Speaker 1: We got Jay Dyer, we got Robert Taylor.
Speaker 2: And they will be engaging in a debate that has
a little bit of capitalism, has a little bit of communism,
but a lot of Masonic influence apparently. I want to
introduce our guys first, and then we'll talk about how
this debate came to be.
Speaker 1: Robert, how you doing.
Speaker 3: All well?
Speaker 1: All right? So you have a YouTube channel? Correct? Praxeology?
Speaker 3: I have a small YouTube channel. Yeah, you can find
it under practice girl.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool? And what's that about?
Speaker 4: Really?
Speaker 3: We teach the science of human action. It's a science
called praxeology.
Speaker 1: Awesome. And our man Jay Dyer, how you doing, Jay
doing great? How are you guys doing well?
Speaker 2: And most of you guys know Jay is the author
of Esoteric Hollywood. I got it right here. Let's pull
up the book real quick. This is one of my faves.
I really enjoyed Jay's book. Not only that, his girlfriend
Jamie has an incredible series that I'm a huge fan
of called Weird Stuff Magazine.
Speaker 1: I love it.
Speaker 2: I got the third one at my place, but here
are two of them. This is really really interesting stuff.
It's similar to Esoteric Hollywood. All the cool stuff that
you want to know. So let's get into it. How
did this start? Jay favorited a tweet that's had a
list of fake enemies. One of these fake enemies was communism.
And now Robert sees this tweet that Jay favorite it,
and he called him a communist.
Speaker 1: And Jay disagrees with that.
Speaker 2: Jay believes that communism sucks, but he really believes that
there is a Masonic and by that we mean Freemason
influence in both communism and capitalism. So Jay, can you
tell us who are the Freemasons, what are their goals
and what role do they play influencing these economic systems.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Freemasonry is a secret society that comes out of
the Late Middle Ages that formed actually originally as Catholic
worker guilds, so it was actually a worker's movement, ironically,
but they had a very Catholic and theological bent. Over time, however,
and around the late fourteen hundreds mid fifteen hundreds, it
became a secret society that was focused on something more esoteric,
so that they became what's called speculative Freemasons and no
longer just a guild of stone mason stone cutters. So
they did have a trade secret that they passed on,
you know, stone mason cutting and so forth. But they
also eventually became a tool for larger government structures to
pass along secrets, to do espionage, to infiltrate other countries,
and basically just spread ideologies. So over time this became
known as what we now think of as freemasonry, as
an international order supposedly dedicated to things like the betterment
of society and the bettering of individuals morally. For a
long time, of course, it was a strictly men's only movement,
but eventually it became centered in London, so it became
an extension of the British Empire.
Speaker 3: I have books here.
Speaker 5: Sitting next to me that will detail the history of
Freemasonry as a tool of the British Empire, not from
a conspiracy advantage point, but from a strictly academic historian
vantage point. So that secret society eventually became a tool
for all kinds of different methods of espionage, as I said,
and such are huge. So I'm not saying that every
single Freemason knows everything about this, or that they have
all the secrets so that they run everything in the world.
Not saying that at all I am saying, however, that
especially after the French Revolution, they were successful as an
organization globally in dethroning most monarchs in the world and
installing democratic republics. And so one of my focuses Focais
in grad school was the French Revolution. And my theory,
which is not just my theory but a lot of historians,
is that the French Revolution was at merchant and banker
revolution and so essentially being fostered by the free Masonic lodges.
There in France. You got two strands of Masonry of
revolutionary thought that come out of this. This is known
as the Jacobins and the Garandins. The Jacobins are the
more radical, the more French Grand Orient Lodge, Italian Grand
Orient Lodge, the P two Lodge more radical. This is
why the French Jacobins were illuminists explicitly and total communists.
This is why they murdered millions of people with the guillotine,
the Committee of Public Safety, tens of thousands of people,
They ransacked the churches, tried to basically destroy the country
under straight up communism. So they actually held the literal
Adam weisshopped illuminist doctrine. In the US, it became a
different flavor of evolutionary thought. It was revolutionary capitalism. And
revolutionary capitalism had other forbears. In England David or in
Europe David, Ricardo Hume, Pain, a lot of the Enlightenment thinkers,
lass a fair John Locke, eventually Jefferson right.
Speaker 3: Jefferson borrows a.
Speaker 5: Lot from Locke, and that right wing revolutionary tradition in
ways is more healthy obviously than the outright just women
wearing beards and like raising giant dildos in the middle
of the city square and burning all the churches down
and cutting everybody's heads off in a giant blood orgy.
So revolutionary capitalism a little more restrained at least, believes
in things like private property rights to self defense. Generally speaking,
these kinds of things follow along with capitalism. But what
is interesting and what what I disagree with, and I'll
be done here in a second, is firstly that that
it is itself automatically true as a system or a thought.
That I'm sure that's what Robert's going to argue, That
it's the philosophically absolute way of studying human interaction with
praxeology Not only do I reject that, I reject the
whole foundations upon which modern capitalism is built, namely materialism
and all of the Enlightenment values except for, you know,
a couple things like obviously we shouldn't be superstitious. Obviously
I have a high view of reason and sciences. But
the rest of the Enlightenment, and it's a tendent revolutionary thought,
I absolutely reject one percent. So I'm not here to
defend communism. I'm here to defend pre modern forms of
organic and traditional ways of living. Now that doesn't comport
well with modernity, granted, and that's because we live in
a globalist society, a globalism which has been fostered by
global capitalism. So when I look at the Cold War,
when I look at communism, I do see an enemy,
but I see an enemy that, at Professor Anthony Sutton
and Professor Carol quickly pointed out, was fostered by the
banking and corporate elites of the West. I see a
foe enemy put into power by Western power, banking and
money power to create a Cold War dialectic, as the
Big Nibrazinski himself said, So, I see.
Speaker 3: That as a managed dialectic.
Speaker 5: I don't believe that there were no bad Communists, that
there are no evil dictators or tyrants.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: As an Orthodox Christian, obviously I believe there were tens
sixty you know, tens of million, sixty million at least
Orthodox Christians murdered in Russia by the Bolsheviks. However, the
Bolsheviks were put in power by powerful Western bankers, right,
and the banking elite and the corporate elite of the
West pretty consistently throughout the Soviet regime after the Bolsheviks
and even into Stalin, they aided in the building up
of that regime. Now, why would all these capitalists be
supporting all of these communists and Marxists. And this is
a question that kind of.
Speaker 3: It puzzles a lot of people.
Speaker 5: But when you read quickly, when you read The Big Geostrategist,
the meta level of these things, when you read Professor
Anthony Sutton, it's not a mystery. When you read David
Rockefeller's own memoirs, we know why he went to China
and set up the first bank in communist China, Chase Bank.
It wasn't because he was a committed capitalist. It's because
he loved the idea of Marxism concentrating and centralizing wealth
so that he is a monopoly capitalist could come in
and hoard it. It's a scam and it's the same
thing that happened in Mao's China. So when David Rockefeller
writes in nineteen seventy three the New York Times Editorial
from a China Traveler, and he says Mao is the
ideal for government, he is himself admitting this very principle
that I'm talking about. As well as Yale Magazine's archives
that I've posted on Twitter Twitter. The ancient, the not ancient,
you know, back of the time of Mao coming to
Yale is who supported Mount the Skull and Bones Society
out of Yale, is who put malto power into power.
And we have the CIA even declassifying that it was
Bill Donovan himself, the founder of the OSS, with British intelligence,
who trained all of Mal's guerrillas.
Speaker 3: Now why would that be. Is it just to fight
the fascists?
Speaker 5: No, it's because communism and socialism most of the time
serve a very specific goal for certain power elites, usually
the most wealthy foundations to think tanks and families on
the planet. And the way that I link that to
freemasonry is that there's no disputing it's not a conspiracy
theory that in the last three hundred years of Western
civilization Freemasonry has functioned as a revolutionary force. And it
doesn't matter whether it's the right wing revolutionaries of Franklin
or Jefferson or any of these characters who want private
property and Franklin wants to fuck all these Grandmas, right,
that's what he was into, or whether it's Adam Weishatt
and gissepie Mazzini and the Grand orient revolutionaries who want
to make everybody into social justice where your trainees.
Speaker 3: These are just two arms of the same bird.
Speaker 5: So I'm all four talking about the stupidity of American
dialectical politics. I just take it way back further than
American twentieth century GOP democrat crap. It goes all the
way back to the French Revolution and earlier. And this
is my concluding point on this is that the chief,
the strongest argument for this point is that it's all
ultimately based around usury. Usury is the most destructive force
in wrecking societies, because, as Dante himself noticed a long
time ago, I'm not saying this makes Dante that this
makes it true, but he noticed that anytime you had
the usurers coming into power and running things from the background,
your society turned into a giant sodom and gomorrah. And
so he links sodomy and usury because it creates a
rapacious parasitical class. And of course the usually always goes
along with so called capitalism. So I reject all of
these forms post sixteen hundred. I think they're all bad
news because they're all based on materialism, atheism, relativism, eventually Darwinism,
social Darwinism, Malthusianism, all of those fit perfectly with capitalism.
And what is bringing in the globo homo capitalist order capitalism,
What is spreading trainees to the whole globe?
Speaker 3: Is it Cage? Is it Moscow?
Speaker 5: And putin no, it's the Fortune one hundred and the
giant international banks. They're the ones that are forcing this
on the entire globe. So you want the new you
want to fight the new World Order. You want to
be a post the New World Order. I do new
World order is Walmart, it is JP Morgan Chase, it
is the Fortune one hundred.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you brought up some really great points.
Speaker 2: The one thing I remember after I read the Communist Manifesto,
Marx goes through that whole thing without mentioning bankers, right,
he goes through the whole thing, And I think to myself.
Speaker 1: Man, commune is a banker's dream.
Speaker 2: It is they have everything in complete control, and I
think that is really the end game.
Speaker 4: Now too, it's a fascinating opening salvo from Dire.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was outstanding, That was awesome.
Speaker 2: Now, Robert, we got to give Robert a chance to
speak here, because Robert here is is here to defend
capitalism and critique jay.
Speaker 1: On his critiques of.
Speaker 6: Jay Go's way back. And that's a problem for a
lot of people nowadays. It's it's a very tough argument
to try to get across to people in everyday life.
So the advantage now, as I see it, is in
the hands of the capitalists, the Austrian economics people, the libertarians.
They have a much easier case talking to the people
than somebody like Dire.
Speaker 4: But that's he's yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, he's our guy.
Speaker 2: Just so we let's give Robert a chance to defend capitalism. Robert,
what do you have to say? To what Jay just
laid before us.
Speaker 7: All, well, you know, it's it was an interesting history
lesson and a lot of things that Jay said I
actually haven't read. It's actually pretty interesting Jay. So I'm
just going to assume that everything that you say factually
is true. What what I disagree with is your interpretation.
Speaker 3: Of the facts.
Speaker 7: And we've had this, we've had our personal messages before
and I asked you whether you believe that theory precedes history,
and so you answered yes, I think that do you
agree with that that theory precedes history?
Speaker 5: If I understand the sense that you mean it?
Speaker 7: So you need you need a framework to interpret facts
in order to.
Speaker 3: Be able to make an assertion.
Speaker 7: Okay, So, so the the things that you're talking about,
I generally like, you know, to say that Walmart and
the bankers are part of the new world order, and
that they that they're part of the thing that's making
this world an ugly place. One hundred percent agree with.
But that's not the fault of capitalism. And the reason
that the way that we're going to come to agree
with this is is that what we need to understand
is that capital what capital is. That is the thing
that capitalism is all about. So, can we agree that
anything that destroys capital does not constitute capitalism?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Uh, anything that communism is not capitalism. I guess
within the system of capitalism that would be true.
Speaker 7: A capitalist would not be in favor of destroying capital
that what he wants to do is as Mark said,
accumulated accumulate, right, yep, is not sure. Okay, So, so
in that sense, the the individuals that you're talking about
when you try to smear capitalism, what you're really saying,
what you're really saying is that these are people who
destroy capital.
