Carl Benjamin and Dave Rubin dissect the rise of "champagne socialists" and Antifa violence, arguing that affirmative action restricts liberty while true socialism requires post-scarcity automation. They critique the decline of centrism against hard-left extremists and alt-right racists, debating whether nations like Sweden are socialist or social liberal. The conversation covers controversial topics from chemtrail myths to the necessity of compulsory military service, before Benjamin champions independent journalists like Tim Poole for restoring objective truth over activist agendas in an era dominated by corporate media bias. [Automatically generated summary]
I think a lot of people, although you do show your face now pretty frequently and you do other shows and live streams and all that stuff, I don't think people are really used to seeing the human Carl.
They think of this This Sargon fella, are Carl and Sargon the same person?
So we've discussed a little bit, you've been on twice before, once you really helped me out because we were in between studios, we did a little Google Hangout thing, you were a good man, and we've discussed some classical liberal stuff and a bunch of stuff that we're gonna get into, but for people that have no idea who you are, Why did you start making political videos?
In Britain, you're talking about sort of The sort of Lockean, Thomas Paine sort of liberal.
You're not talking about the progressives who come from a fundamentally, as far as I can make out, because I'm not even sure they're that certain of their own beliefs.
It seems to me they have a set of goals in mind, but don't really know how they plan to achieve those goals through an ideological framework.
And so when they come out and advocate for things like affirmative action, you know, it's completely illiberal to advocate for just an end to equality.
Because, I mean, for a liberal to say that I want an equality of outcome is the antithesis of what liberalism is.
It's equality of opportunity.
And from equality of opportunity you are going to see an inequality of result.
And that's the point.
Because an equality of result means that someone somewhere isn't getting what they want.
They're being artificially restricted by someone else, whoever's setting the rules.
You should see a natural diversity of thought, opinion and outcome when you are operating in a liberal system.
So to artificially weight it is, well, Illiberal, and I didn't like it.
So when I was waking up out of a progressive coma, and I started just tweeting a few little things that I thought were wrong, and this is about three years ago, I'd say, suddenly the internet started all at once, Talk to Sargon.
You were really the first person that they said, this is the guy that's online talking about this stuff.
And then you had me on your show, which you had a much bigger audience than I did at the time.
It helped me get some of my base.
So first off, I thank you for that.
But did you realize that talking about basic classical liberal John Locke on liberty values was gonna be thought of as somehow controversial or something?
Because in an odd way, it is in some bizarre sense.
I honestly thought that I would get a lot of positive responses from the people who were doing these things, because they called themselves liberals.
And so I was like, well, why are you doing things that are going against the core values of liberalism?
And at the time, I wasn't even particularly well-read in liberalism.
I didn't really know very much about it.
But I knew the sort of outcome of liberalism, and I knew the principles, but I didn't know the intellectual history of it.
And so I've had to educate myself on that, obviously.
And I think that what progressives really need to ask themselves is, do they want equality of opportunity or do they want equality of outcome?
Because that is the core difference between liberalism and progressivism.
And I think that a lot of them think, a lot of people, I mean, I hear people saying, I'm a liberal progressive.
And it's like, what does that mean?
You know, and I think what the problem is, is they've got a certain set of overlapping magisteria, where they want things like tolerance.
That's a perfectly respectable thing.
And a liberal wants tolerance.
But tolerance for a liberal is the consequence of the principles that they're operating under.
Whereas for progressives, it's the goal of their principles.
So they are quite happy to, say, restrict someone's freedom to apply for a job, is a really classic one, in order to achieve what they consider to be a tolerant end.
But that, to me, is not a tolerant thing.
I mean, for example, the BBC at the moment, and for anyone who doesn't know, it's the state-run media corporation of Britain.
My taxpayer money goes to this.
My license money goes to this.
They actively discriminate against white people.
in hiring for their jobs and it's not all the jobs obviously
but they have certain jobs where they will literally say this is for and the
term in Britain is black and minority ethnic but it basically means non-white
for BAME only and it's like I'm sorry what on what planet do you think it's acceptable
to turn around and say you know what
you're the wrong race to apply for this job and things If it was for a job, say, in front of the cameras or something, maybe I could bend my principles enough to say, okay, fine, I can accept that.
Where somebody was calling you a white nationalist or a white supremacist or something.
I wish I could remember the specific instance of it.
And I remember pushing back on it, of course.
But therein lies part of the problem that our education, I think for both of our countries, is so screwed up right now that when you say these sort of very obvious things about equality of opportunity versus outcome, which everyone should be on board if you truly care about equality, people think that's somehow a racist connotation or a racist idea.
This is something I've thought long and hard about.
So, for example, when they say, We want to have a job that's open only to say, I'm just going to use the terms white and black, but I mean non-white and white.
Yeah.
They're only open to black people.
Then you ask them, OK, what's the rationale for that?
Well, black people are disadvantaged.
They're often very poor.
They come from difficult families.
And so, OK, well, why don't we just open that to people who are disadvantaged and poor?
That's something we can qualify very easily.
We can figure out who's poor by simply looking at their paychecks, looking at their monthly income.
So the issue is not actually the race, the issue is the financial situation of the person.
So why discriminate against the white people on the basis of their race, if the problem is that they're poor?
The problem isn't that they're poor, the problem is that they're white, and the other ones are the problem, you know, the favour in the progressive mind is to go on to the people who are black, purely because of the perceived disadvantages of I guess being black, which to me sounds like a racist thing to say.
I don't look at a black person and think, well, you're probably disadvantaged, but that's them.
I mean, what I'm advocating for, I guess, maybe it's because it's outside of the paradigm, because what I'm advocating for is a racial, you know, it's not, I don't want their race to be a factor on which they are judged.
And yet these people can't seem to separate that from the situation that we're talking about.
And so if I'm saying, look, You should be judging people on maybe something that is more controllable or maybe something that is more relevant.
Like, I mean, financial situation is something that is genuinely relevant and it affects black people, white people, red people, whoever, you know.
If that becomes the category that you focus on, then you can help people without racial prejudice.
being a factor in your own decision-making.
And that's the thing.
Every time you discriminate in favor of someone on the basis of their race, you're also discriminating against other people against them on the basis of their race.
This comes down to the problem, the root, I think the root problem of most ideologies and the sort of public conception of them is the redefinition of a certain term.
Almost every ideology, if you look at them, and you look at them in detail, they'll come down to a redefinition of a term.
For example, Freedom is one of these terms for classical liberals.
Many, many classical liberals define freedom... Libertarians always define it as freedom from, not freedom to.
But the way many classical liberals will Some at least will describe it as being, or it's what you consider to be something to be free from.
For example, poverty can well be considered an oppressive force.
You can measure the oppression of poverty.
There are many studies that show it decreases your IQ, decreases your lifespan, all these other, and decreases various opportunities.
It puts you in a lower class, and when you go into a lower class, You end up finding yourself with inherent disadvantages just because of your mannerisms and the way you speak.
I mean, for example, if you see someone like Francesca Ramsey, I'm sure a lot of people know who she is.
