Then remember them many m I know what the hell is going on? Yes,
thank you chat for reminding me how late we are. That's okay,
this is a show worth waiting for. It's mixed bag panel. Uh,
it's number what what number are we at? We're at number five? You
guys, it's already number five. I can't believe it. It's going great.
So we have some some guests tonight, some exciting guests. I'll bring
the first one up. He'll introduce himself where he can find him some of
his background and whatnot. Welcome to the stage, Austin Peterson. Hey,
thanks for having me. Jim Bobbinson honor appreciate. It's good to see you
again. Yeah, people call me AP for Liberty. You can find me
on everywhere Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, but probably the best place to
catch me is on my Wake Up America show. So if you've got a
Rumble dot com slash AP for Liberty, I've got a five day a week
morning talk show. It's a great way to start your day, stay informed
about what's happening in the world, and yeah, keep up to date with
everything in the world of Liberty. So thank you, awesome, thanks for
being here. And Jay let the audience know. Yeah, Jay Dyer,
I cover everything from geopolitics to movies, film symbolism, esoterica, religious debates,
open panel madness, fairal wine, moms with Virginia slims in their mouth
calling in to argue and wrap battle with me. Literally. We also do
the I also do the fourth hour of the Ox Jonesho every Friday. Uh
and yeah, that's got a few books. You can find me over at
jays Analysis or on YouTube or j Dyer or on Twitter as well and Instagram.
Awesome. All right, well thanks for being here. Jay. One
of the first things Austin said is I said, oh, we have other
panelists like Jay, And he said, we're gonna talk about God, are
we? I said, no, it's come it could it could come up.
But this is a more relaxed, uh sort of fun. We don't
We try to stay a little bit away from like the meta and the philosophy
because it you know, we like it, but it could bore some people.
But we do want to get into some technology. And I actually wanted
to start with this as Jay has been covering, you know, smart cities
and these concepts for many years now, and now people are starting to really
hone in on on on what it is. Someone like Patrick Wood I think
his name is wrote these great books where he outlines all of the companies why
they're positioning themselves the way they are. Uh, And from my view it
kind of looks like this. If you're a big company and you could mass
produce and be the you know, the explicit provider of all products and services,
well the next step would be take ownership in this over the city,
right and takes some sort of stake in the city, kind of like black
Rock seems to be doing. And this is an interesting topic because it seems
that technology companies, along with products and service companies are looking at cities now
as platforms. Now, that sounds wacky, right, we go, what's
a platform? Oh, it's the thing on my phone I use. Are
you on that platform? Well, platforms come with tos and they come with
community guidelines and all these things. So what if a city was owned by
a company and the company had tos and community guidelines that in a way maybe
replaced you know, your bill of rights, your basically everything we know about
how to behave in society. I think that's the plan I might be.
It might be hyperbolic. I don't think so, but I did want to
get your take, Austin is I'm gonna let you actually let Jay give a
summary of that. See if I missed anything. But I did want to
take your position, Austin, because as a libertarian, I wonder I wanted
to know from you how you see that progressing and if there's any red flags
that might come up from the view the principal view of libertarianism, because it
seems like if a company can take over a city, a company can take
over larger than a city, and if they buy it, you know,
in a way it's fair game. Right, So Jay, give a quick
summary of smart cities and what you think, and then I'll let Austin tackle
that hard question. Yeah, it's interesting that you mentioned this idea of cities
as platforms. I remember watching Metallic, the co creator of Ethereum not too
long ago, talk about the possibility of creating cities as platforms, and they're
marketing, at least in the crypto side, and maybe even Trump has given
a nod at times to the idea of freedom cities. I don't know exactly
know what that means, but the idea is that well, there will be
smart cities. It's unavoidable. So maybe we can have like a libertarian smart
city where it's where it's freedom oriented versus I don't know, you know,
Google and Bill Gates's smart city, which will not be freedom oriented. It
will be you know, oriented towards I'm sure you know, carbon credits,
controlling your movements, rationing meet all the things that we would expect the dystopian
smart city to be. I think the idea comes out of the technocratic movement
in the nineteen twenties thirties forties, which was kind of a weird fringe version
of socialism at the time, and it kind of got resurrected when Brazinski wrote
Between Two Ages. There was always technocrats. There's always people in different power
strata or strata the power structure that believed in technocracy and thought they could have
these these you know, plastic computer AI cities of the future. But I
think Brazenski really breed new life into it with Between Two Ages and ended up
being something that the rock Filler sought was a great idea. They put a
lot of money behind it, promoting it, and it really became you know,
US policy officially throughout the Cold War and then the corporation Silicon Valley,
really Silicon Valley I view as a bunch of kind of private, private,
corporate partnerships that also adopted this model under a veneer of libertarianism. So that's
the danger I think is that it'll be sold as convenience security utopia, and
even the ones that are billed as kind of libertarian I would be very suspicious
of. Yeah, before you answer to this, Austin, welcome to the
stage, Chad. Thanks for sorting that out. Why don't you introduce yourself
to the audience. Let us know where you can find you and what you're
all about. Yeah, can everybody hear me? Okay, yes, sir,
okay, good. Sorry, I was having internet complications at the most
convenient time. So yeah, my name is Chad O. Jackson. I
am an independent researcher and business owner here in Dallas, Texas. I'm also
a film producer or co producer, I should say. I can be found
on YouTube at Chad oh Jackson, as well as Instagram at Chadow Jackson and
x at Chadow Jackson. So awesome. Yeah, good, and so I'm
I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry, dans reupt good. You're not a what
I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat. I'm I'm politically interested.
But I don't believe that any of the political parties or anything like that have
the answer to our problems. I believe that most of the problems that we
have can be handled at the individual or ground level. So that's my take
on politics, or that's the approach that I take on politics. So got
it all? Right? Well, thank you for that, Austin. Now
you see the challenge of this question and right, the smart city complex,
as Jay and I laid it out in our various ways. You know,
bigger companies owning more of everything and having a natural or unnatural monopoly on it.
You decide. But the thing is what occurs now, Like, what's
your take from a libertarian position? What are some of the advantages you see?
But are there some things that you're going Well, maybe I don't know,
maybe there's something off here about about companies taking over like this. I
mean, nots so much. I do like what I'm hearing from Chad and
Jay, and I definitely think that there's a little there's a little Chad and
a little Jay inside of me. Right so maybe they're the angels on my
shoulder, But how can corporations possibly screw things up more than the government already
has? I mean, how can you not be excited about a little bit
of an experiment with anarcho capitalism. How can you not look at what Javier
Mala is doing in Argentina and not be like Ron Swanson slash slash slash it
and have an opportunity for Samsung, who builds these beautiful cell phones that I
love, my Galaxy Samsung S twenty one Ultra. You know, there's a
little community outside of Soul speaking in South Korea where our phones are manufactured.
This is a really fascinating case of what you guys are talking about. It's
a modern private city called song Dough, built from scratch fifteen hundred acres of
reclaim land. It's a smart city known for its advanced technology, eco friendly
design, high quality infrastructure, developed by gael International and the Incheon Metropolitan City
song Dough. It's a new model of urban development focusing on sustainability, technology
and the quality of life. Do you think that they could do worse than
they're going to do worse than San Francisco? Do you think the people in
South Korea, the corporations that build these are going to let their private property
turn into what are our major cities are turning into here in the United States.
You know, there is no utopia, right, There's not gonna be
a perfect city or or there's there's some cities that are better than others.
There are some cities that are doing better than others. But the you know,
there is no such thing as a fully private city, and there's no
such thing as a fully government city. Every city and every country has aspects
of both market and then government control. U the only few times that there've
ever been like real true experiments to try and set up privatized communities, most
of the time it's failed miserably, but that's because they got chased out either
by local tribes or governments come in and prevent them from setting them up.
So, you know, let people experiment a little bit, you know,
let these cities, Let these cities come to fruition, let people try and
live there. You know, Epcot, remember Epcot, The whole experiment of
Epcot was supposed to be this new city of the future. It didn't really
work out well. This new world is not bad, but Epcot didn't become
that perfect, shining example of a private city that everybody wanted to live at.
Turns out people don't really actually enjoy living in those types of community communities,
but they should have the choice to do it, and a corporation certainly
isn't going to do any worse than Gavin Newsom of California and whoever the mayor
of San Francisco is at this point. I mean, I think those are
good arguments. What do you, gentlemen think. I'll let either of the
two on the bottom respond to that. Good Well, go ahead, Chad.
