Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect Ben Shapiro's complex positioning as an Orthodox Jew navigating neoconservative foreign policy, alt-right grievances regarding white marginalization, and accusations of hypocrisy over homosexuality. They analyze how Shapiro critiques radical left identity politics while simultaneously facing backlash for anti-Palestinian rhetoric and alleged complicity in policies harming Israel's neighbors. Ultimately, the episode suggests that the perceived symbiosis between the radical left, alt-right, and Jewish neocons reveals a fractured political landscape where shared enemies obscure deeper ideological fractures regarding state power and civil liberties. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Cheap Perfection and Crapitalism00:15:19
Fill her up!
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gash Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What's up?
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am, of course, the most consistent motherfucker you know, Dave Smith, the voice and soul of Liberty, the big picture.
And as always, I'm joined by Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the caulks, sitting atop his throne, ready to spit fire for you good people.
What's up, Rob?
I'm doing good, man.
How about you?
Very good.
Fresh shave.
I did, yeah.
You got a nice fresh shave.
You look good with a fresh shave.
I know.
It's what everybody tells you.
Probably is you can't be doing it every day.
It's a weekend activity.
Yeah, all right.
Every day.
It's not eating a sandwich.
Nope.
It's not an everyday, three time a day.
Yeah.
Sandwiches will get you through the whole day.
Yeah, it sure will.
I don't like grooming.
It starts making me real like, you know, it's like everything else.
You get started and you're like, I got to fix this thing.
I need to go get some plastic surgery.
I need some face cream.
I like to, you know, it's one of those things.
Before you know it, you're in your house and like stiletto heels.
Yeah.
You're like, I don't know.
I prefer not to engage in that process because then, you know, you're making a slippery slope argument.
For grooming.
Yes.
But that could go the other way too, right?
Like, why even fucking take a shower then?
It's just going to fucking lead to one more.
No, because this could result in like smelly homelessness.
If my shower, I guess, had a mirror and I had to look in the mirror to shower, then yes, you would have that issue, but it doesn't.
Okay, fair enough.
Yeah.
All right, good.
So you go just blind into the shower and you know it won't lead to any further encroachments on your liberty.
Yeah, also, I tend to shower after I go to the gym.
So you need a shower.
All right, fair enough.
Unless your ass will start to hurt.
That's immediately.
Speaking of not showering, there was a great homeless guy on the subway with me as I was riding up here.
That's rare.
Yeah.
Oh, no.
I mean, he was horrible, but just hilarious.
You won't switch trains?
Well, I didn't this time.
Occasionally I will.
No, but he was coming up and down the train.
Goddamn fucking homelessness is a goddamn problem.
And I don't mean like, oh my God, think of these poor people.
I mean, it's like, get off my train.
I'm trying to get to work.
But he was coming down.
And at first, he was just like, he got on his knees and started going person by person, begging for money.
And then, you know, I was at the other end of the train and I was like, well, that's fucking sad.
And then as he started getting closer, slowly, granted, because he's on his knees begging each individual person.
I started realizing that he was saying some wildly racist shit when he was on his knees.
So he's like, just, he's on his knees getting over.
And then fucking everyone who doesn't give him money, which was everyone, by the way.
I mean, this was a filthy old man who, once he got closer, I realized really smelled poorly.
And he was calling everyone a bunch of cheap kikes when they wouldn't give him money.
Like, yeah, fucking cheap Jews, cheap Jews.
And then saying they hate white people.
And he was like, I bet if I was black, you'd give me money, but you hate white people.
And then he was like saying, oh, I can't wait to see your kids out here homeless.
He would curse every single person individually.
But like, the funny thing about it was that he was asking individually, you know, not like usually, if you're not from New York, usually homeless people will ask the train collectively, can anyone spare some change?
This guy was going person by person and he would start off nice.
But then if you would say no, he'd call you a cheap Jew and say you hate white people.
And then he'd go to the next person who had just heard him call the last person, but like he'd start nice again.
It was, it was fucking hilarious.
So he'd be like, ah, you fucking cheap Jew.
Yeah, fuck you.
You probably, you'd give me money if I was spare change to the next person.
And then by the time you get to like the, you know, the 10th, 11th person, you're like, I think you're going to call me a cheap Jew.
And he's like, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be nice to me.
But it was great.
Started going off on this whole thing about how like the white man is being held down.
Like it was some alt-right homeless person who I found on the train today.
Anyway.
Did anyone give him a dollar and get a block?
Not a cent.
Not one cent was given to this guy.
And, you know, anyway, then he got, as he got closer to me, I was like, oh, I was, I was actually contemplating moving, but then we got to the stop and he got off before he actually passed me.
So he never passed me.
If he had gotten to like within three people of me, I think I would have just been like, cheap Jew over here.
So don't even bother.
Don't even bother asking.
Cheap Jew.
I'll play the Jew card when it's convenient.
Don't think I won't.
If he smelled good, maybe I'd be a good Christian conservative.
But you smell like shit.
You get the cheap Jew.
That's the way it is.
Hey, speaking of cheap Jews, so I was, I had some stuff planned.
I've moved around what I was going to do on the podcast today thanks to Part of the Problem Inner Circle member who just posted a video that I literally just watched.
And I was like, I just want to talk about this more than other stuff because it was, hold on, I want to give proper credit to, I believe it's, shoot.
Sorry, one second.
Derek, I believe.
Or no, Daniel.
I'm sorry, Daniel posted a video from Richard Wolf, who we had been discussing just recently debated Gene Epstein.
And I guess he gave some thoughts on the debate.
And then, and I was like, okay, we're moving this around.
We're going to open with that video because I thought there was a lot to respond to here.
And then, right as we're starting, someone else posted another video of Richard Wolf debunking libertarianism type thing, which we won't have time to do on today's show.
But maybe I'll watch it afterward and maybe we'll do it on some other show.
But it seems like maybe it's sticking in his ass a little bit that he got his clock cleaned by Mr. Gene Epstein.
By the way, happy birthday to the great Gene Epstein, 75 and still alive.
So anyway, this was, I was actually, at least this has been my experience with Richard Wolf so far.
As I did mention on the podcast, Gene Epstein, I'll say one more time.
He was a very nice guy personally.
So I don't, I'm not taking any pleasure in shitting on him.
But I was, for somebody who's so like, has such great credentials and is like whatever, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, all these schools, like the best Ivy League schools, and is considered such a world-renowned Marxist thought leader.
I was just blown away in the debate by how poor his arguments were.
And watching this video again, I was just really like blown away by how superficial and just incorrect his understanding of what happened in the debate and what arguments Gene was making and libertarianism in general.
So anyway, let's jump right into this because we got other stuff planned for the show as well.
But let's jump right into this one.
Here is Professor Wolf.
This was a video entitled Global Capitalism: The Economics of Taxing Wealth.
It must be very recent from this some point in the last few days.
And this is about an hour and 15 minutes into this video.
So I hadn't watched the beginning, but this was, it was time stamped.
I appreciate that, Daniel.
If you hadn't time-stamped it, it wouldn't have made the show.
I didn't have the time.
It was literally 20 minutes before we started that I saw this.
Anyway, let's jump into it.
I want to conclude by talking a little bit about libertarianism.
I admit this is because I have kept some distance from these folks.
I believe they have made an equal effort in terms of me.
But these two debates thrust me among them.
And so I had to listen for a while, which is probably a good thing, so I have some better idea. of what they said, or at least the group that I encountered of what they said.
And so I wanted to talk to you a little bit about it, because it's interesting.
Gene Epstein, the fellow who was the former editor of Barons, was remarkable in the first debate because he kept saying, and I'm not exaggerating, over and over again, I agree with you.
Looking at me, he agreed with what I said.
He even said, I wouldn't call this capitalism we're living in.
I call it, and he was very proud of this, crapitalism.
No, that's not really my thing, but he attributed this as an agreement with me.
And I am critical of capitalism, but the term is entirely his.
He gets all the credit for crapitalism.
And I remember at first I was a little bit taken aback.
He agrees with me, the injustice, the inequality, the undemocratic, all of this.
He agreed with this over and over again.
I was agreeing with nothing he said.
So this was a one-way kind of thing.
All right, let's pause right there.
So he starts off by saying that he did another debate with some Reason Magazine libertarians.
I haven't seen the second debate yet, but he starts off talking about the debate.
And he was like, you know, I've kind of avoided libertarians and they've avoided me, which is, by the way, might be true for you, but I don't think it's true for libertarians.
Gene Epstein has sought out socialists and Marxists to debate.
I certainly always try to take on videos with Marxists, leftists, any of these guys.
But he said it was probably good because I got to listen to them and hear where they're coming from a little bit.
And then, but for everything I've seen from this video, which isn't the entire rest of what we're going to play here, but it's just like, well, you should have listened better.
I don't know what to tell you.
So he, again, it's not like any, there's no argument about what Gene said that might have been wrong.
He's just kind of saying he said this term crapalism and was very proud of himself.
Well, obviously, Rob, you weren't at the event and haven't watched it yet, right?
But I bet you could guess what Gene's point was when he's saying the system isn't capitalism, it's crapitalism.
Take a guess, what Gene Epstein is saying.
Oh, you're asking?
Take a guess.
Yeah, he's saying that it's not an actual free market.
It's the government has manipulated in ways to favor the few at the cost of the many.
And it's crony capitalism, which he combined into a funny term that he likes to call crapalism.
Right, exactly.
It structures up both crap.
Got it.
Right, exactly.
Now, there's no response to that here by Richard Wolfe.
It's just like, oh, he said this term and seemed very proud of himself for it.
And then he says, well, he agreed with me.
So this is it.
He used this in his closing argument.
It was such a cheap tactic to say, it's like he agreed with me.
It's like, yes, there were several points of agreement when he was criticizing certain things about the status quo system.
Gene was like, well, I agree with you with that.
We don't want billionaires buying political control or something like that.
You can go listen back to the debate.
None of the points where he agreed with them.
And then he makes this point that he goes, now I wasn't agreeing with him.
This was a one-way street.
Well, here's the thing about agreement.
It is by nature a two-way street.
If you're saying he didn't, then you could say he said he agreed with me and he's wrong.
He doesn't agree with me.
But just to say he agreed with me, well, then you're both agreeing.
That's the nature.
That's the nature of agreement, right?
You both have to be in agreement.
So it's not a one-way street.
