March 25, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:45:01
3239 Social Justice Warriors Always Lie | Vox Day and Stefan Molyneux
"Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing." - Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought PoliceStefan Molyneux and Vox Day discuss the Michelle Fields/Corey Lewandowski/Breitbart situation, Donald Trump's presidential campaign, GamerGate, common trends among social justice warriors and much much more!SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Policehttp://www.fdrurl.com/SJW-Always-LieCuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed Americahttp://www.fdrurl.com/cuckservativeThree-time Hugo Award nominee Vox Day writes epic fantasy as well as non-fiction about religion, philosophy, and economics. He is a professional game designer who speaks four languages and a three-time Billboard Top 40 Club Play recording artist.Vox Day maintains a pair of popular blogs, Vox Popoli and Alpha Game, which between them average over 2.2 million pageviews per month.Vox Day's Books: http://www.fdrurl.com/vox-dayVox Day's Blog: http://voxday.blogspot.comFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donateGet more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com
Now, I wasn't sure we were going to start with Michelle Fields, but I feel now that you've written quite about him.
I've read a little bit about him, and Michelle Fields has...
I don't know, been a sort of helmet head bullet that's taken down a few of my idols recently.
And I know you've been following the story.
I wonder if you could help fill in our listeners who haven't been to Breitbart.com and other places where it's been quite strenuously discussed.
Well, the whole situation is kind of a mess.
I mean, it was obviously a manufactured incident.
And the story, of course, was that She'd been manhandled, and it was advertised that she'd been thrown to the ground by Corin Lewandowski, who is one of Donald Trump's security guards.
And it sounded really bad, but one of my friends, Mike Chernovich, quickly identified, he smelled a rat from the very beginning, before I did, actually.
But as soon as Mike started poking around, I thought, Mike's usually right about these sort of things.
And so what happened was, All of the white knights, Ben Shapiro and some of the other people at Breitbart, immediately leaped to her defense and tried to make a huge federal case of it, despite the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of anything.
The thing is that it was very, very quickly apparent that there was a serious level of deceit going on because the photographer who Was backing up her story, initially claimed to not have been there.
But he'd already tweeted pictures from the event that he'd taken.
And he had a copyright notice on the actual picture with his name that he had taken the picture.
So it became a little tricky to deny.
Yeah, precisely.
And so the thing that you have to understand about the media in general and about People of the left in general is that they tend to play very fast and loose with the truth and they tend to do it in a shameless manner that astonishes normal, relatively truthful people.
And so the minute that you catch a flaw in the story, you need to look very closely because that's usually just the tip of the iceberg.
And that's exactly what turned out to be the case here because, you know, people started looking at digging up videos and that sort of thing and soon it became fairly apparent that she hadn't been thrown to the ground.
It looked like she hadn't really even been grabbed and then it became clear that whoever it was that grabbed her was more likely a Secret Service agent.
And of course, you know, a Secret Service agent is totally useless To the narrative that they were trying to build because they were trying to build a narrative to attack Donald Trump.
You know, that doesn't do them any good if it turns out that it's a Secret Service agent just doing his job, keeping people away.
And to me, the most damning thing about the whole thing was the fact that Fields was supposed to be covering the Cruz campaign.
She wasn't supposed to be covering Trump at all.
And so, you know, then, of course, it got out of control because the White Knights Double down.
They started attacking their own people at Breitbart.
Initially, Breitbart was backing her up.
They actually suspended a reporter who very responsibly said, hey, let's not leap to any conclusions here.
Let's see what the evidence says before we start attacking the Trump campaign.
And then there's obviously a bit of a A serious difference of opinion in Breitbart that rivals the North-South thing in the Civil War.
The internal messages that came out were just amazing.
So obviously you had one group that supported Cruz, one group that supported Trump, and I think Fields was really a proxy for that internal struggle.
Yeah, I mean, it seems to me that it would be kind of responsible journalism before you start accusing people of assault to get the facts.
And I was a little bit surprised when they just put out the transcript of this supposed audio.
I mean, it's actually easier to just share the audio than it is, you know, to listen to it and to type it all out.
So I was a little bit suspicious when I just read the transcript and it took a little while before the audio came out.
And then I did have a listen to the audio and...
She did not seem mortally wounded.
She did not seem to be hugely traumatized, to put it mildly.
And I began to have some, well, I start off with some doubts.
I mean, I hate to say it because, you know, I've just, in the research that we've done for this show...
The female false accusation machinery is just humming at such a high topknot these days that my general position is it's false until proven otherwise.
Like, I hate to be there, but it's just been so relentless over the past few years.
Up here in Canada, I just did a show on the Gian Gomeschi trial, which is where guys got accused of all this terrible stuff, and it turns out these women were kind of stalking him.
It's like...
The position for me is like massive, massive high wall of Humean skepticism until proven otherwise.
And I think that's a tricky position for a lot of people.
Well, I don't really see that you have any choice but to do otherwise.
I mean, you know, the thing that the male mind often has a very difficult time with is the way that...
Women are often very caught up in their reality of the moment.
For me, it was really driven home back in the early, middle 90s, I guess.
I used to play in a band called Psychosonic.
And we were playing at a big nightclub that Prince used to own.
And there was this very attractive girl who was in the front row.
And at one point during the concert, she had like Pulled off, you know, pulled off her shirt and all that sort of thing.
Basically was...
Well, she was warm, obviously.
Yeah, clearly.
Yeah, got it.
And then a lot of people there dancing, you know.
Anyhow, at one point after the show, she had made it very clear that, you know, she wanted to throw herself at me, etc., etc.
And, you know, fine and dandy and all, but I just said thanks and moved on.
But what was interesting is the very next day, I was at a mall.
This girl was right there.
I ran into her and it was clearly the same person.
I just said hello to her.
She looked at me like I was some sort of insect.
Context is everything.
You know, what was interesting, you know, a guy being a rock star on stage versus some random guy in the mall, you know, it was a totally different reality.
She had band goggles on, right?
So you look like this alpha god ripped dude, right?
And then the next day at the mall, you're just you like I just be me and the band goggles are off.
Right, and so that was the point at which I, you know, it was funny at the time, but I remember thinking, okay, that was odd.
And then, you know, as time's gone on and we've seen more and more of these false accusations, these events and that sort of thing, you know, it wouldn't surprise me to know that at this point, Michelle Fields has convinced herself, you know, that she was ritually sacrificed to Satan at a Trump rally.
I got a little bit of heat on Twitter because I said something about, isn't it terrible that her arm was ripped off and she was beaten to death with it?
You're not supposed to joke about those things, but how can you not joke about them?
When these absurd things, you know, somebody walks by a person.
She's in the vicinity of a presidential candidate who's being protected by the Secret Service.
She walks up to him and tries to grab him, and somebody might hustle her out of the way.
That's their job.
I mean, these days, you're lucky they don't shoot you.
But, you know, it's...
The point is that the whole thing was clearly a reporter getting the chance to make themselves the story.
Especially when she's got a book coming out in a month, the temptation to take advantage of that I'm sure is very great.
The Breitbart people should have known better.
Someone at Breitbart They really let her down and they let the organization down and they let all those people who lead to her defense down because at some point they should have said, you know, Michelle, you need to come in.
We need to talk about this and we need to set this straight so that it doesn't become this absolute circus that has now cost several people their jobs.
It's cost Breitbart a lot of credibility and for something that was totally unnecessary.
Has, you know, I watched the video that came out where her expression doesn't change.
I mean, either she's in a zen state of painlessness where she could get like a root canal with no But her expression doesn't seem to change as the person brushes past her.
Now, since this video has come out, and also since the other angle has come out where it seems pretty clear that it was not Corey who grabbed at her or who pushed her back, has there been any kind of, whoops, you know, sorry, we kind of jumped to conclusions here.
We should have waited for the evidence to come in.
Has there been, or has it just become an untopic?
Has it vanished?
I mean, how does that work?
Well, the way that it usually works is that, you know, in the book that you mentioned earlier, SJWs always lie, the second law of SJW is SJWs always double down.
Now, these people at Breitbart and stuff, they're obviously not social justice warriors, but there are still some similarities of behavior, and it's very clear that the Ben Shapiro's And some of the other people, Ann Fields herself, have just mindlessly doubled down.
That's what she even said.
I only filed criminal charges because everyone said they didn't believe me.
Well, you know, that's literally the definition of doubling down.
And of course, you know, they're probably not even going to bother investigating it because the police know better than you or I how many false accusations there are.
I can't, you know, I can't imagine, and I think this is tough for men to imagine, but I can't imagine living in a world where, you know, if you're a reporter and you're trying to rush a candidate who has said he's, you know, he's done, he's not, you're kind of playing outside the, you're drawing outside the lines.
Because the candidate said, done to the Q&A, you're kind of rushing at him to get a question.