She's incredibly well spoken, incredibly well read.
She's an intelligent woman.
She's not lower class.
But if you take someone like, you can find almost anyone on LiveLeak, for example, one of these sort of videos that you see going around with people brawling.
None of those people will ever get a job on MTV.
And it's not because they're black, because MTV's happy to hire black people, it's because they're poor and they're lower class.
unidentified
I can't remember what your question was, now I've got it.
Right, okay, so one of the, I mean, I personally want to see everyone treated As equals.
I mean, for me, what I interpret classical liberalism, the core principles and the ethos behind it is to create a brotherhood of man, effectively.
A system of peers and equals.
Because it came out of a time when there was an aristocracy.
And the problem was the aristocracy oppressing almost everyone else in society.
And I think this is the reason that I find The social justice war is so offensive because what they want to do is turn their minority status into power over you.
They want to turn themselves into a new aristocracy where on the basis of the fact that there aren't very many of them and they have a distinguishing quality between them, Then everyone else has to obey their rules.
And I'm sorry, that's not acceptable to me.
What has to happen is they have to obey the rules of the majority.
And if they can't put themselves in the rules of the majority, then I'm sorry, but we can't just remodel society for the whims of a small group of people, because that creates an aristocracy.
And that fundamentally is what classical liberalism is about, in my opinion.
So why did these ideas, which are hundreds of years old of classical liberalism, why did they get buried to the point that when I started waking up to this stuff that people were going, ah, you got to talk to Sargon of Akkad on YouTube and not, like, why wasn't there someone else, like a mainstream person that they could have been like, that's, this guy's been talking about that forever.
I mean, It could be that it's the water we swim in and so, you know, fish in water probably doesn't have a word for water, you know, that sort of principle.
It could well be that we are so subsumed in it we just take it for granted and we don't really realize the sort of creeping degradation of it until suddenly we're looking at racial quotas and racial discrimination in public organizations and things like this.
I mean, I honestly, I don't know why it's ended up this way.
I mean, there are so many problems.
I think that the... I mean, I imagine that many of them stem from the quality of universities at the moment.
Leaving the STEM fields aside, of course, there seems to be a nascent socialist revolution Brewing in our universities, and that to me is highly disturbing.
In the same way that an Islamist revolution is disturbing when it's brewing in the mosques.
You know, it's not all of them, it's some of them, and it's indoctrinating enough of them that it's becoming a real problem.
This is why we see, I mean, hundreds of Antifa members clad in black, all from the middle class, all university educated, all absolutely terrible at fighting each other.
And we see them in the streets and they feel justified.
They think this is all completely within their right to do this.
And they think they're going to create a better world at the end of it.
And the irony of it is you can't point to a socialist system that's successful.
There's always an excuse why that one didn't work.
That wasn't the real one.
That one wasn't the real one.
Do you think we're at a particularly strange precipice in the world right now where this battle between all of this postmodern stuff and cultural Marxism and SJW stuff versus those of us that are really You know, somewhere in the middle trying to explain what freedom is versus the authoritarians on the right.
Because of the internet, because of globalization, that actually the whole system of the world seems like it's in a precarious place at the moment.
I think that we've come back to the cycle of history.
I mean, if you look back a hundred years ago, we're looking at the Russian Revolution.
It's not particularly different.
And you've got the alt-right and you've got the anti-far crew fighting in the streets.
This is something straight out of the road to serfdom.
Hey, it talks about how the Nazis and the communists fought in the streets of Germany until the Nazis eventually won.
And let's be honest with you, if you think it's going to come down to an actual fight between the alt-right and the anti-far socialists, who do you think is going to win that?
It's not going to be Antifa.
They're weak.
They're absolutely weak.
They don't know what they're doing.
I mean, they've got this fantasy conception of how they're going to bring in some glorious socialist revolution.
He said, look, you can afford some social programs, you know, that's an acceptable thing to do, as long as they're universal, as long as they adhere to the principles of individualism.
But you can't do that in a system that is all-encompassing.
And I don't want to say the word totalitarian, but I can't think of a better way of describing it.
It requires the totality of all of your beliefs to fall in line.
So this is why these people seem like cookie cutters.
Whereas when you go to someone who consider themselves to come out of this sort of English liberal tradition, they've often got very different opinions on certain subjects and align on the sort of core beliefs.
But these people don't.
And they say, oh, we disagree.
And they're, OK, well, on what point do you disagree?
And it's some tiny fringe disagreement at the very margins of the ideology.
But almost everything else is complete, and it's almost a religion.
You know it's so interesting you talk about the cookie cutter mentality and we know that they love purging people with original thoughts and getting rid of all their real individuals and they love diversity but not diversity of thought.
And even as you were saying that I was thinking for all the videos that I've watched of yours and for as well as I think I know what you think.
Off the top of my head I don't know if you're even pro-choice or what you think about the death penalty.
I mean, like, a counterargument would be, well, why should we have someone who has been convicted and we can be sure of the evidence, why should we hold them at taxpayer expense?
What's the point?
You know, do we want to run the risk of them actually leaving jail after brutally murdering some children or something?
it's hard to argue against that. You then have to make a sort of
moral humanist argument, say well is it right to ever actually take a life?
What if we're wrong? There's always got to be that room for doubt
and there's always got to be the room to say well
tomorrow some evidence might come up that they were actually innocent. We were
completely wrong for whatever reason and so we should
we should always keep that as an option open. But a pragmatist could say yeah well chances are...
Isn't that the beauty though of really caring about a political
philosophy or any philosophy?
more than a party or more than a politician or any of that, in that whatever your answer had been there, I think you could have made as strong classical liberal or liberal arguments as I could have made the other way.
We happen to agree on both of those things, but I'm sure we can find something that would work.
Yeah, of course, but I think the important thing is the... it's like the platform on which to discuss it.
It's not...
It doesn't require everyone to agree on everything.
This is why these totalitarian ideologies, they have to purge the wrong thinkers.
Liberalism has got quite a narrow focus as its base.
Universal rights, the idea of freedom of man, the brotherhood of man, all that sort of thing.
It's quite a narrow column that most people will agree with.
Not many people will turn around and say, you know what, I actually think we should have an aristocracy.
I actually think that maybe some people shouldn't have the same rights as white people or something like that.
It's very hard to find someone like that.
So it's easy for most people to agree with this core and then branch off into various strains.
Whereas socialism is effectively the reverse.
It's very, very, very demanding that you believe all of these things because all of these ideas prop one another up.
You know, if you take out one, like, you know, core piece of it, then it affects all of these other ones that are effectively holding the whole thing together.
And, yeah, I mean, this is why when someone starts saying, well, actually, I'm not sure about this, like, purge the wrong thinker.
I mean, you see it happening with Lacey Green and the social justice warriors now.
It's terrifying.
Yeah.
I mean, I like to think that if tomorrow I turned around and said, you know what, I think I might actually be a conservative.
I think I might actually think that we should live in what is essentially a Christian-controlled society, because obviously secularism is another pillar of it.
I mean, at least I think I would be able to have the conversation with people.