And the truth is that he criticized the world wars, like criticized wars led by capitalist country.
And Gene was like, I agree with you.
Those were terrible.
And so that's them both being in agreement.
Now, Gene may have been the one who acknowledged that he agreed, and you weren't saying, I agree with you, that they're terrible.
But if anything, that just shows Gene being a more generous debater and acknowledging that we agree in these points.
Unless you're arguing that you don't actually agree, in which case it wouldn't be a two-way street.
But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.
Anyway, let's get into it.
Let's see if there's a point made.
And as I listened, I realized what he was doing.
And it eventually became explicit.
His reaction to capitalism is that he does, in fact, see a good many of its flaws, its uglinesses, its injustice.
He sees a lot of it.
But his way of handling it is interesting.
These are all imperfections in a system that could and should be perfect.
It has the capacity to be perfect.
It has the structure that is perfect.
It is perfect.
And there are a lot of these people who muck it up.
All right, let's pause it now.
Okay, so obviously, Gene Epstein never said that, never said anything close to that.
I was at the debate live, and then I re-listened to it before we did the podcast.
But no one would ever, no one I know has ever said anything like that.
I certainly wouldn't argue that.
This is something that I've heard a lot of people when arguing against markets or libertarianism or whatever will say, well, you just think like the market is perfect or you think all good things come from.
And it's like, look, what's that old?
It's like an old dumb joke.
But they say, they say, what does the philosopher say when you ask, how's his wife?
And he says, compare to what?
Which is just, it's a dumb joke.
But the idea is just that in philosophy, in economics, everything is compared to what?
It's not the idea that there's perfection out there, you know, this side of heaven, if you believe in heaven, there's no such thing as perfection because human beings are imperfect creatures.
And in order to have any type of perfection, like the very nature of understanding economics is understanding that we don't have perfection.
The idea of economics is based around the reality of scarcity, which is imperfect, I guess, in a sense, that human desires are greater than the resources that we have.
That's why people produce things.
If there wasn't scarcity and desires weren't greater than what we have, then we wouldn't need to work.
That would maybe be perfect or maybe it wouldn't be perfect.
Who knows?
Because the idea of perfection is kind of an impossible...
So when you set this goal that's impossible to meet, then it's easy to say, hey, you're not meeting your goal.
You're talking about perfect perfection.
He's talking about imperfect perfection, which is a degree of perfect.
Good Impulses in Government00:07:54
It's close to, it's like every rab I ever had.
I hate this shit.
Yeah, I was going to say this guy looks like he was plucked right out of Rob Bernstein's Hanukkah family dinner and placed up here.
But it's just, obviously Gene didn't say that.
But this is just this, and it's a really lame tactic for an Ivy League educated professor to be right away.
So he had this idea that capitalism should be perfect.
And he admitted that there's flaws in capitalism right now.
But I, if we had a perfect perfection.
But obviously, the idea is that we're not arguing that, you know, it's like, what's your definition of capitalism?
What Gene Epstein is arguing for is for laissez-faire libertarianism.
And obviously, what we have right now isn't that.
I mean, you're going to say we have a government that spends $4 trillion a year.
It's probably not exactly laissez-faire, right?
Like, there's, what is this government?
What are all these departments there?
They're not departments of laissez-faire who just sit there and don't do anything.
They're fucking, they're intervening in the economy.
So obviously he's saying, yeah, there's a lot about this system that I don't like.
What Gene Epstein did say in the debate explicitly was he goes, as bad as I think this current system is, socialism would be worse.
He goes, I'll defend the current version of capitalism that we have as opposed to going full-fledged socialists.
So he did say that.
Of course, that's not what Professor Wolf is going to say here, but no one's arguing that capitalism would be perfect.
Of course it wouldn't.
It's like, I don't think any business is perfect.
I don't think any product is perfect.
I don't think any marriage or friendship is perfect.
It's like you do the best you can.
But again, the problem libertarians have is with initiating violence against peaceful people.
Like, that's the problem.
The problem is with threatening people with violence and fucking not allowing freedom of association and freedom of trade, these type of things.
So it's like, if you were to, like, I don't know, be against carjacking, it doesn't imply that every car runs perfectly.
It's just saying you shouldn't steal other people's.
Anyway, let's keep playing.
And these people have a name.
No.
The government, right?
These people are bureaucrats, a word that comes out with a great deal of moisture.
It's good not to be too close when it gets to that point.
Otherwise, you have a shower, okay, even though you don't want one.
He's really excited.
It's the government.
And as he develops, you realize that he lives in a world that is sort of bifurcated in a particular way.
There's all of us, we workers, we consumers, we business people.
We are the good society.
But we are beset by evil.
And evil is the government.
The government messes it up, puts us against one another, imposes rules that make it harder for the normal wonders of capitalism to operate.
The buying and the selling and the saving and the investment, the things that we do in an economy as workers, consumers, and businesses, would be so much better if there weren't.
It reminded me nothing so much as of early as being Christian.
I don't mean to offend anybody.
I have exactly the same respect for all religions.
My early.
Yes, you're getting it.
My early experiences in the Christian churches in which I would hear something that sounds to me similar.
And then the punchline was, but the wonderful ways we are with one another, which is what God or Jesus wants us to be, is mucked up by the devil.
All right, let's pause it there.
And you've got to beware.
I don't mean.
So here's something interesting.
He's basically saying that libertarianism is a religion, which for those of you who listen to the show know I often say that about statism.
So, oh, all right, let's look at it.
It.
I mean, if all you've got as is to compare it to a religion is to say they believe, generally speaking, that the market is good and the government is bad.
Well, okay.
I mean, I don't know if that's exactly a slam dunk that proves it's a religious belief.
I mean, of course, socialists like Richard Wolf believe that capitalism is bad and socialism is good.
So, oh my God, it's almost like Christianity.
That's capitalism is your devil.
I don't know what this argument is.
It's not that there's some necessarily some divide purely between the government and all of the other people, and all of the people are so good, and the government is so bad.
No, I think the libertarian position is that there are good and bad people.
I actually, I mean, personally, if you were to ask me, I think every person is a combination of good and bad.
I think we all kind of have some good impulses and some bad impulses.
It was that great Jordan Peterson line.
Oh, no, it's not his, but he's quoting someone else.
I forget.
Some great thinker probably said it, but he said that the line between good and evil runs directly down the middle of every man.
I think that's true.
And I think under certain circumstances and given certain environmental factors, most people would do some pretty fucked up things.
And the majority of people can be good people, I think.
There might be some people who are just fucking off in the brain and are never going to be socialized to be good.
I don't really know.
But there is a line between predators and non-predators.
In other words, people who prey on other human beings in a violent manner and people who don't.
But the government aren't the only ones who do that.
I mean, there's also like murderers and rapists and thieves and all sorts of really bad people.
The truth is, I don't spend that much time on my podcast railing against murderers because it's already generally accepted that they're bad.
We're kind of all on the same page and we have a system in place that punishes them.
Now, it's not perfect because it's run by the government, but and it wouldn't be perfect even if it wasn't run by the government, although I think it might be better.
But nobody, there's not really any resistance to the idea that murder is wrong or that, you know, robbery is wrong or that rape is wrong.
In general, people all kind of agree with that.
But they do see it as okay when it's done by the state.
And that's why we talk about that so much.
So, no, I mean, we are equally against anybody who initiates violence against peaceful people, whether that's the government or whether it's private criminals.
The only difference is that the government, by its nature, is institutionalizing criminal behavior, or at least what would be considered criminal behavior if anyone else were to do it.
So that's why we're against them.
But it's not just random.
It's not just, oh, because there was a story in some book that we believe that the government is evil.
In fact, I think there's probably fairly decent people in government at almost every level.
I mean, lots of government, if you're talking about like the bureaucracy and things like that, like some person who just like works at the EPA or something like that, I don't think it's like the devil or somehow it's like Shannon or Sharon or something.
I didn't mean Shannon from Castigil.
I was just picking a name out of a list.
Anyway, just some person.
It's just the job that they got.
It's just that the system is fucking evil and destructive.
So that's our argument.
The Ridge Wallet Code Problem00:02:15
But anyway, do you see this is what Richard Wolfe does?
Maybe you're just getting a little taste of it, Rob, since you didn't see the thing.
There's no actual arguments being made.
And this was something that stuck to me as like, oh, there must be something in the brain, like the libertarian versus the socialist brain where this is compelling to them.
Like people like me and you want to hear an actual argument, like a logical train of thought.
Like, I don't care if someone spits when they say bureaucracy.
What's your point?
Like, I don't mind mixing that in with your point, like a little like, but you're like, what, what are you getting at here?
Why socialism over capitalism?
Like, get to it.
What was the libertarian argument?
I mean, do you think you guys know Gene Epstein, right?
Do you think Gene wasn't making any arguments?
His whole thing was fucking making arguments.
Like, I anyway, before we get back into the video, let's take a quick second and thank our awesome sponsor for today's show, which is the Ridge Wallet.
This is the coolest wallet I've ever owned.
It's unlike any wallet you've ever had before.
It's not the wallet that your grandpa gives you for Christmas.
It's sleek.
It looks awesome.
It doesn't throw your back out of alignment.
It's not this brick sitting in your back pocket.
I'm thrilled to be done with the old wallet.
I love having the Ridge.
Got rid of all the pointless stuff that I used to carry around in my wallet, the receipts and old hotel keys and gift cards that have 75 cents left on them.
This new one is sleek.
It's got two metal plates bound together by a durable elastic band.
The Ridge wallet looks nothing like a traditional wallet.
Titanium, carbon fiber, and aluminum optics ensures there's an option for everybody.
So, anyway, I really love it.
I got the black one, I just think is badass and looks really cool, but they got a few different that are awesome.
Go over and check them out.
The Ridge is a minimal front-pocket wallet that's designed to streamline what you carry every day.
I really think you're going to love it.
Also, it makes a great gift for the holidays.
I know sometimes it's hard to figure out what you're going to get your fucking brother-in-law or something like that.
Ridge wallet, perfect gift.
Anyway, go to ridge.com/slash problem and use the promo code problem.
There's also a link in the episode description, and you're going to get 10% off.
So, ridge.com/slash problem, use the code problem for 10% off with free worldwide shipping and returns.
One more time, ridge.com/slash problem, promo code problem for 10% off.
All right, let's keep playing.
