The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Sunday night. The clocks have changed, but not here in Puerto Rico, so we're now 8pm here in Puerto Rico. I know it's only 7 o'clock in the east coast, and of course wherever you are, your clocks were changed, mine was not. So anyway, it's late here, and it's not as late where you are. All right, today we're going to talk about the left. Today we're going to talk about left and Hamas, and tomorrow we're going to talk about the left and anti-Semitism, very related, very connected. A lot of the fundamental concepts we'll be describing today relate to both topics. We're really going to do, well as deep as a dive as you can do in a podcast like this, into kind of the new left and what the new left represents. We're going to talk about aspects of the quote thinking that's out there in terms of how the left comes to its conclusions, and why it is taking the positions that it is. So we're going to talk about critical race theory, we're going to talk about post-colonialism, post-modernism, and really the implications of all of that to analyzing an issue like Israel versus Hamas. How does all that relate to Israel versus Hamas? All right, remind you that tomorrow we'll be back on a regular schedule, well not so regular. We'll do morning, we're going to do our news roundup, in the evening we'll do the left and anti-Semitism. That'll be at 7 p.m. East Coast time, that'll be the new standard time for evening shows. And Tuesday then I'm traveling, I'm flying to Champaign, Illinois, and then Chicago, Illinois, and then Utah, and then Denver. So I'll be traveling this week, I'm going to try to do shows while I travel, but no way I'll do a show on Tuesday. So Tuesday's no, hopefully we'll do a show during the day on Wednesday, and during the day maybe not on Thursday, and something during the day on Friday, and then nothing on Saturday. So anyway it's back to the crazy travel schedule for a little while. Champaign, Illinois is where the university is, I'm doing a talk at the university there on Tuesday. Can't remember what the topic of the talk is, something about, I can't remember, happiness I think, something like that. All right, let's see what else. Yes, a reminder you can ask questions, super chat is available, you can support the show using stickers. Don't forget value for value, you're listening to show, you're getting some value out of it. Hopefully you can pay back through the super chat, or you cannot support the show on a monthly basis, kind of on PayPal through your own bookshop.com. On Patreon or on Subscribestar, just put your own book show in there. There's also links down there. And what else? I think that's all those kind of things that you can do. Let me just point out that the show is sponsored by the INRAND Institute. And in particular, yes, there's a call out for applications for the INRAND Center Europe. INRAND Conference in Europe, INRAND Institute Conference in Europe is going to be held in Amsterdam in March. You can apply for a scholarship. We're looking particularly for students, for people who are interested in delving deep into INRAND's ideas. This conference in Europe is going to be structured with much more seminars and deep dive classes, more like the INRAND University. So if you're interested in diving deep into INRAND's philosophy, into INRAND's ideas, and you'd like a scholarship, all expenses paid, and you've read some INRAND, so you know what you're getting into, please go do INRAND.org slash start here, start here, and you'll have there on the front page all the information you need in order to, yeah, in order to sign up and sign up for a scholarship. You'll have all the information to sign and apply for the scholarship, sign up for the conference. If you want to come and pay, you're welcome to. You can, and then you can just, you just go to that website and go to the conference program and register, although we might not have that available yet. I think right now we're just doing scholarships. All right, so I think that's all the announcements that I had. It teaches at the conference. We, myself, I'll be teaching there. Uncle Gatte, Nikos will be there. So yeah, it'll be a lot of fun and it'll be super interesting. And yeah, hopefully you guys can come. Ryan just said he applied to ARU. Adam Smith has contacted him. We had a great conversation. I attended my first discussion group yesterday and it was a lot of fun, very thoughtful, thought-provoking. So support ARI, absolutely. But go apply for ARU. Go become a student at ARU. I think you'll really enjoy it. You'll have a blast and come to the conference. Come to the conference. All right, let's take this issue on. See, here's the puzzle, right? Here's the puzzle. The puzzle is that, you know, the left has gone nuts over Hamas. And there's a certain level of bewilderment. Like, you know, I quote in the title of the talk here of the show today, queers for Palestine.  They know what Hamas thinks of homosexuality. They know what Hamas does to homosexuals. How can queers be for Palestine?   They know what they're advocating for. So how can they advocate? How can they be for Hamas when Hamas would kill them?  And this is after decades and decades and decades of gay people, homosexuals in the United States fighting for their right to marry, for their right to be treated like human beings as individuals. And now they want to support a cause in the Middle East that is equivalent to the Middle Ages when it comes to homosexuality. What explains that? That really insanity. But it's more than that, right?  And here is a secular left, a secular left, that claims to be anti-religion and is fought religion, and that is spent again, spent a century fighting for women's rights and has made unbelievable progress in getting women to vote and in breaking glass ceilings and in making it possible for women to achieve everything they can achieve today. So they fought for homosexuals, they fought for women, they're anti-religious and yet they're supporting a group that's religious, anti-women, anti-homosexuals. What is going on here now? Charles Rodden, somebody else says, they're masochists. Okay, maybe ideas drive history, not psychology. So let's think about ideas. What could drive this?  Yeah, of course. But God, I mean, this is a weird kind of altruism. It's an extraordinary and extreme form that you don't typically see. You don't typically see people who've dedicated their lives to a certain cause. In a sense, completely, you know, adopting an alternative, the opposite, a cause that represents the opposite of what they hold, which is stunning. And it's more than that. While the left periodically engages in violence, most of these leftists would claim to be pacifists, would argue against war, certainly would argue against the killing of civilians, the killing of innocents, the killing of children. They would consider that barbarism in every context. The left traditionally has been anti-war and anti this kind of barbarism. You know, and even the better people on the left, when they realize what Stalin was doing, they even turned against communism. And here they are confronted with the sheer brutality, barbarism, primitivism of Hamas, raping, pillaging, murdering, beheading, burning people, children, women, innocents. And they don't care. You know, in Congress the other day, there was a hearing about aid for Israel. And a group of these leftists showed up and sat in the bleachers, I guess, in the seats behind, and they had their hands covered in red paint, and they were all raising their hands with red on their hands. And, you know, I think they all know what that represents.  It's a symbol that spread through the Palestinian world. Among Palestinians, after, I don't know what year exactly, but a few years ago, a couple of Palestinians cornered some Israeli soldiers, dragged them into a house, slaughtered them, killed them, and they were covered with blood and the hands. And he went out in the window and there were people outside, and he showed them the red hands and they all cheered and cheering murder. And here were American kids, American kids, American leftists, sitting in Congress with red on their hands, raising their hands. They said, look, we're ready to kill, we're ready to murder. Look the heroes. And of course, you know, from the river to the sea, they all understand what that means. You know, the left is being traditionally anti-genocide. Everybody is, I think. But here is a left that, again, claims to be pro-humanity and caring about people and non-violence and all these things. And again, we're not talking about a fringe. We're not talking about like five people.  We're here talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially millions. We're talking about thousands of university professors at the top universities in America, shouting from the river to the sea, bloodying their hands, supporting Hamas in one way or the other, advocating for violence, advocating for genocide, embracing the rhetoric of genocide, of murder, embracing the idea of a primitive death cult, a primitive death cult in the Middle East, supporting them. And you could say that they're underdog. It doesn't explain it. There are lots of underdogs in the world, lots of underdogs in the world. I mean, why pick the most barbaric? I mean, literally, the most barbaric. Why pick religious fanatics when a lot of these professors have dedicated their lives to undermining religion? What explains what is going on on the American left? And I think what's interesting about this is some of the people most concerned about this, most panicking about this, most hysterical about this are people on the left, people kind of on what you might call the old left. People who are, you know, maybe today would be called centrists, but are clearly on the left and might even be, in some cases, socialists or borderline socialists.  