But I mean, maybe I'd be thrown out of the club, who knows?
I get thrown out of a lot of clubs for wrong things.
I like your metaphor there, because I almost see it as it's like liberalism at its roots is sort of a giant pot with a lot of fertile ground, and because of that, you're gonna grow out a lot of different ideas, and sort of competing ideas that hopefully the best ones will rise to the top and all that, where progressivism is actually a very small pot, so you don't have room to grow out a lot of competing ideas, because they gotta Yeah, it'll break the pot.
I mean, I don't see any problem with, like, state ownership of The means of production in principle, the problem is the necessary requirement to take away private ownership from everyone else.
I mean, I don't mind if, like tomorrow, the government wanted to open up a giant robotics factory where you could go down and you could, and it would literally just be a huge assembly line of robots producing, I mean, you have a screen, you press, I want a new car or something, you pay however much the car costs, and then however long it takes to build, and then you've got the car made from the state.
It could well be a lot cheaper.
I don't mind that at all.
There's nothing inherently anti-individualistic about it.
In and of itself, it doesn't infringe my rights at all.
You know, it's not a problem.
In fact, I get some sort of cheaper product out of it, probably.
So it's not necessarily a problem, but it's everything that comes with it that I can't, I just have to object to.
Because ultimately, I think Hayek was right when he said, this will lead to a new serfdom.
And if you look at any communist regime, well, I say communist, but they were actually socialist regimes, state socialist regimes.
They, I mean, they would force you to work.
You didn't have the option.
Like, for example, my wife is a housewife.
She doesn't have to work.
That wouldn't be acceptable in a socialist regime.
Everyone has to work.
But thankfully, thanks to capitalism, we don't have to.
You know, because I own the means of my own production and I'm successful enough that I can actually make my wife a lady of leisure to look after my children.
Pretty, yeah, like a real white supremacist, patriarchal, blah, blah, blah.
But that's actually a great segue to where I wanted to go with this, which is that, so I think we've shown for the people that don't know you, you have a command of the issues, you know what you're talking about.
What's interesting is so you're in this YouTube community that I'm obviously in as well and you've met we just talked briefly before we sat down but you mentioned something interesting about how it's like for us that For those of us that have been talking about this stuff where you agree with this or not But those of us that have been talking about politics on YouTube in our sort of circles that we're doing it they're constantly expanding and changing and all that yeah that we're refining our ideas and And I love this concept because it seems to me that internet culture is bubbling out now into mainstream culture and now there's this group of people online that I think we're a part of that have helped refine some ideas so that people that are not part of it can take those ideas and hopefully run for office or just put them into their own lives however they do.
I want to give full credit to all of the people in all of the ideological spheres that I oppose and oppose to me.
They are absolutely intellectual prize fighters.
They are 100% I mean, I don't want to say experts, because that's a bit too far, but they are very, very well versed in their ideological sphere.
You know, the libertarians, the socialists, the anarchists, all of these people, and even the alt-right, many of them are really well read in their particular narrow genre, and they are very Comprehensively read, sometimes.
And they put forward their arguments very, very well.
And it is like a brawl down on the shop floor, as it were.
And if it wasn't for them, and we make each other sharper, there's no doubt about it.
And so there's definitely a lot to be said for the grand argument that's going on on YouTube.
There's a term called the long march through the institutions that the alt-rights will tell you the Marxists have done through the universities.
And it's hard to really argue with this.
I mean, whether it was a coordinated thing or not is obviously up for debate.
But it's hard to argue that they've done this because they literally are almost in command of these universities.
I mean, like, what was Brett Weinstein's university?
As I mentioned to Tim Pool earlier, it's like, if this ideology, if this postmodern leftism, SJW thing, if it really worked, shouldn't that university, which was the most, arguably the most leftist campus in America, Brett Weinstein, a far left, as he described himself, a deeply progressive person, who I now know and like very much, by the way.
Oh, he's a lovely guy.
Shouldn't that place have been the most harmonious, Functional, ideologically pure, wonderful Shangri-La of leftism.
And instead, it's an intolerant, psychotic bin of lunacy.
And I love that it all comes from him saying, I'm not going to let you discriminate against me on the basis of my race.
Hands down, applaud the guy for standing up for himself.
Because when you have a mob of ideologically convicted bullies, You know, and these people will commit violence.
I mean, we've seen it so many times.
They will start the violence.
For him to then stand up to them in the flesh, you know, when they're bearing down on him, saying, look, I want a dialectic and not a debate, that's incredibly brave.
I mean, honestly, I don't, I mean, a lot of people, I can see why a lot of people Just lower their heads and carry on with their lives because it's a lot easier if you do.
But that's the point.
That's the reason they win.
It's because of this.
We need people who do not agree with them to say they don't agree with them.
And this is what I'm saying.
This is what actually needs to happen.
We need to begin our long march through the institutions.
If you're in university at the moment and you're concerned with the progression of Marxist ideologies and you're a liberal and you want to promote these values, you have to stay in the university.
I know you might be thinking, well, I'm doing my degree in whatever.
I'm going to get out.
I'm going to make a lot of money.
Well, that's you actually abdicating your responsibilities to the next generation.
Yeah, when I go to college campuses, they ask me that a lot.
I'll get it.
The Q&A at the end, there'll be kids that'll go, you know, I see all this stuff.
My professor doesn't want me to say this gender pronoun or doesn't believe in gender at all or just some other crazy nonsense.
And they'll say, but you know what?
I got to get out of here with a degree.
And I always say, look, I don't envy your position and I don't begrudge you whatever you have to do in your own personal life to graduate and hopefully be a productive member of society.
But the problem is, once they get you bowing, that hand will only get stronger.
Get your degree, and if you can't stand to be in there, get out.
But if you're concerned about the progress of this ideology, and you're thinking, well, you know, if you've finished like a PhD or whatever, and you're thinking, well, I could become a professor, or I could enter the private market and earn lots of money, Well, you've got the choice.
Is earning lots of money more important to you than the intellectual tradition you're going to bequeath to your students if you were to become a professor?
There's a lot of people who talk down about people who teach.
There's those who do can, those who don't teach.
It's sad, really, because it disincentivises people.
There's nothing wrong with spreading good ideas, ideas that are genuinely not bigoted and do not result in bigotry.
And these people whose ideas do result in bigotry have taken over the shop.
You've got to do something about it.
And it's up to you.
No one else is going to do it.
If it's not you, who?
And if not now, when?
Yeah.
How much more are you going to let this carry on?
Honestly, I mean this to anyone watching.
If you're in university and you think you've got the smarts to get to the top, do it.
Stay there.
Do it.
Write some books.
You can still get rich.
Write some books.
Become successful.
You've got to stand your ground.
And that means taking a position and advancing yourself against the hate mob.
And it's a state school where they have all, first off, they didn't even hit, from what I understand, they didn't even hit the numbers of enrollees that they had to last year to get funding.
I can't swear to that 100%.
That's what someone told me.
But either way, they have such chaos there right now, there's many strong arguments you could make for cutting funding altogether.