FDR vs Hitler Socialists00:12:07
I don't know what denominations you all grew up in, but in the one of those that I had to spend more time than I wished, the devil was everywhere, lurking, doing his evil things, and you had to be on guard, and you had to watch, and you had to get him out from the dastardly ways he inveigled himself into your life.
You know, you got really scared.
You were being told what to watch out for in your life.
That's how he was dealing with it.
The government is ipso facto, in its nature, awful.
It's just the devil, it is the baddest thing you can think of.
And so, here we go now.
That government is best, which governs least.
Laissez-faire, keep the government out.
But of course, you keep it's like getting rid of the devil in yourself, you know, rubbing garlic on your forehead if that works for you.
Or listening to Jerry Fall, well, not Jerry Fall, but his son, falling not so well.
Anyway, I asked him a question: What about explaining why the government is the way it is?
What about the possibility the government could behave in a different way from the one you just outlined?
What about the history of the government of Roosevelt coming in and saving the country from the disasters of the great and the interesting thing was the look on his face?
All right, pause it, pause it right there.
So, here, the look on his face.
Okay, um, so he gets close to I think the first thing that's actually been what you could consider an argument, and it's a terrible one.
Okay, so what about governments?
Why is the government this way?
Couldn't the government behave better?
Well, couldn't the government behave in a different way?
Well, yeah, there have been lots of governments that have behaved in many different ways.
And I don't think certainly Gene Epstein is saying that, like, our government and Sweden's government and Nazi Germany's government and Joseph Stalin's government all behaved in exactly the same way.
They were exactly the same.
Of course, there's lots of different ways that government can behave.
We're not just saying it's the devil.
The idea is that government is a power structure unlike any other power structure in our society.
How could you even argue with that, right?
Like government is dipped.
There's lots of different power centers, but government behaves in a slightly different way.
They get to write the rules that we are all forced to follow.
It's a different relationship than you have with any other group or entity in society.
And of course, as you guys all know, that what separates government from the rest of them is that the government has a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence against peaceful people.
If any other group did what the government does, we would all consider it criminal.
That's our problem with the government, right?
It is the group of people that is responsible for more murder, kidnapping, robbing, enslaving, however you want to look at it, that the government does more of that than any other group.
And think about how much groups that do that outside of the government are hated.
And think about groups of people who terrorize people, who kidnap people, who commit violence.
I mean, you'd have to go to like gangs or, you know, the mafia or the Ku Klux Klan in its heyday or something like that.
All considered criminal and awful and need to be stopped.
Yet the government's killed way more people than all of those groups combined.
Not even close.
Shut down way more people's businesses, kidnapped more people, imprisoned more people, all of these things.
So that's why we don't like them.
And yes, governments can be different, but anyway, it wouldn't be a state.
It wouldn't be a government if it wasn't defined by the group that has the legal monopoly on initiating violence.
Now, then has this thing about FDR?
I mean, this is just so, oh, it's just so played out.
It's like talking about the wage gap or something like that.
It's like, yes, FDR came in and saved the economy.
Okay.
I mean, you know, you have some problems with that.
That's like that FDR comes in in 1932.
And when did the economy turn around?
Not till like 1945.
It wasn't until after FDR died that the economy started turning around.
So, you know, I don't know what to say.
It doesn't seem like there's anything.
And it wasn't until after a lot of the New Deal got repealed that the economy started turning around.
The idea that Hoover was like some small government guy and then FDR came in and started like spending.
This is just all bullshit revisionism.
It's complete bullshit.
It's like if somebody were to say that George W. Bush was like a small government laissez-faire guy and then Obama came in and started spending a lot and turned the economy around.
But it's like, oh, but if you actually look at it, you're like, oh, no, George W. Bush was a big government spender and Obama ran against that and then continued it even worse.
But that's exactly what happened with Hoover and FDR.
Hoover was a big government, big spender.
FDR ran against it.
And then once he got in there, fucking, you know, just expanded the size of government even more, pretty drastically.
And it was a disaster.
So anyway, that's the first argument he's made.
It's a terrible one.
Let's keep playing.
Also, just to point out on that, I mean, I'm not as familiar with the history of it as you are, but borrowing from future generations for current consumption and current benefit.
And then to look at, well, look at when they had the current benefit, that worked out pretty good.
Right.
It's not much of an argument.
No, right.
Even if it was effective, it wouldn't be much of an argument.
But it also wasn't effective.
It didn't help.
I mean, it was actually a disaster.
There's still really high unemployment for all of FDR's presidency.
It's almost like if he had a lifetime drunk and then he went to that one year in the 20s when he's banging his chicks like crazy.
And you're like, well, look, in the 20s, when he was 20, look how good that Drinking was great.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, well, it's a systematic problem.
Oh, by the way, I should correct myself.
FDR didn't have high unemployment for his entire presidency.
He had high unemployment up until the Second World War.
Because, of course, a military draft will take care of high unemployment.
But I don't know if that's something wrong with that.
And it'll kill off some of your idiots.
Yeah, well, it's a lot of people.
Yeah, they usually are the first to die at war.
Definitely did a lot of that.
But yeah, it's like, okay, sure.
So if you're going to just draft everybody into the military, then you can reduce the people who aren't working.
But I don't know if that's...
Because remember, I'm a big Trump fan, and I believe what he said.
The good, you know, the real heroes don't get caught.
Listen, anything where you're shitting on John McCain, I'll probably find a way to agree with you.
All right, let's keep playing.
He didn't make an argument.
He just sort of shrugged his shoulders.
Nothing.
I think it struck him as a question that had no point, had no sense to him.
Because the government is, there is no analytic about, the government is a thing in the world that mucks everything up.
They live in that world.
And here's the thing, one last point.
Here's the thing that I found most interesting about this.
They're against the government.
And when you ask them, what do you mean?
The power, the authority.
Throughout the entire debate, he equated socialism, all of socialism, with the affirmation that the government should have a big role, which for him is the Antichrist.
Of course it is.
It is a philosophy that says, let's put the devil in charge.
What?
He has no truck with that.
It's horrible for him.
And by the way, some of the forms it takes is he likes to repeat, and others of the libertarians do, that Hitler, ready?
Some of you may not have heard this yet.
Hitler was a socialist.
They've learned that the second word in the name of that political party was the National Socialist Workers' Party, which was Hitler's way of trying to appeal to the working class, but has become for them, yeah.
You see, it was a powerful government, and it was devilish.
That's socialism.
So Stalin and Hitler are basically twins.
It's all, it works.
It's a kind of a total, I shouldn't put it that way.
It's a total image.
All right, let's pause that.
Final.
So, look, to get into the whole, like, this is the thing of like, if you're going to talk about capitalism and socialism like this, and you're going to argue over whether Hitler was a socialist, you kind of have to define terms.
Like, what do you mean?
What does socialism mean?
Like, what, you know what I mean?
Like, like, define it for me.
And then maybe we could say, well, does this fit that or does it not?
So, you know.
You said he's just kind of whining his way out of the argument.
Yeah, really.
I mean, okay, so was Hitler a socialist?
Well, there were lots of socialized, nationalized areas of the economy under Adolf Hitler.
The government had about as close to totalitarian control as any government, maybe like North Korea today or something like that, would be more.
But you'd probably be hard-pressed to find a government that had more totalitarian control of the economy than Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.
I mean, it was pretty, you know, I mean, okay, you can laugh off the fact that they called themselves socialists, but there is something to be said for that point.
But okay, maybe you're going to argue they weren't.
He wasn't socialist because they didn't have like worker co-ops or something like that.
And by that same argument, the Soviet Union wasn't socialist and the, you know, Mao's China wasn't socialist and Venezuela isn't socialist today and Cuba isn't socialist.
Like if you're, if you want to go down that path, fine.
But you should at least acknowledge that what the libertarians are objecting to is the powerful centralized authority of the state and that all of these societies had that in common and they all called themselves socialists in one variety or another, right?
So if you're calling yourself a socialist and advocating for a centralized, powerful state, maybe the rest of us might be a little bit concerned and be like, hey, everyone else who's done this, you know, it's had disastrous consequences.
Now, is anybody saying that Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were exactly the same?
Well, no, there are obvious differences.
Like Joseph Stalin claimed to be a Marxist and Hitler was an anti-Marxist, right?
So okay, there's differences there.
Joseph Stalin, like what they would have claimed in their own philosophy, Joseph Stalin would have said that he cared about the workers of the world and Hitler cared about the Aryan people.
So like, yeah, there are differences.
I'm not saying they're the exact same thing.
However, do you really need a struggle for what the comparisons are?
They were the two great dictators of the 20th century responsible for millions of deaths.
So yeah, that's where they're kind of similar.
I mean, like, you know, I don't even understand what there is to not like see about that.
It's like, yeah, well, right, obviously they were both really horrible dictators.
And yes, what Gene Epstein objected to was the centralized state power.
So, okay.
What's the argument against that?
Kings Inside Enterprise00:13:18
All right, let's keep playing.
Point about it, and then I'll be glad to hear your comment.
Final point: inside the enterprise, they never go because inside every enterprise is a government.
The owner, the board of directors, whoever runs the enterprise is the government.
Only a government that has real power.
It can take your livelihood away.
It can fire you.
It can tell you what to do.
And if you don't do it, you're gone.
All right, let's pause it right there.
All right.
So here is, by the way, this was the crux of his argument in the debate.
And this is the argument.
It's really maybe the second thing that you could even consider an argument that he's made here.
So he says, but what about inside the enterprise?
There's a government there too.
Does he mean companies like corporations?
Yes, he means, yes, he means firms, corporations, companies.
So inside of a business, say, there's a government there too.
And what does he say?
He goes, they can take away your livelihood.
They can tell you what you have to do and they can fire you.
And he uses this very, well, that's right.
Well, what's the flip side to they can fire you?
What can you do?
You can quit.
Sorry, there's, but that's a pretty big difference.
That's like a really, really big, important difference.
You can also quit.
They can tell you what you're going to do.
You can tell them what you're not going to do.
And you have, but again, it's like this theatrical performance.
They can fire you, right?
And Professor Wolf, you can quit.
That's the difference.
That's a really, really, really big difference between the way a government operates and the way a company operates.
In fact, you could argue that's the most important difference, the most important distinction.
Now, think about it this way, right?
Let's say you couldn't quit.
Let's say you didn't have the option to quit.
