Hey everybody, tonight we're debating race and crime and we are starting right now with DA's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us. DA, the floor is all yours. Hello everyone. The black community has four major issues that would raise crime rates. None of these alone are unique to the community, but all four are represented at a higher rate than population overall. Poverty, population density, psychological disenfranchisement and undiagnosed mental health. I want to avoid making any broad statements or to the ambitions or personal beliefs of individual police officers.  Unfortunately, the structure of our justice system is not functioned in a positive manner to the black community. In fact, the structure of our justice system has multiple flaws that increase in all four categories. Poverty, because many of the cities have a higher population of African Americans, they also deal with an incredibly low property values. And since many of the properties are older, they need a considerable amount of capital to either demolish or update. This leads to a lack of both new long term business growth and smaller populations of families with the ability to contribute to property taxes. Unfortunately, in many of these communities, the response to this is a targeted enforcement of what might be considered in many other areas, minor crimes to offset revenue loss. For population density, many of these areas also have a considerably higher population density. That means there are going to be more person to person interactions. Unfortunately, coupling this with high poverty rates increased the chances of a younger, more impressionable demographic interacting negatively with each other in the population. This causes the first interactions with law enforcement to be at a younger age, and the negative result will rise distrust. This is exacerbated by the accelerated number of interactions per officer, leading to more issues connected to fatigue. For psychological disenfranchisement, since the police are seen as an outside occupying force and not part of the community as a whole, they are viewed more as enforcers. Add that to the fact that the history of law enforcement and the black community, it creates a culture of distrust. This allows negative factors in the community to become reinforced by the policies of the community leaders policing these policies and the community interpretation of what these policies are supposed to be. For example, gangs are not always seen as negative, but rather positive as a protective force against negative actors viewed as not part of said community. Thus eliminating policing or being antagonistic towards the ability to lease a community. For undiagnosed mental health, with findings in psychology being comparatively newer, there's more evidence that our system of arrest and incarceration are creating far more negative consequences to a community than positive effects. If the goal of policing and the justice system is to lower the rate of crime, the recent studies and research should show that our current system is doing the exact opposite of its intended goal. The goal is to lower the need of policing, not increase policing to temporarily show better numbers year over year. The study by the American Sociological Association, Tony Brown, Mary Lasky Bell and Evelyn J. Patterson has found that the current system of incarceration not only damages the immediate family, but the structure of a community as a whole. Thank you. Alright, I think that there are a couple of misinterpretations here in DA's intro, which I would like to focus on. First, we can see that DA has an interpretation that is kind of Marxist of the whole problem where society causes the problems, the behavioral problems in this community. I don't think it's the case. For example, it takes the case of the property value here property value. It is true in black community property value is much lower. The value of real estate gets lower. The more you get into a black neighborhood and it gets extremely low to the point of being impossible to sell except for very low amounts of money. That problem is not something that causes the crime epidemic. That problem is a reflection and a symptom of the crime, crime epidemics in these communities. People simply do not want to live in communities where there is high crime, where there are gangs where as the admits himself, the gangs are perceived as kind of local soldiers to be resisting from the mainstream police forces who are seen as being here. That is exactly the wrong place to raise your children. That is why property values are going down. So instead of saying of seeing the system as causing this problem, I suggest an inverted view of the problem. There is simply the fact that certain communities in the US produce more crime, their behaviors are more criminal. They also produce more aggression against policemen when arrested for a crime. They also escalate violently more against policemen when arrested for a crime. So what do we do when we're faced with this and I would like to put it on the table right away. There is no problem of racism systematically in the police. There might be single examples of policemen who were racist, but there is not in the work in the everyday work of the average policeman in the US. There is no evidence that they are enforcing a kind of racism through who they arrest, through how they pursue crime, through how they respond to aggression by people who they want to arrest. There is no evidence at all. And every time we look into this, we end up finding that the behavior of policemen is extremely fair to the races. And if anything, we do find evidence of biases against the white population.  So it seems that there is this kind of judgment moment in their head where they say, oh my God, I better be sure that I'm shooting for the right reason here because I have a potential black victim in front of me. So if anything, the studies reveal that the system is not racist against black people. What's simply happening is that there is a higher rate of infractions of criminal violations in the black community. This is why this results in more arrest of black people and more imprisonment of black people. It's simply that way. This goes even for the small offenses. There has been a study, the NJ Turnpike study, because it had been the case for years before 2005.  They made a study with radar tracking of speed.  The speeding radar couldn't be racist. It was totally automatically operated and it was giving their for the true value of how much infractions there are. What we found in these studies is the rate of infraction is simply higher in the black community. That is why there ends up being more arrest of more black people on top of it. It is a very common finding to find that black people who get arrested tend to resist more to the police. They tend to make more suspicious movements and this justifies further escalation by the police. We cannot conclude that the system is unfair to black people simply because the result is more black people in prison because the system does what it's designed to do. The system is designed to take people who have committed crime and put them away from society for as long as possible, as long as reasonable. So as yes to diminish crime, but also to simply provide a punishing function, because let us not forget that for each crime, except drug crimes, but for each crimes where there is a victim, there is a cost that society has had to go through. There are people who lose their lives to these crimes when it's a murder, they lose parts of their body when it's an injury when it's an assault, and they lose their psychological well-being when it's an attack at the psychological level. But in any case, there are victims of these crime and society must provide a punishing function so as to deter future crimes and also to provide a kind of justice. DA says minor crimes are being prosecuted, but is it a problem? Is that a problem? The fact that minor crimes are being prosecuted? I want all the crimes to be prosecuted. I want our police to be using the laws in the most expensive way they can to find all crimes. It's not because a crime is small that it shouldn't be pursued. And by the way, we see it in places that have essentially legalized small theft. For example, San Francisco with thefts under I believe $700 being legalized effectively because the DA will not take these criminals into courts. It's now a stepping stone for further crimes. It's basically the businesses there cannot expect to have the police intervene when a theft, when a thief comes in and takes $700 of stuff.  