There is a little bit of rough and tumble in these kinds of rallies.
And I can certainly see how you might get pushed back.
And it seems like kind of frail, you know, even if it did happen that you got really pushed back in something like, isn't that sort of just part of the game?
It's sort of like being in football and complaining about an owie.
So that part of it seems a little bit Victorian to me.
The second thing is I can't imagine that if I said, oh, I was pushed at a rally, that there'd be this stuka screaming sound of incoming white knights to just come and defend me and attack.
Like, I don't have this magic power to wave this boob dust and just have people come and protect me and defend me and battle to the death anyone who impugns my honor.
I don't have that power.
And I also don't have the power to live consequence-free insofar as if I filed a false police report.
I'm not saying it is false, you know, suspend judgment or whatever.
If it turns out that she filed a false police report, I can't imagine living consequence-free like that.
But, you know, with the social justice warrior stuff or with some of the lefty stuff or with, you know, maybe attractive women stuff.
I can't imagine all of that.
People just rushing to my defense, and then no matter what I said and did, there would never be any consequences.
That's a weird world for me to live in, even in my imagination.
Well, we don't live in that world.
I mean, when I was in high school, I dated a girl who drove the same kind of car I did, and it was a white sports car.
And she used to come over and make it in a The amount of time that made it very clear that she was driving, on average, around 100 miles an hour.
I got three tickets that year.
I didn't speed anywhere near that much or that often.
Finally, one day, I said, how do you never get any tickets?
You don't even have a radar detector.
She said, oh, every time I get pulled over, I just cry.
You know, if she'd been pulled over something like 20 times in that previous year, not a single ticket.
And so, you know, I find it very difficult to fault attractive women for using the advantages that we men hand them.
You know, every single one of those cops could have handed her and could have and should have and was legally obliged to hand her ticket.
But, you know, the more attractive the woman, The less likely it is that any man, you or me included, are going to hold her accountable.
You and I don't care.
We're old.
We're not trying to impress anybody at this point in time.
There's something to be said for getting older and just not giving a damn anymore.
But, as Michael knows, you know, we were talking right before this started, and it's much later over here in Europe, of course.
And so he said, I said, is this audio?
He said, oh, no, it's video.
I said, well, I better put some clothes on there, you know.
Oh, you know, I could have gone either way on that, you know.
I mean, to be honest, you know, all right, let's just start.
You're a famous libertarian after all.
But the point is that it's normal.
You know, the white knighting behavior, the instinct is normal.
But these are journalists and these are reporters and these are people who should know better.
You know, they should know that, you know, once it becomes clear that everything is not necessarily on the up and up and that sort of thing, Maybe you don't start a civil war in your organization just to defend her honor.
You also have to keep in mind that there's something else at work, which is these are people who are virtue signaling their opposition to the Trump campaign.
Fields and Shapiro in particular, and keep in mind, I've been familiar with Ben Shapiro since we were writing at WorldNetDaily together.
Going back to 2001 or something like that.
He started out as a boy wonder.
He was basically just parroting his father's Republican talking points at the time.
You're dealing with people who are, first and foremost, very concerned with making their careers in the mainstream media.
They don't have A lot of ideological principles.
You know, they need to sell the fact that they have some ideological principles in order to make it in the conservative media, but where they really want to make it is in the mainstream media.
And so, you know, the chance to do the virtue signaling and, you know, move over to The Blaze or move over to Fox or whatever, you know, that's going to take a priority there.
And you need to keep that aspect of the story in mind as well.
Well, and of course, the degree to which you can feed the mainstream media's dislike of Donald Trump and his campaign is the degree to which you are going to be elevated and put front and center.
Because it's a narrative, you know, campaign manager hurls young woman to the ground, you know, it's like, wow, that's quite a powerful narrative, if you don't Particularly like that campaign, you know, the fact that Bill Clinton has been credibly accused of rape on multiple occasions apparently has escaped the mainstream media's attention, but a made-up story about some physical altercation with a young, attractive reporter.
So I think that aspect as well, I mean, if it had been almost any other candidate in almost any other situation, it wouldn't have had that kind of Vesuvius eruption that it had.
Oh, without question.
Or if it had just been some, you know, fat 55-year-old stringer.
From the AP, we would never have heard about it in the first place.
What's going to be interesting is how they'll do what they always do, and as soon as they realize that they're just not making any hay out of it, then it's all going to be vanished.
We'll never hear about it again.
The only time it'll ever come up is when someone like you or me makes fun of them when we run across them on Twitter.
Yeah, and of course, after a certain amount of time has passed, these kind of narratives, what happens is, this is more on the social justice warrior side, after a certain amount of time has passed, like when it's just happened, people still remember that, you know, the incongruities in the narrative and so on.
After a certain amount of time has passed...
They'll say, oh, that old story was discredited by X, Y, and Z, and we turned out to be right, and how many people want to go and circle back and really dig all that stuff up?
So they sort of let it lie fallow for a certain amount of time, and then they say that they were totally right all along and just keep moving.
Exactly.
It's actually very frustrating when you're dealing with folks on the blog and that sort of thing.
And I'm not talking about the trolls.
I'm talking about the The misinformed, well-intentioned people who will tell you in a perfectly straightforward manner that the bell curve was totally rebutted.
Totally discredited.
Totally rebutted.
I can't believe anybody who's not medieval even still imagined that there was anything to what Ernestine and Murray had to say.
Every single time you go and look up these conclusive rebuttals and stuff, it's one person Expressing personal incredulity about something.
To even call it a rebuttal, let alone a refutation, even a critique would be too much.
You have to understand that is a part of the way that people who speak rhetoric talk.
There is no actual information content in rhetoric.
It's all about the emotional content.
That's why they're so convincing superficially.
That's why people like you and I instinctively take them seriously.
It's because they'll come in and they'll say the story that Corey Lewandowski didn't push her down has been discredited completely.
Because you or I would only say that If that was actually the case, or if we actually really believe that to be the case.
But that's the thing.
They do believe it to be the case emotionally, because they want it to be the case.
And so it's very hard for people who think and speak in terms of dialectic, using the Aristotelian sense, not the Marxian sense.
It's very difficult.
You have to train yourself to hear the way that the rhetorical speakers Speak and sort of translate.
I speak Italian, and I speak German, but sometimes if I'm not thinking, the wrong language will come out.
And so it's the same way with rhetoric and dialectic.
You sort of need to prepare your mind for it just in order to follow the illogic that will come out.
Because they will speak a contradiction and not see it as a contradiction because the two Oppositional facts are both emotionally in line with each other.
And I think that's right.
And for me, the way that I try and get myself into this mindset, if I have to analyze it, is I sort of say to myself, okay, what if all I wanted to do was give the appearance of victory in the moment?
I didn't care about the blowback or the fallback or any long term.
Just in the moment, what would I do if I wanted to give, like to quote, win in the moment?
Like I watched this...
There's this argument that somehow the Donald Trump supporters are seething with homicidal rage, pitchforks and torches and all hunting the ogres of their own imaginations and so on.
And so people say, well, if there's ever any kind of violence, oh, Donald Trump is responsible for the violence, he's the guy at the top and so on.
And it's a ridiculous argument.
But it was Bernie Sanders made this case.
It comes from the top and Donald Trump is inciting violence and he's responsible for what his followers do.
In the exact same interview, the interviewer said to Bernie Sanders, well, it was a lot of your supporters who ended up shutting down the Trump rally in Chicago.
So what do you say about that?
He said, well, you know, there's millions of people who vote for me.
If I was responsible for everything they did, I'd have a pretty tough life.
And it's like, you know, like five minutes, like not separates these two positions and it doesn't matter.
It doesn't because it's just about what can you say in the moment to give the appearance of victory and move on.
Exactly.
And the thing that's frightening is that Sanders probably doesn't even realize that he contradicted himself.
And Even worse, because his supporters are vastly, disproportionately made up of rhetoricals, as I think of them, they will not even notice.
And if you draw their attention to it, it will basically put them into a state of discombobulation that they can only resolve by running away from it or denying it.
It's different because I like him.
I don't like Donald Trump, so that's bad.
But I do like Bernie Sanders, so the exact same thing is good.
It's a toddler, range-at-the-moment emotional preference.
Yeah, and what you are doing, when you said that you think about how you understand it by thinking in terms of how I would win in the moment, what you're doing is you're literally putting your mind in a state so that you can understand the rhetoric.
When you get really good at it, you can actually start to speak to them in their language.
Not necessarily in the contradictory sense, but in the sense of specifically targeting their emotions.
And the way that you can do that is what I call the third law, which is SJWs always project.
One thing that I've noticed is that when I'm getting attacked by an SJW, they almost always accuse me of something That I later find out they are susceptible to.