Speaker 3: And so in that sense you're you're you're attacking the
wrong dog here.
Speaker 5: Okay, so right, So but what I what I don't
believe is that monopoly capitalism is somehow a deformed version
of capitalism. I don't I don't buy that argument. I'm
familiar with it. I used to make that argument. Uh
that No, no, no, that's not true free market when
you become a monopoly capitalist, actually, there's no reason to
believe that it's not.
Speaker 7: Well, so let's let's run through a thought experiment. Our
monopolies possible? Can they occur within capitalism? My argument is no, Now,
why do I say that it's impossible for monopoly to
existing capitalism because a capitalist is incapable of calculating economically
when there is no market and when there's no money.
Speaker 8: So if if if if, if there's no medium of
exchange created by the market, the capitalists can not calculate
where he should delegate his resources.
Speaker 3: This is the.
Speaker 7: Problem that all communist states fall into. So like, for example,
in Russia.
Speaker 3: When the when the when the Soviet Union.
Speaker 7: Collapse, there are all these houses that were missing roofs,
and the reason they were missing roofs was because they
had not properly allocated steel to create certain types of nails,
and so they couldn't they couldn't put the roofs on
these on these buildings. So uh, the same problem that
states come into communist states is the same problem that
a large corporation of firm, let's call it, would fall
into if they were to grow too large, they would
effectively start to lose the ability to calculate economically. Monopolies
are not possible in capitalism, so you must be talking
about something else.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, every historian and economist that I'm familiar
with talks about different phases or stages of capitalism, and
I'm talking about people who are capitalists. So for example,
people there's finance capital, there's monopoly capital, there's cartel capitalism.
So these these distinctions that we make are to a
certain degree arbitrary depending upon who you talk to. So
I really I guess it depends on what you mean
by capitalism, because for some people it just means the
attainment of profit, the attainment of capital, the rights of
private property. I mean, so depending on how narrow or
how wide we want to define the terms, really the
essence of it and what I'm critiquing is classical liberalism
and the tradition of the Enlightenment that we are athemized individuals,
and that what I want to do is to focus
my life and its attention on the economic sphere, because
the studying of the economic sphere is really the solution
to all of man's ills, and it's the essence of life.
Is homo economicus, as Spangler said, and I'm saying, I
reject all that. So I don't really care whether you
think that there's a different term for somebody like David Rockefeller.
I mean David Rockefeller, in his biography as a pre
eminent example of most people would say a capitalists. I mean,
he studied under von Hyek. He did his thesis under
on Hyek. He thought that the Austrian school was absolutely
amazing because it's the key to how you become a
monopoly capitalist, he wrote, he wrote his I'm not saying
that this proves my position. I'm just saying he's an
example you want to hard on the on the ground
example of somebody who who operated this way.
Speaker 6: So yeah, so let's try to reconcile this. Let's try
to get the common understanding of capitalism. Uh so we
can continue forward.
Speaker 3: Uh, Robert, does anybody?
Speaker 7: Does anyone want to pull the definition that Marx gave
because I'm pretty sure he understood pretty well what capitalism,
what capital was in his Uh well, most capitalists don't
think Marx understood it well, So I don't.
Speaker 5: I mean, you expect me to know that you think
Marx had their correct definition. I mean, by the way
I mean this, Marx, did you know that Marx does
not oppose capitalism.
Speaker 7: Just because Marx said certain things about capitalism doesn't mean
that he understood what capitalism is.
Speaker 5: Right, you just said he had the right definition of.
Speaker 3: It of capital Yes, capital is accumulated time.
Speaker 6: Okay, that'd be a materialistic way of defining it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, here's a question I want to bring up because
Jay mentioned this a little bit earlier. This is a
question for both of you. And we'll start with Robert
and then we'll go to Jay. Where are we now?
Are we in a stage of late stage capitalism? Do
we have true capitalism? How do you describe our current
economic reality. Let's start with Robert and then we'll.
Speaker 1: Go to Jay.
Speaker 7: I think it would be hard to disagree with the
statement that we live in the freest time that all
humanity has ever experienced. There's the standard of living has
only increased since the anti capitalist mentality arose in the
early eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 5: And Jay, well, this depends on what we perceived to
be our standards of freedom and what it is to
live a good life. I mean, if it's having a
bunch of debt, and if it's living in a model
home in a suburb that was designed by social engineers
and eating GMOs and all this stuff. I mean, it
really depends on our paradigm how we judge whether these
things are pro or con Certainly, the system of capitalism
that the forms of it that have come and gone
the last few hundred years have produced a lot of wealth.
And the irony is that Marx knew that, and Marx
himself said that that's what would bring the international order.
Most of the Marxists after Marx, finally came to that realization,
especially the Frankfurt School. I did my grad work under
a dude from the Frankfurt School, so I'm not talking
out of my ass. I know what I'm talking about.
And they did not see capitalism as an enemy. They
finally came to realize that it's the kind of thing
that ultimately brings the international order. H. G. Wells, famous Marxist,
talks about this in his book Open Conspiracy and in
the New World Order. He says that, you, dumb fellow Marxists,
it's only the engine of capitalism that will create the
global market that will then bring the international order. So
every time I read the big social planners that I
think sit above the systems of communism, Marxism, fascism, and socialism,
I'm talking about the Wells's, the hux Lees, the Jacques Attalese,
a big glo globo homo capitalist who writes books about
what global capitalism is going to do when it brings
the international order. I see them all saying what I'm saying,
So I don't think they're committed to any of these systems.
I think they see the systems as tools to getting
to the same end goal.
Speaker 3: I agree with that.
Speaker 6: So the commonality between both systems is the international aspect
of it.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: That's why there was the Third Wave movement, which was
the idea of Alvin Toffler and a bunch of the Atlanticists.
Speaker 3: And Tony Blair's government and the Clintons.
Speaker 5: They adopted this idea of the Third Way, which was
cooked up by the CFR to blend Soviet style of
communism with Western Stone capitalism and that synthesis they thought
would be the best way to moving into the global
global order.
Speaker 4: That's funny.
Speaker 6: On a side note, Kurdistan has actually talked of as
the Third Way in Syria right now. Just an interesting
common phrase.
Speaker 2: And here's one question I wanted to ask jay. I
remember you had a tweet or something that you said
something along the lines of butchering this, but cultural Marxism
and cultural capitalism are essentially equivalent, and then can you
explain that a little bit and then Robert will give
you a chance to respond.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So, when I was doing my work on the Frankfurt School,
and when I was reading all these guys like Hobber
Moss and Lukash and Horkheimer and Adorno, and you start
to realize that they came to the conclusion that it's
not so much the system of capitalism and all this
stuff that's the problem. It's the it's a cultural critique
and a cultural revolution that would be more more effective
than trying to institute a work revolution. So Marx, most
of the Marxists eventually became convinced that Marx was wrong.
And you have two schools of Marxism. You have the
Eastern Bloc Marxist and you have the Western Frankfurt School Marxist.
And so it's actually the Oss and Bill Donovan that
brought the Eastern Bloc Frankfurt School and Frankfurt School Marxist
over to the US during the Cold War period to
help set up what would be the cultural revolution.
Speaker 3: In the US. This was funded by the Rockefellers and
Macy Foundation.
Speaker 5: Bertrand Russell was involved in this, and they decided on
a way to socially engineer the culture and they gave
up on the idea of the economic proletariat revolution. So
this is a well known development in the history of Marxism.
There's only a very few hardcore classic orthodox Marxists left
in the world, not very many. So what it became
was cultural Marxism. And when I look at what cultural
Marxism did and what it talked about, in the ways
that it talked about, promoting degeneracy, promoting homosexuality, voting sodomy, necrophilia,
all the things that the frank for school guys talk about. Uh,
I see that as being pushed now by the Fortune
one hundred and the international bankers. So for me, it's
it's it's not it's a no brainer that those two
things are exactly the same.
Speaker 1: Okay, and Robert, do you have any comment on that
or now?
Speaker 7: Hm, Well, you know, and uh, it seems quite evident
to me that the more accumulated time you have.
Speaker 3: The more capital you have, the more prosperous.
Speaker 7: You are, the more the easier it is to make
a decision between money and any end that you want
to do, like walk your dog or spend time painting things.
If you're spending all your time fishing and trying to
feed yourself. You don't have a lot of time to
to to decide between work and and and leisure. And
so one of the unfortunate things I think that comes
about with with accumulated wealth is that you get to
see what people's true desires are. And I don't think
that that's something to blame capitalism for you should You know,
if if if Jay thinks that the church is going
to be the right the right way to lead people
into thinking in a different way, in a more esthetically
pleasing way or in a in a more moral way,
that's that challenges up to him, and capitalism, I think
is the greatest mechanism to get him to achieve his goals.
I think he's he's completely unfounded in trying to attack
the system, which is a very simple concept that works
on voluntary exchange between individuals, as as the thing that
sparks the ugliness which is inside humans.
Speaker 3: Well, the ugliness was already there.
Speaker 7: It's it's just that with a lot of money they
can actually express it.
Speaker 3: But don't don't attack the system. The system that can find.
Speaker 6: From the individual perspective, what do you how do you
see the international perspective of what the commonalities between socialism
and capitalism, how they're both working towards internationalism.
Speaker 2: I guess the question really becomes, how do you truly
have an economically capitalist society without foreign interference? Is that possible?
Or you wouldn't want it because you want as much?
You know what I mean? The intersection here is between
globalism and a capitalist society, because you know, international forces
are going to come into play in your capitaliststem.
Speaker 7: Might have you might have a foreign firm that has
some sort of effect over an American market, something like that.
Speaker 3: Why is that inherently a bad thing?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a bad thing at all.
Speaker 2: But is there any way to prevent foreign interference in
a capitalist society?
Speaker 7: The mot people just have to decide not to buy
the products, absolutely, and that's not what they want.
Speaker 3: What they want is the products, right.
Speaker 1: So here's my follow up question to you.
Speaker 2: In a capitalist society, would capital essentially equal more freedom?
There's a correlation between money and freedom. They say money
doesn't buy happiness, but I mean, if you got more money,
you got way more freedom, that's.
Speaker 1: For sure, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4: We'll ask you that.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you first, what do you think
about that.
Speaker 7: Happiness is defined by whatever you choose amongst against different
things you could do at the same time.
Speaker 3: That's what happiness is.
Speaker 7: So, uh, what what money allows is it allows you
to satisfy more desires.
Speaker 3: In a in a small amount of time. That's what
capital is.
Speaker 7: And so does money? Does money or capitalism create more happiness?
I think that it's the question is not is not
properly like position.
Speaker 3: You're you're you're happy if you.
Speaker 7: If you know, if you if you have if you're
own a farm in eighteen hundred and you had a
good like crop, you're happy.
Speaker 3: You're happy because.
Speaker 7: That that is the limitations of the desires that you
can execute. So you know, I have a lot of
desires most people, you know, I think I don't think
there's a logical way of saying that someone has a
finite amount of desires. So capitalism creates happiness only in
the sense that you can satisfy the most amount of
desires that you can come up with faster with more money.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool?
Speaker 2: And Jay, because Jay, you're not a capitalist, that is correct,
You're more into the monarchy, as you said of the
prior to the sixteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm a traditionalist.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, So in that sense, you don't How do
you feel capitalism plays a role to freedom of the
individual or do you think that's irrelevant. You'd rather not
live in a society like that, You'd rather live in
a moral society.
Speaker 1: Perhaps with the church and things like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Well, that's one of thing Robert's not very very up
on is his history of Western civilization itself and by extension, Christendom.
So actually, when the Roman Empire was Christianized, eventually it
forbade usury. For the first thousand years of Christianity, there
was the forbidding of usury precisely because they understood that
it would lead to the degeneration of society.
Speaker 3: And I think that it did. In fact. The the
systems that Robert's.