You don't have the option to choose whether or not you work there.
You think libertarians might have a problem with it then?
Yeah, I think so.
Because that's pretty much slavery, right?
If you can't quit, like that's kind of the difference between a job and being a slave.
So yeah, we would have a problem with it there.
Now, what's the relationship to the government?
Oh, yeah, you can't quit.
You can't fucking quit.
Oh, you don't like some fucking regulation?
You don't like some law?
All right, I quit this government.
It's like, no, actually, you don't.
So, well, I want to leave.
Well, you better have a government passport and permission to fucking leave.
It's like, and try leaving prison.
You know, it's not, it's not that easy to quit being in prison.
So that's kind of the difference.
If a job tells you you can't smoke weed here, it's like, all right.
So you can either not smoke weed or you can leave and try to get a different job.
If the government tells you you can't smoke weed here, they throw you in a fucking cage and you can't quit that cage.
So obviously, if you're talking, even if you're looking at this from the socialist perspective, if you're talking about saying that a boss is an authority figure, okay, fine.
To some degree, that's true.
But let's acknowledge it's a very different authority figure than a cop.
Because you can't just like quit when you're pulled over.
You can't, now say they can destroy your livelihood.
I mean, well, you know, in a world where there's no other employers, maybe you'd have a stronger argument, but like, no, not really.
They can just, they can back out of the agreement.
It's like saying like, your wife can destroy your marriage.
It's like, well, she can divorce you.
I don't know.
She can't like destroy your ability to ever have a relationship again.
But like, yeah, you have to work.
It's a two-way street.
You have to make sure that she wants you around, just like with your employer.
But obviously, there's a pretty big glaring difference between this relationship and others.
Anyway, all right, let's keep playing.
And if you're gone, you don't survive unless you find another enterprise where somebody else will treat you that way.
Right.
So the very logic would say, gee, you can start your own company.
You want to be in favor of a capitalist enterprise.
And when I pushed, he said, I agree with you.
Be fine if we had enterprises where the workers were a co-op and ran it to.
That's fine.
Because he didn't get the point.
Because if those worker co-ops that he embraced understood him, they'd be against the government.
He didn't get the point.
So it's just so obvious, I think, to anyone who's not bought into this propaganda or who watched the debates that it's not Gene Epstein who's not getting the point.
It's a very simple point that you're making.
Yes, bosses get to tell you what the job requirement is.
Like they get to tell you what the job is when they hire you and they can fire you.
Yeah, yeah, no, we get it.
What Gene Epstein is saying is like, if workers want to get together and organize a company that the workers all run together, fine.
He has no problem with that.
Just keep it voluntary.
That's Gene Epstein's point.
And it's a completely reasonable point.
He has no problem with that.
He also has no problem with employer-employee-based companies, firms, or whatever.
So yeah, so that's the fucking argument.
It's, you know, and this stuff that the socialists rely on, this narrative that you, so if you get fired, you don't survive unless you get hired by another firm.
It's like, right.
Or, you know, you couldn't take money from, I mean, like, just literally what you're saying is not true.
It's not borne out empirically.
Like, unemployed people aren't dying in the country from being unemployed.
I mean, there's charity.
There's unfortunately a very large welfare state.
There's lots of other things.
I mean, that people go live with their families.
Like we all have known people who were fired.
All of them survived.
I mean, I've known people who died before, but none of them was death by firing.
Like, you know, it's like this just isn't really true.
And it's like, yeah, you have to go get another job.
Yes, you have to work and produce something in order to have stuff.
That's kind of the reality.
And by the way, it's not really a law of capitalism.
It's kind of a law of nature.
Things need to be produced.
And so, you know, why should you not be working toward that and just getting stuff?
Because if you are, other people are working to produce it.
Anyway, the point Gene Epstein's making is completely consistent.
It's like, yeah, you could have worker-run firms.
And in fact, there are lots of those.
There's lots of co-ops out there.
And so fine, have co-ops.
But, you know, just don't do it.
Don't mandate it by law.
That's all he's saying.
All right, let's play the rest of this.
Demonizing the government is very selective as to where he does it and when he does it.
He was happy that there were very few co-ops.
He didn't like them much.
Wasn't against them.
But he had no critique of the dictatorship inside every enterprise in capitalism.
That's how they're organized.
99.9% of them.
It's like when we got rid of kings, you know, sure.
If you get paid to participate and getting paid is fucking awesome, that's way different than getting taxed.
Yeah, slightly, kind of the opposite.
Yeah.
I mean, like, yeah, it's like, I don't know.
Like a dictator puts together a castle and he's like, you can come in here and I'll pay you.
And then when you leave, you can have stuff.
Are you willing to do this job to get paid?
And guess what?
You can actually pick your job most of the time or work hard to get a better job or you don't have to enter the castle.
Yeah, it's like, all of a sudden, this seems like a really cool dictator.
But again, of course, it would be the same as saying in a way that every, you know, like just in terms of interpersonal relationships, every friend is the dictator of who they get to be friends with.
Like I cannot be friends with someone if I don't want to be friends with them.
But yeah, but you're the dictator too.
You also get to dictate who you'll be friends with.
You also get to dictate what job you'll take.
And then kind of for there to be a friendship, it takes two people agreeing and being like, yeah, we both want this relationship or your home or your marriage or anything like this.
It's like, yeah, I mean, in some sense, you're the dictator.
But if it's a voluntary dictatorship that you get to choose whether you're a part of or not, what's the problem with that?
I've never, I don't hear anyone really rallying about the like, you know, dictatorial nature of someone renting an apartment.
But in a sense, it is.
You get to dictate who comes in and who leaves and you can tell them they have to go or you can, you know, decide what you're going to watch in your home.
It's your choice.
But what's the problem?
Because everybody gets to be kind of their own king.
So in a sense, yes, we are for like kingdoms, but everyone's allowed to have their own kingdoms.
I mean, that is the libertarian philosophy, where it's not just like one king who gets to dictate, you all have to pay me your money.
I get to tax all of you.
That's the top-down approach.
All right, let's keep playing.
We took their heads away and put them in one basket and the rest of them in the other basket.
We got rid of kings there.
But they survived, didn't they?
There's two places where they survived.
Inside the enterprise, they became the king.
And for those of you that are feminists, inside the household, they became another kind of king.
They subordinated their workers and they subordinated their wives and usually their children too.
That king.
Pause there for a second.
So see, this is what's so crazy to me, too, is that if you're going to start off by the nature of the conversation of how we just have this religious, you know, anti-government view, like the government's the devil.
And then he goes, the king survived in two places, inside the business and inside the marriage.
It's like, really?
Not the government?
Not the government, though.
I mean, like, let's get real.
The 20th century is what you're talking about, right?
Like, the kings basically fell after World War I, right?
There was pretty much monarchies throughout Europe before then, right?
So the kings fell in World War I.
The 20th century, that century where the kings fell, saw 250 million people murdered by their own governments outside of wars.
We're not talking about.
And that century also saw the two biggest wars between governments, government armies.
But those aren't kings?
But somehow the oppression of a boss who tells you you have to have this paper on my desk by the end of the week, a boss who tells you you got to finish the Johnson file, that's a king.
But the hundreds of millions of deaths, like that's not.
So it's just weird that you say these are the two places where they survived.
I'm sorry, what were you going to say?
Oh, I was going to say, if that's true that corporations are what's left of kingdom, everyone can be a king.
You can go start your company tomorrow.
It doesn't even have to be a good company, but you're king, man.
Well, they're all king.
At least the argument Ben Burgess would make would say, well, realistically, a lot of people don't have the means to go start their own business.
But of course, well, I mean, look, maybe there's some truth to it.
It takes like a certain amount of capital maybe to start a business.
But the other part that they seem to ignore is that the vast majority of people don't want to start their own companies.
Lots of people don't want to run a company.
Running a company is not easy.
Do you know anyone who runs a company?
Go watch them for a little bit.
Like a lot of people would rather just work nine to five, collect a paycheck, and go fucking live their life.
A lot of people live for the weekend.
And people who run companies don't really have weekends in the same ways.
A lot of people like to just kind of like, you know, raise a family or hang out with their friends, do other things, enjoy some leisure.
Like that's, that's fine too.
But again, and then I should just take on the thing where it's like, look, if you're going to compare kingdoms to marriages, I suppose in an arranged marriage situation where the woman doesn't get to choose whether she's there or not, there might be a fair comparison there.
But that's not really the case in any modern advanced society.
It hasn't been for a long, long time.
And to just say that the men were dominating the women in marriages, it's like, well, I don't know.
There's some problems with that.
How about the fact that, you know, when, you know, there's a war, it's the men who go off and fight it and die in those fucking wars.
You know?
I mean, it's like, it's easy to just, you know, reduce things to like men dominate women in marriages.
I don't know.
Talk to anybody who's married.
Certainly not the situation in my marriage.
Not the situation in most marriages that I know that it's just the men dominating the women.
In fact, many times it's the woman dominating the man more so.
And throughout history, you know, yeah, I mean, I'm sure there's been some marriages like that, but there's been a lot that aren't.
Certainly doesn't seem seem to be intrinsic to marriage.
Marriage Is Not Black And White00:12:26
All right, let's take a second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Mr. Alpha.
Mr. Alpha is the one-stop shop lifestyle brand for the modern man.
I recommend checking out Mr.Alpha.com.
They're making it easy to look good.
They've got apparel, nutritional products, hair care products, everything you need to stay ahead of the pack.
You know, it's too late for Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
But for those of you who have hair and want to keep it, check out the Mr. Alpha Volumizing Shampoo for Men.
It's made in an FDA registered facility and contains propriety formulas for hair loss prevention.
It features caffeine, rosemary extract, sage oil, and aloe vera that work together to hydrate and promote hair growth.
They've got a full line of hair care products, including conditioners, hair and beard serum.
And if you're one of these guys rocking a beard, you can actually have a full robust beard now.
Biotin supplements to prevent hair loss, lots more stuff.
As I said, Mr. Alpha has the products you need to become a better man.
So go to mralpha.com and use promo code P-O-TP20, and they're going to give you 20% off your entire order.
One more time, that's MrAlpha.com, promo code P-O-T-P-20 for 20% off.
Let's get back into the show.
Okay, let's keep playing.
Way so quickly.
He just moved, if you understand, but they don't.
For them, the government and socialism are an unspeakable evil.