So I've been reading this book called the Identity Trap, Identity Trap, the Identity Trap. The story of ideas and power in our time by Yasha Monk. Monk is his name. Anyway, he's a leftist center, center-left, intellectual, who is clearly, you know, he's pofy speech, he's pulled a lot of good things, clearly distraught and upset about what is going on and trying to make sense of it. And by the way, I recommend the book. I think it's a good book if you're interested about the state of the left and you want to read it not from the perspective of somebody on the right who's trying to, you know, really pick and choose all the quotes and make them look as bad as they can, because that's what you do when you read a book like that. But from somebody who's really trying to understand and trying to make sense of it all and trying to, and opposes it, but opposes it not fully is making mistakes that are consistent with then I think this is a good book for you if that is what is, if you're interested in these kind of questions. So what I want to do now, what I want to do, and I'm going to take, I'm going to lower the air conditioning here because it's getting hot in here, but what I want to do here, what the hell? What I want to do here is talk about the fundamental philosophy driving all of this. And why I think the fundamental philosophy driving all this leads this new left, this crazy left is the conclusion that it gets to. So I want to talk about its metaphysics, its epistemology, its ethics, and its politics. To try to really understand what is going on here, because not only will this explain to us what is going on with Hamas and the left attitude towards Hamas, but I think it'll explain to you the left attitude towards all the other issues out there. Towards, you know, white America, towards Christianity, towards almost everything. So we want to delve into the philosophy. This is not going to be, you know, difficult, it's not going to be super deep. It's just going to be me kind of simplifying a lot of what I've read about them in terms that I think I think we can all understand and in terms that I think will make our evidence why there's a sense in which they have to support Hamas in this struggle. And it's important for us to get away from just saying altruism, but let's dig into how is it manifesting itself? How does it come into being? And if they were altruists, why don't they feel sorry for the dead Israeli kids? They're suffering too. What is it about Israel that they find so offensive? And what is it about Hamas that they find so noble and exciting? Okay, give me less than its 10 seconds. So the origin of the modern left, the origins of the modern left really go back to the post-moderns. Of course, anything goes back to Kant, and the post-moderns can't exist without Kant, but we're going to skip over the Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, all of that. And we're going to jump in right to the post-moderns, to Foucault and many of the other post-moderns, what's called the Frankfurt School. But basically one of the important ideas of the post-moderns, and here you have to remember the post-moderns are basically dwelling or considering the failure of Marxism. The failure of Marxism to understand the world, to predict the world, to manifest in the world, Marxism, they recognize is a complete and utter failure. They don't disagree with the aims, but they disagree with Marx and his methodology. They disagree with Marx on much of his approach. And in that sense, you know, I disagree with those out there who think that the modern left is what they call neo-Marxist. I think the modern left is in many respects a rejection of Marx, a building on, furthering of and accepting of certain basic premises, but ultimately a rejection of what makes Marx Marx, the whole class struggle, the dialectic, all of that is out. Marx, in a sense, is, for the post-moderns, too scientific, too objective, to behold into reality.  Of objective truth. You know, this is again the manifestation of Kant separating our senses and our reason from reality. We don't know reality as it is. We only know what our mind interprets reality to be through the mechanisms of senses and through filters that the mind has. So, the post-moderns provide the new left with a deep skepticism about objective reality. Reality is not observable. It is not knowable. There is no one firm reality. Reality is malleable. It depends. We each have our own reality.  It depends on your, what's called, they call, situated knowledge, what you know at the time. Everything we know about history, everything we know about other parts of the world, everything we know about our surrounding is basically shaped by the stories that we are told. History is just a story. It's just a particular version. It's just a story that somebody has told. Somebody, the winners typically, the people in power have told us about what happened. But there's no objectivity to it. There's no way to actually discover what it actually is. History, but even reality around us is just the consequences of what people tell us it is. And if we want to change reality, then we need to change the stories. So, for example, a lot of people inspired by the post-modernist have rewritten history. And they make stuff up. And that's fine. Because nobody knows what history really was. There's no objective truth. So my truth is just as good as your truth. And if I make stuff up, if I think this might, maybe would have happened, then that is as good as anything else. So the fundamental here is in metaphysics, they reject reality. They are on the premise of the primacy of consciousness. It is man that creates the reality he experiences. He does not, we're not just passive, we're not observers of reality. We're shapers of that reality. And the people who shape the reality we all experience, because they're the ones who tell the stories that resonate with us, they're the ones that engage in the discourse that impacts all of our lives, other people in power. And we'll get to power in a minute. So we are all susceptible to the stories other people are telling. And to the stories we tell ourselves. So we have the primacy of consciousness, clearly. And how do we know anything? Well, we don't. We get certain evidence from our senses and we have certain feelings about these things. And it's fundamentally of feelings of what matters. Emotions are what are important. Emotions are how we know about the world. It's all about how we feel about this or how we feel about that. And if you listen to them, how they talk, they're constantly talking about how this makes them feel. Not knowledge, not facts, not reality. There is none. Or to the extent that there is, they don't know what it is and none of us can discover it. So if there's no reality and we don't have a means to know the reality, reason, reason is flawed. Everybody has their own reason. Men have different logic than women and every race has its own logic. And if you take that to its ultimate conclusion, every individual has its own logic because every individual has his own lived experiences that are different than everybody else's lived experiences, has his own quote, situated knowledge that's different than everybody else's situated knowledge. And therefore there is no one logic. There is no one reason and there's no one reality. So we don't know anything. So what can we know? We can't know anything. What we can do is we can feel. We can emote. And of course, so they place emotion above reason. Reason is irrelevant. And this has a lot, you know, this is important in terms of dealing with these people. You can present them with facts, hey, queers in Hamas land, you'd be thrown off of a tall building. And they go, you don't know that. You can't tell me that. That's not how I feel about these people. And that's what matters to them. Facts don't matter. It's how they can eradicate all the evidence of October 7th that pretended never happened. So emotions above reason. Primacy of consciousness, epistemology, emotions above reason, which means subjectivism. Reality, truth is all based on my emotion. It's all based on what I want, what I think. We'll get, well, what I feel, not what I think. We'll get to the I in a minute because the I in the end disappears because the I is insignificant. But it's, there's no, it all depends on the subject. It all depends on me. It all depends on, again, my particular context. You know this because as soon as you deny reality, this is inevitable. And of course, if all you're left with is emotions and if reality is not really knowable, then it's really, really scary to be alive. And it's really, really scary to try to be alone, to be an individual, thinking for yourself because you can't think. Emoting for yourself, emotions don't lead to much success in life. So, how do you deal with this fear? How do you deal with the fact that everything is unknowable, everything is in flux? Oh, you join a group and you place the group above all else. So, the new left is fundamentally, almost metaphysically collectivistic. Individual doesn't really matter. Doesn't really exist other than as a little emoting thing. But what really, where does he get these emotions? How does he know what's right? Well, the group, the group is what's going to supply him with the truth. And here the interesting thing is that, you know, as part of a backlash against racism, which obviously people have experienced in this country, the group has become the racial group, the ethnic group, however they want to define it. So, you know, the shared experience of black people is different than the shared experiences of white people.  So, even though, and this is interesting, even though they all think that race is a social construct, they also realize that since they're being defined by race, they have to use race in order to achieve their goals. So, they'll contradict themselves. They'll say, oh, race doesn't exist in a sense. It's a social contract. But blacks think differently than whites. Blacks have different experiences than whites. So they embrace racial categories, even though they think they don't exist. Go figure. But contradictions have never bothered kind of those who are steeped in the tradition of Hegel who relished contradictions. So they're collectivists. They're defined by the racial ethnic group in which they are born or the sexual group or the sexual orientation. They're defined by the little group that identifies them, identifies them in terms of belonging, in terms of characteristic like skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, all the things that they believe are sources of oppression, are sources of being oppressed for. And, of course, that collectivism and that attitude towards identity, identifying yourself as a member of a group defined by your genes in a sense or your sexual orientation or whatever, it leaves these people to be determinists. So they reject free workers. They reject the individual. You're basically determined by the group you're in.   But I'm not, you teller.  