Speaker 5: Talking about, and the idea is that what we choose
for in life is happiness. This leads to the fucking
happy meal, okay, which is not even a real meal.
Can you imagine our medieval ancestors, or people who fought
in battles in times past, making the pinnacle of their
life happiness. No, I think this is that I think
this should be mocked because they weren't concerned with happiness.
They were concerned with things like virtue, honor, duty, And
you get this in a society that's more holistic, more organic,
more traditional, that's not focused on the attainment of capital. Now,
I don't believe that it's wrong to attain capital. I
don't believe that it's wrong to be wealthy. I mean,
most of these things are talked about in a biblical perspective,
and there's there's wisdom given on these principles from a
biblical perspective, especially things like being just in your dealings
with money and so forth. Wealth is obviously a gift
from God. I don't have any problem with that. But
the problem is that when capitalism comes to the fore
as a system, it makes the attainment of uh hedonistic
goals the premiscy and it gets things out of black right.
So it's just like in my own personal life, I
should I should have some I should have my spiritual life,
for example, ahead of just the attainment of stacking paper,
stacking cash. Well, if I stacked cash, and I'm stacking Fiat
dollars anyway, which is another scam of the bankers and
the internationalists, So if I'm stacking gold coins, if.
Speaker 3: I'm getting my grill and shit right.
Speaker 5: Uh Uh, that is not the the t los of man.
That's not Man's end goal is to not is not
just to be happy. So I would have to disagree.
I'm running down what he was saying. I'd have to
disagree with the happiness principle is man's highest goal. I
would have to die.
Speaker 3: Huh. I didn't say that happiness.
Speaker 5: That's not what I said about the capitalism is all
about being making you happier in your happiness.
Speaker 7: Now, I said that capitalism, the capitalism is the best
best system that exists for people to express what makes
them happy.
Speaker 5: Okay, but we already don't agree with you don't agree
to have examples, you don't like.
Speaker 3: You don't like the fact that people like happy meals right.
Speaker 5: Well, the irony of this is what I was gonna
Donald doesn't hold guns to the irony.
Speaker 3: Of what I was going to say.
Speaker 5: Actually, they do because they work with the government and
they are involved in social engineering. And so what every
libertarian and capitalist doesn't seem to be able to figure
out is the idea of culture being toxic and socially engineered.
Toxic culture. So this is promoted by groups like Monsanto,
groups like big Pharma, Right, they will.
Speaker 3: They will culturally and socially engineer.
Speaker 5: For example, the recent billionaire family that got that is
in a law. Uh what do they called? I forgot
their name, but that the family that was getting everybody
addicted on oxycon and now they're being sued.
Speaker 1: I heard of this.
Speaker 5: This is an example of that kind of a thing
where you have a big monopoly cartel in the pharmaceutical
industry that's able to lobby government.
Speaker 3: And I know that. You don't think that's real capitalism. Yeah,
I don't know capitalism at all.
Speaker 5: But but why should I not do that? If IM
a so called capitalist? If it's all it's based on
a materialistic system, there's no reason why I shouldn't work
with government. This is what I was when I used
to read an Ramda. I started thinking. I started thinking,
why should I not buy off government and shut everybody
else down so that I can run this shit? Why
shouldn't I There's no morals to stop me from doing that.
Speaker 3: You say, well, yeah, you.
Speaker 7: Just wouldn't be a capitalist anymore. Right, you wouldn't be
a capitalist anymore?
Speaker 3: Do you know what the Rockfeller said?
Speaker 7: You'd be destroying people's ability to accumulate time.
Speaker 3: Do you think they give a shit about competition?
Speaker 2: No competition is a sin, is what they said, right, Yeah,
famous Rockefeller clute got it.
Speaker 1: Competition is a sin.
Speaker 5: So I know they're not true capitalists, right, so nobody.
Here's another iron of capitalism is that it's just like Marxism.
It's it always retreats this mantra that we've never had
actual true Marxism, who's never been tried every time we
try it. Every time we try Marxism, the capitalists come
and shut us down and screw us up. But the
CIA screws us up. This exact same thing that all
the libertarians say, we've never really had a free market
because the damn communist and the socialists coming funk it
all up. It's the exact same bullshit from both people.
Speaker 3: So I mean I don't think, I don't think. I
don't agree with that at all.
Speaker 7: I mean I think that there's anarchic behavior every single day.
I mean, nobody's forcing us to be on this on
this chat right now. Nevertheless, here we are, so we're
we're working through a free system and if we profit
from that, then.
Speaker 3: If you think this is a free we're making capital right.
Speaker 5: I mean, we have certain freedoms, but you really believe
that this is a free system.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: We're on Google.
Speaker 2: Google is owned by a specific group that also owns YouTube.
Speaker 1: Nobody cut out? What is he talking about?
Speaker 3: Jay? Cut out? My Internet's a little a little shy,
all right?
Speaker 2: Anyway, So here's one question I want to ask Robert.
You keep on saying this is not true capitalism, that's
not capitalism. What is your definition of true capitalism? And
where in the United States are we sort of running
into almost a core brotism where it's sort of this
merger of conglois.
Speaker 7: Here's the thing about Here's the thing about capital is
that capital is really a state of mind. A tool
can be a good for consumption if you treat it
that way, or it can be a tool of capital
if you treat it that way. So it really is intentional.
It's really based on intention what is and is not
a piece of capital. So for example, I mean literally,
a happy meal can be something that I consume, or
it can be an object that I use to, you know,
to feed some birds. I can catch them, so I
can do other things. And then and then it becomes
a piece of capital. So whenever people are unilaterally forced
to do something that they wouldn't otherwise not do, this
is a form of capital destruction, not a form of
capital consumption or or capital creation.
Speaker 3: So anything that anything that is forced.
Speaker 7: By definition, cannot be part of the capitalist system.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: Now. That doesn't mean that doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't happen.
Speaker 7: It happens every single day people that people that buy
it and trade goods, regardless of whatever the government says
or whatever. These fortune five hundred companies say they're engaging
in true capitalism.
Speaker 3: So I'm not I'm not in agreement.
Speaker 7: With Jay that that this that they're you know, that
that capitalists act like like Marxist.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that people make that argument.
Speaker 7: But as a person who I feel particularly capable of
defending capitalism, and I'll tell you right now, like it
just doesn't make any sense anything that forces other people
unilaterally to do something against their will or through or
where they're regulated. So let's say to like, let's say
Jay and I want to trade, and you're.
Speaker 3: Smarter than this.
Speaker 5: You know that private entities will will use the media
and they will use advertising they'll use education to socially
engineered people, and it's not a truly free system. You're
not truly making these kinds of decisions when your whole culture,
for example, is being uh say, fed with toxic, degenerate
sexual stuff. If you have, if your children are all
being sexualized by a system that promotes this stuff from
the top down, how that's not just that's not the
market operating. That's that's a total top down tyranny because
you don't have any say so when you can't go
to your HR department and say, hey, Jay, I don't
like the training shit everywhere.
Speaker 3: Hey Jay, if you can't control your kids, that's your problem, dude.
I'm sorry. Like, if you don't know how to properly,
I can't do anything for you. Man. Yeah.
Speaker 5: No, you don't believe that you that you have a
duty to anyone else. So you think that you that
that like that you're excuse from that. But I'm saying
that if you live in a society where that is
promoted from the top down, and you, for example, let
your children live in that society, that's on you.
Speaker 7: It's on It's on me that I let my children
live in that society. What should I do not have children?
Speaker 3: No, you shouldn't.
Speaker 5: You should keep them from that kind of degeneracy.
Speaker 3: I agree with you. I agree with you one one
hundred percent.
Speaker 5: What's the point You don't think private entities lobby to
have that stuff legalized, to have that stuff promoted.
Speaker 7: Yes, And I'm saying that that's not capitalism. When they're
lobbying to get the government, the largest holder of a
gun in society, to do their bidding, that's not capitalism
by definition.
Speaker 4: So how would you describe culture? How would you describe
what Jay is talking about?
Speaker 1: Pop culture?
Speaker 4: How is that? Is that part of capitalism?
Speaker 5: Is Lady Gaga and Marilyn Manson?
Speaker 3: Is that is that? Is that? Is that the market working?
Speaker 5: Or is that freaking social engineering to wrect people and
screw them up?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 7: Yes, I mean I think that there's a little bit
of capitalism going on after the culture has been influenced
by uh A process where the government usually like the CIA,
like you talk about uh GO, they take they plunder
taxes from the population, right, something that you're in favor
with as as a monarchist. They plunder taxes from the
population and then they enact their agenda. Now, that's not capitalism.
In capitalism, you're you're not allowed to do that because
then you're destroying capital.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but that's not actually how our system works, because
there's actually a public private merger and there's the rotating
door system where people will go from private companies like
Monsanto and Seerle, then they'll go to the FDA like Rumsfeld,
and they'll go back to their private company and they'll
they'll have the all the laws altered to just make
everything degenerate and disgusting and nasty legal.
Speaker 3: That's what they do. That's how the system.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's that's democracy, bro. I'm not in favor of
democracy either. In fact, I'd prefer monarchy.
Speaker 5: But there's no reason not to do that as a capitalist,
there's nothing restraining, there's no actual reason why I shouldn't
do that.
Speaker 3: Why shouldn't I have a monopoly? Right? I thought we
went over this. The monopoly is not possible in capitalism.
Speaker 5: You're just redefining the word capitalism and saying that, Well, now,
Dave Duckler is not a capitalist because he has a
monopoly on I mean again, why where.
Speaker 3: Does the word monopoly come from?
Speaker 7: Monarch rights, monopoly, mono, no, monopoly. There were these monopoly
rights issued at the time when the monarchs existed, where
they would issue this thing where they would say only
this person can produce this good.
Speaker 3: That's where the word monopoly comes from.
Speaker 5: It was part of the guild system, right, And so
part of the reason that they did that was to
protect their country from outside labor forces.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: So that's what that's why tariffs exist, is because you
don't want cheap labor coming in and destroying your people.
This is why Mark I'm in favor of that was
for free trade because he said it would fuck everybody's
country up.
Speaker 3: And I'm in favor.
Speaker 7: I'm in favor of what the monarchs did on the
individual level. So I'm in favor of everybody being their
own king.
Speaker 3: I thought you didn't have I just said, monarch.
Speaker 5: This is the plan of capitalists, global capitalists. They love
this cheap labor, dude. And what do you think cheap
labor does is it destroys the existing cultures. You bring
these people in to destroy the people groups. And because
you don't believe that there's people groups, you just see
adamized individuals.
Speaker 3: You don't see why that's a problem.
Speaker 5: But you you don't believe that you're part of a
people group because you live in the megalopolis that is
itself social engineering that tells you that the only the
highest level of logic is something like the New York
Soace Exchange or whatever.
Speaker 7: No, Jay, I have thirty five employees, they have families.
I am responsible for a lot of people, and they're
livelihood men. So you know, I don't see you doing
the same thing when you're constantly making videos out of
your basement or whatever that is. I don't know what
you're talking about. I absolutely care about the livelihood and
the culture.
Speaker 3: You should have a good internet connection there life.
Speaker 2: Something I want to add real quick, because Jay talks
about this a lot in his book and also his
girlfriend's book, is that we mentioned Lady Gaga earlier, right,
is that capitalism is it social engineering. What most people
don't know and what Jay talks about in his books
and also his girlfriend, is that there's connectivity between government
alphabet agencies and entertainers. For example, Marilyn Monroe was Department
of Defense agent. Am I right about that, Jay? If
I remember it from the book correctly. So that's what
a lot of people don't know. So That's why that
was such an interesting question, is Lady Gaga, Capitalism at
face value might be like, yeah, that's pure capitalism, but
it's not because there's sort of a connectivity between a
lot of these big time entertainers, especially the pop stars,
which is in this book quite a bit, the pop
star stars more so than anybody else.