The administration didn't back the faculty, and now they have the inmates running the asylums.
I mean, when I went to university, I would never have imagined such a thing would happen, but that was, like, almost, well, about 15 years ago now, so things have clearly changed.
What did you study?
Computer science, and I hated it.
I hated every second of it.
I didn't want to do it, and I only did it because I could use computers, and it was easy to me, but it was tremendously boring, and I dropped out in the second year, because I hated it.
I'd never even considered doing, like, philosophy or political science or anything, because I come from a My parents come from a working-class background, and they worked up to the middle class, and they were like, you get something vocational, you know, and, you know, computer science seemed vocational, but it was just tremendously boring, and I wish I'd never... I wish I'd gone for something in the liberal arts, to be honest.
No, some of the degrees make no sense, and then they wonder why they can't get jobs.
Let's talk a little bit about internet culture, because that's the other piece of this that I think most of our audiences really understand, but a lot of it gets lost in the translation when it bubbles up to mainstream.
For me, for example, I do a bit of trolling online.
Not direct trolling, but I mean, I fight a little bit online when it's necessary.
When this thing happened to me with Mother Jones, I went on an absolute assault.
That's not trolling.
But occasionally I'll fight with this person because it's how you make the conversation happen.
The Internet is hilarious, but the problem is that many The problem, I think, is pretensions, because a lot of people tend to hold, especially well-educated people, hold a lot of pretensions around themselves.
And I always find this baffling, because it's like, well, if you're accomplished and you're intellectual and you've achieved all of these things, why do you need to be pretentious?
Why do you need to suggest that, oh, oh, someone has said something I don't like, and therefore I will never talk to that person?
And honestly, this is essentially Rousseau's conception of the bourgeoisie.
This is about wanting to be seen and wanting to have status.
And I hate the bourgeoisie.
They're so pretentious.
And what I find hilarious is when these bourgeois socialists will turn around and say, oh, well, I'm doing it for the people, for the working class.
It's like, you hate the working class, because they're the trolls on Twitter.
You can't stand.
Don't even talk to me about doing anything for the working class.
Do not even pretend.
But one thing that people forget is that It's the definition of the term trolling.
Because when the internet was new, when I was logging on in a 28k modem when I was 16 or something.
Was it in color at that time?
The whole definition of trolling, the definition has been changed by social justice activists to mean sending someone a threat or hate or something like that.
That's not trolling, that's just abuse.
And you shouldn't do that because A, wrong to do it.
B, it's totally unproductive and it creates the victim narrative that they're looking for.
I don't need to read it or listen to it, but I don't stop them from doing it.
But the trolls, there are times where I'll tweet something and someone will turn it on me, or mock something I did, and I'm like, man, I wish I'd thought of that.
That was good.
And I've even, when I've done public events, I've talked to them about Pepe and Harambe and all that, and I'll be like, I know you all have secret accounts, and I can see it in everyone's face, they all have their secret Pepe accounts and all that stuff.
But Pepe is probably the best example of this, right?
So at the same time while her campaign is colluding with the DNC to destroy Bernie, She literally made the Pepes and the Harambes and... She legitimized them.
She legitimized them.
So she legitimized the movement that she apparently hated, or was this hate movement, while at the same time colluding to destroy the other guy that was running for... Yeah, it's just absolutely ridiculous.
Do you think it really shows how patently out of touch she was and the campaign?
That she obviously had no idea what Pepe was, but someone from the campaign, you know, the focus group was like, we've been thinking about this, Hillary, and we need to really put a nail in the coffin of these people, and what we're gonna do is we're gonna talk about Pepe.
And then she just went up, you know, and then she went up there with a prepared speech and talked about it.
And it just showed the archaic machinery of drivel that these campaigns have become.
If you didn't know, now I hate to break it to you.
But yeah, it's a parody of identity politics because all of these groups, and it's not just on the left, it's also on the right.
The alt-right are an identitarian movement.
Um, classical liberalism is not an identitarian movement.
And it's hard to fight against identity politics.
Especially when the premise that the left comes with is that white people cannot have an identity.
And, I mean, I don't want to see white identitarianism rise.
You know, I don't like identitarianism of any stripe.
And I don't want to see white people suddenly saying, well, because we're white, we get X. Because you're not white, you get Y. Just the reverse of the social justice where I was going, well, because you're not white, you get X. And because you're white, you get Y. I don't want that at all.
That's not equality to me.
That's, in fact, the antithesis.
That's, again, creating a new form of aristocracy.
So I'm completely against the idea.
And it's hard to fight unless you satirise it.
And suddenly, if you've got an identity called, say, a Kekasani, who's an oppressed shit poster on the internet, who's always getting banned from Twitter or, you know, blocked from comment sections, and this now, that's a form of oppression.
And how is it not oppression?
What did you do?
I posted a joke.
Well, we're going to censor you for that joke.
Well, now I am actually being oppressed.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a very A very mild form of oppression.
Now I deserve to buy into all of your identity politics.
And the best thing about it is that every identitarian movement hates it.
I mean, obviously the social justice warriors think it's racist neo-Nazi stuff, but the funny thing is when Richard Spencer tweeted out hashtag free Kekistan, his followers went nuts against him.
They were like, no, oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.
They were just, I mean, it was just like, no, no, this is cancer.
I mean, you know, I don't really like Trump's politics, and I never have, but the thing is, it must be obvious to everyone that there is a great deal of pressure built up at the bottom of our societies.
As in, the poorest, the least able to actively defend themselves in the public sphere, are being actively marginalised by the left, the left intelligentsia.
The academics, the liberal elites, and the media.
These people have been, and I'm going to use the term, and I mean it literally, oppressing the sort of, you know, white, middle America, like, you know, lower class, middle, sort of, I don't know, whatever you call the center of America these days.
Yeah, it's no surprise that it's the coastal elites that are in the blue and the center that's in the red.
And it's very much the same in Britain.
I mean, not with Trump, obviously, but with Brexit.
It was a revolt by the English working class against the British elite class, who would just do exactly the same as they do in America and call them racists.
How dare you advocate for your own interests?
That's a racist thing to do.
And they're only doing that because their own interests aren't threatened either.
We need to cut down immigration because they're not being threatened by it and they're not affected by it because they're in their little gated community somewhere else that they give a damn.
I'll just give you one quick personal example on this.
Yeah.
That a couple months ago, I saw Ben Shapiro, who you probably know.
Yeah, I'm sure.
I got into a little fight with this guy, Jonathan Chait, who I think is at New York Magazine, who's a big lefty, and they were fighting about small business, and Chait said something like, small business isn't even a real thing, it's just what the media uses to keep you quiet, you know, some nonsensical thing.
And I responded to him, and I don't even follow this guy, but I saw the thing, and I was like, that's insane, because I have a small business.
I am extremely proud of the employees that I have, who, by the way, I pay all of the health insurance and all that.
We now have a part-timer and all that.
I built a studio and a small business that I'm very proud of.
So I wrote back to him and I said, I'm very proud of the small business I've created.
I've created several jobs.