They cannot operate and it destroys your local community. Don't be surprised after this when the pro-criminal left has taken over a local community. Don't be surprised that the price of real estate is dropping. It's not the price of real estate dropping that's causing these crimes. It's the inverse. People are driven away from these places because they are not good places to live. Disenfranchisement. The police is seen as outsiders, says DA. Yes, that is true. That is happening in the black community. Children are being raised to be hostile to police forces. And unfortunately, the reason they are being raised in that culture is the big lie. The big lie that DA is here to make today, that the police is unfair, that the police is unfit, that the police is not treating the black community as it should. The police is taking people who commit crime and it's putting them in jail, period. And under this big lie that there is mistreatment of black people, there is an even more disgusting truth that is hidden. And it is the fact that if there is one instance in our society of systemic racism, it is the systemic anti-white racism of many of our institution. I'm looking, for example, at the recent emergency measures from Justin Trudeau in Canada. To me, this is the clear evidence that our police system has been recruited to operate an anti-white policy. The emergency measures, and I'm reading directly from the government of Canada here, a special law enacted by Justin Trudeau just a couple of days ago, February 15. Prohibition, a person must not participate in a public assembly that may be reasonably expected to lead to a breach of the peace. So essentially, he stops the right to protest, the right to be part of an assembly. But he makes a subsection one, subsection two, which puts some limits on the application of these measures. He says this is not to be applied to a person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act, to a convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances, or E, to a protected person. So Justin Trudeau has essentially said, I'm going to write a law that allows my police forces to only go after white heterosexual truckers.   If you're an American native, you will be falling under the Indian Act. So this is racism staring right at our face. It's the actual racism of current society. And it's not the kind of racism that dialogue always is talking about. It is the racism against white people and it is the only institutional racism that still exists today. That is it for my intro, but there is more to talk about going forward. Thanks everyone. Hit that subscribe button so that you don't miss it. And we're going to jump into open conversation. Before I do, I got to ask you guys just to be sure if you want the same format that we discussed prior, do you guys only want to discuss the studies that you guys had exchanged beforehand? Because people oftentimes ask if we could have that and they did it this time, folks, where they exchanged studies beforehand. Thus far, I've heard of a lot of studies and that's why I just want to ask and just be sure like that's something that I wasn't sure if you guys only want to constrain it to the open conversation. Well, I wanted the studies to be informed a little bit about what dialogue always was going to defend, but I don't think it should be implemented harshly, you know, if dialogue wants to bring other facts, I'm fine with it. Okay, yeah, I agree. I completely agree. Even though I would like to ask that if you do reference and not all of them, but if you have a chance if you do reference something just send it over so I could be able to read over it. That's fine with you. Yes. I would like to start by saying that in the very beginning I wanted to point out that I wasn't making a judgment call against the police individual. I cannot make any assessment of every single cop I cannot make any assessment of how they think or how they process that was not the point of my argument. My argument was to say that the way that our system is set up and the way that would when I sent you the information about how the are great migration. It led to a higher population density, which actually does negatively affect person to person interaction, coupling that with how the police have interacted with that high population density. It leads to distrust and a higher distrust or higher distrusted community has the more likely people are going to respond to stressors in a non productive manner. So I'm not making the argument of I mean there is a way to argue that in one way or another policing could be racist, but I'm not making that exact argument at this moment. I am making the argument that the differences in communities and the way the communities are structured, especially over time negatively affects both the psychology of that community and how they can interact with itself. But I'd like to figure out exactly what you're saying. So let me ask you a couple of basic questions. Do you acknowledge that there is more crime in the black community than in white populations in America. Yes. Okay. And do you recognize that density wise there are places in America where there is just as much density of white people as there is density of black people. Yes. Meaning, and even in those communities the the racial gap in crime is sustained. Like you can pack up a lot of white people in some in some quarter of New York. They don't become as as much criminal as you would expect the black community to be right. Not exactly. So for example, in certain neighborhoods in Boston, that has a very high white population, a very high white population density. There's also an increase in crime in that area. But I'm saying and overall, none of the elements by themselves is a direct determinator or direct determining that can directly determine the increase in crime that is going to be comparatively to the black community. Of course, in a population of 350 million people, if you look at any racial map, you can find small sections of densely populated white areas and you can see an increase in crime. But the difference is African Americans, even though they're 13% of the population, they are highest in density in every single aspect. So even though you can find pockets of high population density with whites, you can't find all it's harder and harder. I can't say can't I'm pretty sure you can.  Okay, now, how do you think the white population has reached its current levels of crime, a lower level of crime than the black community? Historically, how do you think that happened? Because I guess there were some cavemen and sisters of ours that were just as much pirates and rapists as any other groups on the planet. So how did it happen that American whites ended up at low crime levels? Well, American whites have ended up in lower crime rates because they have a very low population density and a higher amount of overall resources attached. So if we're looking at it one to one, the African American community has a very low access to resources overall that would cover the density differently than a white community that has a very, very low density overall. So for example, a very impoverished white neighborhood would have a substantially lower population density than a very impoverished black neighborhood. But I don't think that your explanation based on density works. I mean, density has been exponentially increasing across the planet in the last century and more. It's insane, the amount of people that are born and that are increasing the world population. Everyone is getting denser, but there is definitely still a difference between blacks and whites. Now, my interpretation of how whites became low crime is that it happens over more than a millennia in Europe and that they were exposed to pressures that made them less criminal. And yes, the low density and the fact that people were living in a nuclear family lifestyle in separate houses that were distant due to the winter and distant due to the farming activities may have had a role. But ultimately what happened is that criminality has been punished again and again, starting with religion punishing it strongly. When the Christians, when Christianity was rising throughout Europe and where murderers and people who were doing wrongs were pursued by the local community and at times burned and in any case, punished. We have punished ourselves against criminality for more than a thousand years. That's why you get a Pacific white person today. The problem is, I don't see this attitude of willingness to engage with the kind of Christian low criminality lifestyle in the black community. Instead, what we see in the modern black community is an ideological rejection of the goodness of this lifestyle of choosing to live in a Christian community, live in a family lifestyle with solid families with two parents. We're not seeing this. Instead, what we're seeing is the left feeding talking points that seek to justify living away from that lifestyle, which we know has been associated with white success forever. So I don't know where you stand on the political spectrum, but for example, do you think that if there was higher Christianity level and higher stability