And so that's why they are constantly accusing the Trump supporters of being angry, because they themselves are very angry.
You know, that's why they constantly accuse people like me of being insecure about my intelligence.
I mean, for crying out loud, if there's one thing I'm not insecure about, it'd be that.
But they accuse me of that, and then what I realized is that that's where their insecurities are.
And so what is very useful to understand is that whenever you're getting attacked, any time the attack doesn't make sense, any time you're like, why on earth would you say that?
You know that what's going on is emotional projection on the other side, which is basically the equivalent of handing you the keys to their psyche.
You can really do a fair amount of damage that way once they hand you those tools.
Right.
I mean, the fascinating thing, and we could spend quite a bit of time on this, but that way madness may lie.
But the fascinating thing is when you see people on the left screaming and shutting down rallies because they claim those rallies are intolerant, I mean, that's such a 1984 moment, you know, double-think.
I mean, how on earth could you possibly be screaming at people and shutting down their rallies because you're claiming they are intolerant?
I mean, that's just insane.
Of course, this is the very manifestation of intolerance, is using these jackboot tactics to shut down free speech.
It's the very definition of intolerance.
Well, you need to keep in mind that Orwell experienced this directly from You know, with a group of true believers who were much more radical than the Sanders supporters.
You know, he was over there in Spain, you know, with the revolutionaries, you know, dealing with the hardcore communists who were shooting the socialists like Sanders.
And so, I think that the reason that what he saw and wrote about Still strikes such a chord with us today and the reason it's so predictive of the behavior of the left today is because his experience of it was so deep and so educational and it made such a obviously scar and mark on him that he was able to describe it for us and we're
seeing the same thing, we're seeing the same thought processes, we're seeing the same behaviors being exhibited That he noticed back in the 30s.
Because, you know, people haven't changed.
No, the tactics remain the same.
And I always find it funny when people on the left cry out for diversity, but then if a conservative happens to apply to do any writing for one of their, you know, blogs or the New York Times or whatever, they will never let that person in.
You know, it's like, unless we have 100% leftists here, it's just terrible.
But then we're going to go out and say we want diversity of thought and opinion while relentlessly hiring basically the mirror over and over again.
I got, I had an opportunity Back in the early 90s, I started out doing video game reviews, and I was actually the sixth columnist ever nationally syndicated from that newspaper, the St.
Paul Pioneer Press, in their 113-year history.
So this was, you would think, a fairly big deal, right?
And they were kind of proud of it, but it was video games, so they didn't really get it.
But what was interesting was that the one conservative on the editorial page retired.
And so I thought, hey, I'm young, but I've got some ideas about politics and that sort of thing.
I'm one of the only nationally syndicated columnists at the paper.
Surely they'll be interested in this.
And I'm even a libertarian, which is kind of cool and that sort of thing.
I wrote a couple of sample columns and handed them to the editor-in-chief.
And I stopped by a few days later and said, hey, what do you think?
Do I have a shot at this?
And he said, I want to be honest with you.
We love having you writing video game reviews and it's fantastic.
And the columns that you gave me were really good, but there's not a chance in hell you will ever appear on this editorial page.
You're way too far out there.
What was so way too far out there was I had opposed the idea of public funding for a stadium.
That was the great unmentionable.
Obviously, stadiums should be funded by the public for these billionaires.
Again, there we are with the contradiction.
All of these editors were staunch, staunch You know, left liberals.
I mean, we're talking Minnesota, so we're talking about practically socialists.
And, you know, they don't even have Democrats.
They have the Democrat former Labor Party.
So, you know, and here they are, you know, absolutely 100% solid on we must spend hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of the billionaires.
That's not usually what you think of as being a hardcore leftist working party position.
It's funny how people can justify the transfer of tax money to people who buy a lot of advertisements in the media that just drag someone's dollars and, by God, most times their ideology will just follow like a dog after a quail.
The other thing, too, is when people say they're screaming and throwing rocks.
Some woman punched a horse.
And they say that the Trump supporters are full of hate.
And they say this with these twisted golem after the ring masks of hatred.
These people are so full of hate!
And it's like...
Is there no observing ego, like this eye that pops out and looks at yourself and says, I don't think that my words and my actions are actually jibing together too well.
I think the observing ego, as a sort of psychological concept, is a higher order of intelligence.
Can you look at yourself and evaluate what you're doing relative to what you're saying?
And that whole circuitry is just taken out of them at birth or something like that.
I literally can't see that.
Well, I don't understand the cause.
I mean, there's a lot of different theories and that sort of thing, but this is not new information.
When you go back to Aristotle, we're talking 2,400 years, and he says it was very useful to me when I was reading rhetoric the second time, because the first time, frankly, I think it just all washed over me.
But the second time I was reading it, it really struck home because he talked about how There are people who no information can inform or educate.
They literally cannot learn from information.
Their minds can only be changed through emotional manipulation.
And of course, that's what the book Rhetoric is about.
He's basically teaching you how to manipulate them.
And if you think about it, he was Alexander the Great's tutor, so obviously these lessons work pretty well.
But the relevant part is that there's nothing that can be done.
You cannot convince them.
It doesn't matter that they're beating up horses.
You're the angry, hateful, violent one.
If you think about it, how whacked out do you have to be?
How completely intoxicated by rage do you have to be to punch a horse?
On what planet do you suddenly think, you know what I need to do?
I need to punch that horse.
But that's because, like I said, there's no information content to their rhetoric.
They can say...
I mean, I've had a...
You know about my differences of opinion with pretty much the entire science fiction community.
And at one point, a woman who...
Is massively overweight.
Actually came out and said something about how she doubted that I had ever been in contact with a woman before.
And I'm thinking, okay, have you ever seen a 1980s movie?
You know, my friends and I used to be the bad guys from the 80s movie.
And then I signed a record contract.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't make any sense because in this obese woman's mind, for a man to not have contact with a woman makes him inferior.
And all she was concerned about was trying to make me feel bad.
The fact that it was completely absurd, the fact that it didn't even make any sense, it was totally irrelevant because One thing we learned about in Gamergate, when the media was virulently attacking gamers and declaring gamers dead and all this sort of thing,
everything that they said was clearly specifically designed to try to trigger negative emotions, feel-bads, etc.
And so that's their game.
When they're talking about the Trump supporters being angry, that's not only projection, but that is their way of trying to denigrate and make the Trump supporters feel bad because when you're dealing with that mentality, feeling bad is how they divide and conquer.
They get people to leave the group Because it's basically like a junior high game.
The worse that you can make them feel, then the more likely it is that they will abandon their little group.
Well, this is the oldest game in the book, and generally it was reserved for religion in the past.
And the game goes something like this.
You are a bad person, but if you give me money, I will forgive you for a short period of time.
And then, You're a bad person.
If you give me money, I will forgive you.
This is the Catholic original sin argument, and now the new original sin is, you know, white privilege or racism, misogyny, sexism.
I'm going to apply these pejorative labels to you But if you cough up money and resources and power to me, I will wave my wand and forgive you for a certain amount of time.
And basically it's a moral shakedown.
And the ability to do this has been well developed, I think, throughout human history because good people are susceptible to...
Feeling bad.
You know, it's funny because they insult people with terms that if those people were actually those terms, they wouldn't care.
Like a genuine racist is like, hell yeah!
Thank you!
I am a racist and here's why and whatever, right?
I mean, they'd be like, yeah, bring it on.
You know, somebody, I don't know, a genuine misogynist or whatever.
I mean...
If they can ever find someone who actually has white privilege, maybe they can ask that as well.
But somebody who actually is not a racist will be hurt and upset by being called a racist.
So it's one of these things that it only applies to people that it doesn't...
You know, go to some KKK grand wizard and say, you're some kind of racist.
And he's like, what gave it away?
Is it the chef hat that goes to a cone?
I mean, what, you know, is the fact that we're having a barbecue looking like we just got a whole bunch of sheets blown on us from a line?
And so this old game, which is we're just going to apply negative pejoratives to you.
Sorry, that's a bit redundant.
We're going to apply pejoratives to you until you cough up resources, money and power.
That is a very well-honed instinct among certain sections of the human population.
It's not a bad survival strategy because, you know, it sure beats having to go out and hoe the back 40.
Well, I think that it goes beyond that, though, because, I mean, I agree with what you're saying up to your point.
I wouldn't say that it's a religious thing.
I would say that it's a priestly thing if you, you know, get the...
Yeah, no, that's a fair point.
But it goes beyond that in that It is also a simple measure of social dominance.
When you see teen girls doing it, they're not trying to get the other side to cough up any money or anything.
They're trying to assert their own dominance within their group.
And what they're also trying to do is when they sense a danger to their group.
Like, for example, you get attacked a lot.
I get attacked a lot.
Why?
No, I've never noticed that, but perhaps it's out there.