And for them, seeing no other way, for them, capitalism is the negation of government.
Last point.
In their peculiar way, they are anarchists.
All right, let's leave it there.
So that's the end of it.
And okay, he finished on one thing that's fairly correct in their own particular way.
They are anarchists.
Yes, now you're starting to get it.
Sure.
Or it's at least anti-government.
Now, I guess not every libertarian is an anarchist, but they certainly are skeptical of government.
So, all right, fair enough.
You know, it's funny that he even leaves that.
Where is he teaching this, by the way?
I'm not sure.
I literally was just sent this video before the show started.
So I'm not, I'm actually not sure where it was.
I'd have to look.
Hold on.
Let me see if it's in the description of the video.
No, I can't find it.
No, I don't know.
I don't know where he was teaching there.
But he was teaching somewhere, speaking to students.
But it's just weird.
It's weird to hear him reflecting on this whole point.
And of course, if you know Gene, as all you guys who listen to the show do, in the debate, Gene was like making these very specific arguments, very specific points, where he's like, Richard Wolf is suggesting that the government be in charge of finance completely so that there's no crowdsourcing and no, you can't raise capital from people.
So in other words, like you can't just raise money from investors.
So you'd have to go to state-run banks in order to get investors.
And he's like, okay, well, what about something like the Soho Forum?
Do you think that I have to go to a state-run bank in order to get funding for the Soho Forum?
What about some like dissident publication?
How are they going to get funding from the state?
They have to beg the state for fun.
Like these very specific questions.
It doesn't address any of that.
It's like he's, and then he claims that Gene is dodging somehow.
Anyway, it's all kind of this like, like none of it is making arguments.
It's kind of storytelling.
The other thing that just bothers me is pitch me.
So you're pro-government.
Give me the pitch.
All you did was say, hey, this other thing's no good.
Well, I'm not buying your product then.
Like if I'm pitching you on being anti-government, hey, there's this thing that's swallowing up a bunch of resources.
It's not giving you a good return on your investment.
If we get that thing out of the way, we can keep more of our money and we're going to be more prosperous.
That's a pretty good argument.
Then he's just come along and goes, ah, what I just told you, I'm just equating government to religion.
I mean, to the devil, and I'm saying the government's bad.
Fine.
So pitch me.
What do you got?
Yeah.
Yeah, but that doesn't seem to be how their brains operate.
Like, it's almost a given that they've got to be right.
And so they're just dissecting what the problem with looking at things from the libertarian perspective is.
It's just like, I would just say to Richard Wolf, like, actually listen next time.
Because you started by saying, oh, it's good to listen to these people.
Just listen to the actual arguments that they're making.
I wouldn't even mind if he wasn't pitching us on something and was just tearing apart our pitch.
If he was actually tearing apart our pitch, you know what our problem was?
We didn't have these fairy tale terms of snakes, lizards, and castles.
And, you know, you got to like, you got to open up a Bible and pull out random themes and imagery.
Maybe if we talked about a golden sun coming up over the horizon.
But isn't there something?
Here's what I mean by when I say, because I do, maybe I don't do it in such a performative way, but I do equate statism to like a religious view.
And I'm just saying that there, obviously, look, my argument is not that everything would be perfect in capitalism.
My argument is not that every company is good or that it, you know, like there's lots of corporations I fucking despise.
There's lots of companies I despise.
There are lots of jobs out there that I think are terrible jobs and employers who are really shitty.
And I'm also not arguing that employers exercise no control over the people that work for them.
Look, I get it.
I get that there's some people who are like, my job fucking sucks.
My boss makes me do XYZ.
I would kind of want to be in a better job, but I don't have any other opportunity.
So this is kind of what I'm stuck with.
I get that there's people like that.
No one's denying that.
But can't you see where there's something kind of weird about Richard Wolf arguing that his problem with the way business works is the employer-employee relationship because that's a relationship of domination.
That person is your boss.
We shouldn't have things like bosses and workers.
It's like, okay.
And yet you argue for government.
A far more blatant version of boss and worker.
I mean, someone who can actually write rules that you can't opt out of.
Forget like whether it's just, oh, there's just not a better job offer out there.
I mean, at least in a market, you can try.
You can try to find a better job.
You can try to find the closest to that you could go with a government.
And by the way, all the same arguments that he made about a job, he goes, oh, well, yeah, you can leave that job, but then you just have to go work for another job.
Okay, well, that's true of a government too.
If you leave one government, you just have to go live under another government, right?
So all of this is still true.
It's just that it's way, way worse.
Like by your own standards, it's way, way worse.
You can't quit.
You can't fucking, in order to go from one government to another, you actually physically have to relocate.
You have to hope they let you leave.
You have to fucking take all of your belongings with you.
Not only do you have to leave your job, you got to leave your home.
You got to leave your family or whatever.
I mean, maybe you bring your family, probably not going to bring all of them, like extended family.
So it's everything you don't like about business, just way, way, way worse.
Also, to the degree by which you introduce choice to the equation, you allow for more of the hive mind to get into action and for people to just like, you know, introduce.
It's also like you just, the more choice there is, even with companies, so you might get stuck in a shitty company, but the path towards what you're looking for is going to be a lot smoother than if the government just goes, hey, here's your job and you're being paid blank.
Like then you're never going to get to the job that you might like.
The only reason you're jealous of people that have better jobs than you is because there's a lot of choice here and some people navigated it better.
Yeah.
You see what I'm saying?
It's like, it's all about that, that throwing choice or taking it out of the equation.
Well, that's right.
And that's like kind of the big difference between the state and the market is that one has at least some degree of a choice.
And look, you can, it's not that there's nothing to this argument that the socialists will make, that choice is not always as black and white.
So it's true, right?
Like Ben Burgess would say when he was on the show that he was, and this is something that Richard Wolf, I'm sure, would agree with and lots of them, that, you know, our definition of voluntary.
is like, well, okay, there are things that are voluntary, you know, relationships technically, but how voluntary are they really?
You know, so like, I get that there's an ounce of truth to this point.
So in other words, if there's some fucking woman who is like in tons of debt and is about to be evicted from her apartment and she's got two kids and she's like, has she doesn't know how she's going to put food on the table?
And then some rich guy comes along and is like, well, I'll fucking marry you.
And now you have a place to live.
You have fucking, you know, like your debts paid off and your kids are going to have food.
You don't have to stress out about all this shit anymore.
But he's just like, he's gross and ugly and she doesn't want to marry him, but it's just the circumstances that she's in.
So she's like, fine, I'll fucking marry that guy.
You go like, is this really the same level of voluntary that some woman who is completely fine, isn't worried about all these things, and then he asks her to marry him?
Like, is it the same level of voluntary?
Is somebody who works at, you know, who like didn't get any education, has no job history, works some really shitty job, is it as voluntary as somebody who's super qualified working at his job?
I could almost understand that there's an argument there.
Yeah, it is technically voluntary, but you are in a kind of shitty situation.
Your back was up against the wall.
You know what I'm saying?
I get that.
I think there's an interesting conversation to be had there.
The thing that drives me fucking crazy is that you guys are arguing for taxation.
You're arguing for government.
You're arguing for what is a black and white, clearly involuntary relationship.
So if we were just all living in a free market and then like you, you granted the free market argument, but then we're like, oh, you know, there really is something.
There's like, there's levels, there's shades here involuntary.
It's not just black and white.
It's like fine.
But that doesn't stop the argument that let's at least get rid of the black part.
That was not a racial comment.
Let's at least, right?
But if you're saying like, okay, here's black involuntary.
Here's white voluntary.
But within this white, there's these different shades.
Like, okay, fair enough.
But let's get rid of the clearly involuntary.
Yeah, it's like for your marriage example, let's not equate the person who felt like they were forced to marry this dude that wasn't the best looking to a lady that got sold into sex slavery.
Right.
That's not the same slavery.
And if you were arguing, hey, this is the, right, this woman who was kind of, you know, like pushed into marrying this dude, that's not so cool.
And you're like, okay, fine.
And go, by the way, I'm forced sex slavery.
Like, wait, what?
How do you make that jump?
I mean, Ben Burgess actually said this to me in the debate over whether taxation was theft.
So we were debating taxation and he's like, yeah, but you don't really like voluntary isn't always voluntary.
It's like, well, let me tell you where it's damn sure not voluntary.
Taxation.
That's definitely not voluntary.
That is pay me or go to jail.
I mean, how like that, that example is black and white.
So sure, in this same sense, is every act of sex, like all the same level of consensual?
Well, okay, maybe you could say there's some gray areas somewhere, right?
Okay, a woman was really depressed and she had sex with some guy who she normally wouldn't have sex.
Is that as, is that the same level of volunteer?
Maybe not, but you're, if you're arguing for rape, then this is all null and void.
Because that is clearly, that is binary.
That is involuntary.
Very clearly, like shouting no, feeling sad.
They're different.
One is criminal and one, I think, you know, is legal.
Might be scuzzy, but should be legal.
That's more or less my take.
All right.
Didn't expect to do an hour on that.
Ben Shapiro And Alt-Right Trends00:15:14
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sleep Number.
We all know sleep is important.
It makes you thankful when you get a restful night's sleep, thus allowing you to conquer your daily tasks.
The holiday season is here.
How do you thrive during the holiday season?
How do you balance sleep, holiday planning, and making time to purchase the perfect holiday gift for the special people in your life?
The new Sleep Number 360 Smart Bed helps everyone get the proven quality sleep that will change their lives.
Sleep number beds allow you to adjust on each side to your ideal fitness, comfort, and support.
The Sleep Number 360 Smart Bed senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you sleeping comfortably throughout the night with Sleep IQ technology inside the bed.
It tracks how you're sleeping so you can know every morning how well you've slept the previous night and gain insights for your best sleep.
Experience the smart, effortless comfort of Sleep Number 360 SmartBeds during the ultimate sleep number event.
Save an incredible 50% off the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed for a limited time only at sleepnumberstores or sleepnumber.com.
You'll only find sleep number at one of their 600 sleep number stores nationwide.
To find the one nearest you, go to sleepnumber.com/slash problem.
Better sleep is the key to a better life.
They're going to help you find that at sleepnumber.com/slash problem.
All right, let's get back into it.
You know what?
Maybe we'll just save the rest of the impeachment stuff for next time because there's going to be more and more of that.
Let's go to the Ben Shapiro tape.