I'm very proud of that.
And he retweeted me and wrote, oh, something to the effect of, oh, you've created several jobs, implying that creating several jobs is somehow an embarrassment or that I shouldn't, I'm not in it.
Or I'm not an authority, but the irony being if I had created a hundred jobs, he'd say I'm an evil corporate
model So what is the number? What are we talking about? Is 26? 26?
Am I now an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about or am I an evil corporate model?
I would much prefer it if, and I don't want to see corporations broken up using government authority or anything like that, but if somehow we end up in a future where most people are either small business owners or employees of small businesses, that in my opinion would be better for everyone.
And the thing is, I commission people to do things.
I commission art.
I like running competitions where I can offer quite a substantial prize for a piece of art or something.
And I like being able to give back.
I like being able to do things for people.
that involve helping them progress in their career as well, as a voluntary transaction.
I think that's a fantastic thing.
And what annoys me about all of this is that is what I would define as empowerment.
A person just literally building something with their own two hands, metaphorically,
and putting something together like this.
You know, you now have employees, and the closer you are to the power, then the more the power is responsive to you.
That's just a general rule of power politics, and it applies to anything ever, you know, which is why, like, a giant corporation The CEOs of this corporation are probably not even in the same country as most of their employees.
And so they're not going to respond to any of the employee demands.
They're not going to treat their employees fairly.
Well, I mean, there's a chance that they're not going to.
And not through malice either, but just through ignorance.
Okay, so the quick breakdown is the British public has never really liked the European Union.
And I put this down.
My opinion is because the European Union is heavily dominated by the Germans financially and Philosophically, you know, the British have always been very standoffish about the European Union because they don't like the idea and the European Union started as an economic community where people would cooperate and it has slowly but surely over the decades been coalescing into
A federalized, sovereign nation state.
And it's been trying to get all of these trappings.
I mean, in 2011, the British vetoed a motion for them to get their own army.
And this is particularly dangerous because they don't raise taxes from anyone.
They raise taxes from the government.
They collect a portion of the taxes raised from governments.
But they don't raise them directly themselves.
So they're not accountable to any of the Demos in Europe.
And I don't know why most of Europe is acceptable of this, but that's continental Europe for you.
The British are not happy with this, and they demand accountability from the politicians they always have.
And the sort of English liberalism that Britain's always projected has always required this.
And so when people... And again, it comes down to the whole philosophy behind liberalism.
It's about being a peer.
I mean, we have no respect for our politicians.
Corbyn's cult of personality is a bizarre thing to watch.
Because, I mean, it's a very middle class thing to watch as well.
But for most of the working class, most just people who aren't part of that group, they don't like Corbyn.
Corbyn was the most, well, no, Tony Blair was the most disliked politician in the country.
Then it was Jeremy Corbyn.
I mean, you know, this time six months ago, or a year ago when Brexit happened, Our current Prime Minister, Theresa May, she was phenomenally popular and Jeremy Corbyn was the most unpopular.
With the quote underneath, Fidel Castro was a hero of social justice, which is an actual quote from Jeremy Corbyn.
Jesus.
I swear to God, the man is a lunatic.
He's a soft totalitarian.
And people, because he hides it behind this facade of being softly spoken and, oh, but I really care.
It's like, OK, but you didn't care when your momentum supporters, which is hard left support in the left, We're putting bricks through the rebel Labour MPs' windows.
What I think we need is for the centre to develop its own political identity.
And not to say, right, we're white or whatever, not identity politics, but to have a conception of itself away from the extremes of either side.
Because this is the problem.
You've got the hard left, which are the anti-far commies and throwing bricks through windows and beating people with bike chains.
And then you've got the alt-rights, who are the legitimate racists who want to do whatever racist things they want to do.
And if you're on the right, you get kind of drawn towards that just by association.
If you're on the left, you get drawn to that by association.
If you're in the center, like we are, you've got nothing.
Whereas I think most people are probably a lot closer to the center.
So what we need to do is find some sort of like woke centrist meme where we can say, you know what?
Fuck the extremes.
Fuck them.
They're both wrong.
They're both crazy.
They're both dangerous.
They both don't want dialogue with the other side.
Whereas in the centre, if you're centre-left, you're centre-right, I mean, I'm sure that a lot of people watching on the internet right now are well aware that people on the centre-left and centre-right are having a lot better conversations about politics than anyone from the extremes.
Fuck the extremes.
They're a tiny fringe of idiots.
We need to just ignore them.
They can just be safely, no, you're an idiot socialist, you're an idiot alt-writer, not interested in your opinions because you're frankly, batty.
And you require everything, I mean, you require radical, comprehensive change to the system that nobody wants to see.
It reminds me of Jason Whitlock, who I had on from Fox Sports 1 a couple days ago, or two weeks ago or so, was saying how these people with hashtag resistance, they think they're resisting something, but they're actually sucking up to the real power.
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of final solution.
I can hear a helicopter somewhere.
On Patreon, I think we've basically addressed this already, but what's the fundamental difference between classical liberalism and social liberalism, if any?
Really, in reality, I am actually a social liberal.
But I say the word classical liberal because it differentiates the intellectual tradition I'm drawing on.
I'm very, very concerned with differentiating liberalism from progressivism.
Liberalism from Marxism.
I mean, any intellectual would be able to, obviously, be like, well, of course, why would you need to do this?
But it's for the layman.
The average layman doesn't really understand the difference, I think.
And if you say, I'm a classical liberal, then you are firmly planting your foot in the concept of self-ownership, markets, free market economics, all that sort of thing.
You're firmly planting the foot there.
But I'm more than happy to take Hayek's interpretation of the acceptability of social programs as long as they don't violate the principles of individualism.
Which means as long as they're universal, that's fine.
It's acceptable.
We can bear it.
It's not going to completely ruin what we consider to be our freedom.
You know, I actually looked into the study Alex Jones was citing.
He's actually underselling it.
It's actually turning them trans.
I swear to God I looked into it.
I think it was in California, actually, where a percentage of the frogs, they were starting to exhibit feminine behaviours on contact with a certain kind of chemical, and 10% of them actually underwent the full transition into being female and were fertile.
But I have a friend who's a doctor who's like, look, this only applies to frogs, and it's only this species of frog, and it wasn't part of a globalist plot, it was corporate mouth.
The basic premise being that in Islam there is this law or rule of principle that says you're allowed to lie to Westerners, or you're allowed to lie to the other in an effort to increase the influence of Islam.
I mean, I'm sure that is a... I mean, I know that is a thing within Islam.
But I'm hesitant to embrace the idea specifically because it's going to turn into a very, very convenient way to dismiss Muslims by saying, well, whatever you just said is taqiyya, what I think is right, what you think is wrong, you're a liar.
And I don't want to do that.
Because, you know, that's not engaging with what they're saying or refuting them on their own terms.
I should distinguish between the middle class and the bourgeoisie because there is a difference.
He's talking about being financially middle class.
But the bourgeoisie is something different.
It's a cultural conception.
Originally I think it was coined by Rousseau, but it was at least defined really well by
Rousseau.