I think I follow what's going on here, although I was a little
late to the show. When it comes to smart cities, that's what we're
talking about, right, smart cities. I do think that when you look
at technological advances over the course of the last fifty years, it makes me
wonder how will we advance quote unquote technologically over the next fifty years. So
I think smart cities are to some extent and inevitable. I am totally against
the federalization of such cities or taxpayer dollars going to such cities on a state
or federal level. When it comes to the local level. However, if
some random city in the middle of you know, Washington or where have you
wish to utilize whatever local tax dollars to build this thing as a kind of
experiment, I mean, you know, go ahead, But there is a
lot of issues that come up as a result of these things, namely intrusive
surveillance and other such issues. So I think people should think twice. I
mean, I know, for me, in the city that I live here
in Texas, we're pretty much like minded in so far that if some politician
come out of nowhere who's wet behind the ears and have these big visions and
ideas about how to change the city and how to make us more towards friendly,
this person is typically laughed at a court because we tend to be people
who want for our government to be small. We don't want our property taxes
raise, and so we want for our councilmen to be a lot of boring
old guys who don't have any ideas or any visions about anything. Just keep
things the way they are, because we don't want you to to build the
next Disneyland at the expense of our tax dollars. And so understandably, in
a country as ideologically diverse as ours. You're going to see more and more
of these cities coming up or popping up. I mean when you see the
technological advances just in smart homes, A lot of people's homes. I mean
the business that I that I own happens to be in the construction kind of
industry, and we're seeing a lot of these smart homes popping up where you
can talk to your house and you can set the oven. Just the house
rights, I call it the direction toward house rights. No. Yeah,
yeah, I think your summary there is is good because I do agree with
the inevitability of some of these things, but then pointing out like, well,
what are some of the what are some of the things that we might
not be able to foresee or some of us might be Jay, do you
see anything that was missing in Chad or Austin's assessment of this. Yeah,
I think they run a really good point. I don't. I didn't hear
anything I disagree with. The only thing I would take issue with, maybe
is just for me. I mean just from a practical perspective, it looks
like the same structure that that would build the smart city, whether it's Gavin
Newsom trying to do it, or whether it's Google. I mean, to
me, it's like the same. I don't really see a huge difference between
the two because for so long we've had really controlled by a military industrial complex
that is essentially a unit party, that is a public private partnership, secret
deep state that runs everything. So to me, it's going to be the
same thing, whether it's marketed as Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook City or whether it's marketed
as Batalics Ethereum City. Like, to me, I think it's going to
be the same. I just see a lot of this as irrelevance. You
could look at, for example, the structure of how in the Cold War,
when well right before the Cold War set off, you can look at
the way that Lenin structured cities and tried to utilize corporatism. Stalin also tried
to utilize corporatism. So I don't really see a huge difference between between corporatism
and you know, private what's called free market libertarian governance. To me,
it all ends up being the same thing in practice, and what we end
up debating is a lot of ideals we end up debating. Yeah, but
in theory, you know, the city that's truly voluntaristic. An archo capitalists
would be so much better. Yeah, but like, where is that right?
It's to me, it's no different than Marx's end goal of the withering
way of the state and the final freedom that's going to result from Marxism.
And so for me, again, I like a lot of libertarian ideas.
I was libertarian for a while when I was younger. To me, it's
just like, at the end of the day, they kind of have the
same presuppositions, which are materialism, which are essentially the highest goals of man,
are temporal gains, pleasure, security, safety, Those end up being
the highest things to attain to. And so when they measure societies on the
basis of what is a good society versus a bad society, it's always something
like that. So it never transcends those values into valuing things that are in
any way ever transcendent. There's never a notion of the good. The good
is always presumed. There's never a notion of what freedom actually is or freedom
to be, what freedom to do what. It's always just freedom. And
so because it's anti metaphysics most of the time, because it's an enlightenment philosophy,
it's always just kind of put out their sort of generic ideas of freedom,
liberty, you know, quality of life or something like that. So
anyway, that's my take. Yeah, yeah, I wanted to get more
into something specific regarding what Jay's pointing to is like practical things. I saw
a comment thanks for that. You know, right now we have this this
system where you know, we're on platforms, and I used platform as a
term to that that cities will eventually be seen as platforms. But if that's
the case and we're pissed about a company who's woke, you know, DEI
woke, you know, don't say this, don't say that. If a
company does run a city, and from your review Austin, you know,
it's principled, so great, but it seems like the people who do pursue
these company run cities, like Jay said, it's all going to be Google
these kind of things, and their philosophy is going to actually dominate what the
behavior of the city is. And what I mean by that is maybe Austin
wakes up in the city thinks it's awesome, you know, we're progressing here.
You start your coffee machine, right and there's a little I'm sorry,
Austin, your tweet last week violated blah blah blah, and you agreed to
this and your you know, crypto agreement. Right, suddenly you can't make
coffee. These little things, these little things add up. It's not even
necessarily a big thing, because guess what if you can't make your coffee,
you'll find an alternative. Great, But it's not like you're gonna get up
and move because you didn't get your coffee because the company shut off that particular
aspect of your life. But maybe they add it. Maybe they say,
you can't go to the gym now, right, Maybe they say and so
these are not fantasies. This is an extrapolation of what we see now with
corporations owning shit right and being able to tell you the ethics that you ought
follow if you're gonna be on their platform. And so you'd say, well,
no, that's just an agreement. But what if they can just change
the agreement once you're already in the apartment, right the Amazon uh, well
we call them coom pods. But you're in the pod and it's going great,
and then suddenly you start getting these notifications, right, like that's what
we're pointing to, at least I'm pointing to when I go, are there
any red flags with these views? Fine, let's say they're not utopian,
like Austin says, I think they're tied a little bit to some vision.
But let's say they just we try them, all right? Does that seem
inevitable Austin that the the woke corporations who are actually ahead of the game in
all of this, By the way, they're gonna in the same kind of
bullshit tos for you to get your coffee. Sorry, buddy, showers not
today. You don't get a shower today. So what do you is that
that has to be something you admittedly concede and say, well, yeah,
that's gonna that could be a big issue, right, No, for sure.
And I mean, like one thing I would say though, first is
that, like you have to consider that those things are happening right now,
and they're happening under the current system that we have now. But what I'm
advocating for is, excuse me, something a little bit different. But like
you know, in presupposing in this also too, is like that the business
owner and the person who creates, who builds the coffee machine doesn't have some
rights as well. I mean, there is like such a thing as a
private contract, Like if I want to create a contract with someone and say
I want to create a coffee machine that if one day I want to shut
it off, then I should be able to have the right to create something
like that. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to
create that kind of a private contract. Now, we all live in the
United States, and I agree that we should have a bill of rights in
a constitution, and that people should have rights, and that we should elect
representatives to govern us to solve some of these problems. Right, So I
don't I'm not an anarcho capitalist. So I don't believe in a completely you
know, private utopia because one, I don't think that that could exist.
Because two, because two the times that it has been tried, it hasn't
worked successfully, just like socialists utopias have failed to have failed spectacularly and phenomenally.
We have a lot though, we have a lot more examples of socialist
utopias that have failed. Jamestown and New Guyana where everybody drank the kool aid
and killed themselves, perfect example of a socialist utopia. Right, that went
wrong North Korea. We have example after example after example, but we have
so few examples on the other side. And you even said that, you
pointed it out and said, well, where does this exist? Where has
this existed? Right there? Ford Landia was an example of Henry four trying
to create a community that was based on a utopian ideal that was mostly market
based. The Corporation of Ford in the rubber plants where they were, you
know, harvesting rubber for the tires, where they set up this community.
And Ford was he was a very conservative man. He wanted to have conservative
values and he tried to impose them on the community of people in ford Landia,
which included workers. Were not allowed to drink alcohol, they had curfews,
they had very strict rules, exactly what you're talking about right here.