So last week, Ben Shapiro talked about the left.
Now let's move into the more right-wing stuff.
So I guess this has been, I was telling you about this on the last podcast, but so Ben Shapiro gave a big speech on the alt-right, which seems.
We should call this episode Jews Call Out Other Jews for Being Jews.
God, it's going to be really hard to not name it that.
That's really... fuck.
All right, fine.
We can go with that title.
But it's like, so Ben Shapiro, so I guess a lot of these, what would I forget the name that they call themselves, but a lot of people like Nick Fuentes' followers and followers of other people and the kind of dissident right wing have been giving a lot of trouble to the conservative conservative ink types, Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, Daily Wire, Turning Point USA people.
And so he gave a speech at Stanford about them.
And I really, you know, the speech has been met overwhelmingly with negativity.
He was, I was looking in the comment section and almost everybody was kind of shitting on him.
They said the live stream was just nothing but people shitting on him.
And a lot of people have been making fun of it.
So I thought it was kind of interesting to go through.
And it's Ben Shapiro.
We'll play a little bit of it.
We're not going to get through the whole thing because it's kind of a long speech.
But it is an interesting thing that's happening here in the civil war on the right of who gets to control the kind of conservative narrative.
So anyway, let's jump into this speech and break this down a little bit.
Late-breaking events have made it to that I have switched the topic of this speech.
I've decided to talk about something else, and you're all just going to have to deal with it because I have the microphone.
Tonight, I'm going to talk about the dangerous game that's being played by two particular nasty groups who feed off one another.
I'm speaking about the radical left and the alt-right.
Now, I discuss the radical left on campus all the time.
That's because campuses are dominated by the censorious and nasty radical left.
On the other hand, I actually did question whether I wanted to talk about the alt-right tonight.
One reason is because what the alt-right wants more than anything else in the world is attention.
They rant or they cry or they even sing their white supremacist anti-Semitic moon landing conspiracism into their webcams for hours at a time while insisting they don't care about attention.
But of course, that's exactly what they care about very, very much.
So that was very clearly a shot at Owen Benjamin, which is fucking just interesting that Ben Shapiro is even paying attention to Owen Benjamin.
Like that in itself says something that's kind of interesting to me because they rant into their webcam about moon landing conspiracies.
Who are you talking about there, Ben?
You're talking about Owen Benjamin, who clearly you're following this guy and he's fucking bugging you.
Now, for all the people like the Ben Shapiro types who fucking make these arguments that, you know, it's like, oh, the left just wants to shut anybody down and ban them if they say the wrong things.
But I'm for open dialogue and debate, right?
And Ben Shapiro is all about debate, all about debate, if he's debating a 19-year-old who says 72 genders exist.
He will have that debate all day long.
And by the way, I do acknowledge that it was important that Ben Shapiro did that.
There was a time, it was probably around 2014, 2015, maybe even 2016, where you needed somebody to go to these college campuses and demonstrate how utterly full of shit these left-wingers are who are with a straight face making the argument that there's 72 genders.
Okay, Ben Shapiro was very good at shutting those guys down.
I mean, it's pretty easy to do, but, you know, he had all of the skill set necessary to go and do that.
I mean, it really is pretty easy to do.
It would be Ben Shapiro, all these videos that are like, Ben Shapiro destroys campus leftists.
It would be things like the obvious, you know, like there's 72 genders.
And he'd be like, why aren't there 73?
And they'd be like, duh.
Like, it's like they haven't thought it through.
Like, they were not prepared for one follow-up question.
Not one follow-up question.
You know, he'd be like, well, why can't a man identify as a woman?
Why can't you identify as a moose?
And you'd be like, oh, and then the crowd, bad.
And he's like, yeah, okay, fair enough.
He's, you know, he did destroy her with facts and logic or whatever the fuck it's saying is.
But it really was like, you're kind of dealing with something that's so stupid.
Now, by the way, I'm not, it did need to be slapped down because as stupid as it is, it's pretty fucking pervasive.
So fair enough to that.
But Owen Benjamin is a guy who literally gets, he was a fucking comedian who's worked all of the big clubs, had specials on Comedy Central, did everything.
Now he can't fucking announce a gig without it getting shut down and protested and all this.
So wouldn't you think, like, Mr. Ben Shapiro, it's like, this is the fucking crazy left that you're supposed to be against.
It's the same people who are trying to shut down your events, are trying to shut down his, but now you're just kind of shitting on him because he goes off on this.
What?
So he doesn't believe that we landed on the moon.
Okay, so make the fucking argument.
So if that's such a stupid view, then demonstrate it and be like, well, here, it's obviously, he's obviously wrong about this.
Okay.
Why is that so toxic to fucking feel that way?
Dude, Owen, I was texting with Owen last night.
Owen put out this fucking video, man.
It was really fucking incredible.
This video shitting on Ben Shapiro.
I think it was called like, why I despise Ben Shapiro or something like that.
And he was talking about his fucking buddy who served in Afghanistan, who fucking was never the same after going there and became a heroin addict when he came back and eventually killed himself on drugs.
And he was like, these motherfucking chicken hawks who like send people off to go die in these war, like champion all these fucking wars.
And they don't fucking know the people whose lives are ruined.
And he gets emotional.
Like he's crying in part of the video.
It's fucking sad.
He's talking about his fucking friend who's like dead now.
And it's like, but somehow in this world, Ben Shapiro is like a respectable opinion, but Owen Benjamin the moon landing.
So fucking, this guy's just a fucking evil, you know, person.
Like what a weird fucking mindset to have.
Like if you just say, I want to propagandize young people into going on mass murder campaigns where they're going to ruin their fucking lives, then that's a respectable opinion.
But this guy fucking rambles into a webcam about the fucking the moon landing.
Like, okay.
It's just fucking just a weird fucking world that we live in.
It's a weird way where people draw their lines.
But anyway, let's go back to Ben Shapiro.
Which is why they've been distributing calendars of conservative events and encouraging trolls to show you.
Let's just say the other thing.
The other criticism, which is just such a weak criticism, we're not going to get through that much of this because there's just, it's every sentence I could stop and just tear apart.
But to really, if you're going to criticize the alt-right, which I don't consider Owen Benjamin or the alt-right, I don't know if Nick Fuentes considers himself.
He described himself as a paleo-conservative when he was on this show.
I don't know.
That's what he calls himself.
He does seem to be kind of big government for a paleoconservative, but whatever, you know.
But if you're going to like fucking criticize these people and your criticism is that they just want attention, just seems like a really weak place to start.
They just want attention.
I mean, who of any of us has the right to look at somebody else and go, well, you just want attention?
I mean, we're all putting ourselves out there, right?
Like, I'm putting my fucking podcast out there.
Do I want more people to listen to it or less people to listen to it?
More?
Yeah, I'll go with more.
You fucking nailed it.
But you know what I mean?
Like, fucking Ben Shapiro, it's not like he's not putting this clip out.
It's got like half a million views on it right now.
So I would guess that he wants people to see him doing this.
So to just criticize them that they want attention.
Now, I will grant you there are some people on the alt-right who get attention in ways that I find kind of shitty.
But I guess if you're going to defend them, maybe some of that is because they like don't really have any other way of getting attention.
It's not like they can just go to a respectable fucking, you know what I mean, like news publication and make their argument.
They're not allowed.
They're fucking deplatformed left and right.
So, you know, they get attention the way they get it.
But it just seems like a weak criticism to open with.
Anyway, let's keep going.
Britain questions designed to elicit lols from like-minded idiots who populate 8chan and gab.
The other reason is because there is a great deal of factionalism on the alt-right.
So the very term alt-right is controversial among some of its adherents.
Some of them call themselves the new right and swear they despise the founders of the alt-right.
Some call themselves America First trying to hijack President Trump's slogan to give themselves the patina of credibility.
More on that in a second.
Some name their movements after mammals, some after amphibians.
It gets confusing.
Once again, this is an Owen Benjamin call out.
Some name their movement after animals.
He's clearly calling out Owen Benjamin.
Just say his fucking name, dude.
Or why don't you go debate him since you're so into like debate?
Anyway, let's keep playing.
You see, keeping people confused is actually one of their chief tactics because it gives them room to ridicule anybody who doesn't understand all of their esoteric labels and jokes and beliefs.
So why talk about the alt-right at all?
The answer is simple.
The radical left and the alt-right desperately need each other.
Need each other.
They're playing a game in which the radical left seeks to delegitimize anybody who isn't on the radical left by lumping them in with the despicable alt-right, and in which the alt-right seeks to make common cause with anybody canceled by the radical left, specifically with supporters of President Trump who've been maligned falsely as evil by the radical left in order to artificially boost their alt-right numbers.
These two goals are mutually reinforcing.
Now, first, I want to just say straight for the record, okay, the alt-right does not mean anybody who's an immigration restrictionist or people who are pro-tariff or people who are more isolationist on foreign policy.
It's a very specific set of beliefs.
And what you'll see the alt-right do is adopt the beliefs of some of these other movements in order to find cover for their actual belief system, which really is quite vile.
So here is how this game works.
Let's say that you're on the alt-right, whatever your preferred label.
He'll just call you the alt-right for purposes of this conversation because that's what you are.
Let's say, for example, that you're constantly talking about white civilization.
A nonsensical term, because civilization is not defined by color, but by history and culture and philosophy.
But let's say that you say white civilization is under attack by multi-racial hordes.
Let's say that you're antipathetic toward Jews.
You're enraged by the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Let's say you spend your days ranting about how conservatives and traditional classical liberals, you know, the sole protective force in America against the radical left, haven't conserved anything.
You say that America is not a propositional or a creedal nation, even though the nation's founding literally begins with the words, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
All right, so let's pause it.
Here's the problem.
I mean, look, there's a lot of problems with this argumentation from with this line of argument from Ben Shapiro.
I mean, number one, he's going about how that, like, Ben Shapiro will refer to himself as a libertarian.
He's a neocon who will refer to himself as a libertarian.
So for him to criticize alt-right people for referring to themselves as conservatives, I don't know what to say.
And then to use this definition that, well, anybody who talks about white culture or white society is now on the alt-right, and they're not the real conservatives because they say conservatives haven't conserved anything and then invoke the founders.
I mean, you can see what the irony is here, right?
Like, the founders wrote about free white men.
The only people who could own land were, or the only people who could vote were land-owning white men.