of marriage in the black community, do you think that would be a tool to resolve criminality? Sure, but I want to roll back. I want to first say yes, marriage is affected by it or does affect it, but I would like to roll back to an argument that you made before. If you noticed how migration patterns work between, I would say 1900 and today, you would notice that the black community was a very rural or in very rural areas, very split apart from each other and did not have nearly the issues that they are having today with the highly densely populated areas. The difference being white areas were incredibly densely populated and had an extremely high crime rate. So over the years there has been a swap, but that is the great migration. There has been a swap of blacks moving into very extremely densely populated areas that are also affected by, I would say the age of the community itself. Many of the factories that the black people moved to be able to work at were starting to close down. They were outdated. The buildings themselves weren't destroyed, which would lead to a higher issue with African Americans both obtaining work close enough to them to not have to make certain sacrifices in order to find jobs that many whites don't have to deal with. But also on the other side of that increase in whites, especially following things like the GI Bill or loan assistance or anything else like that in the mid 1900s, that were able to allow whites to build a generational foundation that would offset statistical differences between whites and blacks. So while there may be, and I'm not going to get into the whole like from the beginning of time this happened whatever that that's that's your argument that your field. I would like to point out that there has been a rapid change in both the location of both of these groups and the generational growth and development of these groups. In the early 20th century, at the beginning of the 20th century, the black family was largely intact and was functional, and the outcomes were extremely good. I believe there were there were somewhere around 80 persons solid marriages to two parent family households. When they moved from the South as described in the study that you sent me. My interpretation is they moved from the South and they started living their natural behavior in the absence of white Christian influence. Would you would you agree with this statement essentially the blacks who left the South and who were at 80% solid marriage and then they go to the north, they live in denser population as you point out and they live mostly broken families. Is it the end of white influence on their lives that led to this, because they were surrounded by more liberal more leftist groups because there was less pressure for them to conform to a socially conservative lifestyle they essentially lost white influence and it made their lives worse. Um, I would say in a bubble, you might have a good argument, but that is, it's hard to make that argument when you start adding in the issues involving housing discrimination welfare, and how welfare shifted the moment the black community moved. So for example, right after the civil rights laws passed and African Americans had access to many of the same thing white Americans did. The way that these institutions were designed and and functioned shifted dramatically. So it went from being able to help a person obtain the American dream to just maintaining a poverty status. So unfortunately, because it's just maintaining a poverty status. There is less opportunity to grow and more opportunity for stagnation stagnation leads to boredom. And I mean I think any study will show you that boredom has negative consequences on anyone experiencing it for a long period of time. Um, today, we're starting to see how boredom is affecting many other communities like especially the Japanese community and the white community, but not in the homicide rates but in the suicide rates. That amount of idle time has allowed a certain other issues to grow where you wouldn't have the population density that would increase negative interactions, it increases more and increases more. I guess more time for a person to start contemplating their own self harm. So just since the reaction is different for the black community and the white community, the same reaction has happened. Well, you're talking about suicide here which is fundamentally different from violent crime. I mean, I don't see increases massive increases of violent crime in Japanese migrants or Japanese society. Sure. And I'm not saying that they're having higher amounts of violent crime. I said they have a higher amount of boredom. And because there's a higher amount of boredom, and in the black community there's a higher amount of negative interactions due to the population density and the psychological disenfranchisement coupled with undiagnosed mental health. There is more opportunities for negative interactions of people who do not value their own life to affect an entire community over other systems or other communities. So Christianity or not, which I would argue that the black community has some of the highest rates of Christian followers, especially now out of any group, the offset is just the population density. By number, it makes no doubt that the black community follows Christianity, but by behavior I don't think they follow the socially conservative Christian ethic. I think they are developing their own perception of what Christianity is and at this point it's not Christianity to me anymore. What I mean when I say the lifestyle that leads to success, I mean these solid families, clearly the black community has an extremely low amount of families that survive, that can raise children with two parents. So that's what I mean by Christianity. Let me ask you this before you go any further, let me ask you this. Now, what do you think caused a sudden increase in divorce rates? What would you say would be the primary factor for that if it wasn't such a high factor in the early 19th century? I think there's a lot of dynamic here, but let me list a couple of factors. First, the fact that our societies converge toward making women part of the workforce. This definitely created an elbow of freedom for the black community and the white community for them to be tempted to be free. The whole change around the conception of marriage, where marriage used to be a solid contract that you would get punished for breaking and no fault divorce arising eventually change that. So the combination of these factors, women vote probably also plays a big role here. Women changing to vote the laws so that it's advantageous to no fault divorce was definitely a total distraction of the family. And I wouldn't exclude cultural influences of all kinds, pressures being made with the kind of subversive desire to weaken the family in America for consumerist purposes, for just ethnocentric wars purposes, and perhaps just also because some people are just hostile to the structure of the family and they found a way to kind of mix in the whole Marxist revolt against authority in the economic sector and they've transferred it into the family to eventually destroy the family. I think that's what we see from 1940 to essentially today in America is full on attack on the family from many angles and the black community being the one that was affected most probably because not only have they undergone all of these factors with the white families also which have been destroyed. But on top of it the black community was led to the natural convergence of their own behavior in absence of white influence which used to rule over America. This whole conception that there is a night deal morally to aspire to that was present in America 100 years ago, it's not present anymore. And I think that on top of the attacks on all families, the black community was affected by a diminishment of the influence of the white family on to them. So, okay. So with the women working women voting. That's just going to be something that I vehemently disagree with but I don't want to get sidetracked. And I will challenge that if you if you really need me to argue against it. But with the last one the free will for for for blacks and not the control over blacks that you are claiming that that whites felt was or you feel is necessary for whites to have control over blacks. So would you credit the growth of the black Wall Street to white control over blacks. Black Wall Street. What are we talking about exactly I'm not I'm not aware of this concept. Okay, so okay, so there's a, there's a period in about the 19th and in the early 19th century where African Americans had a place in Tulsa, Oklahoma. That was called black, white, black Wall Street at the time that was economically growing at a rate faster than almost any white community in the United States. And the later history of that is and I don't want to get