The bourgeoisie are a gang of pretentious cunts.
They are the worst of people.
They don't even know that they're the worst of people.
They are self-centered.
They are absolutely without any conception of what is actually good.
And I know because so many of my friends are bourgeoisie and they are good people.
But they don't understand their own deficiencies.
Because I dropped out of university and I went straight to the bottom.
I was poor.
I've spent times in my life where I've had to subsist on welfare, otherwise I wouldn't have lived in a house.
I wouldn't have had food.
And then I've worked my way back out of it, slowly but steadily.
But these people don't.
They grow up in a comfortable middle class environment, they go to university, they get their degrees, they go and do their jobs, and they're not wealthy.
They might be struggling because they might get a degree in something that doesn't pay very well, and so they might find themselves doing a stint at Starbucks and stuff.
But they hold a remarkable amount of conceit and pretensions about themselves.
And if you violate these pretensions, they despise you.
And that's a problem for me, because I try not to hold pretensions.
Because if you look at the working class and the lower classes, they don't hold any pretensions.
When I say middle class, specifically in this context, I think he's referring to earnings.
Nothing wrong with someone mid-learning.
In fact, I want you to earn more.
And I know that if you've gone up from the lower class to get to the middle class, even if you've come down, you're going to have been doing this through your own hard work and labor and good on you.
You should earn more.
In fact, I hope you earn more.
I hope you become a millionaire.
Self-made millionaire is the dream of any right-thinking liberal, I think.
Can you explain to a recovering anarchist How we still get to help people in need of social help without the government, as it seems to be a ground we could agree on.
They want the things to be done, they just don't want to do it themselves.
And hell, I'm kind of that way as well.
That's why I'm happy with, like, a welfare state and social care.
I don't want to have to worry about those things.
You know, I mean, I could give money to the thing, but I would rather just not have to, and then I can concentrate on my own personal selfish interests.
So is the problem that there's no real way to test that?
Because I agree, I would rather everyone's taxes be lower, given more money, and then you decide if you want to give to Planned Parenthood, or if you want to give more to a homeless shelter or whatever.
Now yes, certain people are just going to give nothing, it's just how it is, but hopefully that would be made up by people that would give.
For certain things, I think, and this is just my own moral preference, so it's not something I could authoritatively say, you need to do X. But for certain things, I don't want to see any person sliding through the cracks on, say, healthcare or housing.
You know, I loathe that there are homeless people.
I mean, the only charity I ever do is giving money out of my wallet to a homeless person.
And it infuriates me when you get some bourgeois cunt comes along and says, well, he's just going to spend it on drugs.
And then they'll give money to some corrupt charity who give like 5% of it to the actual people and spend 90% of it on advertising and wages and high salaries for their corporate executives.
Get Ben.
These people are hypocrites and they can shut up, a lot of them.
I know you might feel like you are being oppressed, and you are actually being oppressed by being forced into silence, but this is just you thinking to your own best interest.
Yeah, I think that's actually a better answer than I've... I've always kicked it back to them and said, you know, it's on you to figure out what you have to do, and I've never felt that that answer was enough, but maybe being, in this case, like, just get your degree and then figure out... Yeah, just don't be a hero.
Sargon, do you have ideas about how to address the mass Muslim migrations to Western countries without violating human rights or allowing Western cultures to diminish?
This is obviously a great question.
As classical liberals, I think we've been caught in the middle of this.
We don't want Muslim people to be discriminated against.
We're trying to have an honest discussion about the roots of ideology and extremism.
You want to be fair to immigrants, America is a nation of immigrants, etc, etc.
The first thing I would recommend is controlled immigration.
Uncontrolled mass immigration is dangerous, not only for your social cohesion, but it's also a form of economic warfare against the poor, for a start.
That's the first argument I'd make.
Allowing people in who hold fundamentally incompatible beliefs, I think, is a legitimate form of discrimination.
I mean, for example, if the Soviet Union existed, would you allow mass immigration from the Soviet Union of all these communists in?
That would be crazy, because they would just be advocating for communism.
You couldn't do that.
And it's the same with Islam.
If they're advocating for gender segregation and the act of oppression of gays and things like this, You can say no, because these go against the... I mean, these would be violating the rights of the people in your society, like they violate the rights of the people in theirs.
You don't have to stand for that, and that's not bigoted.
That's actually standing for something true on principle.
But once they're in, now we're in the position, I mean...
I mean, obviously no one wants to do anything that's nasty.
So, I mean, my personal... I would maybe provide incentives, financial incentives to, you know, expatriate or something like that.
But again, it's tough and...
You get certain brands of Islam that are very tribalistic, like the Diobandis, a Pakistani sect of Islam.
I mean, the most important thing, I think, is for people to engage with them.
Because, I mean, one thing I think we can actually do in this regard is weaponize the Christians.
Like, you've got people like David Wood, who spends his entire YouTube channel knocking down Islamic arguments with remarkable consistency and skill.
And, I mean, I would not agree with David Wood.
I'm an atheist, obviously, and I would never agree with David Wood on almost everything about Christianity or the very principles of religion and why it's good and why it's necessary and whether God exists and all that sort of thing.
I would love to see him absolutely hammering these Muslim apologists and the radical preachers and stuff like that in debates.
Because he is going to bring Muslims to Christianity, more Muslims to Christianity than they're going to bring Christians to Islam.
And I would rather be around Christians who didn't want to have a literalist interpretation of their holy book.
I would much rather that.
I think that's honestly the most pragmatic option.
Not just that, but I saw him on Joe Rogan's show, where he was complaining about Mike Senevich's success and stuff like this.
And I'm thinking, Sam, you could be like that.
You don't have to lie, or not necessarily lie, that's unfair, but distort or misrepresent.
You don't have to do that, but you just have to understand And Sam Harris is one of these pretentious bourgeois liberals.
I mean, he literally said, I'm looking for people to get on my show, but no trolls, no this, no that, and the other.
And it's like, Sam, just stop it.
Just stop with this pretentious crap.
Get people on who will be an interesting conversation.
Just get someone who will be good for you to talk to.
If you sit there and put barriers to entry, frankly, just arbitrary on your part, You're going to find yourself, like the SJWs, outnumbered by people all around you that you don't understand because you've not taken the time to engage with them.
And that's the reason the SJWs are losing.
So it's kind of sad to see the last standing horseman losing the fight for the The platform of ideas, you know.
Well, without getting into any private conversations that I've had with him, I've discussed that with him a little bit about the trolling culture and that sort of thing.
Yeah, and it's also, I think, partly why you've framed a lot of this between sort of the freedom side or the libertarian side and the authoritarian side.
I think this is a great question.
It's for both of us.
Why do you guys distinguish yourselves as classical liberals as opposed to regular libertarians or moderate left or moderate right?
No one identifies with the Whigs anymore or any other dead political parties.
I mean, if he wants to hold... I mean, the thing is, I don't know why he holds his beliefs in Christianity, but It doesn't bleed into the rationale for the other beliefs he holds.
I kept saying I don't know what his moral center is.