And it failed. So the thing is is that these utopian experiments that we're
discussing right now, I don't think that they exist. They can't exist in
a vacuum and in the times the very few times where the experiments have been
tried again, whether it's a socialist utopia of Jamestown or whether it was ford
Landia created by Henry Ford those utopian experiments always fall apart because reality has a
way of getting in the way of people's dreams too. To centrally plan some
a society, it didn't work with Epcot Center, it didn't work with Jamestown,
it didn't work with ford Landia. Right. What tends to work are
people who are able to make individual choices on a level with a certain basis
of rights, a modicum of movement of freedom that they're allowed to have,
to be able to make their own decisions, and then to go out and
transact into contract to get all the goods and services that they need to accomplish
whatever their goals are in their life. So really, what we're at the
end of the day, what you're talking about is still central planning, right
if it's a whether it's a corporation or whether it's a government, like,
it's still something that I oppose in principle. This concept is central planning,
which does tend to fall apart because one of us can never be as smart
as all of us each. And it's not that there's no plan, it's
that there's more planners, right, and individuals are free to make these decisions
about what coffee companies they want to contract with. But again, these these
utopian experiments tend to fail on their own merits because their idealism usually just it
can't work in reality because people are people and their individuals and they make their
own decisions. And sometimes, you know, if somebody may want to break
their contract with the coffee company that they entered into, and for that you're
going to need a court to step in into adjudicated dispute. So there's always
going to be some layer of a regulation on a corporation. That's going to
be some neutral arbiter third party. It's always going to exist, whether or
not anarchocapitalists say it should you know, it should be all private courts as
well. There's gonna be some outside regulatory force. The question is what that
looks like and how the rest of us can manage ourselves and manage society on
our own, you know, absence of some central vision and central plan handed
down from us from a pollic bureau. If you well, you did you
said one thing there and I'll let Jay or Chad John been here. Is
that you said, well, even in the corporate city, you do have
rights. Well, I'm actually saying what if what if all the materialists and
all these coomers coming up are gonna say, well, I actually don't care
much about rights. Give me stuff, right, give me stuff, Give
me a conveyor belt, subscription to my own life. Let me sit in
the city, and I'll trade off my liberties and I'll abandon that construct and
I'll trade it for another construct. Now, what do you say to those
people, Because regardless of whether you think it's gonna fail or succeed, right,
I agree with you that these things fail, I think because they fundamentally
don't account for other aspects of being a human being, which includes transcendental categories
and things like this that we value actually more in the end. But regardless,
if someone goes into the city and goes, hey, this is great.
I get three years, three to five years here, and they give
you everything, everything you could imagine. Right, you can't see yourself into
slavery, right, so the thirteenth Amendment, no indentured servitude, no slavery.
You can't, but you can willfully, but you can willfully forfeit your
rights through a contract. I don't see something like that happening. I think
most people don't want to live in the pod or eat the bugs. Are
there people who absolutely listen jonestown happened, People drank the kool aid, they
committed suicide out in the junk. There are absolutely people who do that,
Like you know, those people here are people who want to live in a
cult. How are you going to stop people from living in cults? Okay,
there are cults. There are still cults. You're never going to stop
people entirely from living in cults. Right. You want to try and minimize
it and encourage free thought, but you can't force people not to be in
cults. It's impossible. There's too many cults and we're all prone to cult
thinking. Anyways, continue Well, one thing that I would say a couple
of a couple of things is that it's not so much just a matter of
do people join cults just be because people are cult like. You can also
have an intentional top down degradation of the population through weaponized culture, and that's
something that's existed for a long time, but particularly throughout the Cold War.
Pop culture was from the top down, both corporate and private and government in
a dual operation toxified to degrade the population. And this is something that the
libertarians typically miss or not aware of. I'm not accusing you guys of that,
just saying that, in my experience of a lot of debates libertarians,
they will sort of pass over this idea of toxic culture which is created by
the establishment to grade the population so that they become pliable and ready to go
into these kinds of settings and basically rat mazes is what I would say these
smart seaes will be. So my question to you guys would be, let's
say, I mean, surely some of us probably have worked at a Fortune
one hundred watching for five hundred company at some point, right, I've worked
for a couple of them. In my in my mind, the the smart
city run by one of these fortunes, it's gonna be like living at work.
Okay, Yeah, I remember working at a fortune one hundred company and
I had a fat bitch manager screaming in my face managing every little thing I
did, and it was a nightmare. So I can't imagine that living in
it. So if I'm given that but with also with my com pod,
like, that's gonna be somehow a better thing. So my question is just
that you said something earlier like why not let Sony have a hand have a
spot at running a smart city. And I'm like, I mean, dude,
that's gonna be the same fat bitch manager, maybe even an ai fat
bitch manager telling what you what you can eat, what you can do,
an Ai an Ai manager. Yeah right, Like she popped in on the
hologram right while you're in the toilet, and it's like, and they forced
they forced her to be overweight. So their representation and all that accurately represent
manager operation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they have to listen. We're
gonna shift a tiny bit here. I think we got a good chunk of
meeting there, Chad. We were talking just before in the green room about
how uh you know we pick I think that people pick famous people right,
and they approach them at this point, especially this is I think this has
always been the case, but now I think it's even more rampant. And
Jay's covered this a bunch where you seek a spokesperson who's flashy, charismatic,
talks loud, whatever is pretty, and you approach them and go, hey,
hey, I'm gonna yeah, yeah, we wanna you wanna you wanna
work for NATO. It's it's underneath the radar, though, Like can you
push some of these narratives. Don't worry you're doing a good thing. Don't
you want to be bigger than your the scripts that you read that you didn't
actually create. Yeah, I know, I'm gonna be great. I'll you
know, Jesse Smollett, I'm gonna put a noose around my neck. I
love it. So we've seen this now, Chad, You've done some decent
work on MLK and you get a lot of backlash. Right. I think
MLK Jr. Is one of those people where whether or not it's organic in
the beginning, that's not the point. The point is there are agencies that
can sniff out influential people. Right, The blue check marks of the fifties
and sixties existed, and so you find them, you sort of groom them
in a way, and then you have them become a product. I think
you and I would agree, maybe J Two. I'm not sure Austin's take
on this that someone like Martin Luther King Jr. Was definitely utilized to the
advantage of some other people and to push certain things in certain Yeah, yeah,
certain out outcomes. Right, But now we have this, Jay,
you did a little bit on I mentioned NATO. It was NATO right with
Taylor Swift. Now we were all called like complete lunatics when we'd say well,
no, there are actually there is culture creation. You know a lot
of work has been done again in this regard as you know, go back
to the the rel you know, the sexual revolution and all of this.
We can document it, we can look at it. So the question is
today is this running out of steam? Right? This this? I think
the the veil is dropping where you start to see, well, there's more
famous people, so there's some saturation now, so they don't have the same
influence of like Muhammad Ali being like, oh oh I'm going to do this
thing, and you know everyone's all like yeah, that that guy. Well,
so many people are this now that it's almost making it sterile in a
way, which I think is not a bad thing. But I'm wondering,
is is the veil dropped? Jay? You've covered this, is it dropped?
Are people already seeing well famous people they just really don't have much influence
now they kind of they kind of blew it. I think they blew it
with the KRUNKA. We can't say the other word on YouTube, but I
think they utilize too many talking heads and Everyone's like, wait, how is
this possible that every single person with a bright, you know, you know,
bleach smile ends up being on the same basically like a border directors side
of a big, big pharma. This doesn't make sense. So is it
over? Is it the end of this? Jay? I don't think it's
over. Okay, good, No, Chad, go ahead, you want,
won't you go? Yeah? I don't. I don't think it's over.
I think that they've grown more sophisticated in the way that they carry out
these kind of agendas, and more often than not, you'll find that the
celebrity or the individual in question themselves aren't really privy to exactly what it is
or a part of I would say that Lebron James and his dealings with China
is I mean, he's not a very smart person. I don't think he
knows what he's up to or how he's being used. But he's definitely being
used in the same vein as say a in the same vein as say a
Paul Robeson circa nineteen eight, who was being used by the eight nineteen eighteen,
nineteen nineteen nineteen twenty area. He was a full blown communist and I
think he was more aware of how he was being used and all too willing
to be used in the same way that MLK was. But I don't think
Lebron James is fully aware of what's going on. But again, they've grown
more sophisticated because over the course of the twentieth century, what we've seen is
the so called expert class influencing the trajectory of our country. These were the
ones who were acting as the kind of brain trust, if you will,
of the FDR administration, both Republican and Democrat administration throughout the course of the
twentieth century. I mean the whole political theatrics of it all, where you
think that you're pulling the lever for one party's agenda over the other is when
in reality it's just one uniparty. This isn't anything new. This has been
the case for a very long time. The vell is breaking, so to
speak, in so far that folks like myself and you, Jim, Bob
and Jay and others are growing more aware of how ideological subversion works. But
I think part of the reason of that is because we have, like we
know what the word ideological subversion is. We know about uri Besmanov sitting down
with g EDERG. Griffin in nineteen eighty four talking to us about the way
in which the KGB and the Soviet Union influenced ideological subversion cultural demoralization here in
the United States. And so we're aware of how this thing works. And
even though someone like a Uribezmanov was able to put into a nicely packed four
point process of how ideological subversion works, that's more for our understanding. The
reality is it doesn't actually quite work out in exactly those four stages. It's
kind of zigzag in the way that it truly works. We learn because we
are all educated by the same mass compulsor very public school education system. We
understand everything in phases and bullet points, and this is the way that we
understand things. And so part of Yuri's genius is that he understands the way
that we were educated in the West, and so he gave us a framework
to understand how ideological subversion works. But the reality is, when the rubber
hits the road, it's more zig zag and more kind of fluid in reality.