I have no experience of that, but if you've seen it, I'll take your word for it.
Sorry, go ahead.
The reason that you or I get attacked, whereas, you know, choose any two of our random supporters don't get attacked one one hundredth as much, is because we are perceived as posing the greater threat.
And so, in addition to the reward side that you're talking about, There's also what you might call a risk mitigation side, which is there's a threat over there.
We need to try to defuse it.
And so, you know, because they have limited tools, they just, you know, they have a hammer, so every tool must be, every problem must be a nail.
And so that's why they're, you know, they'll try to attack you.
They will literally, the funniest example of it that I saw recently was last year when the whole The sad puppies, rabbit puppies thing was exploding all over the international media everywhere from New Zealand to NPR. Some woman in the science fiction community suggested that the best way to end the whole thing was to not talk about sad puppies because that would deprive me of an audience.
And she said on her blog she gets as many as 600 people a month And, you know, all those people wouldn't hear about me or the sad puppies if she didn't say anything.
But, you know, it was just ridiculous.
I mean, I don't remember exactly what my traffic was then, but it was, you know, well over a million a month at the time.
And I remember thinking, you know, do you even look?
I mean, I had a site meter right on the block.
It's like, did you not even look at that?
But that was before I realized that what she was just, what she was trying to do is she was trying to Minimize me in her mind.
These people have no rational breaks.
They're trying to work out solutions to stop the pain that the cognitive dissonance causes them.
Because their positions are fundamentally in opposition to reality, they have to have very well-developed coping mechanisms to square the circle all the time.
I'm sure you've had an experience where you believe something and then someone brought up something that proved that your belief was wrong.
You don't immediately go, oh, I've changed my mind.
It takes you a while to fully accept it.
For me, I was raised on Milton Friedman.
In retrospect, it was kind of insane.
I was looking at some of the books my dad had me reading when I was in junior high, and they had advanced mathematics in them.
Frankly, I didn't understand that part of it at all.
Trust me, if you go for the audiobooks, they'll skip over the math.
That's just my particular suggestion, but go ahead.
The point is that I was raised a free trader.
To me, to question free trade was right up there with questioning Um, the existence of God or the moral superiority of the Minnesota Vikings.
You know, these were just things that I fundamentally, they were fundamental axioms of my life.
And so, you know, the first time that I started running into some logical questions on the issue, you know, I kind of talked, I just sort of pushed them away.
I didn't really think about them until I was forced to finally confront them.
Because of some of the stuff I read with Ian Fletcher, because of some of the stuff from Schumpeter.
And then I finally sat down and said, okay, I'm going to sit down and I'm going to go through this, you know, A to Z, reach a conclusion.
And then I reached a conclusion that was completely contradictory to my original beliefs.
But that was a painful process and it took time.
And so...
My one, just by the mind, my one is...
Human biodiversity and multiculturalism, that was my generally accepted religion until facts just kept beating me down.
I finally had to give up the ghost, but sorry, go ahead.
Well, I understand.
I ran NCAA Division I track, you know, and I was not the blackest guy on the track team in the 100, 200-meter sprint group, you know.
For me, the whole HBD thing was very difficult to accept too because I was always very proud of not being racist and not thinking racist thoughts and that sort of thing.
It's possible to have a degree of sympathy for the fact that these are people who have no capacity, no intellectual courage, and So they cannot face the truth.
They cannot face reality.
And so they have these very highly developed coping mechanisms for allowing them to function day to day.
Now, a lot of them don't function very well, and I suspect that might be connected.
And it also doesn't excuse their horrific behavior with regards to people who actually are in harmony with reality.
But, you know, it's...
It's something that you have to be aware of when you're dealing with them because those coping mechanisms are things that they have been refining all their lives.
And so it's totally subconscious for them at this point in time.
Now let's jump back to a topic that you brought up a couple of minutes ago.
The Gamergate.
I've never done a show on Gamergate.
I've read it.
I've tried to wrap my head around it.
Let me give you my 20 seconds on Gamergate and just tell me, you know, where I am in relation to what it may actually be.
So my understanding was that it sort of started out of corruption in the gaming review industry.
Right?
That there was this woman who created this Depression Quest game that got great reviews.
It turns out that there was not a lot of objectivity in the reviewers.
And it kind of started out like, okay, let's clean up this mess.
Let's, you know, try and get, you know, if people are sleeping together, if there's a conflict of interest, we kind of want that up front and center because, you know, we rely on this to spend our hard money on games.
And the backlash for that, I'm not sure about how this transition actually occurred, but the backlash to that seemed to be that it invited a massive tsunami to A feminist nagging into the gaming community.
Now, gaming, of course, is a lot of, I mean, I'm a gamer too, but it's kind of for a lot of younger guys in particular.
It's like, okay, I don't have really, I've been cast out of the workforce.
It's too dangerous to date.
You know, I can't get out of my mom's basement.
I got a huge amount of student debt, but here at least is a place where I have my domain.
And I think what happened was when that domain, the sort of Corrosive, invasive, third world, nagging feminism stuff came crashing into that domain.
It seemed like there was nowhere left to retreat for these guys.
Okay, if you take away my pleasure in video gaming, I have nothing left.
I have no wife, I have no family, I have no career.
I'm Characterizing gamers, of course, a bit harshly, but it was interesting to me that that's where the remnants of Western masculinity planted their flag, and by God, they took their stand.
Like, there was just no...
I can't go further down than the basement, so I'm going to have to make my...
I'm cornered, and I'm going to have to take my stand here.
Is that anywhere close to what actually happened?
It's reasonably close.
I mean, I think you're interpreting...
I think your interpretation of gamers is a little bit overwrought simply because, you know, I'm a lifelong gamer myself.
I mean, I'm a professional game developer.
I teach development.
I have seven...
Sorry, just for the...
Just because you've now mentioned like your sixth or seventh profession, I'm going to assume that all the books behind you, that's just your resume, right?
Like you just, you send it out in volumes with like 12 pack mules.
I just wanted to clarify that for the audience, but please go ahead.
Yeah, I have a focus problem, quite clearly.
I mean, the funny thing is about the only two things that I've done consistently are develop games and the blog.
You know, everything else I get bored with after about two years.
It's okay.
Eventually you did too, and that's why we have some great works.
But, you know, so for me, and for most people that call themselves gamers, I mean, gamer does not mean someone who plays games.
That's one thing that the media was very confused with.
You know, they're saying, well, all these girls are playing, you know, Kim Kardashian and Candy Crush Saga, they're gamers too.
And of course the whole gaming community was just looking at them like, no they're not.
Because a gamer is actually a contraction of war gamer.
It doesn't mean somebody who plays hopscotch.
It doesn't mean somebody who plays tic-tac-toe.
We don't call football players gamers.
No, they professionally play a game.
And so gamer originally came from war gamer.
And there's a tremendous amount of- Now, sorry, Wargamer, is that like the Warhammer, the tabletop, or is that more still in the computer area?
No, it's prior to either.
It's the board and counter Wargames.
You know, for example, if you look at my shelf, there's a hole in the sort of like right behind there.
Those are actually all Wargaming Binders full of rules.
You know, the rules are like this thick.
And so...
Sorry, this paper and pencil stuff?
And dice?
That's role-playing gaming.
Wargaming is boards and counters.
So you might have the Battle of Borodino.
The game that I like to play a lot is Advanced Squad Leader, which is a World War II simulation, small unit tactics.
So that's where it started.
And then...
Then it moved into computers.
And so the early computer games were mostly war games.
And then you got the arcades and that sort of thing.
So there's this whole identity and culture that grew up from that original small war game and culture.
And I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm going to go perhaps not out on too shaky a limb.
And I'm going to guess that the number of women playing Candy Crush Probably a little bit higher than the number of people in this number of women in this community that you're talking about.
It's a sausage fest.
That's kind of what I'm getting at.
In 20, 30, whatever it is, years of playing advanced squad leader, I have yet to meet a single woman who...
Zero.
Yeah, I got it.
I got it.
Okay.
You know, my wife finds it vastly amusing.
She said that she was talking or commiserating with my best friend and And then my best friend's wife said, you know, I think it's awesome that our husbands are war gamers.
She's like, there is not a chance they will ever meet another woman.
When they're out playing games, they're safe.
Unless you're playing the war game that involves naked, oiled Spartan wrestling, you're probably pretty safe for not having an affair.
Okay, got it.
Exactly.
So anyhow, it's a way of life is the thing, you know.
It's literally an identity for many men.
There's a really nice thing that the president of Nintendo, who recently died, said, and it was going around a lot.
It was something to the effect of, in my occupation, I'm a corporate executive.
In my profession, I'm a game developer, but in my heart, I'm a gamer.
And so, you know, what he was saying, it was very clearly understood by all the gamers that, you know, I may be the president of the largest, you know, one of the largest, most important game companies in the world.