I had some of my most, the people who I hold in the highest regards, such as Sam, on the show to say why not to vote for him, and yet people will still attack me as some sort of crazed Trump supporter, and it's like, I think there's fertile ground now, and there would not have been fertile ground.
I should have videotaped my driving to the polling station where I kept saying to David back and forth for a half hour, I have no idea what I'm going to do right now.
It's a little in the weeds, but... Yeah, it's a good question.
It's very much like Alinsky, describing himself as a small-c communist.
I would have to look up why Hitchens considered himself a Marxist, but I think it's that he Ideally liked the end goals of what socialism is.
I recently read The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde.
It's a beautiful piece.
Very, very well written, obviously.
And it's enjoyable.
And it's noble.
That's the thing.
And it was the same with Bertrand Russell.
It's a noble goal that they're trying to get to.
It's never gonna happen.
They've got no... I mean, literally, he thinks... I mean, he literally contradicts himself in the piece where he says, you know, while man is doing hard labor like, you know, sweeping streets in the rain and stuff like that, he can never fully actualize his personality.
Because that was the point, you know.
Everyone should be free to be the person that they are.
And I completely agree.
And that's really, really wishful thinking, isn't it?
Because we're never going to... I mean, when are we ever going to be at a place where mankind doesn't have to sweep the streets?
Or, you know, it's going to be hundreds of years time when everything's been automated.
So basically, when everything gets automated, then we can re-evaluate all of these positions, because... Yeah, like I said earlier, when we don't have to labor, then socialism will be possible.
Yeah, literally the only way I would support the UK joining the EU is if the UK took over the EU and started dictating terms.
Because the Germans do things differently to the British.
The Germans like to have an entire plan and structure put in place before anything's done.
And they like to be systematic, methodical, well thought out.
The British aren't like that.
We're happy to kind of bumble along and muddle through and we're confident that we can make decisions at the time that are sensible and it's not that the Germans are wrong and we're right or we're right and vice versa.
It's just different and it's not compatible.
Especially not compatible with what we consider to be freedom.
Interestingly, I did an event with them, with the Ayn Rand Institute last weekend, and I said to them, look, if we can fully agree on free speech, I can say whatever I want when I'm up there, and we're just going to completely agree on the absolute need for free speech, I'll be happy to work with you.
They said, we'll put anything else aside and work with you on that.
You know, it's funny, you do have to read these things because although I have read some Ayn Rand, I kept using that the smallest minority is the individual quote.
I kept attributing it to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has said it.
I'm a leftist but I don't think identity politics is a core issue and would rather focus on things like ending austerity and ending dependency on fossil fuels.
How do we take progressivism back?
That's interesting because I would argue it's too late.
But there's no reason to discriminate against men.
Because that just means that at some point in the future, if for some fluke or chance or weird exemption to the rule that a man happens to actually need an abortion, the law will prevent him from doing so.
It's like, why?
What difference does it make if it's men and women who can get it?
It's that kind of thing.
If we just focus on the thing itself, what can people do?
People can do X, people can do Y. Why put any kind of proviso on that as to some state?
The only exception I can think of is a financial situation, but that's not something inherent to yourself.
But do you think that Atheist YouTube, whatever that is defined as, has maybe missed an opportunity to push back on his- I don't think- No, I don't feel that secularism is under threat.
It's really the American right that caused the problem with Christianity, and it came from this excessive moralizing, and, well, they lost the argument.
way to win elections that Karl Rove figured, let's really get in bed with the Christian conservatives and make this happen with George W. Bush, but that's a whole other story.
Do you see that as a bit of a catch-22, though, because you don't want to exert too much state influence over things, or you think that this one is so corrupting in a sort of holistic way?
There are always going to be corrupting influences.
And they're always going to be trying to corrupt the important legislators themselves.
So it's the legislators we have to make sure they understand they are the bulwark against these corrupting influences.
And the fact that they're not at the moment.
And the fact that it's okay.
At the moment.
I mean, I've never taken any corporate money in my channel in my entire life.
The entire existence of my channel has been entirely crowdfunded through either ad revenue from views, or Patreon, or individual donations, or merchandise sales.
Small business, that's the thing.
The idea of taking corporate backing is horrific to me.
It stands against everything I stand for.
But it's not that corporate backing in and of itself is wrong, it's that I want to, and I don't want to say remain pure, but I can't think of a better way of expressing that I... You got religious real quick.
I know, right?
But I want to maintain that I can always say, look, there is no chance of these factors being an influence over me because I'm dead set against them.
And I completely agree with Cenk and the Justice Democrats.
I completely support it.
Everyone worries that the Justice Democrats are going to go suddenly full SJW.
OK, so what if they do?
So what if they go full SJW?
They're still going to be against money in politics, corporate money in politics.
That is a noble goal, and we should support it regardless of whether we agree or not.
If they were full on Christians, like you know, religious, like Christian types, I would
still support their efforts to try and get corporate money out of politics because it
has to happen.
But we can't get that conversation happening while everyone's going, yeah, but what about
There is no justification for a man going to court Over what is just a shitpost.
I mean, you know, there's obviously, I bet you couldn't find a single person who thought he legitimately was promoting Nazism.
I bet you couldn't find one.
No one in their right mind is going to stand up and say, you know what, this is him promoting Nazism because he taught, for anyone who doesn't know, he taught his girlfriend's dog to zig hail.
Which, obviously, is a joke.
And he literally says in the video, he's doing it to piss off his girlfriend.
Well, what's worse is we also don't have a say over the European Union.
So all we're doing is ceding our own power to the European Union.
It's ridiculous.
We have to leave them.
And what's even more frustrating is that we'll end up with no deal.
No, we will end up with a deal because billions of pounds and euros are at stake, and none of the people involved want to lose billions of pounds and euros.
He understands power politics and he's a Russian nationalist.
He's a patriot.
He's not a good man, and you shouldn't expect your leaders to be good men, especially if they come from authoritarian countries like Russia.
Same with Assad.
These are not good people morally, but they are efficient people, and they do have an ethical standard that they adhere to as in the benefit of their own people, and that unfortunately comes at the detriment of others.
And that can include some people who become a threat to their own position in the country.
I know this is going to get misinterpreted as me saying Putin's a good man, No, he's not.
On a moral level, he's undoubtedly highly immoral, like Litvenko.
Dozens of journalists probably have disappeared.
But unfortunately, that's the nature of being an autocrat.
How would you suggest opening the mind of an indoctrinated normie about the toxic ideology of SJWs, their hypocrisy, and the outrage machine keeping oppression relevant in a modern Western society?
I guess you could look at it through political philosophy.
For example, if you're talking to a socialist, the best thing to do is hit them economically.
So explain to them, look, show me where socialism has made people richer.
Because they'll never do it.
They'll never tell you that socialism will make the poor wealthy.
If it's not going to make the poor wealthy, what good is it?
You know, your problem is the poor are too poor and they can't get anywhere.
Well, that's not going to help them, is it?
You know, you've got to attack them on the axis that they're concerned about.