So we don't know at a given time whether they're in a stage of
normalization or crisis, or destabilization or demoralization. Sometimes all these things are happening
simultaneously, but they're happening nonetheless, the point being to make the public think
that everything is happening in a vacuum, or everything's organic, there's no hidden
hand behind whatever is going on at a given time. And then along comes
some bright, smiling politicians saying that he has the answers if you would only
vote for him or support his policy for the sake of safety and security.
We end up pulling the lever for that politician, not realizing that the whole
time, the whole point was to empower the federal government all the more at
the expense of the rights and the freedoms of the American people. So this
thing continues to happen over and over again, and I think politicians in the
expert class today are working simultaneously to that end. And so that's the sophistication
of it all, which and entertainment. And you add that element of entertainment
as well, which has never been as accessible like technology allowed entertainment and high
production value to be ubiquitous such that we can have a show like this.
I mean, imagine this panel right now this show this quality. You know,
forty years ago it would be like what the hell do you? Who
do you know? But now everybody has that, and so I would yeah,
everything you said, Chad, but add in the technological aspect that you
know, actually kind of adds to the confusion in a sense. But it
also allows us to seek out alternative views and information so that we can it's
like a it's like a double edged sword, like you know, you open
it up to everybody, so you get more garbage. Like YouTube there's gonna
be eighty five percent garbage. What's the parido principal? Eighty twenty and then
and then what you know, you have to find out the truth of the
matter. But we're you know, some people say we're even in post truth.
So like people don't even care that it's fake. You see this with
AI stuff, You go, that's an AI influencer. The person goes,
I don't care. They're filling this thing, this thing that I need,
And that's that's the that's the value. The value isn't that it's real or
breathing or authentic or has a soul or you know, it's this other thing.
And I think that's true for politics, at some level where if the
if the character fits and they say all the right lines, I think there's
enough metadata they have access that you say X, you could probably predict a
movement to the right or to the left to some extent. I'm not saying
there's like there's an effective wizard of oz who really can do it all,
I think, and it ends up being quite a mess. Right, So
I'm not that big of a conspirat hard but I'm a little bit like I
earned a helmet, but I'm not that bad, right, I agree.
I think Chad is definitely right on the money. And I liked your point
made by Jimbob. You talked about control over the culture, and you know,
I'll be first to admit, like I'm very white pilled right, Like
I very much like am an optimist and see a lot of good things in
our future. Maybe short term pessimistic, long term optimistic, because I'll say
this, like when you think about the Hollywood system and how it used to
be so much easier to control the media and the message. Right, there
have been sort of you know, information revolutions that have been occurring. You
know, in our lifetime, there have been several information revolutions, not just
because of the medium with which how we're able to spread information, but what
we can all how we can also broadcast information and who is considered to be
credible in terms of public information. Right when I was a child, there
were you know what five six networks, how many you know five or six
news you know shows, and only one Walter Cronkite was like the most credible
person in reporting. And even with the Pareto principle, if like there's twenty
percent good information eighty percent bad, right, that's still that's a low you
know, noise to signal to noise ratio there. But the at least the
tools are available for people like us to get the information. I mean,
we are in some sense the elites because we are seeking out that information.
And you are, you know, you able to control three hundred and twenty
people who are going to listen to this show live as what I think of
the numbers are. It used to be that when we had four or five
channels, a million people were watch a show and that was that barely ever
exists anywhere except online in the means, if you get a million people on
live, like you're talking about breaking like a stream or something like that.
It does happen like you get close. But mostly what we see with like
the biggest information streamers now like Dan Bongino, I think he got like eight
hundred nine hundred thousand people watching live at some point and it was like the
biggest stream in all of history ever and that was just recently. So there
has been a power change. Can corporations and and you know, near do
Wells come in and control their voice and you know, yes, sure,
but I mean the mob is even more powerful now than it used to be.
The mob has more tools to uncover corruption. I mean, how many
times are we saying I mean Sam Bankman Fried and FDx and the fraud that
was uncovered at FDx was uncovered pretty damn fast. Bernie made off. I
think it took them like over a decade to reveal his fraud Enron for example,
Like every thing is speeding up now, I mean, including the speed
of the scams, but also the justice that's occurred because leoks. Be honest,
we frequently do not get justice from our justice system, which is why
you see you know sometimes unfortunately cancel culture mobs that will destroy a person unjustly,
but because there's such a desire for people to know the truth about the
people who are spreading information, find out who they're connected to. You do
get justice, you do find out, you know, people who are public
figures that are pedophiles, a lot faster than you would have found out years
ago. People might have gone their whole lives and you didn't know that they
had these associations, either to Jeffrey Epstein or God. You could probably find
a dozen people in the media that you know, you don't know their names,
but they had a small following and they got busted talking to a twelve
year old girl at a park because you know, some kid with a cell
phone was able to go out and record them and capture them and play the
role of what used to be the was the to catch a predator. Now
everybody's to catch a predator, right, So well, that's what the that's
what the policing would be in the smart cities. It would just be like
a mob of bees ready to sting someone, right, maybe unjustly the well
smart city will mandate that you meet your pedo quota every yeah, yeah,
right, graiger than that. But so there's a positive side to this,
which is true which is that we're at this inflection point where there's a massive
war going on with controlling the voices, controlling the reach of stuff. I've
dealt with this for since twenty sixteen, got my whole website deleted. You
know, it's it's a nightmare to to fight. But also at the same
time, we're at a point where we're starting to have some victories. And
it's not just in like alternative media and speaking about these kinds of issues.
I mean, it's other areas as well, like Kat Williams talking about comedy
being a gate you know, there's a bunch of comedians out there and ain't
never been and funny, by the way, put into your face every day
like they trying right, no, right, and they're not. And the
establishment has been doing that. There's even like non establishment people still trying to
gatekeep and I don't know if you guys have seen this, but you know,
one of the biggest things on YouTube is comedy. And there's this whole
fracas in the last year on YouTube of people pointing out it actually started with
Amy Schumer and people pointing out that she was foisted on everyone and she's not
funny. Then it came. Then it became Brendan's jab and everybody being forced
to supposedly, you're supposed to like Brennan's jab, and he threatened people that
were making fun of his his stand up, and so it's like people are
not understanding the way the internet works. You can't threaten your audience to not
people laugh. It's just crazy. So there's this revolution that's happening Elon with
X. I mean, whatever you think of Elon, I mean, certainly
there's areas to be critical, but just in the issue of being able to
have a little bit more free speech and make Twitter like the Internet was in
twenty fourteen has been very good for me. My Twitter has grown well in
the last year. So there are positives of our pluses. But I think
if we zoom out at the metal level and we think about this, I
still just like I'm worried that the Internet itself was given to us by the
public private corporate partnership of the Deep State and the Pentagon. I don't think
it was given to us for freedom and liberty and libertarian values. I think
that it's there ultimately, I mean I wish I want it to not be.
I hope it's not going to be bad. There's a lot of positives
on pro bitcoin and pro you know, all of these things. But I'm
also worried that it will have the effect of degrading society to the point where
the future generations gen Z and younger are going to actually be that blob of
people who don't have any critical thinking skills and will be raised in a smart
city and will be he populated. I think that's the danger. And I
don't know what the answers are. I mean, I think there are some
things that we can do. I don't have any big scale solution to everything,
but but I mean, I'm just worried that the internet itself is also
contributing to the decline. I don't know. And also in regard to your
revestment of I mean, he's a great example of why I don't think the
libertarian ethos itself is the answer. I think it has a lot of good
points and the good good critiques of the state, But if you look at
your REVESTMENTOV, I mean, for one, everything that he says when he
defected is what the CIA wanted him to say. So that's why you find
if you watch the full lectures. He goes on to talk about how we
have to we have to liberate the Eastern Europeans who are being oppressed because they
can't have the butt sex, and we must give them the freedom of all
the liberties of the gay and it's like, wait a minute, So he's
just another kind of tool, you know, voicing what the CIA wanted in
the Cold War, and we're actually doing the very things right now that Uri
said. So I don't know why people if people have a problem with what's
happening in Ukraine. I mean, Uri said, we need to liberate these
people so that they can have you know, skittles, weddings and whatnot.
So again, it's just liberty. I mean, yeah, he says some
good things, but it wasn't the KGB that was running these operations in the
Cold War. It was the Fortune one hundred, Fortune five hundred running those
operations demoralized in America, not the KGB. And the CEOs of the Fortune
five hundred were not KGB agent. Okay, well, just you know,
maybe maybe your Abezmanov was a liar, right, so it's possible that he
was also full of shit, right because he was a Soviet. So just
remember that it's possible that your a Bezmanov was telling us, well, we
you know, we the anti establishment. Why we the revolutionaries, right,
we who are the anti Hillary Clinton's, the anti Mitt Romneys of the world.