It's like completely illogical and irrational. But that's what she says and that's what everybody buys. And that's a purely determinist view of human age. Robin D'Angelo, yeah. So whites have certain characteristics, racist. Blacks have certain characteristics. Right now, you know, victims. And they can't escape those. You can't escape them. The only way to escape them for white to escape it is to completely embrace the fact that you're a racist, you know, and just live with that and feel guilty about it and ask for constant forgiveness for being what you supposedly are without choice. So the determinists, the collectivists, the subjectivists, they are primacy of consciousness. And of course, when it comes to ethics, it really is, again, you know, individuals don't really count. Everything's about groups. Justice is about, quote, social justice. Everything is in terms of the group. And here, altruism is dominant, right? Because you can't... The alternative to altruism is some form of, you know, rational egoism, right? But egoism assumes itself, it assumes... And there is no self for them. It assumes identity that's individual and not part of a group. There is no identity separate from the group. There's only your group identity. So the altruists as collectivists and here intersectionality is, or the way intersectionality has become is the ethical guide for them. Virtue or the bad people are people who oppress others. And oppression doesn't mean a whip. Oppression is the people in power who have dominated, you know, the world while oppression has happened all over the place. So if you're white, you are by definition the oppressor. Even though you as an individual have never oppressed anybody, it doesn't matter. You are telling the stories of the oppressor.  The oppressor narrative, and the narrative itself is oppressive because as we said, the narrative is what creates reality. Reality doesn't exist outside of the narrative, telling it. And this is by the way, why they care so much about microaggressions and why they care so much about trigger warnings. It's because it's all about emotions and it's all about the story. And if you're telling a story that makes them feel bad, well, that's about the worst thing you can do to somebody because reality is all about the emotional state that you're in. So from an ethical perspective, they're just altruists, but they're collectivistic altruists. They're not about individual sacrifice. They're about group sacrifice. They're about group suffering. They're about group victims, victimhood. And here they create a hierarchy of victimhood. Who has the most victim points? He is the most admired. And who has the least victim points? He is vice. He is the enemy. He is evil. White, successful, heterosexual males have the most power in the culture. And for a bad definition, they are the most vicious people in the culture. They are the enemy. And the only way for somebody who's white and heterosexual and a man to overcome this is by apologizing for it all the time and for fighting against himself and for advocating for the opposite and recognizing his very nature as an oppressor in subjugating himself, in sacrificing himself to the greater good of those who a group, the group that has been oppressed in the past or today, it doesn't really matter because it's all the same. And again, you are responsible for what happened in the past because you're perpetuating it in a sense by existing, by being a member of that same group.  There really isn't any morality, per se, and sense of individual morality other than to recognize in which group you belong to and to figure out, you know, who's more oppressed than you so that you can sacrifice to them. Everything ultimately boils down to power. Everything boils down to power. Everybody boils down to who has power and who does not. Everything in a sense, and they talk about this constantly, everything is about politics, in that sense there is no ethics here.  Ethics is through individual. Everything is political. Art is political, behavior is political, and indeed, your skin color is political because your skin color positions you either as unoppressed or unoppressed. And power here means political power. Power means here means violence, it means physical force. Because when there is no reason, how are we supposed to get anything done? All we have then is muscle. All we have there is force. All the group can do is use physical force. Groups can't think. So what you get is that the entire system of the left today ultimately boils down to, you know, hierarchies of power, hierarchies of control, and contests of power. And the standard of goodness or badness or the standard of who you support or not is not achievement but oppression. Who is oppressed more? I mean, this is intersectionality. Who is being oppressed more? They are the ones that should be elevated. They are the ones that deserve our respect. They're the ones who deserve our sacrifice. All right, so what you have here is the ultimate in a disintegrated, you know, evil philosophy that just makes absolutely no sense, does not connect, does not really integrate into any kind of whole. It's not connected to anything. It is a deterministic, collectivistic ideology rooted in power relationship between groups, not even individuals, where the individual is guided only by emotion, reason plays no role, and where reality is constantly influxing, is completely unknowable to that individual. It's a mess. So what do you do if you hold this kind of idea with the kind of stuff that's going on in the world? So one of the academic fields that this whole ideology of the left has generated is something called post-colonialism, which is this academic study of the cultural, political and economic legacy of colonialism and imperialism and the focus, the impact it's had on human life and control and exploitation of colonized people and what it's done to them. And this, of course, you know, is all with the idea that the colonizers are the ones with power. The colonizers are the ones who wrote the history. The colonizers are the ones who wrote, interpreted what has happened. And that has to be rejected. That has to be reinterpreted from the perspective of the people who were colonized, the people who had been subjugated, because that is their truth. And indeed, the very fact that Western culture is an advocate for reason, is an advocate for individualism, is an advocate for capitalism, is an advocate for personal agency, is an advocate, and ultimately engaged in colonization makes Western culture and Western culture a culture to be denounced, a culture to be rejected for the sins of those who colonized. And there's no, well, there's also some benefits. Some of the colonization was good for the people, you know, and ultimately Western civilization sort of created the modern world and increased life expectancy and brought us curious to the diseases. There is no consideration of the benefits. The benefits are out. All that matters is the horrors, the damage. All that is, is Western civilization as an oppressor, Western civilization, Western culture as colonizer, as violent, as having power and therefore a shaping reality. Again, stories, your discussion, your debate, the stories you write, the music you play, the artwork, that is what shapes reality. And if you can control all that, you are shaping reality. And the colonizers should rebel and reject all that. That is true oppression. The imposition of those in power, their stories, their reality onto those who are victims or perceive themselves as being victims. Complete subjectivism, but a whole worked out theory of guilt for those in power of redemption and power and sanction to those who have been victimized. And how do we know if somebody is victimized? How do we know if somebody is suffering? Well, that's easy, right? Income inequality, they're poor, you're rich. Blacks make less money than whites. Well, obviously. That means they're being victimized. They're in a less situation. You look at Israel, Palestine. Palestinians are poor. Israelis are rich. Well, they must be the victims.  Israelis have higher life expectancy. Well, they must be the victims. So in the absence of complete quality of outcome, those who score less must be the victims of those who score more. Complete zero sum world viewpoint. Unsurprising, I think. So the whole of morality, politics boils down to identifying victims, identifying oppressed, and identifying oppressors. So let's take Hamas. Hamas rules over a small strip of land with 2 million people. They are poor. They don't have sophisticated weapons. They have rifles and they have, you know, some missiles that don't hit anything usually.  Many of the people who live in Gaza, their ancestors used to live in what's now Israel. They don't live where they used to be. Not because they want to, but because they're not allowed to live there. So by definition, according to them, they're being oppressed. They're poor. They're miserable. They're not free. Well, they're being oppressed. It's not Hamas that's oppressing them. Hamas is them. They are Hamas. At least they were honest about that. They are Hamas. So who's oppressing them? Well, you can easily tell who's oppressing by looking at who's successful. The Israelis. The Jews more broadly. America. Well, of course America. The most successful. The richest. The freest. The lack of equality means that Israel and America have oppressed. They've subordinated the Palestinians. The Palestinians are dying.  How can that be right? All the Palestinians have their guns.  They have these amazing tanks and all kinds of weapons systems. There's no equality here. The one with the bigger weapons is clearly oppressing the ones with smaller weapons. It's not equal. It's not fair. There's no justice here. This goes against everything in social justice. So you tell a leftist, one of these leftists, you tell them queers are killed in Palestine.  And he'll say to you, yeah, that's their culture. It's their reality. Their reality is being shaped by oppression. They... Their reality is shaped by Israel. In a sense, Israel causes them to kill homosexuals because they don't have an opportunity to manifest their own reality because they're subservient to Israel. It's the same thing about in America. Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in America. But that's not the black's fault. They didn't create this reality in which they commit the crime. This reality in which they're committing crime was created by white society. So it's the white's fault. This is part of the defund the police and this goes back to who's so. The idea that civilization creates criminals in a state of nature without civilizations, without western civilizations, without the white man, or blacks wouldn't commit these crimes. Well, without Israeli oppression, without Israel writing, creating this reality, Palestinians wouldn't treat homosexuals this way. In a state of nature, they wouldn't. This is all Israel's fault. To the extent that queer should be afraid of Palestinians, yeah, but it's Israel's fault. Therefore, we're with the Palestinians because if we get rid of Israel, if we can bring Israel down, if we can make Israel understand that they need to subjugate themselves to the Palestinians, Palestinians will become angels.  