I may be rich and famous, I may do this, but in my heart, I'm exactly like you.
You know, and people Really responded emotionally to that.
That was because they could identify with that.
And so what happened with Gamergate was actually very similar to the Michelle Fields incident.
There's some doubt, there's some question about who was sleeping with whom and exactly when.
It doesn't really matter.
That's just simply how it came out.
But what really set things off was, you know, because initially the whole depression quest, I mean, depression quest was incredibly crude.
People who haven't really looked at the story would not believe that something like that could have gotten this whole thing off because it wasn't even really a game.
It was basically like a choose your own adventure book.
There's a new technology, a new little engine that allows you to basically create choose your own adventure books with Pictures and music.
She had put this together like anyone could.
You didn't need to program anything.
It got all these reviews and stuff.
People weren't really confused about the reviews being good.
They were mostly confused about the fact that it had been reviewed at all.
That's one thing that the media didn't Didn't pay any attention to.
It's not that...
I mean, there's no game like that gets reviews.
There are much bigger, more professionally produced games that never get one-tenth the amount of reviews that this game did.
And so that was the first sort of...
And was that partly because it's like this is a young woman and there's a sense that we're getting these splintering of standards that, you know, very high standards for the male developers that then there's a woman who's not even a coder who's developed something using someone else's engine.
Was there a sense that we're getting this sort of split in standards that can drive a lot of people kind of crazy between the genders?
No, it wasn't even that, because there have been women, highly respected women, in the industry for decades.
But not producing crap games, right?
No, producing really good games.
Like I said, the people who were actually in the industry were totally confused.
Because, like, so what if she's a woman?
Roberta Williams is a woman.
Jade Raymond is a woman.
Brenda Laurel's a woman.
These were all women doing real games.
So why on earth are you talking about this non-game, essentially non-game, by this nobody who isn't even in the industry?
She was somebody kind of like Anita Sarkeesian, somebody who was not in the industry at all.
Maybe on the periphery at most, like any other Gamer who wants to get into the industry one day.
And so suddenly there's reviews and here and there and whatever.
And so that was what triggered my attention.
I was paying attention to it and I'd written about it before it was called Gamergate because for the same reason that the few people who paid attention to it at the same time were like, why is anyone paying any attention to any of this?
And then what really caused it to take off though was the fact that she has some sort of She has some sort of relationship with Nick Denton.
I don't know if it's like her family is somehow connected in a way or something, but there's definitely some connection between Zoe Quinn and some of the people in the circles around Kotaku and so forth.
And so they basically leaped in And use the full power of the media to try to change the story, to change the narrative.
Because the stories that were coming out, you know, gamers being gamers, they were figuring out all kinds of stuff about her.
And, you know, she'd done everything from pose naked to, you know, have relationships with a number of guys at the same time.
And so all this stuff is coming out.
And so my impression, and it's only an impression, is that There was a concerted attempt to bury the actual story with a false narrative.
And then...
Hang on, hang on.
But was the actual story around non-objectivity or potential corruption in video game reviews?
No, not really at that point.
I mean, at that point, it was all basically like...
People were trying to figure out why the hell anyone was paying attention to this person.
What really set things off is 4chan was kind of a center for a lot of the gamers.
It was very big among them.
But the guy who just got hired by...
I think Google just hired him, actually.
Moot was his name.
For some reason, he basically lined up with the Kotaku's against the gamers.
It was like a massacre of the moderators.
They basically got rid of all the moderators who were friendly to the gamers and then brought in these new people who had no history and then came up with all these sort of SJW-type rules for posting and how you couldn't talk about Zoe Quinn.
That's how the name Literally Who got started because you couldn't talk about her or you'd get in trouble.
So you had to refer it to, you know, by a different name.
And was this dysfunctional women white knighting?
You said that there were similarities to the Michelle Field situation.
Is that the sort of white knight circle and protect the eggs kind of stuff?
I don't think it was just white knighting.
I think that there were some sort of personal connections involved at fairly high levels in the media.
Because then there was a coordinated...
I read about this in SJW's Always Lie, in the chapter about Gamergate, In the course of two days, something like 17 articles came out that were all talking about how gamers are dead.
Which, if you think about it, is an insanely stupid thing for the gaming media to say.
But what happened was it was uncovered by someone who was in the media, who has to remain nameless, But he got access to the list.
Do you remember Journalist?
That group of left-wing journalists?
Well, they called it Game Journal Pros.
It was the same thing.
And so they had coordinated that attack on gamers in order to, like I said, I think it was in order to sort of change the narrative.
And that's when everything blew up because In addition to 4chan turning on them, then suddenly the gaming press is attacking them.
And then, of course, the gamers struck back, and then because the SJWs always doubled down, instead of going, you know, why are we attacking our readers, they concocted a bunch of lies And amped it up to the next level so that the mainstream media...
Because remember, this is going back to what we were talking about before.
They're just trying to make the gamers feel bad and quit.
But the gamers were never going to quit because they knew it was all bullshit.
And so then it got...
The pinnacle of the absurdity, of course, was when they filmed that television show.
And Gamergate was the bad guy and they had Anita Sarkeesian standing.
Because Sarkeesian was already doing her con artist thing.
But the minute that Gamergate got going, she saw the chance to jump in and take advantage of it.
And so that's why she got involved.
And then of course you have Brianna Wu, the transgender gentleman who was, you know, claiming that he was driven from his home and all this kind of stuff.
Sorry, you were saying Anita Sarkeesian was doing her con job.
Is that related to the Tropes video series that she got a lot of money for but didn't seem to produce a lot of content from?
Yes.
She was already kind of doing that stuff on the periphery.
But she ended up jumping in and she and John McIntosh got that whole feminist frequency thing really amped up during Gamergate because the mainstream media was looking for Something to use against Gamergate, and so she was the useful vehicle.
Time Magazine had named her the 100 most important people.
In retrospect, I think Milo and maybe one other individual from Gamergate are writing books on the whole thing.
Speaking as somebody who was there From the beginning, I wasn't intimately involved in Kotaku in action or anything, but I did do my share of sending emails and that sort of thing.
It was absolutely and utterly insane.
Every single step of the way, it was as ludicrous or more ludicrous than the Michelle Fields situation.
Here you've got Kotaku Literally attacking the people on whom their business depends.
Why would they ever do that?
Now, of course, we've learned since then that with the Hulk Hogan thing, Gawker maybe doesn't make the best business.
Nick Denton is the guy who ended up in charge of Gawker, is that right?
Yeah, he's the guy who's been running it for years.
With Gamergate, we targeted their advertisers, and we actually managed to cost them over a million dollars in advertising.
Every day, people were sending emails, creating memes on Twitter.
It was a whole ad hoc campaign, totally decentralized.
As a libertarian, we need to prove that it was totally decentralized.
Nobody in charge.
It was always kind of funny because the media would talk to somebody and they would say, well, I'm the leader of Gamergate.
And so the media would start talking to them and they didn't realize...
I'm the leader of philosophy!
I'm science god!
So everybody that they talked to was always the leader of Gamergate.
But there wasn't a leader and that was intentional because the folks in Gamergate were sophisticated enough to understand Any weed that got popped up too far was going to get its head chopped off.
The whole thing was just do it yourself.
If you've got a great idea, make it happen.
There are some really useful artifacts of Gamergate that are still around that are going to be very useful like deepfreeze.it where you've got all these journalists are permanently archived on the record.
One thing that my own supporters have learned, the evil legion of evil, they've learned that you never, ever publicize anything that somebody has tweeted, put on the internet, whatever, without archiving it first.
Because we know that they will delete it and deny it.
So you need to make sure, if you're going to use it, Don't talk about it until you archive it.
I think Gamergate is a real lesson for the right wing to learn and understand.
I published two of the great military strategists of our day, William Lind and Martin Van Krevel.
I was actually talking to Mr.
Lind about it, and I said, there's a lot of this stuff that reminds me of fourth generation war.
He said, He said, Gamergate is absolutely a fourth generation war campaign.
It's just not violent.
And the aspect or the degree to which there seems to be a weakness in the male character, and you talk about this, of course, in Cuxervatives, which is that...
Men are very susceptible to fighting with other men because women want them to.
Disturbed dysfunctional women often play this weird chess game of let's you and him fight.
And they sort of motivate guys into attacking each other for eggs.
Again, I don't know that the etymology of it is somewhat mysterious to me, but I have seen this erupt a bunch of times where, you know, a dysfunctional woman sails into a largely male environment and next thing you know, it's goddamn civil war.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, we were talking about this on Alpha Game the other day because, you know, one thing I've been trying to figure out is why do women always seem to want to invade male spaces in which they have no real interest?
And it was Dalrock, I think, who came up with the most convincing explanation.