into what happened at the end of it. Just the the riots and everything that ended up destroying the area. But my question to you is with the economic growth in the black community, you are stating that because of white oversight, or because of white control that economic growth happened. I'm saying that white influence on the social and family values of the white of the black community were positive for them. And that when they walked away from it when they started living more liberal lifestyles they reconverged back to what they do in the absence of white influence. Let me phrase it that way. So you look into Africa, and in Africa the family model and the reproductive model is extremely different from the one you observe in black communities in Western civilization. In other words, only in Western civilizations have black converge toward adhering to the marriage as it is conceived of in Christianity, the marriage forever with a single person in a monogamous relationship in which you are committed to a nuclear family lifestyle for the rest of your life with the same person, rather than the polygamy that can be observed in other communities outside of Western civilization. My point is and it was not so much an economic point although I'm sure it results in massive economic effects is that blacks in the south. But more than 80 years ago and before learned to live a lifestyle that was to their interest that was constructive and that was guiding them towards success. And when they walked away from that lifestyle, the entire community has crumbled in terms of its ability to reach the same outcomes as white people. And I have to believe that the distraction of the family that happened then must have something to do with what happened after. So, then I guess my question would be because I, for example, if you look at certain areas in Africa because I usually don't look at Africa as as just all of Africa since there's so many different tribes so many different places so many different populations and everything else. There is a huge difference in almost every country in Africa and the growth development and prospect of Africa of the Africans there. But in many of these areas. There isn't that much of a difference in their personal beliefs. Would you say that Africa, even though Africa overall is having multiple issues. Wouldn't it be more precise to connect those issues to the extensive history of of. I don't want to open up the door to colonialism because it's about race and crime but the extensive history of colonialism, more than you would say maybe how Africa lived as a whole because we can toss back and forth. Many aspects of African growth and development prior to colonialism, and we can actually measure the issues in the in Africa. So I would like to try to separate myself from separate the conversation from Africa and state to America because blacks are so much different in the United States, but they are a lot more. I guess I would say centralized in history, then the different aspects of African history. Michael was not to was not to bring an analysis or bring the debate toward Africa, I don't care about Africa. But the point is there is something there that tells us about the stock, the genetic stock from which African Americans are born. If there is something to be reconverged toward it is possible that the behaviors in Africa today are informative about how blacks could, could converge in America if they were not under the influence of white society. And I believe that this is what we've seen for the last 80 years essentially the influence of white society white white society becoming increasingly less per written and increasingly more liberal as essentially allowed the black communities to reconverge to their natural behavior, which looks happens to look more like Africa. And so that that's the only sense in which I'm bringing the African question in here it's just that it's informative to know that you can go back to the behavior of your ancestors. Once you are not under the cultural influence of a strong complements by your current society, which black communities had been in the south before 1940. And we can do a one to one because again if we're making the comparison between Africa and the United States, a good one to one is looking at how the assistance programs that happened in the towards the black community that was supposed to be the responses to immigration Jim Crow and everything else looks very familiar to the assistance programs located in Africa. And that is the assistance of while you're in poverty. We give you this to survive. Once you are above a certain state we remove that leave in a culture of dependence. Now, I would say that that dependency has been directly created from the idea that whites instead of allowing blacks to become and I'm saying this is not every white single person I want to be very clear on this, but I'm talking about your general belief. It's connected to that belief that whites are instead of allowing African Americans to be viewed equally to them. They have this idea that you have to wear whites or where blacks need to be controlled or supported, which is actually showing a negative reaction, the more control that people believe needs to be placed upon blacks. Well, yeah, it's an interesting parallel you make there. You're kind of suggesting that the cultural influence I talk about is a sort of welfare keeping blacks down in a way. We're not keeping them down but having a negative having a negative reaction by creating dependence. Yeah.  Would it be so dramatic that black communities around America could decide look white people, you know, we've had our differences we've had civil issues with civil rights, civic rights and slavery and everything but they still have something good that could be integrated to our society to me that wouldn't be a problem to me that could be the biggest news.  Essentially the most desirable place to be for a black person right now is America. And there is certainly a reason for this and something to learn from the population that has formed America and gave it its current shape. That wouldn't be a problem to me that being said I'd like to go on the subject of welfare because I think I don't know if you would agree with this but I think that giving welfare in as we do it in America today food stamps and all the stuff and government and health care type of free stuff being given that is ultimately bad for the black community just like it is bad for any community because it creates a level of dependency as you describe a level of expectation that someone else will save me and that I don't need to save myself and as such it destroys meritocracy it destroys the struggle for existence and the struggle for success that is inherent in a true capitalistic society and in the end the black community will never get itself out of trouble through welfare and free stuff. Yeah but that's a direct contradiction to your first argument. So I actually agree that our current welfare system as it stands is a full negative effect on the black population but that is essentially because of a belief that blacks on their own cannot create and because there's an issue that there's a belief that blacks on their own cannot create the way that government assistance shifted is the issue not exactly government assistance themselves so for example government assistance prior to the CRA actually led to the biggest growth development and expansion of whites in the United States. If you look at crime rates if you look at birth and death rates if you look at education levels, you would see that they were substantially lower prior to those assistance programs and they were after those assistance programs because those assistance those assistance programs were designed to help push whites out into more rural areas to be able to build their own cities build their own communities. The opposite effect happened to African Americans. When blacks migrated up into cities those cities were already functioning in a negative sense before African Americans got there. So we're already bad already badly are questionably bad functioning city adds on to the fact that once African Americans get into it they have limited generational generational health generational wealth overall so they don't have the ability to change the issues that are already in that community. On top of the fact that the only assistance seems to be a maintaining assistance and not a growth assistance. The assistance in itself is not bad assistance in itself is not wrong, but the way assistance has been used has greatly diminished growth and development in black communities, and has led to the increase in every single negative rate, you can point that to including the negative interaction with policing, which is what our conversation is. So, overall the system that that has been created right after the CRA created this. There's a lot