Speaker 1: Jay, Can you speak on that a little bit with
that Lady.
Speaker 5: Example degree, Uh, it's it's a situation where, like you said,
there's really no difference between public and private at the
highest levels of control. So we can talk about this
abstracted theory of there being a real separation between the
public sector and the private sector, and to a agree,
there is depending upon what level you're talking about. But
when you get up to that higher level, when you're
talking about the Kissingers and the Brazinskis and the Rockefellers
and the Rothschilds, and when you're talking about Soros is
a great example for example, he's a huge promoter of
capitalism and other countries. Right, so when he's fostering the
revolution in the Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Uh, now that the.
Speaker 5: Revolution has happened, there's just there's like a giant gay arch.
Now that the Russian friendship. Arch has just now been
Ain't it gay? Because they're free? They're free now. And
that's why the Open Society and the Open Society Institute
is nothing but a way to promote sodomy in other countries,
to destroy them. So I just see that this that
the pop stars are the exact same type of thing.
There there are weapons, There are weapons that you put
into other countries. Another great example that I don't think
Robert would agree with, UH is porn.
Speaker 3: Stars or porn.
Speaker 5: This was studied in Desert Storm UH and they introduced
porn into Iraq as a psyop to change that culture,
to change the way that they lived in from a
more traditional way into the modern way of abortion and infanticide.
Speaker 3: And you, why are we why.
Speaker 7: Are we constantly talking about what governments do when we're
talking when when the argument is about capitalist and whether.
Speaker 5: It's our government is not a public sector thing that's
run that's run by the public sector. It's run by
private entities.
Speaker 7: Oh man, So so what you're saying, So, what you're
saying is just because something just because.
Speaker 3: Someone has private bro if so right?
Speaker 7: So so if something has an LLC and is is
registered as a private organization.
Speaker 3: It's automatically private.
Speaker 5: I'm just talking I'm talking about I'm talking about Bayer, Monsanto, Raytheon, Boeing,
JP Mortgage.
Speaker 3: All you're all.
Speaker 7: You're saying, right, there is is firms that might as
well be the government exactly so, but that's not what
I'm defending.
Speaker 3: Why why would I defend that? I I I completely
agree with you.
Speaker 5: That to you is that that there's no logical reason
why what you're defending doesn't lead to that.
Speaker 3: That's my whole point.
Speaker 7: And okay, so go ahead and explain how is it
that what I what I agree with, voluntary exchange, how
does that lead to what you're talking about?
Speaker 5: Because in the logic of the system of capitalism, if
I'm David Rockefeller, for if I'm Ray Ayn Rand, or
if I'm Alan Greenspan hanging out with Ian Rand, there's
nothing that stops me morally or logically from just saying
why don't I why don't I buy off government to
shut down all my competition. It's only if I'm committed
to the actual belief in the system of competition promoting
things and oh this is gonna make things advanced. We're
gonna have advanced technology because of all the competition. I
don't give a shit about that. I want to clamp
down everybody and institute a system of control. And again,
what fits so well with this system is radical social Darwinism.
Speaker 3: I mean Jim Kramer. Let's take Jim Kramer for example.
Speaker 9: He says on interviews, I fucking love social Darwinism. I
want to I want to crush everybody. I want to
win everybody else lose it. Right, He goes nuts doing it,
very honest about it being total social Darwinism. And I'm
saying that is.
Speaker 5: Completely destructive to society.
Speaker 7: And all I'm saying is that, Okay, well there, you
just said something that is more morally reprehensible, aesthetically unpleasing.
Speaker 3: But nevertheless, why.
Speaker 5: Who gives a shit about that? Why not be morally reprehensive?
Why not crush everybody?
Speaker 7: Well, the beauty about the beauty of the market is
that you get to choose what you consume.
Speaker 3: You don't you don't have to consume c NBC and
watch Jim Kramer how the real world works. Though.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is the Lady Gaga point that some kind of.
Speaker 5: Forced into everybody's faces. You're it's like a dog and
ship you the government and the corporate entroduce, well they
shove your face and the Homo and the Lady Gaga.
You get that from from womb to tomb. It's not
a free system where you can choose.
Speaker 3: Not to do that.
Speaker 7: I agree with that, Jay, Like I don't understand where
we're disagreeing here.
Speaker 3: I keep telling you a.
Speaker 5: System where you don't have to choose CNBC and and
uh uh yeah, to the extent that you have the
freedom to choose what channel you turn to, you don't
have to watch CNBC, That's correct.
Speaker 7: I got plenty of people in this country that are
not watching CNBC and have no fucking idea what's going on.
Speaker 3: They don't know that North Korea just denuclearized or whatever.
They don't they don't know any of these things.
Speaker 7: And they have the freedom to do that kind of thing.
And that's what I'm in support of. That's exactly the type.
Speaker 5: Of super naive way of viewing how the world really works.
The world does not really work on the basis of
everybody can just shut off the TV and then my
family is free from a bunch of degeneracy. That's not
to the generacy or not free generously will be forced
into your face, and it is being forced into.
Speaker 7: It, and to the extent that it is forcing your face.
I'm not in a favor of that, are you, Well,
of course not, okay, So what would happen in our monarchy?
Speaker 5: Well, again, we have examples in history of societies that
I believe were more healthy and more organic that function
in that way, because, for example, rather than everybody being
at odds with one another and trying to destroy one
another in a social Darwinian Jim Kramer sense, there is
a common idea, a common purpose, a common goal that
society has. When society loses those common goals and it
becomes things like the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure, the pursuit
of just pure capital, when it becomes a pursuit of greed,
when it becomes usury, all of these things end up
wrecking society. And we have plenty of civilizations to look
at that have wrecked from that stuff.
Speaker 3: Do you agree that that's okay?
Speaker 2: Little let the Yeah, yeah, I got a question for
you real quick, Robert. We mentioned usury, We mentioned the
fact that the Threederal Reserve was established.
Speaker 1: In nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 2: My question to you is Is it possible to have
a free market, capitalist society without usery? You know, we
all know the Bible story where Christ kicks out the
money changers, one of my favorites. Is it possible to have,
you know, a capitalist society without user What do you
think about that, Robert, And then we'll get to Jay.
Speaker 7: If by usury you mean loading money at interest, Yeah,
it's it's It would only be possible if people didn't
prefer things sooner rather than later.
Speaker 1: M Okay, so jet logically, because.
Speaker 7: Well, let me explain that. Let me explain that. Because
if something is treated the same. Okay, if someone in
the mind considers two things to be the same, and
you were to offer one thing a year from now
and one thing now, it would be more valuable. Now,
that's where that's where interest comes from, and so and
so people don't see in the case let's say it's
a money loan. People don't see one hundred dollars today
as equal value as one hundred dollars a year from now.
But before there was money, people still people still had,
people still sold time.
Speaker 3: That's what we're talking about here. Do you agree with that, Jay? Yeah?
Speaker 5: I mean I'm not here to disagree with the idea
of barter systems or symbolic representational forms and gold or
paper notes. I don't have a problem with any of that.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about my
critique is what has developed this monstrosity that has developed
out of the enlightenment based on all of these these
materialistic principles, and I see them kind of coming to
their own logical conclusions. And the irony is that the
system ultimately becomes completely anti human. It does, I think,
ultimately eat itself like an oral burros. And so transhumanism
is really the logical result of of capitalism and Darwinian
social theory and the idea of actually just being anti human,
going against what it is to be human.
Speaker 3: And then, but I.
Speaker 7: Don't know how transhumanism, what transhumanism has to do with
usury or interest.
Speaker 5: Because it's the end goal of the logic of this system.
Speaker 3: So people want, people want things sooner rather than later.
People are just humanism.
Speaker 5: People are just interchangeable economic units, and so there's no
logical reason why they should even in the Latin the
final analysis be dealt with or used. Ultimately, people should
be replaced by machines, because that's much more efficient the
system tailor look at if you look into tailorism and
the idea of tailorism and Ford studies and radical notions
of efficiency, this is why the whole society becomes a
monsanto uh conveyor belt, and every humans just become creations
of conveyor belts. And this is what actually Allo Sux
makes the argument in Brave New World the whole purpose
of the system all along, all the evolutions top top
global planner. Here he says that capitalism and Marxism and
socialism all have the same end goal and that was
the point of Brave New World. That's what he names
the characters Marx Forward.
Speaker 7: I don't know what that has to do with with interest,
but the point is that yes, uh, interest is a
natural occurrence that that and people trade goods in such
a manner in which interest is is just a thing
that's tacked on when you take two goods that are
the same and one is traded later in time.
Speaker 5: Okay, so this discussion is like is like back to
back to school and Rodney Dangerfield, who's become wealthy as
a kind of con man huckster, is there with the
economic professor, and the economic professor is riding on the
talk board and he's got all these these abstract theories,
and Ronnie Dingeerfield is like, he also talked about buying
off the cups yet, right, So Ronnie Dingefield, as the
guy on the street, knows how economics really works. I
know that you have a business, you know how it
really works. But I'm saying at that higher level, nobody
is interested in systems. Nobody's interested in being faithful to
this kind of stuff. They're interested in large scale usery
and actually the international banking scam of THEO.
Speaker 7: So so let me so let me let me slightly
change the conversation here while saying on what you're talking
about here and say that one of the things that
is becoming very abundantly clear here is that you're not
you're not aware of the of what's happening on the
ground level, grassroots, of how these sorts of systems that
you and I both don't like, how they're actually there's
there's a system of capitalism that's flourishing, and it's flourishing
very quickly, and you seem to have absolutely no no
idea that it's that it's occurring at all. I'll use
like a good example here Bitcoin. There's a there's a
market bitcoin, what are you talking about.
Speaker 3: Right, But you don't buy it.
Speaker 7: You don't you don't work in like a bitcoin market,
so you don't actually know how much money is being
traded with bitcoin on a daily basis, or else you'd
know that there are systems that are actively working to
destroy exactly the things that you and I both dislike,
because I don't think that I don't think that esthetically
or morally we disagree at all, Like all the things
that I find reprehensible, you find reprehensible, and all the
things that I think are ugly, you find ugly. So
so the thing is that capitalism is is only growing.
And part of the thing that that all these systems
that you're talking about, it all comes down to kind
of like jurisdiction. Where do they get their power and
how can they enact their power. All these systems can
enact their power on the physical world, but with the
rise of cryptography and other technologies, they're they're losing their
ability to enact power, and so these kind of things
that bother you.
Speaker 3: A lot of.
Speaker 5: Narrative that bitcoin is going to destroy the banks and governments.
Speaker 3: I know this narrative, Robert, Yeah, so, but I'm not.
I'm not.
Speaker 7: It's not a it's not a narrative like something's gonna
happen in the future. It's happening now, like it's happening
right now. There are billions of dollars, There are billions
of dollars being moved in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on
a daily basis that are working to undermine those nasty
elements that leach off of society and so and they're
working in a capitalistic fashion.
Speaker 3: And so you know, you seem to think that I'm
like in favor of this. Is Peter Teel a capitalist?
Speaker 5: I mean, he's a huge proponent of transhumanism, uh and
gay rights?
Speaker 3: So is Peter Teeal an example of this?
Speaker 7: Or I mean we can take all these people and
anytime that you can pull out a fact that says, look,
this person, this person is doing this nasty thing, then
I'm gonna have to say to you, well that then
that person is not a true capitalist. Like like I
don't want to sound like a like a Marxist and
say like, oh look, uh, true capitalism has never been
uh practiced. The thing is that true capitalism is either
practice or it's not practice.
Speaker 3: It's happening every day, it's happening more and more, and.
Speaker 7: You just have to you have to tune in and
and find out what's actually going on.
Speaker 1: Here's a good question. I got a good example from both.
Speaker 5: Of conversion process and have eyes to see the divine
providential hand of the invisible market working.
Speaker 3: It's there, trust me, it's there.
Speaker 5: But Robert, Robert, Robert has no problem having faith in
that coming capitalist system.