And he said, have you ever noticed that Like, hardcore gym bunnies, they tend to not be the prettiest women.
Like, I mean, they're in great shape.
They have the most attractive bodies, generally, but they're not...
They're always, like, a little bit more plain.
And then we're talking about the cosplayer girls.
You know, the girls that go to the comic conventions and dress up, like that sort of thing.
And again, they tend to look pretty attractive in all their outfits and stuff, but for the most part, They're not the beauty queens, as it were.
And what he realized and theorized, and obviously there's no way to scientifically demonstrate this at the moment, was that that's how women maximize their attractiveness.
Yeah, sexual market value.
Yeah, because they can basically increase their sexual market value by going into a male space because they don't have the competition.
And then, of course, once they're in there, then their hypergamy kicks in.
And so, of course, a girl who goes and becomes a gamer girl and wants to play PlayStation 4 with the boys, she's going to want the coolest dork.
She's going to want...
The alpha gamer!
Exactly!
As silly as alpha gamer sounds, That's what the gamer girl is going to want, just like the girl who, you know, you'll often see at the gym, you'll often see the gym bunny with one of the big hulking, you know, brutes, the alpha gym guys.
Well, sorry, if you were in the middle of an explanation, I don't want to interrupt you.
Okay, so, yeah, alpha gamer.
I'm pretty alpha and I'm a gamer, so I got no problem with that.
You're pretty alpha, you're a gamer.
So, okay, so that would explain why the women go in, but why do they detonate it?
I sort of, like, why do they, wouldn't you just go in and then, you know, make the best man, but why do they go in and just start pitting people against each other and so on?
And, you know, the shrinking of male spaces in the modern world is, you know, you can have a female-only gym, but God forbid you have a place where guys sit in deep armchairs and smoke cigars.
Oh my God, that's just horrible.
I think I'll blow the roof off that thing.
I think that the isolation of men from men...
Which is when women come into a space in general, and this is true particularly for younger men, but when women come into a space, men change their behavior, just as, you know, when men go into a women's space, women change their behavior.
And I think male to male connection is generally downplayed in matriarchal societies for the obvious reason that if men connect with each other and share their experiences, they can gain some strength and solidarity in the increasing hypergamous state plus lady plus gun situation that we're all trying they can gain some strength and solidarity in the increasing hypergamous state plus lady plus gun situation
So I think when men get connections with each other, that's dangerous for a lot of the women who want to continue to enjoy the fruits of men's labor through the state ripping your wallet out through your balls and stuff like that.
So I think that what happens is when women, again, not all women, but when some sort of dysfunctional women see a bunch of men together, they're not.
Alarm bells go off that men might get a connection with each other.
Like men who are being abused by women, what do they do?
They cut you off from your friends so that you can't say to your friends, she did X, Y, and Z, and your friends say, she's crazy, man.
You've got to get out of there.
So she's got to isolate you so that she can...
I mean, this is another reason why prominent men who, you know, have a largely male demographic, most of the people who watch and listen to my show are male, this is a kind of male space.
And therefore, it must be attacked because if men are in communication with each other, they gain strength, they gain solidarity, all the thing that the feminists wanted to do when they wanted women to talk together, which was perfectly fine, of course.
So I think it's not just going in for sexual market value increase and, you know, hypergamy to get the alpha...
But when I think of the dysfunctional women coming into male spaces, I think it really is like a bunker buster.
Well, I think that you're absolutely correct.
And I think that it might even run a little...
I think you can take that line of thought and extend it even further because I was kind of surprised when Michael got in touch with me and said, hey, you know, we'd like you to come on the show and...
I talked to Stefan.
I was kind of surprised at how many people tweeted and emailed me and I mean they were like legitimately happy about this and and it's not something that I've been on a lot of radio shows and stuff before and I mean I've been even on Fox and I've never had that kind of reaction and I was kind of wondering What's the big deal?
They were all my Twitter accounts.
You can't see this.
I have 40,000 arms.
I'm actually a Hindu deity.
Not many people know that because I don't turn blue.
But that's where that's coming from.
But sorry.
Sorry for my introduction.
Go ahead.
It was interesting.
I was thinking, I wonder what was that all about, you know?
And then I thought I was writing a post on Alpha Game the other day And it occurred to me that we're talking about the alt-right.
And one of the interesting things about the alt-right is that it is extremely masculine.
I'm not talking about in the MRA sense.
I'm talking about if you look at the individual leaders of the various nodes, you know, there's a disproportionate number of homosexuals.
And there is a disproportionate number of guys like you and me who are successful with women, confident, and basically not afraid of them.
If you look at the behavior of Ben Shapiro with Michelle Fields, that is very different than the way that Milo would have behaved.
He is not inclined to white knight.
He is very gay, and I can say that as someone who has been out until the very small hours of the morning in the Paris Red Light District with him.
If only straight men actually got that hair, could you imagine?
We'd rule the entire universe.
It's so unfair.
But the thing is, someone like Milo is not going to go running white knighting for someone like Michelle Fields.
Someone like you, someone like me, we're not going to do it either.
We're just going to sit back.
Sorry to interrupt, but that's the thing.
I mean, how?
What insane planet has become that when you give women full and equal moral agency, somehow you're a misogynist.
Like, that's so bizarre to me.
Like, I really love women, and like every group or entity or people that I love, I will not strip moral agency from them, because that is an act of contempt.
To portray people as victims tossed around by the manly limbs of patriarchy.
You know, oh, I got pushed by a guy.
It's like, no, you're an adult.
You're a moral agent.
You're responsible.
You're responsible to tell the truth.
You're responsible to have integrity, just like I would demand of a man.
And the idea that somehow it is considered negative towards women to give them full moral agency, which means innocent until proven guilty.
You don't just get to say I mean, you indulge the irrationalities of little children, not adults, and the fact that it's considered to be somehow anti-female to give them full moral agency and moral responsibility just as I would a man just goes to show how completely deranged mainstream gender relations are.
Okay, that's the end of my rant.
I'm going to just wipe the spittle off my webcam here.
It was impressive.
impressed and a little alarmed.
But the you're talking about your show being a general male space.
There's a number of women who hang out at VP, Vox Popole.
For the most part, they tend to be...
Very INTJ. There's one who's an astrophysicist.
They're not the average women in any way, shape, or form.
But one thing that was interesting that several of them have told me over the years was that it was very shocking for them to come into that particular space and not get treated with any deference, any interest, Or any warmth.
Because honestly, I don't give a damn.
I don't care if there's 100% men or if it's 85% men or whatever.
I only put the comments up there originally as a courtesy.
It's basically my place to just dump whatever I'm thinking about.
If people want to talk about it, great.
But I don't care who particularly is there.
Some of them said it was very shocking to come in and say, hi, I'm a woman.
Basically, there was just a big echo because nobody even said, oh, that's nice.
I made it very clear to everyone that I don't really care.
Therefore, following my lead, nobody else does.
That prevented the space from changing it all.
Nobody is competing to get the attention of the chicks.
And it invites women to bring more to the table than sexual market value.
And isn't that, in terms of the evolution of our species as a whole, We don't want to just bring basic biological imperatives to the table and say, look, I'm contributing!
If you don't treat women, just bring something to the table that's going to interest people.
It's just rhetoric on their part.
The whole equality thing is a complete load of nonsense.
They have no interest in equality whatsoever.
In one of the games that I'm developing, I have a female intern, and she's great.
But I think that she would probably be the first to say that not only do I not show her any special favor, I don't even show any interest whatsoever in her because I don't care.
She's an intern.
All I want is when I want something done, get it done and get it to me and get it to me on time.
That's my only interest.
I'm not even on the same continent.
There's no game playing, there's no gender this or whatever the people like to say.
And that's one of the problems right now in the gaming industry.
There's a huge backlash that is presently forming among the developers.
Not just the gamers because At the recent GDC, they're inviting the SJWs to come in and tell us that we have to have more women, we have to have more...
Less butt!
Yeah, you can't have a tight outfit and that kind of stuff.
It's really outrageous.
If there's one thing that I know about game developers after being one for 25 years, it's that They're not at all into people telling them what to do.
Can you imagine the guys who made Carmageddon or Postal?
Games where you can run over little old ladies with a walker.
Do you really think that they're concerned about what some random feminist says about what they should do?
What these people should do is instead of going to Gamer spaces.
You know, what they need to do is they need to start picketing women's magazines for objectifying women.
They need to start saying, hey, women's magazines, that is an unrealistic amount of photoshopped and airbrushed makeup face.
Hey, that's a 13-year-old gymnast.
If I rub that cellulite cream on my ass, I'm not going to look like that.
Trust me, I've tried.
That's what they need to do.
They need to go to women's magazines because there is no industry on earth Or in any other dimension that objectifies and reduces women to shallow physical appearance than women's magazines in general.