You know, whatever you consider yourself to be, if you're not a
libertarian, right, we're on this side, and right and met Romney and
Hillary Clinton and everybody else is on the others. But just because Yury Besbanov
told us a few things that we wanted to hear, it doesn't mean that
we ought to take Ury Besmanov as the gospel truth. Like, it's possible
to think that Hillary Clinton is a fraud and Vladimir Putin is a murderous killer,
right, Like, you don't have to buy into either narratives. And
my favorite, actually, my favorite former Soviet who I don't trust completely is
a guy by the name of Mitroschkin, who was a former KGB general who
defected to the United States, and he had a whole treasure trove of not
just conspiracy theories that he brought with him, but actual conspiracies that intelligence agencies
overseas had perpetrated upon the American public. Americans love conspiracy theories and the Soviets
knew that, and they know that if you wanted to have power over the
American people, the best way is to spread conspiracy theories because we love it,
mostly because we're so prosperous and wealthy compared to the rest of the world
that our wives, who are bored at home, or at least were in
the nineteen fifties and the Cold War until the eighties, they love conspiracy theories.
The board Housewives, man, you see them on Twitter now because now
they have social media and they're out there spreading the nine to eleven inside job.
Oswald didn't shoot alone from that, They've got nothing better to do with
their lives than spread Soviet horseshit on Liot Believe because and the deep State loves
it because it keeps us retarded and arguing over things like an assassination from the
nineteen sixties and whether it's important that there was somebody on a grassy knoll or
not, instead of fighting about the fight that's happening right now. So like
foreign intelligence agencies are just as as guilty as spreading horseshit conspiracy theories that Americans
love and believe because we are believers, man, We love to believe in
conspiracy. But don't you think that when somebody defects, they're going to they're
going to put out what we didn't let me? Haven't you let me finish?
Yet? You don't know what I want to say? Yeah, you
don't think that they're going to say what their new masters want. No.
I think they're going to say whatever is going to make sure that they get
the champagne and the Coca cola flowing, and it's going to get them,
and that would be what the c wants. Right. Perhaps, maybe maybe,
but just you know, just because the CIA says something doesn't mean it's
wrong. You know, Ana Hitler drank water, right, so the truth
to be true, you're a fallacy, which I didn't argue. I wouldn't
argue that. My point is is that your a vestment off. Some of
what he said was ostensibly true, and some of what he said I think
was ostensibly false. Right, So you gotta be careful, especially when we
talking about Soviet defectors, because a lot of those people they weren't necessarily defectors.
They were still working on the side of the Soviets. Some of them
were double Okay, I understand people have that theory, but let me give
you an example. So again he says that one of the things that has
to happen is that we have to support the efforts of the West and the
CIA and the Cold War because of the fact that there's a lot of oppressed
people on the other side of the Iron Curtain, in the Eastern Bloc countries
who don't have access to coke, pepsi and gay marriage. So what I'm
saying is that that is the CIA's line during the Cold War. They adopted
through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the liberal policy of social ethics and liberal
art ideas. That's why they funded modern art, abstract art, all of
that. So if you understand the dominance of the CIA in American pop culture
from the nineteen sixties all the way up into the nineteen eighties, that look
smart Jay, that worked, right, that was effective. I mean you're
making the CIA's point for them. I mean, they funded jazz artists,
they funded American artists and work it and it worked. I mean, job,
the CD, the c i A aren't necessarily ideologues, right, They
don't necessarily operate on an ideological fashion like you do. Right. Their their
mission changes based on the administration that controls them. The mission is the mission
of the narrative in the nineteen fifties, it's kill Castro and kill It's not
the same mission as the CIAM narrative of what the CIA is and what they
know. Jay, you've been drinking. You've been drinking a lot of kool
aid yourself. It sounds like you want to believe that. You want to
believe the alternative mainstream narratives that agree with you completely entirely. And it's possible
that maybe the mainstream narrative is horseship drinking cool and specifically ship that comes out
of Info Wars on a daily basis, because you want to sell us Dick
pills and the establishment wants to sell us Dick no arguments whether I buy you're
going to whether I buy my Dick pills from Pfizer, or whether you don't
have an actual do you have actual debate or you want to go into Dick
bill ship. I'm that that you are just you are not immune to the
same corruption that the establishment is engaged in, because against the establishment, you
can still spread the same horseship. You're a Bezmanov. That doesn't prove that
I've actually done that. A non can wait. So I've actually done that
by saying that it's possible for someone to spread misinformation, that's not an argument.
Do you do you have you think? Do you think misinformation? Yeah?
Do you think Jay through I guess through info? Wors? Are you
saying that he's he's part of a disinfo thing or that it's just possible?
I know I'm saying that, you know, building on my point from people
who are bored tend to believe in conspiracy theories, that what your a bezmanofs
spread here in the United States may not have been the high truth, and
that things like that. Just because the CIA says something doesn't mean that it's
wrong. They may say something that's true on one day. They sent me
this a lot, but their job isn't made an argument. Yeah, it's
all strong men, none of those. I'm not talking about your argument.
How can I strang man my own argument. I'm only saying you're not addressing
my argument. Then, okay, well I didn't hear a question. They
may have cut out, So did you ask a question? No, a
question is not an argument, So not addressing the arguments I made, then
there was no reason to go to Dicktills and this would you like me to
what would you like me to address? Jay, Well, let's go back
to the CIA in the Cold War. You said it was effective, and
I didn't. I didn't question whether it was effective or not. My point
was that they adopted and utilized the arts and the principles of degeneracy as a
form of cultural warfare. Don't give a ship. I don't give a about
your degeneracy like I don't sit around. That's why I don't care like I'm
not. You don't care that I'm not. I don't thinking about butt sex
all the time. Bro, I'm not obsessed with, but care about you
are obsessed with. But made my point you you can't stop thinking about it,
and and it's your it's your primary goal in life. It's just I
don't identify with that. Hold on a second, Hold on, Hold on
a second, Jay, Hold on Austin. If what we're talking about is
cultural and ideological subversion, right, yes? Would you say you just that
doesn't care? Right? Well? Do you get what about what I'm in
favor of? Cout cultural and ideological subversion? I'm we're engaging in it right
now. We want to subvert the culture. Who wants to We don't want
to keep the culture the same. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a
conservative. I'm a revolutionary. I want revolution. Wait, hold on,
hold on, hold on, hold on a second, I'm almost done.
Don't get it, don't get it twisted here. I don't want an old
world order. I want a new world order. I want things to be
changed. I don't want things to be how they were. I want bitcoin.
I want monetary reform. I want to end the Federal Reserve. I
want to see Hillary Clinton in jail. I want to see Donald Trump be
president. I want to see I want to see a revolution. I want
to see things get shaken up because I don't want things to be the same.
I don't have that. I don't want to know a worldview. All
you have is subjective libertarian pleasure principle. Okay, well you know the things
you made up your head is your fast moral principle. But mine is completely
subjective. But yours is completely objective, literally just based on something in based
in fast in reality. That's why you don't even know what a fallacy is.
You've made multiple fallacies already in this discussion okay, because you separate subjective
argumentation from objective So, Austin, I want to ask you if if cultural
subversion, if you're for it, you're not for every version of it?
Right? No, I'm okay. What's the basis for ethics here? Oh
god, please, I'm not going a key and ethics. I'm not going
to get into like ancient Greece and and uh marcus right, I'm not going
to sit down. I'm not going to sit down stoicism. And you're making
arguments that we need to adopt this. Dude, can you answer this or
not? Right? And then you're saying I want n and ethics, but
I don't want to answer for what it means to go to ancient Greek ethics.
That is no, I don't because I think that ship's boring, bro,
And I don't care that you think it's boring. I need a basis.
If you don't think that I have a fixed moral principle in the standard,
that's fine. We won't agree on that. I want to know the
argument for it. Let's talk about what people give a shit about. Nobody
cares about an everybody in the audience cares about it because you came with a
moral they do not. You can't justify, yes they do. The object
of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding one the ranks of the insane. Marcus. There there's the base.
Read memes, Marcus. I'm reading Marcus Aurelius. Hold on, hold
on stoic ethics exactly. So it's something I didn't hear. You say,
why should we accept stoic ethics? Oh my god, All right, listen.
You don't want answer it because I think it's a pointless discussion. That's
j J. Hold on. Let me ask you different, Let me ask
you, Let me ask a different way. Is there any Is there any
degeneracy that you point to that we ought not pursue in society? Are you
asking me? Yeah? Does the term degeneracy mean anything to you at all?