But first, they have to stop being victims. First, they have to gain power. First, they have to get under, out from under Israeli oppression. When you tell these leftists, but Hamas, they slaughtered people. They raped, are you for rape? And they go, well, of course not, of course I'm not for rape. But you have to understand these people. They're oppressed. And they don't have a lot of weapons. And you can judge somebody else. You don't know their context. And this is the only way they can express their rage. And this is a reality and a circumstance all created through power of the Israelis, of the people in power. So no, we're not for rape and pillage and murder, but we're for Hamas because the fault for the rape and pillage and murder with Israel. Again, reality is shaped by discourse. Reality is shaped by the stories told. Reality is shaped by the people in power and Israel's in power. So you can't blame, you can't blame the Palestinians for doing what they did. And by the way, we don't know what they did. Are you showing me videos? Are you showing me evidence? But reality is not in a video. Reality is what people feel. I don't think those Palestinians felt that they were raping people. I don't think they felt they were killing innocent people because what matters is emotion. Reality doesn't matter. You say, but you're advocating for genocide. When you say, from the river to the sea. Oh no! Once the Jews give up the power, just like Palestinians will stop dropping homosexuals from the roof, from the tall buildings, they will embrace Jews.  But there will be a healing process in which ultimately we'll all live together. But Hamas has dedicated the destruction of Israel. Well, Israel, but not, that doesn't mean killing all Jews, but they say they're going to kill all Jews. Well, again, that's just you framing the situation from a power perspective. It just goes on and on and on. And they rationalize this.  They're evading. They're ignoring reality, but it's easy for them to ignore reality. They don't believe in it to begin with. This is the ultimate consequence of post-modern education. The ultimate consequence of Kant's ideas manifest in modernity. Taken to their logical extreme. We don't know. All we have is emotion. All we have is feeling. And all we have is the group. And determinism, everybody's a determinist. And determinism dictates that I am the color of my skin. I am the oppressor or the oppressed. And what I do or what I don't do, what I think or what I don't think is all going to be dictated by that. So, I mean, again, that's an outline.  Modern philosophy is this kind of philosophy. I don't think there are a lot of philosophers. This is interesting, right? There are very few philosophers who take this stuff seriously. This mostly came out of English departments. You know, and then once they started creating these ethnic studies, women's studies, black studies, Latino studies, it comes out of there. It doesn't come out of philosophy departments. It comes out of philosophy, i.e. postmodern philosophy. But postmodernism is not being taken that seriously in the philosophy field. I mean, we can ask Greg Salamieri next time he's on the show about this, but I think I've heard him say, but this is everywhere else. And what you're seeing, this is led to the whole DI, this is led to all the... this has been institutionalized in American universities. Yeah, I mean, this is all coming out of the Frankfurt School that had us somehow save the left from the failure of Marxism. So in their minds, they have no problem supporting Hamas as murderous as it is. Not because they necessarily are murderous, but because it all makes sense. It doesn't, but it's all about the oppressed and the oppressor and justice, social justice, never individual justice. There is no such thing. And it's just stories. It's just discourse. There's no real reality. These kids that are dying, that's not real reality to them. What matters are the stories about Palestinian children dying now because they care about children, they don't. But because they know that gives them power over Israel, that gives them power over the world by emphasizing the victim status of the Palestinians. And again, at the end, ethics all boils down to politics. It all boils down to power. That's the essence. And that's what it's all about. All right, I will take questions. Any questions you have on anything, I guess. Hopefully you found that interesting. Hello, Stephen Hopper. Thank you. This is some, I'm just looking at some stickers. Maryalene, thank you. And Wes, thank you. $50, really appreciate that. I know there were others, but I didn't catch them. Yeah, I hope you found that helpful. A little bit of understanding the enemy, know that enemy, see where they're coming from and how perverse. And of course, the only way to combat this is to stand for reality, reason, egoism and capitalism, i.e. individual rights. Rights, rights, individualism, reason and reality. It's the only way to combat this. And of course, nobody else, nobody out there is fighting this with these kind of ideas. All right. Michael, now remember, what I'm describing here is the nutty left. This is still a minority of leftists. It's maybe not a minority of university professors in these fields, but my guess is, like once you get out of sociology, ethnic studies, all of that crap, it's probably a minority of professors outside of that. It's certainly a minority of intellectual leftists.   All right. Let's see. We will go to...  Reality isn't fixed. There's a primacy of consciousness, God's consciousness, the group's consciousness. It's all subjective, all subjective, morality is subjective, everything is subjective, because it's all dependent on this mystical communication, this revelation. Reason is out. Ethics is just about sacrifice and original sin and group identity, i.e. your religion. And for them too, when they take the religion seriously, it's all about power. It's all about power. Michael says, in England, a man was arrested for making hateful comments for all Palestinian protesters clogging up the streets. I can never live outside of the US. I cannot imagine living in a place with no First Amendment protection activities. Yeah, I mean, in Europe and the UK, maybe the worst right now, there is no First Amendment protection. There is no constitutional protection for the First Amendment. Most European countries now have hate speech laws.  And the UK, including the conservatives, have bought into the idea that you can't criticize, you can't make comments about a quote oppressed group, and in this case, that is always Muslims, and that constitutes hate speech. You can offend and make horrible comments about a group in power an oppressor group. So you can make horrible comments about the Brits, right? Christians, whites, because they are the ones in power. But you cannot make the same exact comment about those who are not in power. Again, this is all about way in a power hierarchy. In terms of power relationships. So you can make awful comments about men. You can't make awful comments about women. It all is a power hierarchy. I mean, this is really coming out of American universities. It's in Canada. It's in the UK. Interestingly enough, this kind of analysis, this kind of postmodern, certainly racial analysis is a lot less prevalent in Germany, or even in France. And the postmodernists, of course, came out of France. They invented this. And yet it's never taken hold in France and in Germany. Partially, yeah. But in all the Anglo-Saxon countries, that's where it's really powerful. It's really strong. It all originates with Kant, so in Germany. The postmoderns, Frankfurt School, but also Foucault, a lot to atone for when it comes to these kind of ideas. But in terms of its manifestations in the world today, it's all American. British, Canadian places like that. I'm curious. I think Australia is susceptible to this as well, but I'm curious if those of you in mainland Europe, France, Germany, Northern Europe, if you get as much of this as we do in the Anglo-Saxon world, I don't think so for whatever reason. It's an interesting debate topic about why it is. Michael, I agree with you. First Amendment is crucial. Europe is losing it. It makes living in Europe much, much more difficult and much, much more challenging. In the UK in particular, it is bad about these things. All right. We've got a bunch of $20 questions. Yeah, I mean, this ideology really does hold seriously that there's no such thing as universal truths. There's no such thing as universal rights. There's no such thing as principles that are universal. It is all group-centered. It's all identitarian.  