to agree on there. I don't think that there's a big difference between assistance that is growing and maintenance assistance I personally hate all sorts of assistance, but I agree with a lot of what you just said. Now what you were describing with blacks taking over cities. Essentially the city already being in trouble at the moment where it's given to blacks can you give us examples what are we talking about here in Detroit Chicago, what cities are we talking about. And I don't know about given to blacks I don't think any city has been given to black, but when when blacks move into a lot of these cities are a lot of these cities, especially in the Midwest are called the rust belt for a reason. And that's because right when African Americans started moving in at a higher influx which would be between, I would say 1960 and 1980. The factories there were 5060 years old. Many people were moving the factories out because the cost of of, I guess either demolishing and rebuilding or repurposing these factors was more expensive than just building ground up factories somewhere out in the suburbs which is why you saw far more than factories that are in those cities and you are in those suburbs between like the 90s and 2000s than you would have before, which shows that there is a major economic departure that happened. At the same time, as blacks moving into these neighborhoods. So now we can look at it as a double edged sword we can look at it as on two sides one. The white economy was moving out of those cities as blacks were moving in, but you can also look at it as the economy itself was becoming old and outdated. Instead of spending the time, energy and money to bring it up to date, move out of those cities allow someone to become somebody else's problems and take yourself to the suburbs to be able to build from the ground up with the with the economy you've grown from one major assistance from the government, but on top of that to generational wealth and growth wealth that you've already had. I agree with a lot in there. I'd like to touch before we move I guess there will be the Q&A eventually coming in but I'd like to touch on one important thing that we haven't had the chance to discuss which is the claims on undiagnosed mental health. Mental health to me is a very relative thing. It's a relative practice. You could have a definition of mental disorders that, for example, as we had 100 years ago where autism was not at all considered and or was a very rare diagnosis of just social issues of some kind up to today where we have massive diagnosis of autism. And there is a place here for relativity in determining just when is it worth to do a diagnosis. And I'm not sure that making the most diagnosis possible is the best way to fix problems in society. I think a lot of the psychiatric disorders that get identified. It is not in the interest of the person to even be diagnosed to be put in a system where they get told that they have a mental disorder.  So to me, coming with mental health diagnosis is not a big solution to criminality because ultimately it boils down to this.   They simply must be put in jail. So I don't see a solution in increasing mental health diagnosis. We get the kind of situation we get in the Joker movie a little bit someone being forced to speak with social workers to explain how he feels and it doesn't fix any problem as far as I can see. Well, for your first point. The reason why you didn't see autism until very recently was because they didn't call it autism until fairly recently. That's like basically saying we didn't know about diabetes until later on in the year before diabetes was diagnosed. The issue I would challenge with that is, no, we didn't have multiple diagnosis in the past but we did have higher crime rates and extremely high crime rate in the past. Very limited assistance for people that were dealing with mental disorders and all we ended up doing was placing more and more people with severe mental disability in jail, which overall has shown that prison escalates or grows issues with mental disability than it will ever fix. So since we are putting a higher number of our mental disabled in jail and not in, I guess, prior to that we were putting them in mental facilities, which neither of them are good responses overall to the issue. We just transferred the problem, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem before. And now that we have more information, we can address it better. And we're not doing that. We are still thinking of the archaic incarceration is the answer. And that is actually creating a system where policing is increased to hold on to a system that needs to increase policing. It's creating a revolving door effect instead of fixing the problem. Well, I would say if they were put in jail forever, that definitely would stop the likelihood that they commit crimes against in the future. So one other perspective we can adapt to your thing is no, let us increase the punishment.  That is also a positive that that could have also a positive eugenic effect on the population in that it would reduce the likelihood that a criminal gets children would reduce his ability to reproduce and that would fix the problem in intergenerational times.  Any violent crime, any violent crime in which there is a victim, I'm personally against victimless crime so I'm not for the drug cases to be prosecuted, except if they were drugs given to people without consent or to children. But the idea of someone consuming drugs I have no problems with this but as long as there is a victim, as long as an attack to property has been done theft murder assault physical assault, threatening rape, all of this should be double tripled in terms of What would be your required time for theft. I wouldn't depends on the size of the death and everything but I wouldn't be against putting 10 years 15 years for theft of 100 bucks. I mean this would solve the problem in the long run. Okay, so you want 10 years theft for 100 bucks. So, say we, we open this up because there's no real proof that increasing incarcerations actually actually lower the rate of crime. In a lot of cases is the exact opposite, increasing the amount of incarcerations would actually increase crime. Well, what if you increase it to 50 years then I mean at some point anyone wanting to commit a crime will be in jail. Increase increase increase until it doesn't exist anymore. So, we're going to increase the time of arresting people for theft. So you want to increase it to, and I'm guessing you're saying 50 years. You're saying it drastically or physically. If 10 years doesn't work do it 50 years. So for 50 years. We have created a prison system where we have placed somebody in there for for theft, which means now we have people that are in jail for theft and the same amount of time as we have jail for people with murder. Right. Now would you say that the murders would also be increased. So would you say that there are crimes where you would think a one or two year sentence is deficient. What crimes would those be. Well, I mean, we can think of petty crimes we can think of crimes where the circumstances seem to explain something or where there's uncertainty about the intent but personally I mean as long as a criminal intent has been demonstrated and someone has actually wanted to hurt someone in a way that is non consensual and in a way that is truly violent. To me there is no problem in punishing to the maximum this culture that we have in modern times of we need to fix this person we need to make them better. That is essentially stating that it is the responsibility of people to take people by the hand to not be criminal. Well, as long as you think like this. Wait, that's not answering my that didn't answer my question. Do you think that there are crimes that only should result in one to two years in prison or one to five years in prison. You'd have to present me a case because out of out of thinking of it I think something shouldn't be a crime at all like drug consumption or something should be a crime and be heavily punished. Okay, so let's say vandalism is a vandalism a 10 year sentence or would you say it's one to five years. I wouldn't mind we if we gave 10 years. Now, are you suggesting there should be a separate imprisonment system or a separate building for people that are one to five years or are you placing them in the same prison. As the thefts and murderers that are now 50 to 100 years in person. That's, that's a complex question, I guess I'd be open that any argument as long as they are kept away from society and that we get crime under control. I don't mind really you're going to tell me that it's better to keep them separate because that's where they won't be influenced by the harsher criminal. Sure, but I don't think it's my responsibility to keep people from being influenced by criminals. I think the only responsibility of society is to protect itself against acts of violence. So, if you want the community to protect themselves against acts of violence. But you also want to incarcerate people who have committed petty crimes in places where there's knowingly influence of people who have committed violent crimes. You are actually creating a system that petty criminals are now going to be influenced by the negative effects of long term criminals. So basically you're creating a system where, because there are people longer in crime which create further and further and higher and higher mental health issues which has been proven in the study I sent you. It's showing that mental health as a person's more incarcerated than more mental health issues they have.  