Yeah? To to some extent, we probably wouldn't share the same definition
of what and what defines what makes it what you degenerate? Right, so
to to so the actual literal definition of digit to have to have a pod,
which you have degenerate. But I'm not like Jay Dinalds, sit around
worrying about the butt sex, right, it's not it's not the top of
my concerns for you got to stop them from Okay, wait, let me
j j. Let me take it one step at a time. Here are
is the current culture that I called degeneracy and Jado's as well. Are they
pushing that on children? Yes? And as yes, and listen and as
a man who got booed when I ran for president for saying you should not
be allowed to sell drugs to children, I can tell you that there are
moral standards and principy you do not cross. And are they so so?
So there are? There are absolutely some moral standards and are they stuff?
But but I draw the line at children? What you want to answer?
Answered? I just answered, I draw the line at children? What are
they? What are the standards? I draw the line children your personal opinion
what the standard is. But consenting adults are a different matter. So it
is debate being this. Listen, you're being arbitrary. You understand in philosophy
you can't be arbitrary. Yes, I can't all I can do whatever the
funk I want. It's a free country debate. I want to be arbitr
debate whatever. You just lost the debate by saying I could do whatever I
want in the debate. Yes, of course I can. Of course I
could do it. This isn't format, you know. Jim Bobby even said,
do whatever you want. It's not a it's not a hard debate format.
So I can do whatever I want. I can say whatever I like.
I don't even understand that doing it doesn't mean that you're I'm talking about
following the laws of debate, the laws of logic. You think you can
commit fallacies and the arguments are still good? Okay, mister Uri back is
minov is. Everything has the same mission from the nineteen fifties until today,
right, Austin Alston, let me hold on, hold on. J Jay
can make it up on the spot, but I have to hold on.
I'm amuse. I'm gonna mute. I'm gonna mute both you hold on a
second. I have a question. I'm gonna bring it back on the on
tracks in a way that still follows the where this is going. You,
Austin, you do appeal your foundation? Would you say is based on rights?
Am I unmuted? Okay? Yes? Yeah? Rights? Yeah,
okay? And so from your view, is it fair to ask what what
these rights are? Oh? Of course it is okay, So what are
what are rights? From? From your view here, all right, would
you agree that a right? Would you'd agree with the definition that a right
is an entitlement absent to duty. Uh? Yes, that's that's a pretty
close to the technical definition of what our right is a right? Like,
the simplest way to explain it is that as a right is a guarantee.
Okay, So if a right is an entitlement absent of duty. From your
view, when you say, well, I have a concept of degenerate right,
there's some degeneration of something. So there's a positive thing that's unraveling.
Let's call it a fabric. Right. So let's say from all of our
views, there's a fabric and when we see that fabric unraveling, we call
it degenerate. We call it degeneration. Right, that's a clearer visual way
to say it. So my question is, if a right is a is
an entitlement absent duty, where do you get the duty to defend rights from?
Where do you get the duty to defend these rights from? Yeah?
So could you rephrase your question in a different way? Why give hold on
hold on? Yes? Because it's it's low I Q to want to understand
it's okay, it's okay, hold on, what why Basically if a right,
if the thing you're defending is the rights, which is an entitlement,
apps and a duty, I want to it entails that a duties somewhere in
there right entangled. And I'm asking, like, what is the what's from
your view from a libertarian view, what actually grounds that we ought to defend
rights if they are in fact just entitlements absent the duty? By definition?
Well, not everybody, not everybody has to defend rights. Very few people
actually do, right, It's usually a very small people group of people that
end up defending rights overall. So, I mean, you know, are
you asking why every person should have to acknowledge or let's say, let's say
acknowledge then asking a tactical question here? How about philosophical question? How about
how about how about acknowledge instead of defend? Well, uh, a duty
to acknowledge that that that they have. I mean, it depends, right,
like, not everybody has a capacity to do that, right. That's
why the rights exist to an extent to protect the liberty of people who don't
even necessarily have the capacity to acknowledge it, like children for example right or
the mentally deficient right, the mentally insane right. Those people have rights even
if they don't you know, can't acknowledge that they have those rights. They
still just like the unborn, the unborn in the womb, they can't acknowledge
that they have rights. But they what they do have rights, they can't
acknowledge they have a duty to protect those rights. So we do that on
their behalf through a constitutional government. Okay, So if someone who doesn't have
the capacity to know that they have these concept of rights and they don't have
the capability of acting out the duty right, that doesn't that's not embedded in
the rights. By the way, the duty is added. I'm asking if
if granting someone rights that they can't actually act on in a way, you
you can violate their rights because they don't have the capacity to act on them.
Right, happens every day, But you should obviously, you know.
I mean, like you know, I think abortion is a crime and a
crime against the rights of an individual. That person can't speak out on behalf
of their own rights. So you have a person who speaks out for them
as an intermediary. But I mean most people, most people do not acknowledge
or or have a respect for a one right or second j J. Let
me finish this one last thing. So my question is if Jay and I
agree that someone who's walking around the street sort of not fully naked but almost
and it's you know, from your view, it's their liberty. They didn't
steal anything, they didn't violate anyone else's rights, and they didn't take you
know, any anybody's stuff or whatever. From our view, we have a
duty to actually violate their autonomy right and from our perspective take care of them.
In a sense, now, taking care of such a person is actually
a violation of the rights from your view. And that's why I ask from
a this is why I fundamentally reject libertarianism, having gone through a phase of
it, is that if rights are are just privileges absent duty, you self
have to ground the duty part. And that's why Jay's asking about the ethics,
because the ought claim that we ought to acknowledge rights is separate from the
rights itself. Right, So uh, from my view, it all comes
down to duties. And the problem with libertarianism is if you value liberty above
all things. Liberty is a description of what is right. It doesn't tell
us what we ought to do with liberty. It doesn't tell us when we
should violate liberty or when we shouldn't violate liberty. It just gives you a
baseline the beauty of it, right, I mean, isn't that sort of
theist? Does san Francisco look beautiful? Are telling using San Francisco as an
example of libertarianism? Right? No? No, liberty, just liberty because
it does. It's because like San Francisco is like the worst example. How
about burning Man? How about burning Man? Well, burning Man, that's
better, right, much much better, much more environment better than San Francisco.
At least they clean up after themselves, right right. But it's but
still again like that you ask yourself, I guess what I'm trying to understand
here is like, are you saying that people don't have rights? Yeah?
I'm actually saying they don't have RIGHTO? I actually okay that that I did
not know, so I was not aware that you do not believe that people
did. Yeah, I think there are. I think they are a social
construct that are left with what two things force, whatever the force is,
and to whatever the uh the standard of ethics is. That's being imposed,
and and and we already all agree that rights as you even say them,
actually not everyone gets them, because you can violate them to do certain things.
You can stop people from doing certain things based on their situation. So
the problem is it's the duties. I think my belief is that only duties
exist. And if rights are privileges absent duties, you still need duties to
exist. And from the libertarian principle, the only imperative is to seek freedom,
and to look at liberty or freedom as an end goal is to say,
is to look at efficiency as the end goal. Well, efficiency is
a description toward a goal, but it can't be the end goal, just
like liberty can't be the end goal. It's actually a start point if anything.
And that's why ought claims like Jay's pointing to the ethics, the meta
ethics, which I didn't really want to get into. It bores the shit
out of everyone except for me and maybe Jay and maybe Chad. He has
a pipe, so it probably doesn't board Chad. But it isn't important because
if you organize a society around libertarianism, you're actually entailing that there is a
meta ethical principle that you ought to follow. And when you say something is
degenerate, you're actually assuming there's a positive in which being torn apart, and
we just don't know what that positive is that fabric that's being torn apart.
Okay, I don't know that necessarily, other than the idea that we don't
have rights, I'm not sure that what you and I are saying is saying
is necessarily in conflict some of what you're asked. You're saying there is a
utilitarian claim, right, You're you're stating that, you know, if a
society existed around these fundamental ideals, So it does beg the question of,
you know, whether or not that society, if it were to come into
creation, would be able to fundamentally create moral goods that then could potentially be
degenerated. You know, if degeneracy were introduced into that system, Right would
the what would that degeneracy be? And how would that system be degraded through
that degeneracy or that moral decline? So it seems that, you know,
it doesn't sound like I'm disagreeing with much of what you're saying. Otherwise,
well, other than the concept that individuals, you know, how don't.
No, this is this is where we disagree, is that when you go
after jay about like the butt stuff, is that what the culture that we're
seeing right in the West and other developed nations is that there is a clear,
deliberate pushing of certain behaviors, in this case sexual. They're not just
sexual. There's there's drug behaviors being pushed. There's a lot of behaviors,
but that specific thing is actually directed pretty much directly, explicitly towards children.