Right? Let's be clear about this. It's a fundamentally racist ideology because it places the scent of gravity on the color of one's skin. It places the scent of gravity on one's racial roots, whatever the hell that means. It places the scent of gravity on one's DNA and it's deterministic in that sense. So it's racist determinism and it's racist determinism from the left. Now determinism is not new from the left. I mean, ultimately, Marxism is determinism. But it's a different type of determinism. It's a different spin on determinism. And here it's all focused on race, sex, race and sex. How you identify yourself sexually and about race. Right? All right, so yeah, again, hopefully your finding is interesting. Let's see, doodle bunny even if it's towards the end of the show, if you could not rush through the super chat questions answer each thoroughly regardless of how deep into the show you are, otherwise it feels like you're not getting our money's worth. Um, yeah, I mean, if it's two hours into the show and I'm tired and it's a $5 question, you're just not going to get as much attention as if you put a $20 question is and that's the advantage of one of the advantages of a $20 question is that I'll do it sooner I'm more fresh but I'm going to rush through some of the questions. That's just a reality if you don't like it don't ask the questions or save up a little bit and ask the question as a $20 question and know you'll get the time and space for it. But this is a reality I've always said, $20 question get priority, they get priority both in terms of when I answer them and in terms of how much time I spend on them. I am not egalitarian. Not egalitarian. The more money you give me the more time I'll give you. Alright, Jennifer I think this line is relevant here. Quote this is from Neil Peart Unsurprising like a steely blade in a silken sheath we don't see what they've made of they're made of they shout about love but when push comes to shove they live for the things they're afraid of yep they live their emotions that's what you have to understand it's all about emotions it's all about emotions and it's all about power and oppression Claw Claw Claw Claw Claw Claw Claw Claw You said yesterday you thought there was a good possibility there would be concentration camps in Germany filled with Muslims and maybe some Jews thrown in for good measure that prediction seems a little nuts I know I've been making it for I don't know 20 years almost but I don't think it does I think when you think about what was that 150,000 people marching in Berlin today in favor of Hamas if you think about what is very possible in the months to come particularly if Israel appears weak and Hamas appears strong what you'll see is an increase in terrorism in Europe imagine 10, 20 years from now when the Muslim population is much larger much more significant and imagine if they stay radicalized they don't assimilate and they start challenging Germans with force killing blowing restaurants up committing jihad do we really think that what will happen is the Germans will say oh well I guess we'll convert to Islam and give it up I mean that was, there's a book I forget the name of the book that I read 10 years ago where that basically happens in France it's kind of a novel about the future in which the French basically give up and they basically start converting to Islam and mass and basically France becomes an Islamic state now I think that could happen in France I don't think that'll happen in Germany I think what happens in Germany is a rebellion against that now it might not be technically concentration camps they might not use the same symbolism and the same methodology as the Nazis did but basically you can imagine mass eviction mass levels of violence against Muslims and Muslims being basically kicked out of Germany I mean AFD wants to basically round up all the Muslims and send them away or who knows what to is gaining real power in Germany and of course they're much more moderate now than they would be if the Muslims were much more violent, they're much more moderate now than they would be if they had more power, they're much more moderate now than if they would be if the Muslims were actually on large scale engaging in terrorist activities imagine if Muslims in Germany, not today but in 20 years when the AFD is in power imagine the Muslims did what Hamas just did to a bunch of German teenagers is it impossible to imagine that they would be all rounded up and putting camps? no I don't think so I mean even America rounded up all the Japanese and put them in terminal camps during World War II I think a culture of the future the way we're heading in the direction we're heading with the morality that we're gaining with the kind of racism that we're adopting with the kind of authoritarian nature that I think we're heading towards is going to be a lot more violent and a lot more aggressive and a lot more mean and a lot more destructive than anything we've seen in the past anything we've seen in the past so yeah it seems nuts and one can't imagine it and yet I can because I don't I think the worst elements in Europe this is my point about the left and the right in the United States the left in America will bring out the worst in the American right and in the European right so Europe and America are not going to become communist they're not going to become post-modern havens for critical race theory they're not going to become egalitarian what they're going to become is fascist authoritarian states and fascist full-blown fascism not just regulatory state fascism that I think is the direction that Lenin pick off predicts and ominous parallels and in and I think that is the direction that both Europe and the United States are ultimately going to head in and by the way in Dimi says Europe probably will not return to religion I'm not convinced of that I see more and more religiosity in Europe much more than I thought ever thought existed I see European conservatives particularly in mainland Europe less on Britain but particularly mainland Europe becoming more and more religious awakening more and more religion emphasizing more and more religion even in the UK actually and I think you will see traditional religionists as the fascists of the future destroying their enemy religionists the woke left and and the Islam and the Islamists crazy I know but that's how I see it whoops Mary Elaine are these people who are genuinely honestly confused mistaken about the situation between Israel and Hamas or Israel in the East in general is it even possible thanks so much for what you do there are some people who are confused there are some people who are honestly confused young they don't have experience they don't know the history all they've been taught is this nonsense all they've been exposed to allies even then it doesn't take much research it doesn't make much to observe and see what's going on in the world so I don't think you can say innocent in that sense for very long but no I think there's a certain segment of the left that is genuinely confused and mistaken but most of them are morally culpable they're evading on a massive scale and they've embraced philosophies and ideologies that are just on their face nutty crazy tribalistic and it would be immoral to embrace because it requires again massive evasion in order to embrace those ideas Shahzad they profess to be moved by love and yet are deterred undeterred by piles of human corpses yes no opposite of undeterred they're excited by the piles of human corpses they are proof of love in a sense because only the oppressed can love and the oppressors are the ones dying and that's okay part of the problem even with the ones who are confused is that they don't have the language the terminology the framework to discover the truth the epistemology is so messed up it's so screwed up that they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them over their head they've completely rejected reality and once you reject reality there's nothing left Mark I can see how the young students combine to this they've been subjugated to anti-reality since they were born what about the university presidents and professors older do they really believe this or is it a fraud well I mean I think most of them really believe it but it's a fraud they believe it because they're massively believe it because they're ignoring reality and they they know they're ignoring reality I think a lot of the university professors are primarily just cowards they're just social metaphysicians they're just completely second-handed they're afraid of the professors they're afraid of taking a stand they're afraid of being socially ostracized they're afraid of their own students so I think a lot of the professors and a lot of the presidents and some professors just cowards but many of the professors really believe it in a sense in a sense that believe means something right in a sense that they hold these ideas they teach these ideas and they know they're evading in order to keep them they know something very wrong and they do it anyway and in that sense they're immoral they're really really really bad people I mean these professors are immoral you can say about these professors that many of them are evil you know this is Leonard Peacock's essay Fact and Value which you should read one of the great essays he talks about that fact that that when people hold ideas that are evil ideas that manifest in evil outcomes that it doesn't take too much to see the meaning of these ideas that they are morally responsible for holding those ideas that you can't judge somebody morally just for the ideas that they hold and these professors many of them are evil whereas the young people you can at least argue they don't know and by the way there's a way in which these ideas are new in that they've taken them to the full logical extent but postmodernism has been around for a long time for quite a long time subjectivism, moral subjectivism emotionalism collectivism all concepts that have been around for a long time ideas that have been around for a long time it's not like this is all being invented and only the young generation has been inculcated with these but these have been around for a long long time and generations now have come under their influence fizzled do you think Masad will do what happened after Munich Olympics what needs to be done now more than ever no I don't think they will I wish they did I mean they should have done it a long time ago killed every Hamas operative anywhere in the world including Qatar spiritual leaders, political leaders everybody affiliated with Hamas in a senior position should be killed should be assassinated I just worry that they won't do it right that Israel will ultimately sue for peace as part of the peace deal they'll hands off of all these leaders so be it so somebody makes a comment I'm going to read you the comment I enjoy your videos I would like to share something that seems to be true but maybe hard for you to hear believe me it's not hard for me to hear so you may regret it no I'm not going to regret it I know you hate religion but it seems to me you are religious I know you think that which is interesting what are the characteristics of religion passion no I'm passionate absolutism no science is pretty absolute mathematics is absolute logic is absolute I am passionate and I am an absolutist but what identifies religion as religion is faith I don't I don't take anything by faith a rejection of logic science and reason I try to validate everything in logic, science and reason maybe I fail but that's my attempt there's no religion there Atlas Shrug does not my bible it doesn't tell me what to do it doesn't tell me how to act objectivism is not a religion objectivism is a philosophy it's a set of ideas you can reject it you can accept it but to just call it a religion and dismiss it is to not understand it it's not understand anything about it any set of ideas you can just label a religion but what identifies a religion is faith is commandments