They were very explicit about this.
So actually, in that sense, if you're going to invoke the founding, they kind of would be the true conservatives.
And this is said from someone who's not a conservative.
I'm a fucking radical anarchist.
But, you know, have the conservatives conserved anything?
Well, you, I mean, I'm sure there's something, but couldn't you see where someone would make that argument?
Like, if you were to say the conservative position in the 90s was that marriage is between a man and a woman, can't get away with that in politics today.
I mean, they're literally, that's now just, no, I'm sorry, that's evil.
Up until 1965, our immigration policy was specifically designed to take in more white people, take in more Europeans.
So really, couldn't you call basically anyone from before 1965 could meet this definition of like white nationalist or alt-right.
So, I mean, if I'm just calling balls and strikes here, I get their point.
I mean, like, there's something to be said for that.
If you really were a conservative, meaning you want to conserve the American tradition, well, the left will be the first ones to tell you, and they're not completely wrong when they say it, that there was a lot of kind of racism in that tradition.
So, I don't know.
Seems like you actually have to take on that argument.
You know, there's a dynamic here that I find really weird, where it's like, here's one of the things about the alt-right that I found interesting when they first kind of popped onto the scene.
And I don't know whatever, whether Nick Fuentes considers himself alt-right.
I think in these things in general, it's best to just kind of go with what people call themselves.
You know what I mean?
Like, if you call yourself something, it's like, okay, then I'll call you that.
Because if you go, I'm a libertarian, and this is like what the left always does.
They go, you're just claiming to be a libertarian.
You're really a fascist.
Like, oh, okay.
Degenerate Neo-Nazi Jokes00:15:17
But at least make somewhat of an argument.
Like, let's just give, let's assume people are what they say they are and believe what they say they believe, because otherwise we could all play this game.
But so there's something, those, this is something that I've noticed, right?
It's an interesting kind of trend.
So, those people who I was talking about that Ben Shapiro would debate, and I know you've had some experience just with this in life, just talking to like leftists who you know, right?
A lot of times they're in a completely left-wing environment.
They're not challenged on any of these thoughts, and you realize they're almost like a boxer who's never sparred.
So, if you start arguing with them, they're like, whoa, I've never been hit before.
And they're very easy to crumble because they're like, wow, I don't even have a fucking like response.
And that's what would happen with Ben Shapiro debating the social justice warriors.
They're like, no one's ever challenged this before.
It's always just met with applause.
So I've never, I haven't gotten good at debating because there's no need to, you know?
But then something else kind of happened with a lot of these Ben Shapiro types is that they debate these social justice warrior types and they're not really getting stronger either because all you're doing is debating someone who, so now you're sparring, but you're sparring against someone who's never sparred.
So your sparring isn't even really worth that much.
So the anti-social justice warrior crowd, they were fucking not really that good at debating either.
I've seen this before, whether like people online who are known for like smashing the kind of woke left, and then they get into a debate and they're fucking like really ill-prepared because all they're doing is debating that like, I don't know, like that there aren't 72 gender, like whatever.
If all you're doing is debating that gender exists, then you're not really, it's not iron sharpening iron.
You're just like iron tearing into a fucking sheet.
And then all of a sudden your sword isn't that sharp.
And then there's the alt-right.
Now, say what you will about them.
I certainly think a lot of their ideas are flawed and some evil.
But they're sharp.
And this is one of the things that was interesting about them.
And this is true for a lot of people who are considered in that lane.
They're taking ideas that are considered the most taboo in society.
So they're always defending their ideas.
Like everything they're doing is like a fucking debate.
Everyone's coming at them.
And this makes them sharp.
Now, I'm sure they'll start getting dull as they kind of go into their own echo chambers and things like that as well.
But there's something about it where it's like, now Ben Shapiro wants to take on these guys.
And it's just like these arguments are just, they're very weak.
You're just starting with these kind of meaningless insults.
Or they just want attention.
They're idiots.
He's already said they're idiots.
Like, all right.
That's your creative.
Basically, you hang out on 4chan.
You're a bunch of losers.
Like, all right.
Take on any of their ideas.
If you're going to say, oh, there's no such thing as white culture because culture is shaped by ideas, not races.
It's like, well, I guess.
I mean, there were different areas of the world that were predominantly different races.
You're saying there's no way that had any effect on anything?
Okay.
All right, let's keep playing.
It's like Christianity is the basis of your values, but you're more likely to quote Nietzsche than Christ.
Let's say that you constantly lament the decline of our fundamental institutions, but you don't belong to a church.
You don't belong to A bowling league, you don't belong to the Lions Club, you don't belong to the Rotary Club, you don't own a home, you don't have a grown-up job, you probably aren't married, you probably aren't a parent.
Let's say that your greatest achievement in life isn't family, kids, church, community, but that you once made a semi-ironic meme that seven other people like you upvoted on Telegram.
Turns out not all that many Americans agree with you.
After all, your agenda is pretty disgusting.
You also happen to have the unfortunate habit of saying really disgusting things when you think other people aren't listening.
For example, your thought leaders, your self-proclaimed lead influencers, will say they're not on the same page as white supremacist Richard Spencer, but then they'll go on Facebook and post about the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, quote, the rootless transnational elite know that a tidal wave of white identity is coming, and they know that once the word gets out, they will not be able to stop us.
The fire rises.
Really hiding the ball there, are you?
Let's say that your self-proclaimed lead influencer has compared Alex Jones' ban from social media, a ban by the way, which I oppose publicly, to a modern Kristallnacht and the beginning of a white Holocaust.
But when it comes to the Holocaust itself, you have some questions.
You do.
Those questions are questions like this.
It's a direct quote from a lead influencer in the alt-right.
Matt says, if I take one hour to cook a batch of cookies and Cookie Monster has 15 ovens working 24 hours a day, every day for five years, how long does it take Cookie Monster to make 6 million batches of cookies?
I don't know.
That's a good question.
No, that doesn't sound really correct to me.
Wait a second.
It takes one hour to build a batch of cookies and you have 15 ovens, probably in four different kitchens, right, doing 24 hours a day for five years.
How long would it take to get to 6 million?
Hmm.
I don't know.
It certainly wouldn't be five years, right?
The math doesn't seem to add up there.
None of it really adds up.
None of it really makes sense.
This crazy cookie analogy, 6 million cookies?
No, I don't buy it.
That's all irony.
I'm an irony, bro.
That's all irony.
And this is the kind of stuff some of these folks are saying.
All right, let's pause it for a second.
Look, you have to at least admit that is the most hilarious way to deny the Holocaust.
I mean, a cookie monster analogy?
That's pretty fucking solid.
But look, it's like, again, this just isn't much of an argument to be like, there are quotes.
He's not attributing the quotes to anyone.
So I don't know who the fuck said this stuff.
You know what I mean?
It's like, but okay, there were things that were said that were like wrong historically or exaggerated or something like that.
I think, look, maybe it's like the fact that you're not allowed, like, there is so much debate over, look, let me just start by saying this, disclaim it.
But I have family who were killed in the Holocaust.
I know the Holocaust happened.
I mean, I don't know the exact number of people who were fucking killed.
I don't.
But again, it's like that you, people debate over the amount of people that Mao Seitong killed, the amount of people that Joseph Stalin killed.
People debate.
There was still, just recently, just last year, I saw there was like an adjustment to the amount of people that they estimate died during World War II in total.
Yet you like, if you question the six million number, somehow this is just like insane.
Like, what if it was five?
Does that really drastically change anything?
Does that mean that like Hitler was a good guy now or that the Jews didn't have it rough?
Like the truth is, tens of millions of people died during World War, during World War II.
Hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of their own government in the 20th century.
And it is a little bit weird that there's just this one that gets the Holocaust as its like fucking title.
And it's kind of the baseline of the justification for Israel's entire existence and America's entire global rule.
It's like, oh, it's like, well, Hitler, every time there's a fucking another war that we need to start, that's Chamberlain gets invoked.
And World War II, the good war, always gets invoked.
So yeah, a lot of people on the alt-right online who get seven up votes up votes on a meme are just kind of shitlords or whatever they call themselves and they're just kind of poking it.
But I think the fact is that this is kind of the base that everything else, all other history is built off of.
And so much of the other history that they build off it is bullshit that a lot of people are like, well, I'm questioning the whole fucking beginning of this bullshit.
Now, I don't think they're right in that question, but I also don't think it helps any to have some Jew up here lecturing white people about how you're not allowed to talk about this.
This is always the angle I look at things from when you see like a rise of anti-Semitism.
It's like, okay, well, if this is some big threat, let's like, let's not encourage it.
And I couldn't see anything more to encourage it than this.
This is all Ben Shapiro is doing here is handing like anti-Semite fucking neo-Nazis a huge fucking talking point.
Look at this fucking Jew up there lecturing you about how there's no such thing as white history.
Do you think Ben Shapiro would be willing to say there's no such thing as Jewish history or that Israel and the Jewish race are that there's no connection there.
There's no connection between your nation and Judeo history.
Nothing.
But he'll tell you that about Europe with white people.
Like, what's the point of this?
And what's the actual argument there?
So I just, I don't get it.
All right, let's let's keep playing a little bit more.
For the record, by the way, just so the facts are on the record, according to Henry Talbar, a member of the Sonder Commando, who worked in several of Birkenhow's gas chambers, quote, we worked in two shifts, a day shift and a night shift.
On average, we incinerated 2,500 bodies a day.
The procedure was to put the first body with the feet toward the muffle, back down and face up.
Then a second body was placed on top, again face up, about head toward the muffle.
We had to work fast.
The bodies put in first soon started to burn.
Their arms and legs rose up.
Women's bodies burned much better and more quickly than those of men.
For this reason, when a charge was burning badly, we would introduce a woman's body to accelerate to combustion.
Unquote.
But maybe he was just being ironic, bro.
In fact, it seems like some members of the alt-right, they have a pretty large problem with Jews generally.
They'll tweet things like, quote, so-called Jewish values tend to favor liberal and internationalist positions like abortion, foreign intervention, multiculturalism, homosexuality, and mass immigration.
Some of you will say that you're hurt in your daily existence by Jews.
You suggested that a religious Catholic who writes for my website, a guy named Matt Walsh, is a, quote, Chabas goi race traitor who's throwing his own people under the bus and hates white people.
In fact, Walsh is, according to you, an F word, that would be for gay people.