And so what we're saying is that if San Francisco metaph I mean, like
when I confronted you on the San Francisco example, I mean like you don't
believe San Francisco is an example of a libertarian city, right, No,
No, I didn't use libertarian, but but it's liberty based. It's liberty.
It's based on the concept that liberty about because there's no self evident definition
of what liberty actually is or what your position actually is. You yourself said
it was subjective. And that's why I asked you, why do you think
that ballacies are able to be done in a debate? Do you not think
that a debate is governed by the rules of logic and critical thinking? Well,
I never said that that the definition of liberty was necessarily subjective. So
talking about straw mans, I never said I asked you what it was.
You said, oh oh, you asked me. You asked me for where
my moral standards came from. You didn't ask me what my objective defina.
I don't think liberty is. Is that not a value judgment? It is
a value judgment. But I never said it was subjective. So you can
you know, you can disagree with me, but please put those things are
subjective. I asked you about value judgments? Are you? Are you asking
about about value judgments now? I asked you then, and I'm asking you
now, okay, So what about value judgments? Are you asking me specific?
Where do you get the standard? Because if you're going to say there's
aughts, you gotta have a basis for the standard. Okay? Is it
okay? Is it okay? Do I have to have one standard like you
do? Or am I allowed to use multiple? Understand what? It doesn't
even means? I'm not like you, guys, I don't. I don't.
I am not a social conservative, okay. So I do not conform
to an an inherently monotheistic view of society that bases all value judgments on one
single standard handed down to me from on high. I don't have. I
don't have understand he doesn't know. I'm not No, I'm not a postmodernist.
No and no and no. I do not agree with the wokies that
there is no such thing as objective truth. Okay, so, but I
don't believe in one one truth handed down for you. You do. I
don't know as you do. I believe in amalgam. I believe in what's
called triangulation. What's the one thing? Hold on, awesome, you said
something false, you gotta be corrected. There is one truth. There is
one truth that you rested on. I do not believe in one metaphysical Yes
you do, Yes, you do, Yes, you do? You understand
that the only way that the only way that that the only listen, Jay,
I don't call you like basement dwelling retard that looks like you smell bad
and you haven't taken a shower in a month. So if you could keep
the personal at least before you criticize, if you're gonna you should take a
shower, as I could smell you from here and how you look as there's
the copy more listen, you fucking retard. I'm speaking. Okay. There
is a concept to find what is true called triangulation, and what you do
is you don't even understand you have a Let me tell you that I doesn't
even understand that it's one. Let me let j let him go. Let
me. Let me explain to you how you find logic. You go out
and you find information. There's an information gathering you. You don't start with
a conclusion. That's not what you don't. You don't start with what's truth.
Hold on, Jay, hold on a second. Let me, let
me, let me just manage this. Austin, you said you don't you
don't stand on a single truth, right, a monolithic truth for your values.
And then you said that I do not believe the truth is handed down
to us from high as a revelation. I do not believe. I do
not believe a revealed truth. Okay, hold on, hold on how And
then you said you triangulate to see what's logical and true outside And I'm asking
you from both of those standards, right, from both of those statements,
that you don't get any revelation of what's true. You try angulate and you
use rationality and reason. Right, I'm asking you, Well, it seems
as though your foundation is actually rested on one solid brick that you assume before
you can look out in the world and find it, and it's called a
human right. Well, that's only one example amongst many. See. The
thing is is that if these concepts they work together, just like the construction
of a building, Right, you have to have one pillar and then the
next, and then you have to build it all on the foundation. Okay,
And so in order for us to determine, in my view, in
order to determine what is true, we have to go out we don't we
don't know what is true, and then go out and find facts to support
it. Where did you find rights and facts? We find facts and then
we put them together. Where did you find Where did you find? Where'd
you find rights? Where'd you find rights? Though? Then, if your
standard for epistemology and what's true is looking out and doing triangulation and reason,
I'm asking you, how did you come to the conclusion using that method that
rights exist? Well, here's the here's the thing. I'm willing to change
my mind if I'm wrong, But I drew this conclusion based on a litany
of literature that was convincing enough to me, and I would present to you
a whole body. I find that I find literature. What if we say,
well, that's what revelation is to us. So you still have a
problem in your method because you said your method is you don't start from your
conclusion and you go out and find things. So let's say you found literature,
right, I'm asking you what method did you determine to say that rights
exist? I'm not sure how you would possibly come to the conclusion by looking
to the external world that something like with that. Listen, Jim Bob,
I wrestle with that, right. I wrestle with that, just like I
wrestle with a lot of concepts. And you know, I absolutely could be
wrong. Uh. And you know you you could convince me that that what
I have divined from my education and my knowledge and limited experience, UH could
be incorrect. But I'll tell I can only show you what I have read
in regards to the natural law, in regards to you know, the treatises
of government John Locke, right, life, liberty, and property, I
can only show I can only point to those right because of me being a
being a secondhand purveyor of ideas. I can only show you those and say
this is what I believe to be true based on how closely it corresponds to
what I believe to be reality. And I ask you to believe it as
well, sure, based on whether or not you can. But but I
could be wrong. I'm willing I observe. What I observe in reality is
force winds, both in the animal kingdom and the human And so for me,
you mean this is the descriptive truth about reality in all animals and humans?
Is that force force winds? Do you disagree? I mean, like
you just mean in general, like one hundred percent of the time, it's
always there's always force ready to go, either looming or there's always forced Yeah,
yeah, I agree, And I mean, like, and so I
wrestle with that, and I'll tell you it's I think that you know,
it's it's difficult to live in a society where we can balance or to create
a society where there's a balance against those laws of nature. Right, So,
like, just to create a civilization, if we will, is to
sort of reject the fundamental root you mean appeal to you mean you mean appeal
to something supernatural right. What do you mean you have to reject You reject
the brute nature right for us to have dignity as human beings, right to
ground, the value of us being human beings, which is not identical to
your dog, is something not found in nature. So we don't find these
things. You know, rights assume dignity, right, but it also assumes
some sort of duty. And so if we both agree the descriptive truth in
premise one for the world is that force wins, and force is always in
action or it's looming at least, right, it's always looming. And so
if that's if that's the case, then would you agree that it actually wouldn't
be a right that informs our behavior, but rather a duty that would actually
give us how we ought right? Okay, So, so if the truth
of the matter is force winds and and that's the way of the land for
animals and humans, that there's something that intervenes that isn't necessarily an entitlement,
and would you say, if that entitlement even existed, which I don't believe
it does, you would still have to point to the duty in which tell
informs us how we should interact with each other. Not necessarily. I mean,
you're partially right. I mean I do think that like force wins in
nature outside of what man has created. But you know, they're you know,
cops, courts, you know, nuclear weapons, right, the instrumentation
of the state. Right. So since I'm not an anarchist and I do
believe in a limited government, then that means that I do believe in an
artificial third party, you know, interceding in order to ensure that force doesn't
always win. And I think the truth is is that it doesn't. Right.
The fact that no, hey, wait, wait, wait, I'm
almost done. The fact that Grandma you know, can safely go and get
groceries here in mid Missouri without having to worry about bands of highwaymen or theefs
because of yes, because of four. But that's introduced in a way to
ensure that that force doesn't always win in the threat of force. The threat
of force does the threat of force always wins? Yeah, if you want
to if you want to appeal to rights, all you're appealing to is an
agreement that you have an entitlement that ought not be violated, and if it
is, there's a consequence that is force. Right, And so force wins
is still descriptively true even in your system of rights. Now, what we're
pointing to is that's actually not good enough for a society that has any sort
of fundamental principles or good, a sense of a good, and these things
that you actually need to confront the problem that entitlements themselves actually just leads you
down a path like we're seeing today, where now you have modifiers for entitlements.
You have the gay entitlement, you have the this entitlement, the black
entitlement that you know whatever, and you just keep adding entitlements. Now,
notice how no entitlement that's ever given is ever paired with the duty. What
what grounds this duty that we ought to value or acknowledge entitlements at all?
And from your view, you can't ground it in the natural natural world.
It's nowhere found. And so the thing that actually makes us intervene as human
beings is the assumption that we're actually not just animals, we're not just a
part of nature. That something is in us that's bigger than that, and
it necessarily needs to be supernatural, because you can't find these things in nature,
And so we're asking you can I can be convinced I could be convinced
of that. Uh, and certainly I'd love to see your evidence for it,
and I'm willing evidence supernatural. Well, what's the evidence of a right?
I'm not listen. I'm not the one making claim super I'm not making
you did right. It is a supernatural everything that everything that I say can
I can point to and where is the right? And where is the right?