So I would argue based on your argument, you are creating a system that increases or at least maintains the crime rates we have today. The thing is, I don't want to go into the detail because I'm not sure what you say is true fully but suppose it's true. It seems to be easily resolvable. Just create two sections of the prison. Take the people who you think are salvageable and put them in that section and then take the people who are not salvageable and put them in the other forever. My point is, I don't try to fix people as they live. I don't think there's much solution to people who are broken inside and who are committing crimes. I don't think that the system and the social workers have any demonstration that they are efficient at doing what they're doing. What I think is ultimately the solution must be genetic if it is to survive across intergenerational times. So what I'm mostly concerned with is to have a new genetic pressure against criminality and that criminality must finish your ability to reproduce a lot. And the more we do it the faster we will get to an evolutionary direction where violence is reduced in humanity. So let me ask you a question.  Black problems are away but now white people move into those neighborhoods. Now those white people have a higher crime rate than the whites overall. Would you still hold the same argument or would you see that as a different situation? Absolutely. I think that one of the greatness of Western civilization and how white people became great is by self-punishing. And I believe in the self-punishment until improvement philosophy of eugenics. I believe that we made ourselves better and that any community that applies our ingredients across generations will succeed at pushing away violent behavior. It's only a matter of the black community choosing to be that way. We did it for ourselves and I'm up for us doing it to ourselves again and again until the end of time. But wait, if that argument was a solid argument, there wouldn't be proof of high white crime rates prior to government assistance allowing whites to be able to move further out throughout the country. You would see a relatively flat crime rate through the 1900s, which is not what you see. I would argue, since I argued from the beginning, you actually see a switch as whites move into more rural, more open, more suburban areas. Their crime rates decreased because of one, they have economic assistance. Two, they were able to build their communities from the ground up, not having to refurbish a community that was already having major issues. And three, they were able to use the assistance and the generational growth that they already had to differentiate themselves overall. So they have more opportunities to have differences per region than African Americans have. I would argue that because of the regional switch that they show more African Americans are having the problems that the whites had long before because African Americans are now in those communities and whites aren't. Well, to be clear, I'm not affirming that it's inherent to the entire white race to never commit crimes. Obviously it isn't. When you are in a population where non-criminality is a stable evolutionary situation, it remains the case that the criminality will pop back under different circumstances. Circumstances, some of them may be genetic in cause, some of them may be just things that the genes haven't expected. Changes of the industrial society that genes haven't been confronted to and suddenly poof, you get bubbles of crime that can reemerge. You're never done fighting crime.  Of course, we're going to have the birth of criminal pockets always in our own race, just like you guys have in your race. But if you combat it constantly, that's what matters and that's what keeps it low in the future. How much would you consider World War II to be a substantial part of this conversation? Would you see a gigantic war killing millions and millions of people, especially young men, removing them from... Because young men, I think you agree with me that young men are the highest when coming to crime rates. Would you agree with me that that shift from World War II, the economic advantages of World War II, the loss of life of an entire section of the young white population, would be factors that would lead to a sudden immediate drop in crime between 1930 and 1950? Definitely World War II has had massive effects on American society. Now your theory is that World War II had a pacifying effect on the white population of America. That's an interesting theory. I've never heard that. I'd be open to it. I'm not sure though. And I would note that no criminality is a feature of white societies, even those that weren't involved in World War II. Those countries in Europe that remain neutral. So I would be extremely careful at having a whole hypothesis where World War II chopped off young white men in America. Therefore, that's why... Well, no, I'm not saying that that is the only thing happening. I'm saying that as multiple things happen at the same time in one particular time period that allowed so much economic shift that you would see an incredibly large drop in crime in a 20-year period that is consistent to today, that you would not see in another group that did not have that shift. Well, that would demand serious demonstration. And I'd like to see the evidence of this. I'm not sure that there was such a targeted effect on white populations that didn't happen to the black population. And that would explain the crime rates. And one of the reasons I would be hard to convince is that at same socioeconomic status levels, white and black populations still have a racial gap in crime. So even at the same salary, the same standing in society, there is still a racial gap in crime. For this reason, any explanation that relies solely on the socioeconomic aspect, I would tend to reject unless it's proven to me without a doubt. Well, I mean, I don't know how somebody would be able to prove that to you without a doubt. Because I don't think there is a study that does all effects when comparing one to one. I think they only did economics one to one. So I would say a family that just recently got into a certain income level would not be on par with a family that has been at that income level for years and have maintained a structure at that income level. So I don't think they've ever done a wealth comparison. I think they've only done income comparison, which is a completely different conversation, a completely different study. Yeah, and then we enter the whole subject of is the low income of certain communities in America deserved because as long as we're in a meritocracy, honestly, there's going to be winners and losers. And I want our economy to be meritocratic. I want people who can produce more. We're not meritocratic. Well, we're never been at least. We're kind of trying at least because there's no other way in the American economy. If you want to give a high salary to someone, you need to be making cash. And the way you make cash is by having someone buy your stuff. Because of this, there is still a rampant meritocracy in America, despite the imperfections of the system. This system will create losers and winners and it's good that it's that way. But it's not actually if you look at, for example, if we looked at if we lived in a true meritocracy, we wouldn't have substantial assistance to white farmers for them to be able to maintain their land. It would be if you cannot live off the land that you've gained, you would have lose that land and someone else would have had the opportunity to farm that land. But we have an economic system designed to assist these people and keep them in a certain area. Now, this is just an example. I can give multiple examples of how a structure has been maintained to be able to preserve certain people in the economics they are in that moment. So it's very difficult to try to argue that we are a meritocratic system when every single aspect shows that our government and our, I would say, economic system has been created to preserve the status quo that we are in today. Well, I fully agree with you that the state shouldn't be paying farmers