is the negation of reason or an attempted reason and if you want to insult me and insult objectivism by just calling it a religion that's fine but you don't know what you're talking about what you don't like about me is that I'm passionate and then I have clear ideas and that I you know don't compromise on the truth but that doesn't define religion if you can show me how I'm being unreasonable if you can show me how I'm going by faith and not by fact and evidence then go for it but you're not doing that right you're skimping on that you're anyway you mean you're being lazy I can't pronounce this username describe the spoken language situation across Egypt, Gaza, Israel, West Bank Jordan is there commonality or is it a tower of babel if the enemy is shouting outside your door can you understand them suddenly Egypt, Gaza West Bank, Jordan can all understand each other for the most part that is they might have a slight different what do you call it I forget the term different variations of the Arabic they speak but it's all pretty much the same obviously with some differences but they're minor and they can understand each other Israel speaks a different language it's Hebrew but many Israelis speak Arabic many Israelis can speak with Egyptians with Gaza, with Israel, with West Bank with Jordan they can speak that different dialects, thank you the different dialects of Arabic many Israelis speak Arabic not all, but many do I don't but many of my classmates did and many people in Israel today do the problem in Israel is not the problem in the Middle East is not lack of communication it's not the inability to communicate if you don't understand the language you have translators so it's fairly easy to do many of the people killed and slaughtered by Hamas were Arabic speakers some of them were not even Jewish but they were Arabic speakers so I'm not sure what the point of the question is Arabic is the common language in the Middle East and they can all understand each other pretty well many Israelis can speak Arabic so there's no communication problem there interesting talk life gets scary and confusing when people reject the reality in that sense there is a metaphysical nexus between religion and postmodernism any thoughts on other connections between those two between religion and postmodernism well they both reject objective reality they both reject reason as our basic means of knowing the world sorry only means of knowing the world the one attributes knowledge through revelation knowledge through emotion ultimately they both rely on a subjectivist morality because there is no objectivity out there from which to get your morality so you either depend on the story of God or you depend on a story you make up but either way it's completely subjective and ultimately religion when taken seriously demands power demands political power and is very engaged in political party and of course they also share basic acceptance of altruism as the guiding principle in morality to the extent that there is such a thing as morality in their frameworks Daniel I found that condemning these free Palestine people as anti-Semitic has been met with accusations of gaslighting sounds like a practical and expedient rationalization they need in order to cover up their anti-Semitism yes and tomorrow I'll talk about why they're anti-Semites and what leads them to be anti-Semites it shouldn't be hard for you to figure that out given what I talked about today why they would hate Jews of all the people Jews in many ways the worst in terms of achievements in terms of success in terms of health in terms of inequality and therefore they're the ones who should be the most hated they're the ones who sit at the top of the power structure as they imagine it and therefore they need to be hated they are obviously the exploiters Israel is obviously exploiting the Palestinians Israel is obviously unjust how do we know it's unjust it's powerful and strong and rich by definition it's unjust that makes you a bad guy there's no other way to get there as long as they put people in the world and you're rich in an altruistic world where altruism is taken consistently you are a bad guy by definition and that's Jews but we'll talk about that tomorrow so yes it's just gaslighting and it's just a rationalization and they really are anti-Semitic they just don't want to think of themselves and many of them are Jews many of these demonstrators are Jews and they certainly don't want to think of themselves as anti-Semitic because that means self-hatred they are self-hating but they don't want to think of it that way alright now we've got that 10, 5, 2 dollar questions and I know Dudo Bunny doesn't want me to go fast over these but I'm going to it's an hour and a half it's 9.30 at night and we'll go relatively fast on these we're still about 160 bucks short of our goal so a few 20 dollar questions would be good again 20 dollar questions get priority I'll always start with them and give them more time so feel free to jump in jump in to right and yeah jump in with any questions you have 160 bucks to go for our goal important to reach our goals and we've got 160 watching live right now so a buck a person we've got 162 people watching and 159 dollars to raise so you can do a sticker with an amount of money you don't even have to ask a question if you don't want to ask a question but value for value support the show if you're here I assume you're getting some value from this so feel free to step in and help out best friend Hank is going to sleep what's up with that he's bailing on us you see alright so yes please feel free to support the show with a question or with a sticker and five bucks from each one of you will get us there very very quickly because there are a lot of you listening oh and by the way if you're not a subscriber please subscribe if you haven't liked the show please like the show before you leave so subscribe like the show thanks guys alright Jonathan Honing you've been speaking about the Middle East with reason for decades thank you for your consistent passionate voice Jonathan thank you oh wow gobbled words just did his first super chat thank you no let's celebrate their 10th super chat on a live stream on any live stream on my live stream anyway gobbled words thank you I don't know it's telling me it's a 10th super chat so thank you for that Mike thank you Mike I saw today that Obama says all Americans are complicit in what's happening in Gaza it reminds me of the what in our Middle East policies go all the way back to FDR yes and remember what I called Obama from the beginning of his presidency I said he was the first anti-American president now I think we've had another one since but he was the first he drew in his first international speech in Egypt he went out of his way to draw a moral equivalency between the Palestinians and the Israelis the Arabs and the Israelis he went out of his way to draw a moral equivalency between the Muslims of the world and the United States of America and in all of his speeches after that he went out of his way to put America down to make America a follower not a leader to make America a second class citizen in the world and so yes and his policy in the Middle East was it was the same as almost every other president he didn't win Afghanistan he didn't get us out of Afghanistan he didn't win in Iraq he didn't get us out of Iraq he didn't win in any way he kept our troops in 120 different countries he didn't really do anything to Israel he didn't let Israel defend itself either just like everybody else he bowed to the Saudis the president right after him danced with the Saudis we've had three presidents in a row certainly two of them significantly anti-American I think Obama and Trump are anti-American presidents really the only ones in American history but Obama has a special inhale for being the first and for his speech on you didn't build that is one of the most evil speeches any American president has ever given in any format anyway oh Jeffy says finally ate at Lebanon fantastic I've not been I'd like to go it's one of my goals for New York that the Korean restaurant that's highly rated those two are two of the restaurants I'd like to go at some point but of course much more urgent than either one of those restaurants is your new restaurant you know I'm curious how it's going you know how the opening was how it's been going since then hopefully business is robust and you're killing it alright you're doing really really well on it so congratulations again to Jeffrey let's see Liam says is Scott Whitland anti-Semite his analysis of Israel is pretty despicable and ridiculous I don't know Scott Whitow I haven't seen his analysis sorry Liam if you send me a link I'll look but yeah I mean these people are stupid and again many of them are just haters of achievement haters of the good for being the good and Israel is that it's an achiever and the good and you know it's why people are anti-Semites but this is a part of it yes James if Israel first world Catholic country I think it would still be receiving the same level of vitriol for bringing civilization to savage region of the planet maybe maybe I don't think Israel is getting the vitriol exclusively because people are anti-Semitic but I think part of it is their anti-Semitism and there's a huge place for anti-Semitism what's going on right now we will talk about that tomorrow but yeah I do think any country in Israel's position responding like Israel has would be getting which successful country would be getting the kind of vitriol Israel's getting there's no question Joe the dreamer Vosch has come out against Hamas as have other Voschanite leftists yeah I mean the more traditional Momoxist leftists are going to be anti-Hamas Hamas is religious it's anti-Civilization it's anti a lot of the things that they claim to believe in that they claim to hold Palo Zeus I understand that malevolent universe premises related to altruism could you elaborate on this okay the malevolent premise premise universe malevolent universe premise malevolent universe premise is the premise that you cannot be successful in the world and Vosch does not lead to success you can't be good and happy you can't be good and successful life basically boils down to a choice between success and living or being good and being good necessitates being miserable being a failure, being unhappy and you see this I've often mentioned it in movies where the good guys are always miserable and divorced and unhappy and the bad guys are having a blast and women and cars and money enjoying themselves and seem