But they don't.
They go and nag men because nagging women won't work.
Neither the women nor the gays in the fashion industry give a damn about women complaining.
These shoes are too tight!
Put it on!
These heels are a little unpractical.
Hey, you want to put your ass on a shelf?
Wear these heels.
There's no other way to do it.
Right.
But the thing is that, you know, I think that the fact that gamers don't give a damn was a real shock to them.
Because the NFL has caved.
All the All the old gentleman's clubs have caved.
Because those men all cared about what women thought.
And the truth of the matter is that neither male nor female gamers, because there are some female gamers, none of them care about this idiotic social gender jihad that the SJWs are trying to force on them.
And so everything that they're doing They're trying to do the usual thing of gaining the cultural high ground.
They're using the media, using the big corporations and all that sort of thing.
But they're going to fail because at the end of the day, there is not a single person, there's not a single gamer who has a scintilla of interest In playing the crap that they want to do.
The companies that make the mistake of giving in to them are going to fail, and the companies that refuse to are going to continue to grow.
I think there's actually a group of Japanese female developers, I think, that put something together basically telling the UN to take a hike with their whole women in gaming thing.
They're like, we're women, we develop games, go away.
It's a good thing and I think it's something that men in other industries and with other interests need to learn from.
They need to look at what the gamers did in Gamergate.
They need to look at the difference in the response to the social pressure that we responded with because otherwise they're going to lose their spaces and they're going to lose their interests and those industries are going to crumble.
Right.
I'm going to give you a short performance piece.
Are you ready?
Go for it.
All right.
She's going to warm up my neck here.
I've been working on this for 30, 35 seconds.
Okay.
This is my imitation of typical male-female relationships and where we're heading.
It goes a little something like this.
The woman says, I don't like that you don't care what I think.
I'm sorry, I don't really care what you think.
I hate you.
Still don't care what you think.
Oh.
Well, then I love you.
And scene.
That's, you know, you can put that on as a gift.
But I think there's a lot to this.
You know, what's called the shit test by some people, which is like, sorry, you know, the alpha doesn't care.
No.
He doesn't care.
And this is the Donald Trump phenomenon.
Okay, the media is really going to hate you and the RNC is really going to hate you and the social justice warriors are really going to hate you.
So you must be a smoking Arizona-style media creator by now.
Nope.
Number one in the polls, you know?
I don't care!
And there's such a glorious liberation.
It's like having your own personal imagination jetpack.
I am free of gravity!
I don't care!
And people will love you for not caring.
They'll say they'll hate you, but if you blow through that, they'll love you for it.
Well, it was interesting to me today.
I sent, you know, Rabid Puppies 2016 was announced today.
That's my recommendations for this year's Hugo's Award.
And I sent out a press release this time, because last time the press leaped on us and attacked us, so I thought I'd get out in front of it and at least get our position out there.
It was funny because I got an email from someone who is very much on the other side.
They were on the media list and sent me an email saying, you know, I don't think this is funny.
I'm totally opposed to everything that you do, but I have to admit, I read that email and I laughed.
You know, people communicate and people react at the emotional level, not at the intellectual level.
The response that you're talking about is an instinctive one to the strong man, to the big man.
I'm not saying it's because I don't subscribe to Evo Psych.
In fact, I've just read a book by an anthropologist that pretty much, you know, Prison rapes, the whole concept.
But we don't need to know why.
We just need to know what.
And what we know is that people respond very, very favorably to the man, also to the woman, but mostly to the man, who has the courage to stand there and be the rock that everyone else can grab onto.
And so the motto, I have about 509 vile faceless minions.
And these are the members of the evil legion of evil who have vowed to mindlessly obey their supreme dark lord, which comes in handy occasionally.
And their motto is, we don't care.
So anytime you see people coming in and criticizing me, something that I've done, something that we've done, something whatever, you see the response time and time again, we don't care.
And it's funny because that always shuts it down very quickly.
Don't engage.
Don't engage.
It's nothing to discuss.
They can bitch and whine and complain all they want.
And I'm talking about the men here.
And nobody cares.
And so once people realize that their actions are futile, they will usually desist.
I don't know if you have any kids or not.
Yeah.
It's painful to watch an adult constantly give in to a child because then it never ends.
Well, that's the winning in the moment regardless of the long-term consequences that we talked about earlier.
Okay, fine.
Here, have the ice cream.
It's like, okay, all you've done is bought yourself the same behavior next time for another ice cream.
And it's amazing to see the opposite, to see how fast a kid who is in a full tantrum You know, like, I want this.
And the dad says, no.
And, you know, the kid throws himself in a full tantrum and the dad doesn't react, just sits there and they're like, are you done yet?
And the kid will, like, suddenly, magically, you know, get up, smile, walk off.
You know, you're like, wait, weren't you just in the midst of a full meltdown five seconds ago?
But the thing is, is that the kid realized, oh, this isn't working.
Oh, well, you know, I guess we'll move on with things.
That's how all of us work.
Men work, women work.
We were talking about leadership the other day, and I think that this is what Trump is showing, is that he is radiating and communicating, I don't care, every single day.
I'm actually very interested, after we're done here, to see what he said to the AI pack.
Because, I mean, today he goes to the Washington Post, says, I think we need to rethink foreign policy.
I don't know if we need NATO anymore.
I mean, the level of, excuse the expression, zero fucks given.
I mean, that's negative fucks given.
You know, a president, the presidential candidate standing up and just throwing off the cuff On his first foreign policy meeting, this is his first step out of the box on foreign policy is, maybe we'll get rid of NATO. At some point,
whether people agree with that or not, this is the important thing, whether they agree with that or not, whether they think it's crazy or not, it is an act that people will instinctively admire and respond to because it is an act of strength and independence.
Trump, yeah, I mean, Trump's power, and it's something I learned a couple of years ago, is that, look, I'd love to live in a world where mere reason and evidence and dispassionate communication of information and arguments won the day.
Maybe in 500 years we will live in that world if we philosophers get our way and continue to preach the values of reason, empiricism, objectivity, and all of that.
That is not the world we live in currently.
And...
You know, if you've got to be the leaders of the tribe, if you want to be the leader of the tribe of Pygneys, maybe you're going to have to shove a giant pig bone through your nose, you know, because that's all they respect, you know?
And so right now, and I think Trump is demonstrating this, this is an old objectivist argument that in any conflict between two positions, the more certain, the more dedicated, the more committed one will always win.
You know, this is why Islam is heading west rather than Europe heading east.
And that reality that confidence will win the day and people will test your mettle, right?
They will push back, they will throw slings and arrows of outrageous nonsense at you.
They will test you and then if you pass that test, They will follow you, which goes the, I hate you, I don't care, I love you.
I mean, that's...
And this is just that phase that society is going through where the bad people have had a huge amount of certainty for, you know, 50, 60 years.
And, you know, we will get back to talk about the book on conservatism and open borders.
But...
He is very certain of what he's about.
And that certainty, people are just pushing at it to see if he's going to hold the weight of social change.
You know, people, if you're going to pivot, you know, a giant structure, you need a very, very deep pole in the ground.
It's not going to pull out when you're sort of halfway around.
And so they're just testing the living crap out of the guy to say, okay, you want a big change, you know what you're about.
So we're going to shit on you just to make sure you don't change because what's going to happen outside the country is going to be a lot worse than what's going to happen inside the country.
So it's a giant shit test.
I think he's actually passing with flying colors.
And that's why I think he does actually have the capacity to move the dialogue.
Yeah, I think that, I mean, he's really impressed me as the campaign has gone on.
You know, he hasn't made anywhere nearly as many unforced errors that I would have expected.
I had the opportunity to meet him once, a long time ago, back in 1988.
I was at the Republican National Convention.
We were both in George W. Bush's private suite, and he was sitting right behind me.
It was kind of funny because afterwards, I talked to him a little bit, but he was not the big alpha dog there that day.
It was kind of funny because people were very interested and kind of slightly gravitating towards him.
But the person who was the big alpha dog was Henry Kissinger.
He was there as well.
But there were only maybe 25, 30 people there tops.
And it was funny to me how Trump kind of had...
It was like a big planet and a smaller planet with people orbiting around them.
And so I think that because he's been in that environment for so long, and because he's seen so many vicissitudes, you know, he's had successes and failures and that sort of thing.
I think that that's given him the confidence to just plow ahead, even when he missteps, even when he says something stupid, or when somebody throws a curveball at him.
He just figures, you know what?
I'm going to keep going, you know, damn the torpedoes.
I'm going to keep going straight ahead.
And that's something that we haven't seen in a long time.
And we're used to seeing, you know, Reagan is really the last leader who even had any, you know, he really had that only with regards to the Soviet Union.