Speaker 7: It's not faith, dude, I see it every God do Well.
Speaker 2: Here's a good question. Here's a really good example. We'll
wrap this up in the next couple questions.
Speaker 1: This debate here.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk makes ship tons of money off government subsidies,
essentially calls himself a socialist today on Twitter is a control.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I thought he was against socialism. I must have
misread those tweets.
Speaker 1: No, what do you say, Let's pull it up, pull that,
I'll pull it up.
Speaker 3: I think he I think he misread that.
Speaker 7: I think that he was actually he was actually mocking socialists.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah he said they were Yeah, yeah it was.
It was a good troll by him. He says, Uh,
they have no sense of humor, blah blah blah. But like,
what's your take on him making is that capitalism when
you make a ton of money off government subsidies?
Speaker 1: Is what I'm really trying to ask here.
Speaker 3: No, absolutely not.
Speaker 7: And I think that he'd be better off rejecting all
those freebies because I don't think they help.
Speaker 3: Him in the long run. Interesting and at the at
the end, at the end.
Speaker 7: Of the day, the the capitalist system can only flourish
if people really abide by this concept of voluntary exchange.
Speaker 5: Okay, why should people abide by these principles?
Speaker 7: Well, I mean I think you would say that they
that if they don't, they go, they go to hell.
Speaker 5: Right, I'm asking you in your system, why anyone should Sure.
Speaker 7: Well, if you don't, if you don't inject the religious aspect.
The reason that they should abide by these principles is
because when they put there, when they put their ends
and they align them with their means, and they and
they see the line of logic, they'll see that their
means are kind of productive.
Speaker 3: To their ends.
Speaker 7: Yeah, you might, you might get some help from the government,
and that might help you for a little a little time.
But because fundamentally the government is based off of violence,
there's nothing to stop you from being exploited in the
future by the very people that you're interacting with.
Speaker 1: Right, Like, Just to clarify, this is what Elon Musk said.
Speaker 2: He said, by the way, I am actually a socialist,
just not the kind that shifts for resources from most
productive to least productive, pretending to do good while actually
causing harm.
Speaker 1: True socialism seeks greatest good for all. So that was
Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: Saying that he is, in fact a socialist. I was
right initially.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but he's using social in the classical sense, the
way that economists used to use in the seventeen and
eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: Jay, what's your comment on this?
Speaker 2: Because I think Elon Musk might be watching right now,
is tweeting at him a few times, so he's probably
watching America's number one chat cast, What's up you Long?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: What do you think about that when he says something
like that, because that's more in the Jay territory than
the Robert territory. The I'm not a capitalist? What do
you think about Elon Musk's recent comments?
Speaker 3: Jay, Yeah, I don't really have much to say.
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm familiar with him, I don't follow him regularly.
He seems to be a kind of suspicious character in
terms of what he promotes, because I see him promoting
a lot of the same transhumanist type stuff in a
very subtle, cloaked way. So I'm suspicious of the guy.
But I see him like a Bill Gates. I don't
really see these people as or like Sam Walton. If
you're familiar with the history of Sam Walton, sam Walton
was raised to that position by dealings with.
Speaker 3: The Rockefellers out of Arkansas and the Rothchilds.
Speaker 5: Setting up the system in China to basically propel Walmart
to the position that it's in and destroying a whole
host of family businesses and small communities. I know that's
just the market working, but it's the market working according
to the logic of a system where I don't give
a shit about anybody else but me. And that's why
Sam Walton was put into that position through deals made
by big people like the rock Colers and Rothchilds with China.
That's the real story of Walmart, not the story of
I raised myself up on my bootstraps and worked hard,
and some people can do that, but I think at
the level of a Bill Gates, the level of that
Sam Walton, No, that requires this this big scale, back door,
smoke room dealing. That is completely amoral. And that's how
the real world works. It doesn't work on these principles
of I'm going to follow, you know, the principles of
rational exchange and justice and not into let government interfere.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, that's not how it works.
Speaker 5: The way it works is you get to a certain
level and you know, you're Hillary Clinton and you have
everybody else that your competition shut the fuck down, And
I think that's that's completely capitalism.
Speaker 3: Why not? Yeah, So, I mean so in the in
this case, like uh.
Speaker 7: There, you know, Jay doesn't really want to abide by
any like hard definitions. So that's why he's always going
to get away with trying to say that these things
are are are synonymous because he won't like cut a
hard definition of what the difference between you know, uh,
socialism or capitalism is. And so you know, I just
want to tell you Jay that there's this there's this
whole economy that's.
Speaker 5: I mean, I gave you a whole history the differences
between those things.
Speaker 7: Right, there's there's this whole economy that that is in
a battle, in a in a clandestine battle against these
forces that you're talking about that I'm against myself, and
every single day they're inching more and more uh forward
into achieving the goal.
Speaker 5: I mean again, we're gonna we're gonna be ruled by
who joby weeks and we're gonna be ruled by some
bitcoin billionaires, and that's going to be a better system
than Hillary.
Speaker 3: Okay, maybe, but that's that doesn't convince me the capital
that that's not what I'm saying.
Speaker 7: I'm saying that there's a there's a system that's coming
and you seem to be oblivious to this where these people,
even the bitcoin billionaires, will be unable to enact force
onto other people because.
Speaker 5: You're a completely naive dupe. If you believe that, you're
completely naive dupe.
Speaker 10: I'm fully aware of the I've watched all the I've
watched all the bitcoin people and all of their I'm
not every talk, but I'm familiar with all the top
bitcoin people in the gospels that they preached.
Speaker 3: I know all about it. I've watched Max Kaiser for years.
Speaker 5: I own bitcoin, uh I understand the argument, but I'm
saying that it's very naive if you think that that's
going to bring in a system where there's not going
to be violence.
Speaker 7: Come on, dude, you know of course I'm not a utopian.
I'm not saying that there's not going to be violence.
I'm saying that that it will be more and more
difficult for these monopolistic entities to actually force people to
do anything against their will because they're going to lose
their funding. Yeah, but remember, at the end of the day,
they cannot function without a market. That's fundamentally that a
man who stands at a road and holds people hostage
and forces them to give money, even that guy knows
that he can't just every time the guy walks through
the road. He can't just keep taking money from him,
because then the guy will kill him or stop taking
the road.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: The problem with this is that you are deracinated and
you don't even know it. So you don't have a heritage,
you don't have an idea of continuing a tradition to
your progeny. For you, it's all a system of rational calculation.
And how there's going to be this coming better system
of bitcoin and all this stuff, and I'm telling you
that humans have a much more layered aspect to what
they are and what it is to be human. So
I actually I feel sorry for you that you think
that the position that you have is so much more superior,
and that I'm just a rube living in my mom's basement,
which I don't, but uh, I live in my mom's attic.
Speaker 3: By theok, you think that that.
Speaker 5: We're all rubes and we don't have uh you know this,
this this superior enlightenment of the the a Randian megalopolis.
But I'm telling you that there's more to what it
is to be a human than to to erect skyscrapers
and to have bitcoin.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 5: I know that you feel that there probably is, And
I'm saying that it's not just a question of economic systems.
It's also a question of man's purpose, man's man in
relationship to eternity, man in relationship to God, and man
in relationship to his people, his kinfolk. And the systems
that you are talking about are all inherently anti collective.
Now I'm not a collectivist, but your system is predicated
on anti collective and that it's.
Speaker 3: I don't agree with that I don't agree with that.
Speaker 7: Even if you look at the history of capitalist thought,
I mean it was started by the Catholic Scholastics and
and the Usury. That the good arguments against usury were
made made up by like John Calvin and and and
the Protestants.
Speaker 3: I don't think that that there is Calvin supported usury.
Speaker 7: Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that he supported
capitalist action. I'm saying that he's one of the He's
one of the people that developed the capitalist thought and
the and these arguments of the Enlightenment that that led
to modern modern praxeology, right.
Speaker 3: And the seminary. I know, I hate Calvin, yeah.
Speaker 7: Right, And so what I'm trying to but what I'm
I'm trying to argue against you is that that there's
no sense of collective. On the contrary, I would say
there's a similarity between anarcho capitalists people that believe in
pure capitalism, and Marxists, and that is that they they
both kind of hold this this class theory. The only
difference is that while the the Marxists believe in the
in the in the class system being uh, the capitalists
and the labor the anarcho capitalists believe that the class
system is divided amongst the the.
Speaker 3: Owner of a good, and that the the.
Speaker 7: Class of people that want to expropriate that good. So
in that sense, there's kind of like this similarity. And
I would say that anarcho capitalists and libertarians tend to.
Speaker 3: Tend to lean more to the left than to the right.
Speaker 7: But but I so so in that case, I would
disagree with you that there's this that that there's this
lack of sense of collective. I'm sure that's the case
with like objectivists, but objectivists never said that they're completely
against the government, and so they have their own problems
with what capitalism is, and then they don't seem to
be able to to put their their desires in a
consistent fashion. But when it comes to anarcho capitalists, which
are the which is the largest growing group of libertarians,
we very much believe in the collective. I think that
a lot of anarcho capitalists see eye to eye with
ethno nationalists because they don't want to have influence from
other cultures that might be against capitalism and have aesthetically
unpleasing or morally unpleasing.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I know that there are our anarchical capitalists who
believe that their system is compatible with other ideas like
heritage tradition. All that, I understand that, and I know
who these people are on YouTube and some of the
guys that make these arguments. But I'm just saying that again,
my critique of the system is that it's all based
on materialism, and so there's really no reason to prefer
one over the other.
Speaker 3: I just don't see why we're supposed.
Speaker 7: To No, no, Well, you know, in anarcho capitalists, they
don't even use the word economics. They use this term
called catialaxy, and that specifically, the reason that they use
that word catillaxy is is because in catallactics, what they
study is that let's say that there's two people selling
a car.
Speaker 3: One guy selling a car.
Speaker 7: For two thousand dollars and another guy's selling a car
for twenty one hundred dollars, and they they're identical cars.
Speaker 3: Well, if I'm friends with the.
Speaker 7: Guy that's selling it for one hundred dollars more, I
may choose to buy the car from that guy. And
that has nothing to do with how much money. I'm
not acting like a homo economica is simply going for
the most profitable for the most profitable deal. I see
more value in paying a little bit extra to work
with a friend, and so yeah, we you know, I
think you're I think you're kind of talking kind of mix.
Speaker 3: What does this have to do? What does this have
to do with the.
Speaker 5: Idea of heritage and tradition and passing this on in
a culture. And obviously anarcho capitalism and anarchism in all
of its forms are based on revolutionary past, tossing out
of everything that came before.
Speaker 3: How can you even argue that I'm trying.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to make it clear that that one of
the things that we study, very very astutely, is that
it's not just that those things that you can measure
with money that are valuable to human action. People act.
People act despite the monetary cost of the thing when
something is important to them. Unfortunately, there we live in
a society where people they they've kind of lost the
vision of of things like religion and other important things
of the family. But that's not the that's not the
fault of capitalism. The fault of capitalism, when one could say,
is that it creates conditions in which it's detractors, people
with no religion, atheist communists, where they have enough time
to think up and promote their social ideals. And so
in that sense, I guess you could say capitalism has
like an Achilles foot or whatever, but it it's.
Speaker 3: That's not capitalism's fault. Fault.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we just we just haven't lived long enough in
a free society for people to work those things out.
Speaker 3: But but now that we now that we have.
Speaker 7: Been in a free society for quite some time, all
the all the leeches and all this, people are starting
to see what it's what it's really all about, and
they are are starting to rebel against that. I mean,
that's what the whole alt right movement's all about, is
people starting to realize that that there's things that are
more important than money.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I mean, if if you've been living in the jungle
your whole life and you finally get taken into a
city and people are giving you, you know, so much
shit is free in the society, of course, people aren't
going to know how.
Speaker 3: To react to that.
Speaker 7: It's it's it's it's growing pains. People are are spoiled
and they don't understand. It's it's happened so fucking quickly.