to be happy and it's there's a sense in which it's true that is that that is that altruism does not lead to success altruism does not lead to achievement altruism leads to failure and suffering and misery so the more malo you are i.e. the more altruistic you are the more you fail so altruism necessitates a malevolent universe premise because it makes it real but that's because you've defined goodness as badly, you've defined righteousness as wrongly you've defined morality wrongly justice says who are your guests next few weeks and I actually know there's no guest this week because I'm traveling and I need to talk to Angela my assistant about who she's got if she has got anybody for the next few weeks but yeah we need to get on top of that and through the end of the year get some good guests Michael says Naftali Bennett seems to be really making the rounds maybe you can get him on the show for an interview I doubt it but I can certainly try he's making the rounds because the alternative prime minister once BB gets the boot which I hope happens sooner rather than later Manas looking forward to seeing you in champagne excellent, I'll be in champagne Tuesday night I'll see you guys on Tuesday night in Champaign Illinois I'm looking forward to that, that should be fun Michael says I completely agree with you that the Islamics and leftist nihilists will be pushed out by some nationalists either racial or religious I appreciate you agreeing with me Michael, yes I do believe that I do think that's what makes sense Mary Elaine says I wonder if Gina Golden Bateman would agree that those who don't build in some form are more likely to go after political power yes I mean I think those who don't have the mentality of building you know need to create a pseudo self-esteem through achieving power of some form, power of other people in some way so to create or destroy there's not a lot of stagnation ultimately there are people who just drift who just create on a very very small level but if you want to ask me questions there's a super chat I don't answer questions from the chat itself Michael says if man is not meant to get manipulated how come we get manipulated all the time throughout most of human history well I don't know what it means, not meant by whom to get manipulated I mean there is no meant there is no purpose in that sense for man right you can't be manipulated because you're inherently fallible because of the nature of reason is not omniscient and omnipotent so you need you are it's a nature of reason that leaves man susceptible to manipulation because reason needs to be engaged with, you need to make an effort towards it, it's not automatic and it's fallible if you add all that up, it leaves you open it's too manipulation but to the extent that you are serious about reason that's the way you prevent manipulation Mary Eileen says their identity they identify as a victim yes Andrew Traga says do you find minority themed months like Hispanic Month patronizing the minorities they celebrate yes and I find them offensive to everybody it's just a stupid thing to do it's create an identity that really means nothing Enric, the most successful the new left is the more it's failure to live will become evident the response of another collectivism or individualism will make what comes next, yes the question is, is it going to be replaced by another form of collectivism fascism religious fascism nationalistic fascism or is it going to be replaced by individualism and that's the battle that's the battle what will replace the left's collectivism because it will not survive and that's why one of the most important things we can do is differentiate ourselves from right collectivists so that we are the alternative so it's identifiable that it's something different that we are different that we're offering a different solution what about the effects of existentialism Heidegger, Sartre on the new left you know yeah I mean they all had an impact, right they all softened the culture it made it ready for all of this I'd have to brush up on my Sartre and Heidegger for this but yeah, I mean it's all it's all subjectivism it's all this I mean the existentialists are so emotion based and so focused on emotionalism it's all part of this package of the left looking for alternatives once Marxism collapses once Marxism fails and they revert to one form of emotionalism or another one form of collectivism or another because existentialism is ultimately collectivist as well so it all is preparing the culture for what we have today Joel the dreamer Japan has its problems but it lacks walkness hence anime is beating Hollywood and western video games are losing to Japanese ones okay I mean I don't know anything about anime I don't know anything about video games so I believe you Japan doesn't have walkness but it has its problems big ones and you can tell by the birth rate cultures that are healthy and prosperous don't have basically the kind of birth rates that Japan has or Korea has or the west has or Russia has or China has it doesn't mean that cultures that have lots of kids are healthy but having no kids is a negative sign as a cultural phenomenon as a cultural phenomenon having no kids is a negative cultural sign in Japan there are lots of negatives in Japan the economy hasn't grown in decades still is not growing really real challenges in Japan hanta hanta looking forward to your talk on Tuesday great topic I'll see you there excellent we got some people from the show coming to my talk in champagne some of you might be wondering what the topic is now I am because hanta hanta said it's a great topic and I can't remember what it is what am I talking about Tuesday alright on Tuesday the talk is should you live for yourself or for others guess what I'm gonna argue for alright Andrew you guys in the chat are too obsessed with the concept of left and right the concept of left and right are really at the end of the day meaningless the concept of of liberal and conservative have become meaningless I ran called conservatism a meaningless concept decades ago left and right are meaningless there's only one in that political spectrum individualism collectivism there are all kinds of collectivism all kinds very few individualists but all kinds of collectivists the fascists and communists and socialists and critical race theorists and postmodernists and all these kind of collectivists racists and all kinds and they manifest themselves politically I use left and right the way they used in the culture Republicans are right Democrats are left the new right is way on the new right the new left is way on the new left but I am not right I don't put myself in that spectrum that spectrum is just what the culture is using and I use it because that's what people understand but the reality is and is this group left or is this group right who cares are they collectivists are they authoritarians that's what matters right is not a term for the good right is just an arbitrary term to delineate a certain political orientation which today is not a good one it's a collectivistic one an alco capitalists are collectivists an alco capitalists are they authoritarians they're not they're not pro individual rights they're anti individual rights or they reject the concept of individual rights there's no protection of private property of an alco capitalism therefore they're on the collectivistic side of the spectrum they're not on the individualist side of the spectrum individualist side of the spectrum is the side of individual rights as a primary political orientation. All about individual rights. That's it. That's the central concept of individualism politically. So anybody who is not for individual rights is not on the individualist side of the spectrum. Anarchy is the rejection of rights. I'm not right or left. And those of you who are worth anything on the chat, you're not right or left. We're individualists. We're pro-individual rights. And we reject both right and left. God, it's time you think outside the box a little bit. Andrew says, how do you think the battle will play out between the premises of altruism and the right to self-defense in American diplomacy vis-a-vis Israel Gaza? Well, I mean, it plays out the same way it always plays out. In the beginning, everybody says, oh, everybody has the right to self-defense. Israel should defend itself as well as every right to self-defense.  Oh, civilians are dying. Oh, innocence. We didn't mean that kind of self-defense. You've got to slow down. You've got to take a pause. Maybe you see fire. Let's negotiate. What about the hostages? There must be some moderate Hamas members you can talk to. Let's not exaggerate. We don't have to wipe out all of Hamas. Self-defense. Okay, you've already killed a lot of people. You've done your self-defense thing. Let's now figure out a long-term sustainable solution to the problem, which means you have to sacrifice for the Palestinians. That will be American foreign policy. And that would be foreign policy no matter what. No matter if it's Trump or it's Biden, that is always America's foreign policy. I'm not on Trump's side and I'm not on Biden's side. For those of you wondering, I wouldn't vote for Trump and I wouldn't vote for Biden. And I know you can't wrap your heads around that, that when faced with two choices, you choose not to choose. But that sometimes is the most important choice you can make, is not to choose. I don't want cancer. And I don't want to get a heart attack. I am going to do everything I can to avoid cancer and avoid a heart attack. God, that's impossible. I didn't say it was all about power and politics. I said the New Left says it's all about power and politics. God, did you think everything I said about the New Left I believe? I said the New Left believes it's all about power and politics. I don't believe that. I've never believed that. There's nothing in my worldview that suggests that I believe it's all about power and politics. It's not all about power and politics. It's all about personal morality. It's all about you living your life based on your values and based on your mind, based on your reason. And my mind tells me I don't want to commit suicide by this or by that. I'm not going to sanction my suicide by voting for either one of those. Because there is no less of two evils in this choice. Sometimes the two candidates are both so evil you can't pick between them. I never did that. Almost everybody. I never did that all the time. That's reality, guys. You don't have to choose how to die. You can choose to live. You can choose not to choose