But you're the one making its right exists? Require extraordinary You're saying that
rights exist as makes sense that the rights exist, rights exist supernat Talking over,
do you believe that you could be wrong about your worldview? Are you
willing to admit that that your metaphysical claims could potentially be wrong? No,
because metaphysics needs to be No, because here's why, Austin, hold on,
hold on a second. Let's just go one, one thing at a
time. Uh, Austin, you said extraordinary claims require evidence. I simply
asked you. I'm telling you that a right is an claim, and I'm
asking you where the evidence. I'm telling you, Austin, as a as
an olive branch, you already believe in the supernatural. A right is meta
natural? Where is it? Where is it? Where is it, guys,
guys, because answer that someone who is telling you that, like a
basis of rights that's built on a found evidence, it's not the same thing.
What is it's claiming? Literally? Right? And audience, we don't
we're we're not even speaking of we're talking past each other. Are there evidence?
Rights? Claims the supernatural? And where's where's the right? Yeah,
but that doesn't mean that it's grounded. That's the point. Where's the right?
Though it's supernatural? Are not found in natural? Well? Where is
your thought? Do you have thoughts? Are they in your brains? Open
up your brain? You have great? We both agree that there's a thought?
Were good? Good? We reject we reject materialism? Do we both
not reject material materialism? Now? Right? No? I do not reject
material Okay, so where's the right? So where's the right? Then?
I like you? So you're saying concept which molecules make up? Or right?
Yeah? Tell us where right is? Well, listen, you'll have
to talk to a brain chemist listen to explain to you what the electrical chemistry
can tell you where a right is? Okay? All right, well listen
listen. You may have an actual or not. And I simply deny them
and say I don't see that that's the case. I'm willing to believe it.
How about take another example? How about take another example that you appeal
to. Are the laws of logic real? Do you believe they exist?
The laws of logic? Do I believe that they exist? Yes? Where?
Okay? So where do they exist? The laws of logic? Right?
Oh my god, Guys like you want to go on every time you
it's a fair question. You want to talk about debate? Right, so
how do the laws of you're asking? Does Socratic debate method work? Okay?
Now, no, that requires to explain to you like how to use
the Socratic method. And we're still please enlighten us like awestin debate like Austin
debate is not the same as the laws of logic. Debate presuppose the laws
of logic. We're asking you if I don't know why this is hard for
you to concede to. You appeal to things that are not found in nature,
that don't weigh or smell or you can't see them. Right, we
this isn't a big this isn't controversial. You appeal to things that are not
found as matter? Correct, No, you don't. Okay, So where
is a right found as matter? So right is a concept that arises from
matter? How does it arise from matter? Is it matter? Then you're
not a materialist. It is a it is. Just because something is a
concept doesn't mean that it's not material. Right is created from materials. Make
up a consonant material. Guys, this is not even an interesting conversation,
and I feel bad because you don't have an answer to you. He accused
me. Hold on. The thing that got this all salur was that he
accused me of foisting conspiracy theories. He doesn't even know what I talk about.
He just assumed that because I'm on info Wars, I foiced all the
conspiracy theories. Name one thing that I teach that's false, or one thing
I've said false about Mary Besmob. You said I just made it up.
Can you explain it? Because you immediately got salty over that. No justification
for those accusations. Okay, Well, so the question that I had for
Austin was, I mean, you you accuse Jay of building a straw man
if I'm not mistaken, but you then use a straw man to explain Jay's
view as being of wanting people not to have butt sex and basically policing people
as far as they're more and things are concerned. I guess my question for
you is like, how is your view not a postmodern view? If your
basis, if your argument isn't based on any kind of objective understanding of truth
and morality, if you are kind of adhering to this more fluid way of
thinking and of having your views changed by I guess the next smartest person in
the room, how is that not most? How is that not postmodern?
Well? I mean, I mean it's god man. I hope you're asking
that question legitimately, because postmodernism is to suggests that there is no objective truth.
I do believe that there is objective truth, but I don't necessarily claim
to know all of objective truth. I don't claim to know all of the
answers I only know of. Actually, I think I know very little in
regards to all of the potential of human knowledge. Most people know very little,
right, So, like the concept of knowledge itself is, we are
very very limited as humans with these meat brains of what we can actually have
a capacity to understand. So just because I just because I don't know it
all doesn't mean that I don't think there is an objective standard. I do.
And when I find those bits of truth along the way, those very
rare jewels in my search for knowledge, like I reveal them, I believe
and and will, I'm willing to have them challenged. I'm willing to have
them question. But I don't think you wait, I don't, I don't
don't immediately went as soon as I postmodernist. If you if you don't believe,
you like, it's not like, it's not Christian talks over that's you
can you can slander me in a moment, Chad, you it's not this
question. It's not theism versus postmodernism. Right, you don't have to be
a theist, you know, in order to not be a postmodernist. You
do, right, you can you can be You cannot be a postmodernist and
not necessarily believe that the objective truth is handed down knowledge logical. There are
plenty of secular There are plenty of secularists who do not accept the postmodernists a
fallacy? Do you even know what a fallacy is? Like? You just
appealed to a mass fallacy like mass like mass appeal? Do you know what
fallacies are, So he doesn't so awesome, do you? Would you say
that your views as it relates to morality and and things like that are more
humanist? Yes, okay, and what is a what's a fallacy? Here?
Let let Chad run this line? Let Chad run this line. Go
ahead, Chad, So, so break that down if you will. So,
so you're you you would be more humanist in your I guess moral worldview.
Yeah. I consider myself a secular humanist in the sense that I think
that the concerns of humanity and of material concerns things on this planet should be
the primary concern for humans and not that which is celestial. Right, So
that's and and that's how I would define you know, I wanted to immediately
go to the ad hominyms. Did you want to follow up with that?
Chad? You're not going to answer, so he's just ignore me because you
went to ad hominems first. You said you wanted to be challenged. You
don't want to be challenged, and I don't. I don't roll around in
the mud with pigs because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
So you want to be challenged when your challenge. You go to Ad HOMINYMS.
Why okay, So Chad, you're not going to answer is your question?
Then? And I don't want to. I don't want to put words
on your mos enlightened. Hold on, let I want to Chad hasn't talked
a lot. I actually want to see where he runs this. I want
to see where he runs like do you like if postmodernism like secularism and humanism
are intrinsically tied to postmodernism? How how aren't they? Well, I mean
an example in front of you. Right, So I believe that there are
objective moral standards and that truth is a real concept that exists, right,
But it's not ever changing. Now our knowledge and our understanding of it may
be changing, because when I say I think I know the truth, I
could be wrong and I'm willing to change my mind if you provide evidence that
contradicts my beliefs and my world where my understanding, or you provide facts that
contradict and you're able to effectively persuade me. But the truth was the truth
even if I didn't understand it. A postmodernist would say the truth changes or
I'm living my truth, and that's not what I'm saying hold on, but
hold on a second. You are saying that. And here's how, Because
if you're a materialist and truth and the logic and these things are material and
they come from a mechanism called the brain, then these are just kind of
like effects that come from a machine, right, And so those effects could
change. Like how could you say one group of molecules called the truth from
a brain is true and another group of molecules from another brain is false.
I don't know how you're gonna say the truth is incorrect. Yeah, but
that appeals to that appeals to the chemical reactions again to another brain. Right.
And so this is why materialism should be rejected wholesale because when you say,
well, Chad just said a truth, but that just came from his
brain. It's just an emergent property of a machine. And then you say,
well that's true for what you just said, right, Uh, Austin,
you have to say, yes, it is. How could it not
be? How could it not be? Well, you know, there's there's
a lot of complicated concepts in what you've said, right, and and so
you know there's a lot there's a lot to unpack there. But I don't
know that necessarily materialism is you know, requires one to believe in an unfixed
concept of what is true? Right I I I actually I believe the opposite
of that. So I do think that materialism and objective reality and objective truth
like they all exist within the same plane or the same spere. Let's go
to aesthetic. Let's go to aesthetics. That's good. Uh, hey,
this guy is not gonna answer any questions. There's no there's no point may
being being here early. So all right, thanks, thanks, appreciate.
Good luck with being a single gay man in an apartment with a lot of
books. Okay, well, good luck with obsessing over gay sex. You
smeg muss smelling retard, see you later. You don't even have good jokes,
at least if you're gonna make a good joke. I got hopefully,
I got a rebel tooth that you got tonight. A bath is an wash
your hair you shampooed. Drink the Florida drink the Florida water. I don't
forget to run the Florida the water. Don't let the C. I don't
let the C. I a chip mind control you? Anyways? Can we
please have a different Okay, awesome, Yeah, what is your reason for
saying something is more beautif