I mean, we're talking about one hundred years here since
the Industrial Revolution.
Speaker 3: People don't know how to act.
Speaker 7: But that that's just a growing pain of the of
the coming society where people are gonna you know, we're
at we're reaching this this uh singularity point where people
it's not it's not necessarily clear that we're going to
have more technology into the future, Okay, Like I don't
think that transhumanism.
Speaker 3: Is possible or ai as possible, but so.
Speaker 7: And so it's not it's not like we might have
like incremental small improvements. Our iPhones might get better, but
it's not clear that we're gonna get like hyperspace travel
or something that's revolutionary like that.
Speaker 3: So because because that's.
Speaker 7: Not very clear, okay, it it means that people are
are going to have to adapt to the existing technologies,
which which they're not used to yet. It's like, uh,
you know, recently I went to Russia and all these
girls are using Instagram and they're showing their asses just
like the United States. It's really sad, right because because
that's the you know, the Eastern European countries and Asia
where these last vestages where you could find it like
a decent woman, right.
Speaker 5: Those damn Marxists and Instagram and and Apple well.
Speaker 3: And so so they're starting to lose that.
Speaker 7: But you know, don't underestimate the power of adaptation to
uh to, to the current technologies. I think that right now, Look,
we're watching people. People are dumping Snapchat, people are dumping Facebook.
They are getting used to having this abundance of wealth,
this abundance of technology, and now they're starting to realize
the things that are really important to them and so
and so it's like, yeah, I mean, with great power
comes with great responsibility. That's what That's what capitalism.
Speaker 3: It gives.
Speaker 7: It gives people the power to enact their desires. And
it's like a fuck, it's like the fucking It's like
the Ring in Lord of the Rings Man. It'll it'll
give you whatever the fuck you want. The challenge. The
great story, the great narrative, is how America is going
to you know, resurrect itself, rebirth, figure out what they're
going to do with this new situation that they're in.
Speaker 1: The world is yours, Chico and everything a lot.
Speaker 7: I'm very very positive about what's going on, and I
see it every day I see it every day, Jay,
Like for example, you know you would you know, I
would find it hard to believe that that you joined
Warski's shitty shitty stream if it weren't to profit and
get more viewers.
Speaker 3: Right, well, yeah, there were multiple reasons for co hosting.
Speaker 7: More so you agree with with capitalizing on situations, and likewise,
I'm here to promote my channel. And here's the thing.
My channel, as you've you've mocked in the past, has
very very few views.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 7: But if you go back to my old videos back
in twenty two eleven.
Speaker 5: Because you were talking, I'd marked it because you were
talking shit at me, which.
Speaker 3: Sure, sure, sure, it's all fun, it's all fun.
Speaker 7: But what I'm trying to say is that you know,
I talk about bitcoin back then, in twenty ten, twenty eleven,
and that's the only way in which I took donations.
So despite the fact that I've got far far view
far less viewership than you, the thousands of bitcoins that
I got as donations back then make it so that
I get to enjoy things in a manner in which
which might take your channel with super chats a very
very long time. And that requires foresight and so I
think that capitalism's fruits kind of speak for themselves, and
I get to now have you know, if I wanted to,
I could start a channel right now with a lot
more polished view could I could make it look like
like a oh, I don't know, like a like a
Prager view Prigger you or something like that, make it
very very polished, because I've got the resources necessary to
do that.
Speaker 3: And what I don't think they I don't think that.
Speaker 7: I think you know that I wouldn't go and start
promoting it, promoting atheism.
Speaker 3: That's not what I'm all about.
Speaker 7: I would absolutely start a channel that's talking about aesthetically
pleasing things. I probably talk about movies, something that we
both share and interest in and I have.
Speaker 3: So what I'm trying to say is that even.
Speaker 7: Though I don't have the viewership, I now have the
resources because I made the right moves and I did
it voluntarily. I didn't have to exploit anybody. People sent
me free donations, and now I get to enjoy the
fruits of.
Speaker 3: The of the of that those small decisions that I made.
Speaker 7: And that's what capitalism is all about. It's it's it's
it's fundamentally the system that rewards the entrepreneur, the person
that has a vision and conceive into the future and
imagine and.
Speaker 3: Create what they what they what they want.
Speaker 7: And so right now we're in a situation where we've
got a lot of uh, we've got certain cultures that
are promoting their views because they've made a.
Speaker 3: Lot of money.
Speaker 7: But that doesn't mean that Christians and people that see
ied I with you. They've got a lot of money. Dude,
they have a lot of money. They just they just
haven't they haven't learned the esthetic thing very well because
they've been sucking this whole Protestant thing. But it's going
to change. And you know, Jordan Peterson is a guy
that's been helping that right away.
Speaker 3: Seriously, I mean, because I know I know Protestants.
Speaker 2: Jay does a pretty good uh Jordan Peterson impersonation, just
like all the other radicals.
Speaker 3: You don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Wow, Peterson.
Speaker 3: I have a friend who's a Southern Southern Baptist.
Speaker 7: He has a very profitable business down in Nashville, and
I'd like you to meet him and uh and and
he's uh, he comes you know, from a Protestant background,
and he lived a very you know, a very hermit
like mental life or whatever.
Speaker 3: I hope I'm not making you. I see that you're
getting a little frustrated there, and and I'm just trying to.
Speaker 5: I don't mind. I just don't understand. Where are you
going with this. It's like this is like the the motivational.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're wrapping it up.
Speaker 6: The way I understand it is that we both understand
that materialism was the problem. And he brought up Peterson
as a way of showing that maybe the culture is
moving away from materialism naturally through.
Speaker 7: Yes, I think that I think that people are finding
that they're they're they're having a return to form and
and so these things might happen cyclically.
Speaker 3: I'm not really sure you're the historian.
Speaker 7: But there is uh a reckoning coming here where you're
gonna have.
Speaker 3: I mean, you see it every day, man. You see
these you see people that are.
Speaker 7: You see all these s j ws that have like
the they have no fucking reality. And then you see
all these altrightists and all these uh libertarians that are
trying to fucking dress well and and and and be
more conservative. I don't I don't see why you're so
fucking pessimistic dude, Like, what's up with that?
Speaker 5: I guess I just have a I would say a
better I believe a better sense of how things really work.
And the things that you're talking about really aren't enough.
They're not enough to to see the kinds of change
that that are going to be substantial.
Speaker 3: You don't think.
Speaker 7: You'd have an influence with billions of dollars. You don't
think that if you were a billionaire. You don't think
you'd have a greater influence than you have today.
Speaker 3: Well, sure, but I don't know then, So then why
can't you join the team and come in for the
big win? Dude? Start start fucking embracing capitalism, get rich.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, I don't disclose my financial situation online,
but I have started a business and I have done
very well in my first two years of business. So
I do have an entrepreneurial aspect. And I said at
the beginning of the debate that I have absolutely no
problem with entrepreneurs or private property, or people attaining capital,
people having savings, people I buy gold, I have bigcoin.
Speaker 3: I have no problem with any of that.
Speaker 5: I mean, again, I think you're you're oversimplifying what you
think the position that I have is I'm merely critiquing
the lacking points in capitalism and it's and its foundations
and its origins because I don't believe that it's a
system that operates in the abstract. I believe that it
has to be connected to where it comes from historically.
I'm not saying that makes it I'm not saying that
makes it tru or false. But I'm saying that the
things that you're talking about, I don't think they're enough
to really save Western civilization or society. It's got to
be much more than that, because it can't just be
being successful. It can't just be more of you know,
Reagan Ara, bullshit, it can't. That's all the the Boomers
got all that ship, bro.
Speaker 3: And what I understand that.
Speaker 7: All I know is I'm talking about practical, practical realities here.
All I know is that I have I have a
a worker here, right, and I offered him a portion
of ownership of my.
Speaker 3: Business, and.
Speaker 7: That would have given him the fruits of his labor
at the time of fruition. What the time, at the
time that that the business sold its first product and
started making a profit. He didn't have the ability to
wait for that that would have been the.
Speaker 3: Interest generated on his own labor.
Speaker 7: So instead he gives me a discount by accepting a
salary in the present, I pay him before the product
is sold. This is just a I'm just telling you
a practical thing here. So what I'm trying to say
is that people, it's not Usery is just like a
negative term that people use in order to describe what
interest is, which is a natural human desire people want.
Certain people have low time preference, certain people have high
time preference. Some people want things now and other people
want things later. So there, you know, these are practical
things that I've learned along the way. I'm not trying
to regurgitate something from the eighteen hundreds to you. I'm
telling you that I'm living this right now. I've got
thirty five employees that I take care of, and I
do take an active role in talking to them about
how they how they deal with their family, how they
deal with their kids and their wives. I'm I'm I'm
actually changing people because I have an influence as their boss.
Speaker 3: I'm not just talking on a YouTube channel here.
Speaker 7: I actually have employees that I take care of, and
so you know, when there's a capitalist that doesn't do
things the way that I do them.
Speaker 3: That's not a knock on capitalism, that's a knock on
that asshole. You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 3: Uh, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jay, your final comments will wrap this up with
like maybe one or two more questions. Maybe we'll have
a final statement here from both of our wonderful guests. Uh.
The thing I'm thinking to myself right now is, Okay,
we've got capitalism, but there's kind of a monopoly on
the capital and the in the sense that the Federal
Reserve is a private conversation, uh, private corporation. Right, So
that's something I think about because you can't really compete
with people who are in cash.
Speaker 1: You know, it's pretty tough.
Speaker 2: But there's something you've got bitcoin that's a solid, solid
argument to be seen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a lot of big banks getting involved with bitcoin.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 7: You guys, if you if you don't fucking understand bitcoin
at this point, you're you're missing the biggest train.
Speaker 3: We all we will ever pass through this through this world.
Speaker 7: I'm telling you right now, you're making a big fucking mistake.
Speaker 1: Oh No, I'm not. I'm not downplaying bitcoin as a
technology not.
Speaker 3: To be proven. That's proven. Now there are bitcoin billionaires now.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, right, But I guess I think if you're a.
Speaker 7: Bitcoin billionaire, a bitcoin guy bought a thirty million dollar house.
Speaker 1: Oh, I believe you.
Speaker 2: But I guess the point Jay's conveying is sort of
you know, even if you are a bitcoin billionaire, I'm
not sure you're gonna be able to compete with the government,
but you know, the monopolist who like sort of monopolized
things a long time ago, you know what I mean.
But I'm rooting for it, man, I'm I'm all for
it with the bitcoin thing. I absolutely love it. Robert,
you've been a fantastic guest. I've I think you've got
the best set out of anybody we've had, just in
terms of the skyline background. It looks awesome, big glass
of wine. I'm glad the lighting worked out. So Robert,
it's been absolutely a pleasure having you. I want to
hang out with Jay for a little bit, because Jay
is a three time guest on America's number one Chat Cass.
I want to chat it up a little bit with Jay.
But Robert, it's been outstanding having you. I look forward
to having you on as a guest again. This is
round three between Jay and Robert, So it's been really cool.
Speaker 1: Do you have any final statements? Final words for Jay?
Speaker 2: A good debate, definitely some interesting points all around, but
a final word for a Jay in America's number one
jackass worldwide.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I just I you know, once again, I just
want to say Jay that that I really I cannot
stress enough that my success at a young age.
Speaker 3: I'm thirty one.
Speaker 7: Okay, I'm not trying to I'm not trying to show off, bro,
I'm trying to tell you.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to tell you something. But if you if
you can't handle it. This sounds like you're you're trying
to make up for the debate.
Speaker 5: But you know, you can talk all day long about
how awesome everything is.
Speaker 3: I think it's kind of sad, but go ahead.