between evil alternatives set up by irrational people. No, she didn't vote many times. She didn't vote for Eisenhower in the 1950s. She didn't vote Eisenhower versus a Democrat. She didn't vote for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. I voted usually, but not always. I didn't vote the way you'd like me to. But I voted, and sometimes I haven't voted. And if you don't get that not voting is a good thing, not sanctioning the choice is a good thing, then you just don't understand the world. You don't understand life. You don't understand what the purpose is. Yeah, Robin, I think you think too much of Scott and Richard. I don't think any amount of listening will make a dent because they've given up on thinking. They've put themselves in a little box and no facts that I can present or know, but not they won't even they refuse to even understand what I'm saying because they don't want to understand it. They don't want to understand. All right, Mark, pro-Palestinian activism has Marxist roots, which are un-PC, dialectic postmodernism aren't quite to blame here. Why focus on postmodernism, not Marxism? Because I don't think it's Marxism. I don't think the people marching out in the streets, I don't think these young kids, I mean, if you listen to them, if you see what they're doing, they're not Marxist. The old pro-Palestinians were Marxists. The pro-Palestinians in the 70s and 50s and 60s and 70s and 80s, they were Marxist. The pro-Palestinian movement today is not a Marxist movement. And notice that they're supporting a horrific religious movement, which I don't think the Marxists would do. So Marxism is not very popular among these leftist academics. They read Marx, they respect Marx, but Marx is not what drives them ideologically. Marx says, we can't understand what's going on today unless we understand Marxist ideology. Marxism is less woke than it appears. 20th century terrorism approves it. I'm not sure what that means, but yeah, I mean, I think we definitely need to understand Marxist ideology because it impacts, it's everywhere. It's on the right, it's on the left. It's everybody's bought into certain aspects of Marxism, but the modern left is not Marxist. It's much worse than Marxism, much worse than Marxism. And we need to recognize that. I think, I don't agree with James Lindsay's analysis of woke and of the new left as all just Marxist. You should listen to Nikos's talks on the new left and on Marxism. I think he's got it right. And he was a Marxist and he's read all of Marx. And he's really, you know, he's really well educated in this. And yeah, I mean, these people are post-modernist much more than they are Marxist. Pruyapus says, why are Prochemist demonstrations mainly at elite universities, especially when these people are supposed to be the smartest? Because that's where these ideas are taught in the most serious way. That's where the best professors who teach these ideas are. That's where the originators of these theses, these ideas come from.  So it comes, the ideology comes from the best universities. So you'd expect that's where the students take it most seriously. It's because they're smart. They are susceptible to be these crazy ideas, sadly. And again, remember, they've been trained for this from kindergarten. Ed says, how can we expect students and culture to change if the process of reason itself is not taught in schools? It's very difficult. This is why politics is not what we're about. We're about education. And what we should, what we really need to emphasize is early education, educating people to think, showing them how to think, giving them the content with which to think. We need a, we need to emphasize reason. And we need to do that through education. And that's what this movement should be about. Apollosis says, does pupil dilation equals reality orientation? No, I don't think so. Linda, thank you for the show. I've had some philosophy and you've helped me tie it all together with the current craziness. Thanks, Linda. I appreciate that. Ed says, I'm reading Exodus by Leon Yous. It is amazing how the ideas he wrote about back then when Israel was created, applied today, Israelis thriving, Arabs not, the political climate, the lies, et cetera. Absolutely. It is pretty amazing. Let's see, thought, criminal. How long has Netanyahu got? I don't know. He'll cling on to power for as long as he can. He is all about power.  And so he's got a while. He's got until this operation ends. So he's got months, probably weeks, months. Liam says, does Scott take classes to be this stupid? Does it come naturally? I think it's naturally. Frank, how can America be fascist in the next 20 years when white people are supposed to be a minority?  Yeah, I mean, why not? The rallying call is going to have to rally some of them, but whites are not going to be a minority in 20 years. And they're not going to be, and they're going to be, they might not be a significant majority, but they're definitely going to be the largest group by far. Right? The fragmentation is going to be amazing. And look, you know, Hispanics have embraced fascism in countries in Latin America. Why would you, why would you expect any people out there? This is not a racial issue. It's not about whites. And the fascism will manifest itself predominantly necessarily in racism. The Hispanics are religious. And I think it all manifests itself much more around religion. Much more about religion. All right, Miguel, who's put down 4,000 Argentinian pesos. Sadly, 4,000 Argentinian pesos only worth 11 bucks. Actually, they're worth half of that because that's just official rate. They're probably worth only five bucks. But Miguel, thank you. Really appreciate it. It's his first super chat on a live stream. Thank you, Miguel. Really, really appreciate it. Hey, Ron. Greetings from Argentina. 1119, Milel or Marcell? Well, Milel, I hope. You're God, you are awesome. Thank you, Miguel. I mean, I hope Milel wins, if only because I think it'll make life interesting. I mean, it'll be fun to watch him shake everything up and really stir the pot and see if he can make some fundamental changes in Argentina. And do something positive. I hope he wins. I fear he might not. Argentina has this tendency to rally around the status quo, even when the status quo is destroying it. But Milel is a phenomena. And if he can win this, wow, I mean, Argentina will become an exciting place and it'll become an interesting place and I'll certainly be watching for what will and can be done, right? The election in two weeks. Two weeks, we will know. It's the most interesting election in a very long time, right? In a very long time, because it's a stark contrast. And Milel hasn't just thrown out libertarian talking points. Oh, we'll legalize drugs or we'll legalize this or we'll do that. No, he's actually an economist. And so he's put forward things like dollarization and shrinking government spending dramatically. I mean, whoever talks about government spending and doing away with regulations and doing away with taxes, it's really exciting. And just a dollarized economy would be exciting. So I'm really looking forward to it and I hope you wins. I really hope you wins. Okay, Frederick, I found this stream very thought provoking. This donated amount is far from what you deserve for the value you provide. Keep up the good work. Thank you, Frederick. Really, really appreciate that. Thank you, Apollo. Did World War I destroy classical liberalism? It didn't destroy classical liberalism. It destroyed the sense of life that would be required for classical liberalism to be embraced by the West or by people. So it destroyed the sense of life that would make classical liberal be embraced. And it's that sense of life we have to recapture, not the politics, we have to recapture the culture, which is the sense of life. I read submission by Holbeck. It's a book I was referring to earlier. And as I said, well, it's quite possible that fans will become Islamic the way he describes it in submission. I don't think Germany and many northern European countries will embrace Islam. I think they're much more likely to destroy Islam than embrace it. Dean says, Iran, as an Israeli, I'm super frustrated, but everything from the altruism in Israeli societies to the fact that I have no one to count on from the Knesset, everything here is upside down. Should I get out? Look, I got out in 1987. So I was out a long time ago. I think there's plenty of reasons to get out. It's not like you'll find it a gazillion times better everywhere else.  So whether you get out or not depends on an array of values that you have, an array of of what's important to you and what is not where you have to go, what you want to do. You know, so you'd have to give me a lot more information for me to give you advice on that. There's a sense in which this war has not revealed anything new about Israel. So what has changed? Something to think about. WCZN. My sense is that the new left is individual oriented in the existentialist way. Hence why it's common in Anglo more individualistic countries. It's in a sense more individual, in a sense that it's more fragmented, more disintegrated, but it's super collectivist and super racist. And that you see in the Anglo countries, in the Anglo-Saxon countries, that's where the racism, the accusations of racism are most strongly heard. So it's more fragmented and disintegrated. But I wouldn't say, but I'd still say it's completely collectivist. Mark says, best way to contact about Patreon on one-on-one. One-on-one. The best way to contact me is to send me an email. You send me an email in past. Send it again. I know that Angela, I think is being trying to get in touch with you to set up a one-on-one meeting. So just respond to Angela's emails or write her an email and schedule the one-on-one. You get to do it. It's just a matter of figuring out the logistics. Email me and Angela in the same email, CC both of us, and we'll make it happen. We'll make it work. All right. Wes has just got us to the target. So thank you, Wes, who contributed a lot today. Thank you to all of you Super Chatters. Really, really appreciate it. Don't forget to like the show before you leave. Don't forget to subscribe. If you're not a subscriber, please subscribe. And yeah, hopefully you enjoyed the show. Hopefully you got something out of it. You learned something. We had a lot of questions. I'm kind of exhausted. Two hours and 11 minutes. So thank you. And I will see you all tomorrow for a news roundup in the morning and a show on anti-semitism in the evening. Talk to you soon. Bye, everybody.