A semi-automatic gun with extended magazine was recovered near how well it was produced by an airport.
It was pronounced dead a short time later, and officers were injured.
Niggas are retarded, bro.
These guys literally do this shit to themselves.
Stop.
Bro, it's an AR 15.
Put your hands up.
Put your hands up.
Bro, he's about to get hit with that fucking Call of Duty shot.
Put your hands up.
Oh, now there's one in the chamber.
Don't fuck around, man.
Oh yeah, he's cocked.
Put your hands up!
Put your hands!
Drop the gun.
Is this at least a beanbag gun?
Maybe a beanbag.
stop the gun that's AR bro oh shit Let me see your hands.
Drop the gun.
It took me shots from so many shots from the fall.
Put your hands out.
Crank two tens.
Shots taken.
Suspects down.
going to need to be road blocked off westbound one in put your hands up Yeah, I'm trying to figure out why.
Like, you just sitting there.
Drop the gun!
Close the gun!
Yeah, he slumped.
Okay.
Yeah, because you're just saying that.
I was like, what the fuck?
Let's see what else we got here.
All right, we'll finish off with the sweat one.
Let me look here real fast.
Roma isn't letting me send the link for you to react in reaction to get the video to you.
Do I spam it in the chat?
I don't know what video it is, bro.
You mean exquisite crazy shit.
I open stream only to see that shooting under the train being literally 100 feet from my old building.
I used to live at Astoria Queens.
Anyway, W. Meyer, thanks for all the content.
Got you, bro.
Speaking, Nathan says, Myra, please recognize and give your take on it.
Just got out of work and came across if you're streaming.
What is the video speak, Nathan?
I heard something like the top deadliest sniper with the most confirmed kills is a woman.
So one thing that they're good at isn't good for him anything.
This guy's speedy.
I've watched hundreds of active self-protection YouTube videos.
Taser seems to rarely work.
Why not use pepper spray?
Do they not want to possibly get some overspray on themselves?
Yeah, pepper spray, bro.
It can easily get back on you, man, and it sucks.
I hate pepper spray.
And if you fuck up, it will absolutely fuck you up.
Oh, yeah.
This episode, bro, I reacted to this one.
I reacted to this one on Twitter, bro.
This shit is so bad.
Look at this shit.
So, cop gets in his chase with this guy, right?
Now mind you, he's running with all that gear on.
Oh, no.
Vests, guns, all this shit.
All right.
Can't keep up.
Yo, speak, Nathan, just send in a chat saying what the video is.
Like, just send a description of what the video is.
Just already tired, bro.
Pathetic.
That's why it's so important to be fit, guys.
He's in the parking lot across from the PD.
Okay.
Okay.
I'll be there.
He tries to run.
Shout out to Elijah Tickborn.
He goes, want your opinion strategy?
I have a 13-year-old son.
We are working towards him being an Olympic sprinter.
His coach said, my son is not to do any boxing and sprinting mechanics.
The opposite of boxing mechanics.
Self-defense is a massive part of someone being okay.
Well, man, did you have any suggestions of things we could do moving forward?
The goal is to be an Olympic sprinter, but I know him not being a competent fighter is going to weigh on his confidence in certain environments.
Well, here's the thing.
If you want to be an Olympic sprinter, he can still learn some limited boxing, bro.
You know what I mean?
He can still learn some limited boxing.
But yes, I mean, like, sprinting is explosive.
Boxing is obviously explosive too.
But, you know, boxing is more slow-twitch muscle fibers because you're going to be, you know, focusing on endurance and getting aerobic capacity versus sprinting is for power.
I mean, I still think that he could learn some basic boxing, man, to defend himself so he can, if he gets in a fight, can defend himself.
Because if you have some competency with boxing, you're going to be able to beat up like or deal with a majority of people.
You know what I mean?
So that's fine.
TPC film, these people are fucking stupid, man, because not only are their families of the dead person affected, but the people who had to take their lives are now going to have to live with that shit forever.
And the shit never goes away, man.
Fucking idiots.
Yeah, I know, dude.
Absolutely crazy, TPC.
Absolutely crazy.
He's like, fuck this.
I don't get paid enough for this.
Useless female.
She got his, he gets her fucking gun.
She's got her weapon.
Put it down, dude.
Put it down.
Put it down.
Hey, put it down.
998 998.
*crying*
He's cooked.
Start 80.
Start 80.
Hey, put the gun down!
Here's a female.
Look at this shit, chat.
Dude comes up to her.
Nigga, just bro.
Holy.
Just takes her gun.
Just takes her fucking gun, man.
And this is the religion they teach you: firearm retention.
You're saving the GDP, further.
You're saving the G-State for RAS!
That's why it's important to carry a backup.
Please don't shoot me.
Please don't shoot me.
She put herself in danger and put the fucking other cop in danger.
being a fucking retard.
Woo!
Woo!
Put it down!
Woo!
Put it down!
Hey, put it down!
Woo!
He could have shot her and killed her right there.
And of course a man has to come in and save her ass.
Fucking useless.
Look, she's out of breath and shit.
Bro.
Incredible.
Incredible, man.
Incredible.
Both of them were out of shape, man.
All right, let's look here.
Gas station.
Oh, yeah, I looked at this.
We looked at this one before.
W16 Slayer.
I'll check this video out, bro, because I don't have time to look at this now.
I got to look at it before I put her on stream.
So, anyway.
All right, niggas.
I think that's the end of it for me.
I'm going to sign off.
Tomorrow will be live.
Womanizer Wednesday.
Give you another guys, another episode of the debrief.
Cover the news and everything else like that.
Not sure if you are.
Not sure if you reviewed this already, but apparently Carmelo is being charged in the dollar and found guilty eligible for 1240 years.
Justice might be done after all.
Yeah, I know that he's being charged in his doll.
I heard worst type of feminists is Muslim feminist.
Yeah.
Facts.
All right, guys.
I love y'all ninjas, man.
I'm going to get off.
I barely slept.
Still gave y'all a six and a half hour stream.
Closing the house earlier today, so I'm happy about that.
But I'm going to be live tomorrow for you guys five.
And we're going to have a subathon tomorrow, too, for you guys.
Tony Stark Martin says you roasted the cop out of breath with Garrett.
When you worked in law enforcement, did you do a lot of cardio running?
And you ever been to chase on the job?
Yeah, I was in a foot chase before.
I'll tell you guys that story tomorrow.
But yeah, no, I've always been a good cardiovascular shape, bro.
I used to be a router.
I never lost my cardiovascular shape.
So, anyway, love you, ninjas.
Every single time, every single crime, every single lie.
So, I'll catch you guys tomorrow, 5 p.m.
Enjoy some early life.
I'll catch you guys tomorrow.
We're gonna have a sub-a-thon.
We're gonna have some after-hours, et cetera.
Gonna be a good time.
Love y'all, ninjas.
Peace.
Every single time, every single crime, every single lie.
Early life, every single hour, every single day, every single night.
▲
Export Selection