Speaker 7: No, you know life is not awesome life. Life is
full of struggles. But what I'm trying to what I'm
trying to say to you, is that life that I
wouldn't have had success to the point where that I
that I've had right now if it weren't for my
understanding of capitalism, because not only did it not only
did it kind of create a moral background for me
to approach every situation. And and I'm sorry that, Yeah,
it's true, religion didn't give give that to me. It
was the natural law theory and all those kinds of
things which don't are not incompatible with with with your
religious views. They basically come to the same conclusions. If
if it weren't for the understanding of economics and and
and capitalism, I don't think that I would have had
the kind of success that I had right now. One
of the reasons that I was able to see bitcoin
very early on is precisely because I understood what what
money is and how it comes about. When we when
we first saw bitcoin back in twenty ten, you have
to understand that we we fucking didn't under we were
We spent three or four months having nothing but debates
about this thing called the money regression theorem, understanding whether
bitcoin could actually be money or not. And when we
came to the conclusion that it actually could be money,
it fucking it changed our entire way of thinking, and
it changed our entire world.
Speaker 3: And we're still experiencing.
Speaker 7: Things that are happening right now due to decisions that
were made past, in the past that are.
Speaker 3: That are still coming into fruition right now and so.
Speaker 7: And I'm not saying that to you, dude, to make
you jealous or try to try to brag. I'm trying
to tell you that to to inspire you and let
you know that that with with money, yes, you can
become an evil evil fuck I mean my sister.
Speaker 3: Right before.
Speaker 5: I never I never argued that money was the problem
or that money was what caused people to be evil.
Speaker 3: Well, in order to accumulate money, you have to be capitalistic. Okay,
this is this. You are smarter than this, dude.
Speaker 5: You know that there were wealthy people in the world
function and people had societies prior.
Speaker 7: To sixteen hundred, right, yeah, I know that. Yeah, so
were they capitalists? They were capitalistic, is what I said. Capitalistic.
There's only two ways of accumulating capital. Either you steal
it from someone or you earn it. That's the those
are the only two ways. There's the political means and
there's the economic means.
Speaker 5: That that's capitalism as a system what you're here to defend.
Did it exist as a philosophical belief system prior to
these characters like David Ricardo and the Laise Fera, John
Locke guys.
Speaker 3: Did that exist back then? It wasn't.
Speaker 7: It wasn't elaborated to the extent that it was elaborating
in the eighteen hundreds. However, going back all the way
to arist there were a lot of views on things
that don't work, like let's say democracy, I mean Plato
and these guys they covered those things all the way
back then. So there have been experiments and studies into
what inflation is going back to the twelve hundreds in China,
and there's a whole history I can I can give
you books on that kind of stuff. But all I'm
trying to say is that these these these kind of
lessons helped me a lot. And I haven't held a
gun to anybody's head. I've accumulated everything by offering some
piece of value to someone else. And we were both
in a state of inequality. We both wanted things, we
had things that we didn't want, we wanted things from
other people. And so all I'm trying to say to
you is that if you start embracing that kind of
mentality and stop being so cynical, you'll find that there's
a whole wealth of there's a whole basket of wealth
that you can tap into and use to promote your
very awesome ideas. Because I agree with most of the
stuff that you that you say, you're just very cynical.
And by the way, just to let you guys know,
I had a very popular YouTube channel in the early
in the in the late two thousands where I talked
about the exact same things that you talked about, Jay,
I talked about all these kind of things.
Speaker 1: Esoteric and and and and and.
Speaker 5: Just to go further, my sister, you're the most arrogant
douchebag I've ever met.
Speaker 3: I love you, but you're a complete fucking douchebag.
Speaker 1: No, he's building his credit.
Speaker 4: That's it.
Speaker 1: It's I like the fact that.
Speaker 3: I was YouTube.
Speaker 5: No, I think it's all bullshit. I think you're just
you're just talking sales bullshit. I mean, I don't doubt
that you have the business and all this, but now
I'm a late.
Speaker 3: Comer to the stuff that I talked about. Dude, I
was doing this thing.
Speaker 7: I didn't say you're late, You're you're You're just projecting,
you said, reading into things that I'm saying. I'm trying
to tell you, I'm trying to tell you that I
was a cynic myself.
Speaker 5: That's what I'm trying to say to you. Know what
you're talking about me being a cynic. I mean, I
make comedy videos all the time. I'm doing great things.
Speaker 7: Are I don't know, but today's conversation, you don't make
it sound like like we have a very good future
ahead of us. And I'm very optimistic after Donald Trump
being elected and all these kinds of things that the
rise of the alt right, I'm very very optimistic. I'm
not saying that the alt right is uh like, I
don't think that they're we're.
Speaker 1: Out right around here. I want to clarify something. Uh.
Speaker 2: On America's number one Chad Cast, we represent the al right.
We're about listening to podcasts, reading books, staying in shape,
and having an excellent time nationalist.
Speaker 1: We love Donald Trump. That's pretty much the al right
in a nutshell. So I just had to clarify that
we're welcome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, we're very strong olrightist over on this chat.
Speaker 7: I will say that the other the other, the other
part that really helped me a lot was the learning game.
That helped a lot as well. And I don't know
if you guys teach that on your channel. But game
was a huge part of manispere.
Speaker 2: I'm dude, I'm literally a Manisphere blogger. I literally write
for Return of Kings dot com. You're you're looking at
a Manisphere blogger.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we love it.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know, the game stuff, it all came so
naturally to me, you know. So I I read about
it and like, yeah, I did that last week.
Speaker 1: That was easy. I already knew all this stuff.
Speaker 2: So the game stuff wasn't really that new to me.
It was just telling me things I already knew and
I was already practicing. You know, I should probably write
a book on it. But the game is huge.
Speaker 3: Game is kind of related to your field though.
Speaker 7: See I had I had a different trajectory here, and
and I hope we I hope we have time just
for like okay, go.
Speaker 3: Ahead, brother. So I I also found it pretty pretty
natural in the in the beginning. But but then I
started listening to Stefan malin.
Speaker 7: You really yeah, and I kind of I actually found
myself unable to unable to score with like on these dates.
Speaker 1: Because you're talking libertarian values and ship chicks hate.
Speaker 7: I was talking about like like the uh, you know,
the plight of the man again, you know, in the
modern world and.
Speaker 3: All this kind of thing.
Speaker 1: It like what Beyonce hello.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, yeah, And so I kind of had to
discover all these guys in order to learn. I would
call it like social dynamics, you know, because it's not
just it's not just towards women, but learning how to
talk towards men and women and learning how to kind
of how to center yourself.
Speaker 3: And I would say that.
Speaker 7: I was natural at it, and then I had to
relearn it after the fact because I I lost it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I got a cousin who's you know, he's
recently divorced, so I got to get him into the
manisphere so he can pick up some game because he's
getting back into the game.
Speaker 1: So but yeah, so you.
Speaker 3: Know, so making a lot of money is not enough. Obviously.
Speaker 7: You can be a complete autist and make a ship
ton of money, and it's it's no good, right, simply
simply being argument.
Speaker 5: I mean, are you just here to like promote your ship, dude,
which I don't care, but I mean this is not
an argument relevant to anything, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're getting little off tracked.
Speaker 7: This is I was I was maybe up, bro, I
was just trying to tell you that you shouldn't be
so cynical, but you know you can, keeping don't think.
Speaker 2: So let's give his final statement, whole thing, Jay closing statements.
Then we'll talk to Jay for a little bit, and
then we'll wrap it up. A great episode, fantastic guests.
So we'll give Jay his closing statement, you know, final
comments to Robert here, and then we'll sort of wrap
up the debate talk to Jay for a little call tonight. So, Jay,
your final comments on Robert. You said he was a
douchebag earlier, but a likable douchebag. Nonetheless, I don't think
he's a douche I think he's just a guy. You know,
he's just a guy doing his thing. We respect and
like Robert. Jay is our guy. Jay's a chad He's
a Chad Cast regular. He's practically in the locker room
of the Chad cast. That's how regular Jay is on
our show. But Jay, he's like, what Jay, final statement?
Speaker 1: Go ahead? Our friend.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean I can brag too. I mean I
wrote a book, I created a TV show. I've had
a tremendous amount of success in the last couple of
years reached.
Speaker 3: Millions and millions of people.
Speaker 5: I've grown my channel tremendously, just in I've only done
videos the last year. You know, We've I think quadrupled
my channel in the last year to immediately hop on
to Worski after having a lot of success and debates
debating some of the biggest altright people like Richard Spencer.
I mean, I can sit here and brag and my
girlfriend is gorgeous.
Speaker 3: She's a hottie.
Speaker 5: I mean, I can talk about that kind of shit
all day. But that, really, I think is a pale
replacement for solid argumentation. So I'm happy that Robert has
all that success and he's done well with bitcoin, but
really it doesn't get to the meat of the argumentation
that I was trying to make about the ideas of
revolutionary thought from the Enlightenment on. And I think that
all of the things that I mentioned earlier for people
who are interested to read about this, I do have
books that I would recommend. There's always the classic book
by the guy who was in charge of the Library
of Congress, James Billington, and he wrote Fire in the
Minds of Men, and this is a history of revolutionary thought,
and he traces it directly to the Masonic Lodges. So
I don't think that there's any debating that I'm one
hundred percent right about all that. There's other books that
deal with that too. I'm not going to sit here
and just read off books. But there's also my publisher
publishes the extremely scholarly history of Bishops Group. And so
this is where communism actually comes from, Perfectibilis, which is
about the history of the real Illuminati out of Bavaria,
which they were just communists.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: So I'm one hundred percent opposed to communism, one hundred
percent post to socialism Marxism, but I'm also opposed to
modern capitalism because it has the same atheistic foundations. And
so I think that people want organic, natural ways of
living and that includes people, family, tribe, nation, and all
those things are good and healthy. The Russian Orthodox Church
recently issued at statement Church and Nation, and that's what
I believe. I believe that that's a perfect statement of
how we should you our fellow man, in our society,
our kin, and so forth. So I think that's a
much better approach.
Speaker 3: And when it comes to economics.
Speaker 5: I don't deny the rights of private property and all this,
but I think it has to be set within a paradigm.
Those are very difficult questions. We live in a paradigm
that's completely opposed to that. So I don't have any
delusions that like I'm going to be anointed king tomorrow
or anything like that. But in fact, most modern monarchies
are puppets of the CIA and they're completely degenerate.
Speaker 7: Anyway, Jay, I just want to ask you, like, so
you never really explained why a monarchy would be preferable
to a capitalist society.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because a monarchy is an immediate reflection or an
icon in our theology, in our metaphysic of the family. Right,
So a hereditary monarchy is an icon an image for
the whole people group to look at as a family.
Now that doesn't mean that they're always perfect, but it's
the same idea as a father in a household.
Speaker 3: Father and a household is not.
Speaker 5: An economic unit who's in competition with his son and
his wife. He's the head of that household, and so
he's a king. And so I believe in the idea
of return of kings, and I mean that in quite
a literal sense. And that's obviously I think something far
down the road, but I think that that's much more
natural and much more organic, and it's the way that
mankind has always been governed, except for these shitty situations
where there's democracies and republics that they try to institute,
and those just just really end up being.
Speaker 3: Way worse than any kind of monarchy or imperium.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but dude, I don't disagree with that. I just
hope that was very clear during this debate that I don't.
Speaker 5: The whole history of capitalism arose to get rid of them.
Speaker 3: So what do you what are you gonna do?
Speaker 7: You're gonna you're gonna You're not gonna allow your wife
to what are you gonna You're gonna force her to
do things against That's what a monarch would do. So
you're not you're not actually in favor of monarchy. You're
you're you're actually a capitalist. You just don't understand, like
what capitalism the world believe that.
Speaker 5: I believe that a wife has a submit to her husband.
Speaker 7: So yeah, you're right, but you're not going to force
her to do something against her will, are you? Because
I'd like everyone in the audience to hear you're gonna
say yes.
Speaker 5: Of course not so, then so you actually there are other.
Speaker 3: Ways to force people to do something. You can you can, you.