to survive who can survive by the quality of their own work. But who's voting these leftist governments in which community is voting Democrat the most aggressively. It is the black community. I mean, we would have a much more right-wing society and a much smaller state if only white people have control of who's in the government. So, I'm just making sure to understand this. Just a few minutes left and then we're going to go into Q&A. Okay, then I'll hold my argument for another time. If you want to just go ahead and move on or how much time do we have? Well, I can, if you need more than a few minutes, like if you need more than three minutes, I can give you more than that. But just want to let you know like we'll be going into it pretty quick here. Okay, so when it comes to a lot of the assistance programs that were able to preserve the system we live in today, which is not a meritocracy, blacks really were restricted from voting when a lot of these things were implemented. So it's kind of weird to blame blacks for a lot of the assistance programs that blacks one didn't have access to and two were prior to them voting at any significant number. The voting rights for African Americans. When did it happen? In 1969, 64. The state has been ever growing since then. So much of the growth of the state, and I agree it wasn't all black, it started with women, to be honest. Women started growing the state and eventually blacks gave the final growth boost. But the state hasn't stopped growing since 1940. So you're blaming, I'm guessing you're blaming women for the farm bill? I'm blaming the fact that we have an extremely sick system that gives power to people who shouldn't have it. That gives control of masses of money that are close to infinite. And that gives the control to these things to the entire mob of sheep that form this society. And that this decision making system that is called democracy is driving us into the ground. Okay, so my question is this, when would you say we were in a pure or a meritocracy enough that is acceptable in your eyes? I don't think that the ideal has ever been achieved. However, early America, as far as white people among themselves, they were in a meritocracy. Unfortunately, there was the slavery aspect. Take early America, remove slavery, and that would be perhaps satisfying to me.  There you have free market. Well, first, you can't really have that time period without removing slavery, but let's say we do remove slavery. We still have the Indian Relocation Act that the federal government actually removed people off of lands to move people on to lands free of charge so they can be able to build themselves up. We also have multiple government subsidies that are very recognizable in order to build the big cities that we see today. So even if you remove slavery, you still don't have a meritocratic argument. That's why I said among white people, because you're right, what we did to the Native American totally unfair. I want to be very clear about this. I'm not talking about the severity of what happened to the Native American. I am talking about once that Native American was removed from his land, it was not a meritocratic system of how people were able to get the land that was now removed. It was literally the federal government funding people to move to that land to be able to start building. That is the exact opposite of a meritocracy. Well, you're right. That's why I'm totally for absolute reparation to the Native Americans. And I am one of those who advocates for giving them at least a third of the entirety of North America to restitute to their control in full. I am absolutely for Native American sovereignty and respect. I said, if you remove slavery and remove the Native American question and the domination of the land, the internal mechanism of American society as perceived into a capitalist interpretation of it are relatively meritocratic and that people are setting their labor and getting rewarded for it. And they can build property and own stuff from the fruit of their labor. That's what I mean by meritocratic. But that's like saying if you remove the gunpowder from a gun, the gun is useless. Sure, but the gun isn't useful. The gunpowder exists. Again, I agree with you. True meritocracy hasn't been obtained ever in the history. You're right. I agree. We must move into the Q&A. Okay folks, our guests are linked in the description. That includes if you're listening via the podcast as all of our debates folks are uploaded to the podcast within 24 hours of the debate being live. Amazing. And you can find our guest links in the description box there as well if that's where you're listening. This one from Hake of the Hake Report says, Christ said, quote, to him who has more will be given, but for him who does not have even what he has will be taken from him. Quote, until they take full responsibility, people will continue to suffer. I'm not sure who that's for. I know Hake's a question. Well, yeah, I mean, when you have more property, you are more lucky in life and you're going to get rewarded with it. It's sensical. It has to be that way because if you have a tendency to waste property, you should be punished in a proper meritocracy for that. Do you think dialogue always and then we're going to jump to the next one? Um, I'm sorry, repeat that completely again because I think I missed something. They said Christ, as in Jesus said, quote, to him who has more will be given, but for him who does not have even what he has will be taken from him. And then said until people take responsibility, they will continue to suffer. I mean, you don't have to disagree. Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't know if I agree or disagree because it's just a, it's just a weird statement to try to correlate the two because I'm thinking in that verse was about the soul and this is about life here. And I don't know. I don't even know where to go with that. This one coming in from Rugal. Nick Dahl says, JF, you can let me know if they're trolling you, JF says, JF, how do you cope with the loss at Plain of Abraham? What are they talking about? They're talking about the fact that my people has lost to the English in the Plain of Abraham, the Quebecois people. I cry about it every day. I'm telling you. Thank you. And Follow Mouth Gaming says, I hope everyone is having a great day. Thank you, Follow Mouth. Hake of the Hake report strikes again says quote, where there are black quote unquote leaders condemning the culture of hate, blame and victimhood exacerbating crime. Or they're saying where are the black quote unquote leaders that are condemning the culture of hate, blame and victimhood. That's exacerbating crime and destruction of families and uncooperative attitudes with people. I mean, okay. So it depends on what you mean by black leader, because if we're looking at just popular black people overall, then I guess conservative blacks are making that argument. You can consider them black leaders, I guess they have a fairly substantial movement. I think every, I can't say every but I don't know where black leaders are supposed to offset this as much. I mean, they have their influence, but I don't think that them making statements is going to change much of anything. This one coming in from Follow Mouth Gaming says, Hake is a beta. And then Hake says, real Christians, not quote unquote mama Christians. Next up, Stephen Michael says, modern day debate is the greatest of all time. Thanks for your kind words, Stephen. And Nugget Man says, we need to bring back shaming. We need to bring back true Christianity, zero tolerance policy for immoralities in the community. Anybody? I don't, I don't know if either of you are Christians. This one coming in from Follow Mouth Gaming says, wrong. I mean, I'm Christian agnostic. So I just don't, I don't know what they mean by bring back shame. But go ahead. This one coming in from Follow Mouth Gaming says, wrong. Christians are compassionate and Hake says the excuse of quote unquote racism is a poisonous distraction. Sure. I mean, I don't think I've ever made an argument of overall racism as much as I was just making the argument of how things happened over the years regarding race, which isn't exactly the same thing. But sure.  