P-word, as in female genitalia, a race traitor who works for the Jews.
What prompted that outburst, by the way, on the part of this alt-right lead influencer?
The fact that my friend, Matt Walsh, said that the El Paso racist shooter should be publicly executed in brutal fashion.
Also, it turns out, lead influencers in the alt-right, not so fond of black people either.
One particular lead influencer, when asked if having sex with a dog is the same thing as having sex with a black man, said, quote, they would both be degenerate.
Really, really classy people.
All right.
So let's pause it for a second.
Now, I don't know, again, because he keeps doing this, like one leader said this, one leader said that, and I don't know like what the quotes are.
It's like whatever this guy called, you know, this Christian a faggot pussy or whatever.
And this guy said, you know, like having sex with a dog and a black person are both degenerate.
I'm just guessing.
Maybe I'm wrong about this.
Kind of sounds like jokes.
Sounds like people making fucked up jokes.
But again, you just like, you can.
Look, almost every like regular dude, if you took jokes that they made and then read it in some speech in a completely serious tone, could make them seem like really horrible people.
But my guess was that these were jokes that were being made.
Anyway, maybe they weren't.
Maybe I'm wrong about that.
But let me ask something about to Ben Shapiro, who is, by the way, an Orthodox Jew, right?
An Orthodox Jew.
And if he's saying having sex with black people or let's say having gay sex or something like that is degenerate, do you not believe that?
Let's just stick with the gay sex thing.
Does Ben Shapiro not believe that that's degenerate to have gay sex?
I mean, wasn't God...
This isn't even, you don't even have like New Testament Jesus stuff in there where he like chills out a little bit.
You're Old Testament fucking mean God, right?
Now, Rob, you know more about Judaism.
Abomination, right?
Isn't sodomy not okay?
No, no, no, no.
But the Bible is not pro-sodomy.
Yes.
That's what I was.
I was under that impression.
So I'm just saying, if you are, it's just a weird perspective for him to be.
But if he did drugs on the weekend, God gets it.
He does.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, Rob Bernstein on the record.
The Jewish God, okay.
Just on the weekend, though.
Just on the weekend.
I don't know.
I think God judges on a sliding scale because he tells you you can't jerk off either.
No one's not jerking off.
Right.
Yeah, he tells you you can't have sex with your wife unless it's two weeks since her last period.
No one's not fucking their wife within two weeks, regardless of the ritual bath.
By the way, no one's following religion.
I agree with you completely.
I'm just saying that he is an Orthodox Jew.
So it's just like, don't you have to grapple with this little.
By the way, I'm not defending the alt-right guys who are like shitty.
I hate the really shitty troll culture.
I'm not a fan of it, but it just seems like to get so worked up.
Look, here's the thing that I had to deal with, that a lot of people like back in like 2015, 2016 really had to deal with guys on the alt-right is that at first you see the fucking trolls and you it's.
It's easy to be like yeah, this is kind of shitty, but then you realize that a lot of these people are actually making arguments, whether you like it or not, and then, once people are actually making arguments, you got to at least attempt to grapple with the arguments.
The Talmud itself.
What was the guy said?
Having sex with a black person is the same as having sex with?
Uh.
Well, he said they both.
The quote was they'd both be degenerate.
Oh well, it says in the.
It says in the Talmud, on the first page of Ketibis bias Goi, Kamoi bias Behema fucking uh, the fucking a Non-Jew is like fucking an animal.
Oh really yeah, but it's.
It's meant as a joke, and the joke is that like, in regards to spiritual bathing of of female, of Jews, like after the period, that like, since Non-Jews aren't included in that law, it's no different than fucking animals, but they're not actually equated like right, Jewish law is very technical, but I just want to say as a as a argument against him, who can't see past what other people are saying?
Your own uh, your own book says it right?
Just saying you might have some, you might have some problems there.
There might be something that you need to kind of um, that might be in conflict.
All right, let's play a little bit more and then we're gonna wrap up.
Believe all these garbage things and you've said all these garbage things and you are, in fact, a garbage human being when your views are obviously white supremacist garbage.
What do you do?
You take four steps in order to legitimize yourself.
Step number one, the Trump gambit.
First, you declare your allegiance to president Trump and declare that you're not really alt-right, even though you obviously are.
You show up to lectures wearing a MAGA hat in order to get the media to cover it and in order to demonstrate that you are truly a representative of the 63 million Trump voters, you call yourself America first, hijacking Trump's slogan.
What you actually mean is White Americans first.
The media eat it up, because the media love nothing better than, of course, lumping Trump in with particularly this group.
You don't have to take my word for it.
You can just ask Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi who runs the Daily Stormer.
He posted a calendar of events for alt-writers to attend and attack, including this particular event.
And he wrote last week, quote, I think basically we've got a model going forward that is going to work.
If we get questions, we'll take questions.
But simply being there and heckling in the audience relentlessly is extremely effective.
And you can meet other like-minded people there this way as well.
Remember, we're all good optics American nationalists now.
Longtime readers will remember this is something I pushed very hard while others were dressing up in neo-Nazi costumes.
And by talking about these issues, instead of saying, gas the kikes or whatever, we are more or less immune to being fired or kicked out of school if doxed.
You just, if somebody calls you out right, you say, no, of course I'm not an all-right neo-Nazi racist white supremacist.
I'm just an America-first nationalist and a MAGA supporter.
Identity Politics And Trump00:06:02
Now, this is a clever tactic.
It is.
Donald Trump is many things.
He is not a white supremacist, and he is not an anti-Semite.
His daughter is an Orthodox Jew.
So is his son-in-law.
So are all of his policy advisors, or at least many of his policy advisors with regard to the Middle East.
Donald Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem in a bold move of solidarity with the people of Israel.
He has a roundabout named for him in Jerusalem.
Trump Heights, Ramat Trump, is named for him in the Golan Heights.
Donald Trump has nothing to do with these so-called self-proclaimed America-first asshats.
All right, so let's just pause right there.
See, this is what's so fucking crazy.
Like, how do you not look at this and get this?
And I'm speaking about this as a Jew, okay?
I mean, I'm not speaking, but this is coming from someone who's a Jew.
It's like, do you not even realize the talking point that you're handing to the alt-right or to handing to anti-Semites?
You're like, you know, the media tries to accuse Donald Trump of being an anti-Semite, but he's not an anti-Semite like these really bad people.
I mean, all of his policy advisors are Jews.
He does everything for Israel.
You're like, oh my God, dude, do you not even hear yourself?
Okay, well, here's the thing, Ben Shapiro.
We Jews are like 2% of the population in America.
So if you're saying that we have this like stranglehold on policy, and well, by the way, the policy is what Israel wants.
And what does Israel want?
Well, they wanted the war in Iraq.
They want the war in Syria.
They want the war in Yemen.
They want the fucking war, like, right?
They want all of these things where real, that has brought nothing but disaster to everybody else.
Do you maybe see where this movement is going to rise up?
Now, I am no fan of the alt-right, but once you start talking about the radical left and the alt-right having this kind of symbiotic relationship, which they do, I agree with him on that part.
But you have to start asking yourself, which one is a response to the other one?
Which one came first?
Did the identity politics start on the right or start on the left?
Is one seeming to be a reaction to the other?
Because that's kind of how it seems to me.
Look, let me say it like this, okay?
And then we'll wrap up the show.
So there's these all-right guys who say like the Holocaust never happened and they say they don't like Jews and throw kikes in the oven or all these things.
Okay, not cool.
Don't agree with them.
Think it's pretty shitty and pretty wrong.
But what's really happening as a result of that?
Like what's really happening to Jews?
I mean, as of right now, Jews are fine.
They're thriving in Western civilization.
Now, Ben Shapiro, on the other side, has advocated being pro-Israel.
He's called Palestinians dogs, joked about how they play in mud and said he'd like to see a lot more casualties.
Now, he did apologize for those comments.
But what has come as a result of neocons like Ben Shapiro supporting that stuff?
Millions of Muslims have been killed and thousands of American military members have been killed and more committing suicide and drug ODs and all of this other stuff, right?
So like real, real fucking, you know, disasters have come from that line of thinking.
If you want to actually say who's brought more damage onto the world, neocons or the alt-right, let me tell you, it ain't even close.
It ain't even close.
And then you're going to sit here and talk about how American policy is like run by Jews.
And look, this is what if the alt-right is a response, in my opinion, to two things.
It's a response to the left and it's a response to the neocons.
What they're basically saying is that the fucking left hates white people and the neocons are run by fucking Jews who only care about Israel.
Now, maybe those are kind of blanket things to say that aren't 100% of the time true, but there's definitely a lot of truth to both of them.
And if you have the left who's lecturing white people about the, like the left is, so many of the social justice woke left people hate white people.
It's so obvious.
They fucking hate white people.
And their message is basically the following.
It goes, we're playing identity politics.
I want to see more people of color in positions of power.
I want to see more women in positions of power.
So in other words, everyone except white men, I want to see in more positions of power.
And it is a horrible, horrible thing to be a minority.
Even when a society has written laws and done all these things to make it better for minorities, it's a horrible thing to be a minority.
And we fucking hate white people.
And by the way, white people are going to be a minority in a few years in this country.
That is their message.
I'm really not adding much to it.
Can you understand where there might be a movement of white people who aren't looking forward to being a minority?
When people are literally telling them, we hate you and it's horrible to be a minority?
Do you get where it comes from?
I'm not saying they're right or their tactics are good or that dumb cookie monster thing was okay to write.
A little bit funny.
But still, I'm just saying, do you see what's happening here?
I mean, do you see what the grievance is?
Do you want to try?
If you're not going to address what the grievances are, how do you even like have this conversation?
It's like, do you think that the left, the left who talk about the Browning of America and the evils of white men, do you think when white people become a minority in this country, they're going to go, okay, we're even.
Water under the bridge.
We don't hate white people anymore.
Or do you think they're going to go, now's the time to really put the boot on the fucking neck?
Well, I don't know.
I'd understand being concerned.
I'd understand being concerned about it.
And then you have, it's like, oh, they really don't like Jews.
And then you're like, well, I wonder why.
Well, here you have an Orthodox Jew bragging about how Jews completely dominate Donald Trump's foreign policy.
And he's not wrong about it.
And that's the problem.
That is the issue.
No fan of the alt-right, but I do share their hatred of the left and the neocons.