Speaker 7: Know, yeah, yeah, And that's what capitalism does. Persuasion. That's
what game theory is all about. It's the power of persuasion.
That's what we've been trying.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm trying to communicate to you, dude. I mean,
I don't I.
Speaker 5: Don't see what that has anything to do with the
arguments about history that I'm making.
Speaker 3: It has nothing to do with what I'm talking.
Speaker 5: I asked, I asked you about monarchy and the fnarchy.
Why would I be Why would I want a monarchy?
And I'm telling you there's there's again, there's You're just
ignorant of everything before seventeen hundred or sixteen hundred.
Speaker 3: It's like you think that nothing.
Speaker 7: All I know is that if I'm not the monarch,
I'm a serf, and I'm a serf that might as
well be a slave.
Speaker 3: That's not true at all, that's not true. No, But
that someone that lives on the land.
Speaker 5: Of the monarch's fucking revolutionary proper beaganda, dude, that's like
basic bitch revolutionary propaganda that you believe, and you say
you don't understand dialectics.
Speaker 3: That's the root of this. Do you know what dialectics is?
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry, Hegel, Go ahead and tell me at
what what dialectics is?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: So, yeah, I'm against dialectics by the way. Okay, So
it calling me Hegel doesn't work because I reject Hegel
and dialectics.
Speaker 3: So why are you bringing up electics?
Speaker 5: And then and so, all I'm saying is that capitalism
and communism are a classic dialectic and they both come
out of the same lodge.
Speaker 7: So what do you call what do you call a surf?
What exactly is a surf? And what is their position
relative to the monarch?
Speaker 3: If they don't agree with the monarch? What happens?
Speaker 5: Well, there have been different kinds of societies and monarchy,
so not everybody who disagree with the monarch was like
immediately put to death. Certainly there have been tyrants, but
guess what, Democratic republics and republics are also tyrannical, And
in fact, Hans Hermann Happa argues that they become more
tyrannical more quickly.
Speaker 3: Than I told you that.
Speaker 7: I told you that I find monarchy preferable to democracy.
Speaker 3: That's not the point. But what I'm trying to.
Speaker 5: Tell you is to make am argument about tyrants, and
you're saying that everybody's a surf.
Speaker 3: That's not exactly true. No.
Speaker 5: In fact, those kinds of societies lived on the basis
of things that were more honorable, more virtuous than a
society that we live.
Speaker 7: Agreed, Agreed, But that doesn't mean that it's as preferable
as being free to do whatever you please, so long
as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of someone else.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that not that inna peo bullshit is retarded. Dude,
Well ahead.
Speaker 5: Why I had a whole debate with with Adam Kokuesh
on this, So you can go back to preschool and
go watch the Cooquchh debate if that's the level.
Speaker 3: That you're at.
Speaker 4: That was a good debate.
Speaker 5: I'm not going to rehash the whole fucking Coquchh.
Speaker 3: You don't have to.
Speaker 4: Here's a good one. Check it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was a good one too. I mean, I
think we covered all of it. I think Robert made
every point he wanted to make. I think Jay made
every point he wanted to make. So let's wrap it
up with Robert. Robert, it was a pleasure having you.
We'll have you on again sometime. Best of luck with everything, Robert,
and we'll see you again soon on America's number one
chat cast. Robert, thanks for coming on, man, good sport,
awesome guy. Anyways, so we got Jay in the building. Jay,
I want to show you something that I was gonna
wear today, but I unfortunately couldn't because when I got
into this studio, I realized that I had actually a
stain on my Boomer shirt.
Speaker 1: Dude, I was gonna wear this Boomer.
Speaker 2: Shirt, and I knew you were gonna be wearing a
Boomer shirt because it's your alter ego. And I've been
thinking about boomer bashing all month long since we had
that talk.
Speaker 1: Jim Goes the best Boomer there is.
Speaker 2: He's one of the good ones, but Boomers, I mean,
I just now that that meme is there, I'm so
glad it happened because it kind of reminds me of
the Bro meme of two thousand and seven, when the
Bro meme came about Bro was a stereotype and I
was like, wow, finally, because I was seventeen at the
time and I was a quote unquote broke during that period.
I was like, damn, I finally have a stereotype. I'm
so excited.
Speaker 1: Bro is a meme.
Speaker 2: Fast forward to twenty eighteen, Boomer becomes a meme, and
it makes so much fucking sense because these boomers, it's alcohol,
it's television, it's ice cream.
Speaker 1: They're well meaning people.
Speaker 6: And don't forget about the clothes, dude, don't forget about
the clothes.
Speaker 2: Don't get don't get in between a boomer their television
and ice cream.
Speaker 1: They will freak. They will get violent.
Speaker 5: So I've been thinking about the grocery store and I
was behind a boomer I'm not joking yesterday and she
had no food, no food, but she had a row
of like Walmart brand ice cream.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, these boomers and the ice cream eating
ice cream.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's out of control.
Speaker 2: Man. So I've always I've had this boomer bashing. I
want to get off my chest. And I know you're
the guy because you have pent up rage towards boomers too,
So I think you express it through comedy versus me.
Speaker 1: Right now, I'm expressing it through just just rage. I
want to do.
Speaker 2: They know their boomers They must know their boomers, but
they don't know that they're a meme. They don't know
that we were making fun of them. But when it
when I realized that boomers, okay, a lot of them
are wonderful people. I've said this before. I have Boomers
in my life that I love. But the greatest generation
truly was the greatest generation. My papa was a fucking engineer,
veteran chemist at twenty seven, right, with like six kids, right.
And then after the Greatest generation came the boomers, and
it took a while for us to realize how good
they really had it, you know what I mean. But
you know, what are we gonna do about these boomers?
Speaker 1: Jay, what are we gonna do?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: My god, we can't go that far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but boomers, I mean, they're just gonna watch TV.
Speaker 1: They love TV. They really do love television. They love
them some cable television. And I think they're going to
live a life of bliss.
Speaker 2: Because even when I put on my boomer shirt, I'm like, Wow,
I feel so carefree.
Speaker 1: Who gives a ship rock concert this weekend?
Speaker 3: Fuck?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know what I mean, love it.
Speaker 2: I just want to put on some boomer tunes and
go fishing when I wear that shirt, my boomer shirt,
you know machines.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but Jay, you.
Speaker 5: Could have worn it with the stain that would have
been appropriate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I's think of that too, because I was like,
if this there's a stain on his boomer shirt, that's even.
Speaker 4: More boomery visible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I could do it, but I could do it
through the whole stream.
Speaker 2: But anyways, So, Jay, the Warski chapter of your life
is over, and I'm super excited for you because, in
my opinion, you saved that show. When jaf left they
needed an intellectual or Warski needed an intellectual. I listened
to the Ethan Ralph stream. Everything is civil between you guys,
which is positive, which is super cool because everybody's kind
of over this, you know, people counter signaling and people
dissing each other just for the dopamine rush. We know
dopaminees a factor, and if you're beefing online, dopamine's a factor.
Speaker 4: Sure, you know.
Speaker 2: So we got from the stream with Ethan Routh that
you know, Andy's going to concentrate more on video games
and pornography.
Speaker 1: And things like that.
Speaker 2: You're gonna more so focus on your esoteric Hollywood stuff
and everybody is happy pretty much, right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I'm not sure what Andy's gonna do
in terms of where he wants to take things. I mean,
I do a whole bunch of things and always have so,
I do a globless book lecture series, I have a
subscription service. I do all the stuff that I do,
and I'm going to continue doing that, and I was
never gonna quit doing that. But you know, we just
weren't having the same reactions that we were hoping for
in terms of audience reception. So you know, I'm fine
with saying that Andy's audience didn't like me, and it
was actually you know, I was the one who went
to Andy first and I said, hey, man, I just
don't know that your.
Speaker 3: Audience is feeling my vibe.
Speaker 5: And he said, yeah, I was going to tell you
that I don't really think it's working. So you know,
I'll be I'm always down to go on Worsky Live
and do his streams, but I felt like, if Andy
I don't want to be there, If Andy wants his
channel to do something else.
Speaker 1: Go on a different direction, right more video games, I'm just.
Speaker 5: Not a good fit for it, then there's no point
in continuing to do it. I had a lot of fun.
I thought we had great content. But I mean, if
I'm going to bring Syrian girl on and we're going
to have a killer.
Speaker 3: Show, she's hot, and there's a thousand people that.
Speaker 5: Are gonna thumb it down in his audience, wow, there's
no point.
Speaker 6: They have a large part of that audience that's very
difficult to please, and that's Worsky's burden.
Speaker 3: I think, hmm, interesting, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 5: I mean a lot of a lot of that audience
is millennial gamers, and if you're not just doing dick
jokes all day, they don't give a shit.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I see Worsky more going into the pot the pornography.
That's more of his lifestyle. I think we're you're more
of an author, somebody we really really enjoy on this show.
Speaker 4: At jasonallisis dot com.
Speaker 1: Yeah he signed up today, didn't you.
Speaker 4: I was going I came here, but I'll sign up tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Actual.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm gonna.
Speaker 6: Be a subscriber. I just appreciate they for all this.
I just listened to all your your past.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've been studying up your stuff too. And another
thing is that I want to be like the Jay
Dyer of hip hop. I wrote a book back in
twenty sixteen and it didn't do so great. It was
similar to what you were talking about on a different stream.
I was listening to where you write it, and then
like a year rate.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: A year later I read it and I'm like, this
is trash. I've gotten so much fucking better. This is
fucking trash. I got so angry. And then what happened
with me is the book is called Barter seven. It's
the Conspiracy to Assassinate Little Wayne. I'm going to rework
the title, rework the cover a little bit. Basically, in
April of twenty fifteen, Little Wayne's tour bus was shot at.
The person who shot out his bus was a man
named Jimmy Winfrey, a close associate of Birdman, which is
Lil wayne surrogate father. So what I hope to the
book is called Barter seven, and I've hired hired an
editor and we're working on it every day. It's gonna
be fucking awesome. It's gonna be really funny because the
characters in the book, it's all real. The characters in
the book are so ridiculous. That's it's just gonna make
people laugh out loud and things like that.
Speaker 4: So you're gonna be the esotery kip hop guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I want to do, well one of
my books.
Speaker 2: I'm working on three books right now, so that's happening.
I'm pretty excited about that. I wanted to mention that
it's gonna be really funny to this book. It's gonna
be really really funny.
Speaker 5: Are you writing like a essays or are you doing
like a fiction story version of it?
Speaker 1: It's nonfiction.
Speaker 2: I'm giving you the real story, the real facts, the
real quotes.
Speaker 1: I've watched fucking.
Speaker 2: Every Little Wayne interview, every young Thug interview, freaking every
Birdman interview, a little autobiography like I'm gonna tell you
about my experience as a fan, where you know, Lil
Wayne surrogate father tried to essentially off him or hired
somebody to off him. So it's a lot. You know,
it's gonna be a lot. It's a very difficult book
to write, so that's why it was so hard to
write the first time. So it's gonna be really, really,
really cool. Though it's coming out probably August I'm really
really excited about that. But Jay, are you gonna are
you gonna drop a mixtape with the boomer tune?
Speaker 1: You got the Rasta tune. I mean, you're like four
or five songs away from a legitimate mixtape. It's not
a bad idea.
Speaker 2: Like, honestly, it would be a really good troll to
like put out a mixtape, you know what I mean,
just to see how it does, because all your fans.
Speaker 5: Are going to redo them and do them a little more,
you know, better quality because I kind of do a
sam Hi bad on purpose type thing. Yeah, but they
could be redone and a little more, a little better
quality in d mixtape.
Speaker 3: That's a good idea.
Speaker 1: I think that's a really good idea.
Speaker 2: But Jay, you will always have a home on America's
number one Chad cast. You are a certified chat You're
gonna get your certification in the mail soon. Yeah, with
the diploma and all that, it's gonna be really great.
So Jay, talk to you against soon, my man. Always
a pleasure having you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Man, thanks for having a great debate.