If you, sorry, go ahead. This one from Samar Rao says, JF, you talked about how the black communities can adopt cultural practices from white Christian communities. Was curious what cultural would you, what culture would you like to see white communities adopt from blacks? Christian conservatism as far as social conservatism and family life goes. Perhaps a focus on the intersexual family. This one coming in from Doc, Pluroma Not says, DA, what effect do you think the destruction of the quote unquote family contributes to black inability to advance economically and have strong role models? I mean, I can't say that it doesn't have no negative effect, but I believe that it's more of a symptom than a cause. So I would say fix the cause and then the symptom would prepare itself. You got it. This one coming in from Hake trying really hard to get as demonetized today says, women voting indisputably led to progressive pro-government anti-family policy and culture. John R. Lott Jr. is a PhD researched who has researched this thoroughly. I don't know if any of you have any thoughts. Absolutely. Oh, I mean, I just disagree, but yeah, let's. This one coming in from Nugget Man says, oh, let's see. All right. I'm not saying that because people might misunderstood it. Like they might think that they might misunderstand capital punishment for meaning like not like violence done by individuals.  Bear in mind, I will not be able to contribute super chats from prison, JF. Well, I'm against the punishment for not paying tax. So zero is by answer. This one coming in from Yutavara one says, and let me know this one. You guys will be able to make more sense of it because you've been kind of running at full speed and I've been kind of idling. They say high crime dense white areas are Middle East people that are classified as white and Hispanic Hispanic people as well, not Europeans, not a country where African Americans resemble Koreans on statistic. You guys understand that. I think what he's saying is. Well, I think he's saying two arguments that when you add in, and I may be wrong, but I think when you add in Middle Eastern areas and white and quote unquote white Hispanics, you start seeing high density area populations and you start seeing higher crime. And I think his second argument is, wait, repeat that again. The second part was not a they said it's not a country where African Americans resemble Koreans on the statistic. I don't know about Koreans, but there are quite a few studies that show Southeast Asians that come from areas that don't have a high offset of economic stability have incredibly high crime rates but they are very small. And they're very small communities compared to the rest of the Asian community. So it's a higher crime rate but a very substantially smaller area, a smaller number of people. This one coming in from Hakes says blacks are voting and holding office before the so called quote unquote civil rights movement. Is he talking about reconstruction? Because there was this Jim Crow was a response to reconstruction. So yes, there were blacks in office and then something happened to remove blacks from office and then something happened to allow blacks back in the office. Okay, I'm sorry. No, no, go ahead. I don't mean to interrupt you. No, I don't know if that's the argument he's making. I'm guessing, sure. This one also coming in from Hake says immigrants used to quote unquote sink or swim in America. It was tough, not coddling like today. Except, I'm literally pointing to multiple assistance programs that allowed immigrants to move out to the rest of the United States. So I'm guessing in the very beginning when they first got there, sure they had their struggles and everything. But there are multiple things you can point to the show that in order for them to move out through the rest of the United States, they had a lot of assistance or they would have been stuck in those communities that now the black community stuck in. You got it and Samarro, I will come to your question at the very end, we're going to do a post credit scene in just a minute. So thanks for your question. It was just a question about me in particular. So we are going to let our speakers go as we really do appreciate them spending their time with us. I got to tell you, we had one more question actually for one of you guys. This one coming in from Gross Petate says J F should your son get 10 years if he stole $100. Yes, if we were in a society that punishes that way, but in our society, I would advocate for the system to be compassionate to him the way it is compassionate with everyone else. You got it. And that is it for tonight. I want to say huge thanks to dialogue always as well as J F. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys. It's was great to be here. 100%. What I will do is be back in a moment folks with a post credit scene, letting you know about upcoming debates. For example, who was Mohammed this Saturday as well as the one I had mentioned earlier on the bottom right of your screen. In addition, very pumped to have Dr. Michael Jones and Kat debate whether or not porn is bad for society. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button and I'll be right back. But once again, thanks to our guests who are linked in the description.


So North Korea announced this conference in 2018 and as we all know, North Korea has been subject to lots of economic sanctions and crypto theoretically is a way out of the sanctions. So when I heard that North Korea was planning this conference, I thought this would be a great opportunity to see what North Korea has been doing with crypto because North Korea has been doing lots of shady stuff with respect to crypto. This might surprise you, but anyone can go. It was advertised to the public and so you basically send in an application and it was around like 3,000 euros so it was not cheap and that does not cover your flight to Beijing. I've read that North Korean airplanes, they're too old so they can't really fly anywhere else. It was actually like a trip back in time. They actually looked quite retro. There were eight of us foreigners going for that conference. One interesting thing when we landed was that one guy had his laptop taken away from him. I think they found pictures of his ex-girlfriend and they construed that as porn and they said when you leave, we'll give this laptop back to you. That was quite a startling moment for us, especially for the person who had his laptop taken away. Generally the treatment of us, it was not bad. We stayed in a good hotel, we had good food and the people who were shaper owning us around. They were nice people. We got along well with them, but the conference itself, it was definitely a little strange because how it was presented to the Koreans is that these eight foreign experts are going to come here to teach you all about crypto. Most of us, we were not expecting that. I'm a journalist in Canada. I write regular columns in this newspaper called Financial Post and Globe and Mail. I am the author of two books of nonfiction, both of which were named by the CBC as among the best works of their respective years. I am also a bit of an early Bitcoin investor. I actually ultimately declined to present, but most of the people did that anyway. A lot of that was improvised. They just came up with it a day or two beforehand. I talked to this waitress at a restaurant and she had no idea what the word Bitcoin means, so she's never heard of the concept at all. I found that very weird. In terms of visitors or foreigners, there were only eight of us. There were like maybe 60 Korean people. They were basically the audience and we did not get any meaningful interaction with them. Virgil was the only American and he was the only person who went there as a presenter. The rest of us, we only realized that when we landed and we had this fact just thrust upon us. I didn't know Virgil Griffith before this trip, but you can tell that he's a really smart person. He's very curious about all sorts of things and he would explain aspects of the outside world to North Koreans. He was actually a hit among the North Koreans. They definitely liked him. Even while we were in North Korea, Virgil had actually told us that Americans, they can't go to North Korea without permission, so anyone in the world can go to North Korea except for Americans, so they have to seek permission from their government. So before Virgil went on this trip, he asked his government whether he would go. The government told him no. He told us he decided to go anyway. He was telling us in North Korea that when he finished with the trip, he was going to meet with the State Department to tell them about the trip. The sense I get is that he thought that perhaps he was doing his country a favor. So it was really very shocking when I heard that Virgil got arrested on Thanksgiving. Eventually that meeting escalated into a meeting with the FBI and toward the end of September in 2021, it was supposed to be a two-week trial, but he pleaded guilty on the first day, which was quite a surprise and so there's a plea deal with up to six and a half years in prison. I do not doubt that North Korea has been stealing lots of crypto, has been doing lots of shady stuff. The people at the conference, I don't think they were North Korea's crypto people. I think there definitely is a lot of stuff that North Korea is doing with crypto, but they were not shown to us for the person who had his laptop taken away. The North Koreans did eventually keep their word. They gave it back to him.