And like, I don't know, name another political philosophy, but you've got to attack them on the things that they put forward you have to refute, rather than providing something that's not directly challenging them.
unidentified
So yeah, you've got to know the person, basically.
I think we're some way off from militias at the moment, but we've just had our first right-wing
anti-Muslim terror attack.
Yeah.
And the guy did say, you know, I kill all Muslims.
I've done my part.
So it's not that I don't think it will happen.
I think it will happen.
And I mean, you know, I think we're a way off from it yet.
But eventually, I mean, you know, we're having terror attacks all the time in Europe.
You know, you can't go a week without an Islamic terror attack.
If you don't think something has to be done about that, you're insane and you're just detached from reality.
And it's not because I hate Muslims or I give a shit.
It's because I'm looking at the objective reality that people will do something.
They're going to do something.
It's not whether I think good or bad.
What do you think is going to happen?
Well, I think the right wing is going to come and do something terrible.
So let's jump in before they do.
What's the problem?
Well, usually radical hate preachers in mosques and the Couple of professors from the, I think it was University College London, had basically done a study on this and they spent eight years or something tracking all of this.
They were like, look, people aren't getting radicalised from the internet, they're getting interested in radicalisation from the internet.
What it takes is like a personal connection with someone.
So it's when they go to the mosque and then they speak to the... They hear ISIS propaganda.
They go to the mosque, speak to the radical hate preacher who's saying basically the same thing, and he effectively recruits them into a network, which is essentially what Andy Chowdhury did, and all the Finsbury Park mosque boys did.
So it's that nexus that we have to hit, because these are the guys preaching hate, you know.
And Imam Tawidi made a good point.
It's like, he went down to his local market in Australia and got an al-Qaeda flag.
It's like, Jesus Christ!
You know, you may as well be selling swastikas.
You know, it's exactly the same thing.
And so, yeah, we need to hit it at the preachers.
Other people, you know, actually disseminating this nonsense.
I mean, my parents were not really very political at all.
They weren't religious.
And so the concern was about interpersonal relationships.
And this is the thing that drives me crazy.
The concept of personal honor has been completely destroyed in the West.
And I don't understand why.
If you're not going to treat someone else with respect, why should you expect respect in return?
And that supersedes, in my opinion, any political position.
I will happily have a polite conversation with a neo-Nazi, or a communist, or anyone I find despicable on an ideological level.
Because it's more important, in my opinion, To have the polite conversation and to be able to actually have a dialogue, you know, and to show, if you show respect to someone else, then regardless of what their ideology tells them to do, they will find themselves hindered doing anything to you from their personal respect to you.
That's what honor is.
And so it's, I think that's more important than politics.
But yeah, my parents were broadly apolitical and so I, I mean I read Das Kapital and I felt myself getting a bit socialist when I was like 22 or something and then I read Nietzsche and thus spoke to Zarathustra and I didn't know what to make of it because I didn't understand it at the time and yeah and so over the years I've basically just been thinking about it and thinking well no I think you know like liberalism is the best
And it's the most reliable and the safest structure for human rights and for what I consider to be the correct, proper value system.
Yeah, I think also, just on a broad sense, just knowing some history.
Not even political philosophy, I'm just saying history, because when I was in it with the progressives, I would have conversations with people that were public people, and we'd start talking history, and I'd go, man, you don't know basic history.
History.
I'm not just talking American history.
I'm talking history of the Middle East, of Europe, like just basic stuff.
Know some basic stuff so that your arguments have some value.
What's interesting about history is that almost all of like political history that you read is actually the history of power politics.
You know what you're reading is the interactions of rulers and nations with each other and that gives you the fundamental education of what power politics is and it's important because it's in everywhere it's in everyone's lives they just don't really understand and don't really think about it and it's it's cruel as well that's the thing people got understand that you can't You can't expect interpersonal interactions to go along that line.
And when you see someone who is, like the social justice warriors, everything they do is power politics.
And they don't even realize it.
They don't even realize it.
But look at the definitions.
What's racism?
Prejudice plus power.
That's everything.
Sexism.
Prejudice plus power.
Everything about it is power politics.
I don't think they understand it, but if you understand history, you understand Alinsky, Robert Greene, Machiavelli, and if you're a liberal, read, you know, whatever, you know, whatever liberal, classical liberal authors you want.
Then you can understand why they think what they think, even if they don't.
I think it'll be people like Tim Poole in the future.
I think he gets a lot of support on Patreon and on YouTube, and with good reason, because he is an actual journalist.
And I love seeing him on Twitter.
He's about where we were, like, about a year ago or two years ago, where he's just like, Jesus Christ, journalism is awful.
It's just activism.
It's like, yes, dude.
Yes.
You know, that's all it is these days.
It's about trying to get you to believe something, rather than telling you what's happened and allowing you to make your own decisions, and draw your own conclusions.
And I think it'll be people like Tim Pool, but don't get me wrong, it's going to take a long time before that happens.
You know, the institutions that we have now, they're powerful, they're built up, they've got a lot of money.
They get the stories first, a lot of the time.
They go to the places, but, you know, independent journalists like Tim Pool do the same, and you have to support these people.
And, I mean, you know, The important thing as well is, as much as I love Lauren Southern, and I like Lauren Southern a lot, you can see how she's crossing into activism, because she's feeling morally compelled to do something.
Unfortunately, as a journalist, you have to stand outside of that.
And that's not to say that what she does isn't valuable, because it is, but it's For a political ideology, rather than for the objective collection of knowledge.
Which also shows that the rules have just changed to the point where someone that's heard that maybe is a little more of an activist than a journalist or both or whatever, I don't wanna speak for her, that there's a space for that now.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with doing activism.
But I think the real journalism, the real scoops, will come from people like Tim Paul, who understand objectivity, neutrality, and the presentation of information, honestly, is more important than activism.
Because when you're doing activism that's sliced in with journalism, there will come a time where you Find yourself skewed in favor of the activism rather than the journalism, because the journalism contradicts what you want your activism to be.
And that's your bias.
unidentified
Yeah, those things have to come in conflict at some point.
Honestly, I love Tim Poole's work because he is just giving me the facts.
He just gives me the information and I will make the decision of what I think the interpretation of that is.
And that is what we need more of.
And I think that eventually will be the future, but it's going to be a long way to get there.
And the establishment that we have now, I mean, the Wall Street Journal and the Times attacking YouTube, that's just the beginning.
They're going to keep going.
So, if you have a favorite, like, I mean, literally, you don't need to support me.
The people who back me on Patreon and buy my shits and stuff, I don't need any more support.
It's people like Tim Poole.
And it's not even Tim Poole.
Tim Poole's doing great as well.
It's the next journalist who's like, look, I'm going to go somewhere, or Luke Rudowsky or whatever.
These guys who are going to actually go there.
Because I am a fat, lazy bastard.
I don't want to go anywhere.
It took me a long time to come here, and it took a long time coming.
I don't wanna go anywhere, I don't wanna do anything.
I'm happy to talk about what other people find, but it's the folks who are gonna get off their asses and actually get to those places, support those people.