Well, and I think, sorry to interrupt, but I think that Trump is Reagan who doesn't need the party machinery.
Right.
Although, to a certain extent, though, I mean, Reagan took over the party machinery.
He was always the outsider against the whole Bush establishment thing.
Well, but his price was that he had to have Bush as his VP, right?
And he had to basically hand the crown down.
They said, okay, you can be the insurgent, but you have to hand it back to the Bushes.
I think that was the price he paid, and that was the price conservatism as a whole paid.
By having Bush in.
Because that led to Clinton, of course.
But we don't know yet what's going to happen with the current situation.
You know, we have no idea now.
I think it's unlikely that, on the one hand, it's hard to say.
I mean, the guy wrote a book called Art of the Deal.
So, you know, striking a deal would not be a surprise.
But, you know, Trump being Trump, he's going to throw some curveball that none of us see coming, would be my guess.
Yeah, I try not to out-think Ben Carson on separating twin surgery, and I try not to out-think Donald Trump on deals, because, you know, they're just world-renowned experts.
So, you know, I just...
I try not to look at, like, I don't know, Roscoe Tanner, the tennis player in his prime, and say, oh yeah, I bet I could do that.
It's like, nope, he's really good at it.
I'm just a spectator, but I'm going to have some, I guess you could say faith, but there's some rational evidence for it in seeing where he's going to go.
And I just...
You know, people get confused because, you know, I've got a video years ago about the truth about voting and don't get involved in voting and so on.
This guy, though, is taking down the mainstream media, the mainstream narrative.
And that, to me, is the big barrier.
That's the big blast doors between people being able to have rational conversations.
This has got this mainstream media in the way.
Launching all this social justice warrior torpedoes at everyone and everyone's just running and ducking for cover and can't have a rational conversation.
You know, the opening of Saving Private Ryan, there aren't guys there having mint juleps and playing euchre with each other because there's bullets flying all around.
And until the mainstream media can be pushed back, this sort of girlish, vicious, verbal abuse hysteria that the mainstream media just pours on anyone who challenges the narrative, until we can push that back, there's not even a chance of having a rational conversation.
And what I do like about him, it's like Moses parting the Red Sea, parting the verbal abuse of the mainstream media going through, and there is a little bit of space, a little space, and you know, I think he's pushing for more every day, a little bit of space for some actual conversations to occur Uh, in a public sphere without the mainstream media, you know, 6,000 lasers on your forehead and you're like, okay, when's the bullet coming?
And, and I think that is where I see the value in it.
Well, we're having a discussion on the blog the other day.
We were talking about leadership and yeah, I remembered I was, I was sharing with some of my readers, something that my, my grandfather, the bonus chair, this is, um, He fought on Guadalcanal, he fought on Terawa, and he fought on Saipan.
And one thing that he told me, and in two of those cases, they had to go in on the beach.
And he said, you know, the one thing you always need to keep in mind is that if you're on the beach and the bullets are flying and everybody looks at you, do something.
He said, do something, say something, doesn't matter what it is, just do it.
And they will follow you.
And another guy mentioned a story about a young lieutenant who had found himself under fire and he didn't know what to do.
He had no idea.
And he kind of froze up in that he didn't give any orders.
He just rushed the hill and got to the top of the hill and turned around and the entire company was behind him, all 300 men.
I think that that's what Trump is doing.
I think that Trump is largely instinctively rushing the hill of national collapse because the US is in a bad situation.
It has endured the largest invasion in human history since 1965.
61 million people, maybe more.
And so he is responding to that, and that's why people like you and people like me, who probably don't have all that much in common with Trump, except for sharing a lot of his enemies, we're seeing him taking the hill, and we're going, well, hell, I'm coming along, because at least if we're up on that hill, we can shoot back, you know?
And so...
I'm as dubious about his actual intentions as anyone.
I'm not an optimist.
I'm by nature a skeptic.
The reason I have some confidence in him is because the man is kind of vain.
I think that he would rather be the leader that people want him to be than be just another Go along with the establishment guy.
If he wanted to be a go along with the establishment guy, he didn't need to run for president in the first place.
No, he had that in spades already.
Right, and he's really sacrificed that.
He is no longer welcome at a lot of those dinner parties and weddings that he would have been invited to.
Sometimes the experiences change us and they can change us for the better and they can change us for the worse.
As skeptical as I am, like today, when he came out and said, I'm not sure about NATO, that blew me away.
Why would he say that if he was trying to win votes?
If he was trying to please the New York Times editorial board?
But he says that because he's a businessman and you know as an entrepreneur and I know as an entrepreneur that you can't let old Resource-consuming things hang about past their due date.
You know, I mean, you constantly have to prune, you constantly have to undo, and to stay lean and mean.
You know, you don't keep the 286s around anymore.
I mean, you've constantly got to be pruning in order to be lean.
That doesn't happen in the government, of course.
I mean, government just, like barnacles, just attach more and more dependents to the ship of state until it goes down.
But I think he's got this pruning mechanism.
Do we still need this?
Why are we still paying for this?
Let's get rid of it if we don't need it.
It might even be more interesting than that.
I think that you're probably right.
But I also think that the recent situation between Russia and Turkey in Syria really made some very strategic thinkers very nervous.
Because with NATO, we're obliged to defend Turkey.
And if Turkey goes and picks a fight with Russia, and you need to remember they fought something like seven wars, you know, they're actually overdue for a Russian, you know, a Russo-Turkish war.
The U.S. would then there be obligated to get involved, you know, in a war with Russia that We're not, our military is not in any shape to get involved with.
You know, a lot of the military strategists were amazed.
I'm sorry too, but the absurdity of sending troops over to fight with Muslims against Christians is so bizarre.
Like, that's just like anti-crusade, other planet dimension stuff.
But sorry, go ahead.
Well, a lot of people were very, I mean, personally, I don't think that Washington was making any effort to control ISIS in Syria at all.
I think they were just going through the motions, but even so, a lot of experts were astounded at how effective the Russian military was with a very skeleton force of completely destroying ISIS and allowing the Assad government and Hezbollah to take over the ground there.
That was something that we have not been able to, the US has not been able to accomplish in Iraq, and yet Russia was able to do it in about 100 days.
Well, to be fair, it's the Democrats.
And the Democrats and military decisiveness, not exactly on the same bookshelf.
True.
But the point is that no one thought that Russia could do what it did.
And so suddenly, you're having them demonstrating superior capabilities.
They took over Crimea.
They managed to pull off this operation that was a very long-distance operation.
Is that really a group that you want to be picking a fight with when you've got China rising in the East?
The US military having been degraded by being wasted for 10 years in the Middle East.
For Trump to come out and call that whole thing into question is, I think, both courageous and fascinating.
It's happened so many times in particularly Anglo-Saxon history, a Protestant history, a sort of Western European history.
Just when you think they're doomed, you know, they just pull someone out of their butts who can get the job done.
I'm thinking sort of Chamberlain to Hitler kind of thing.
Like, just when you think there's not one shred of spine left in the Anglo-Saxon group, Suddenly, boom!
You know, out comes someone and people are just like, they shake it off, they get out of the matrix of helplessness and they follow that.
Listen, I'd love to keep chatting.
I got some sense that it's dawn where you are.
I think I can see the sun coming up on the...
We really enjoyed the chat.
Of course, first of all, I hope we can get back together, talk a little bit more politics, a little bit more world military stuff, which is a kind of a fetish of mine, and of course, more of your work on social justice warriors and cuckservatives, which is not exactly my favorite word, but it's not far from my favorite word.
Can you tell my listeners, I know you've got, what, about a third of the domain registrations on the internet are yours, if I understand this correctly.
Where can people go to get the stuff that you're working on?
You know, books, and I know that you do a lot of blogging as well.
Yeah.
The best place is Amazon.
You know, all the books are there.
I think SJWs always lie.
After eight months is still the number one best-selling political philosophy book on Amazon.
Which is nice.
Coxervative is out on Wednesday.
I'm publishing a debate with an atheist friend of mine, Dominic Saltarelli, called On the Existence of Gods.
Kind of esoteric, but if that's your sort of thing, it's actually really interesting.
Oh, it's certainly my sort of thing, so I look forward to that.
I'll be sure to send you a copy.
But what I really want to send you is two of the books that we publish at Castalia House, the Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook, And A History of Strategy by Martin Van Krevel.
I think you'll find them particularly interesting.
But the best place to find me is always Vox Popoli.
That's where the Evil Legion of Evil hang out, the Dread Ilk, the vile faceless minions.
I feel like we just crawled into the monster manual, but okay, I'll take your word that that makes sense.
Yeah, well, it's just basically the level of devotion and obedience that they show to their Dark Lord.
Excellent.
So it works.
But this has been great, and I'll be more than happy to come back anytime, and I'm glad we finally met.
