America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - Nick Fuentes vs. Ryan Dawson

00:00:42.000 Hello, everyone, and welcome on the public space.

00:00:45.000 Uh, today we have our Patreon just opened 30 minutes ago.

00:00:49.000 So check it out in the description if you want to support the continued success of this show.

00:00:54.000 Uh, the support that you guys have been sending through Super Chat is just amazing.

00:00:58.000 I'm now turning to full-time YouTubing thanks to you guys.

00:01:02.000 And why not, uh, help through Patreon?

00:01:04.000 It's a good way without much, uh, much, uh, money taken by the agents who are involved in this.

00:01:11.000 So it's the best way to support in the long term.

00:01:13.000 Thank you all for your support.

00:01:15.000 And today, There's such a list of amazing things that are happening.

00:01:20.000 First, we will talk with Ryan Dawson and Nick Fernandez.

00:01:24.000 These two thinkers have been awesome in their own way and they've developed ways of thinking that are not comparable to the mass of either the alt right or even centrist on YouTubers.

00:01:38.000 These are two great independent thinkers, and we will be talking about probably race, probably religion, also, and maybe a little bit.

00:01:48.000 A little bit of friendly talking about Israel at the end.

00:01:53.000 Ryan, how are you doing today? 0.99

00:01:55.000 Well, I hope by friendly talking about Israel, you mean friendly smacking Israel around. 0.99

00:02:00.000 And congratulations on your full time YouTube. 0.98

00:02:04.000 It is important to have Patreon because at any point, YouTube can show up your account, erase everything, give you strikes, and get rid of your ability to monetize.

00:02:12.000 That's been my case for over a decade.

00:02:15.000 So have that Patreon as backup.

00:02:18.000 And Ryan's links are in the description to go support our.

00:02:21.000 Two speakers today.

00:02:22.000 It's going to be an awesome discussion.

00:02:24.000 Nick, how are you doing today?

00:02:26.000 Doing well.

00:02:27.000 Doing well.

00:02:28.000 How are you doing, JF?

00:02:29.000 I've been watching your show.

00:02:31.000 It's been doing very well.

00:02:33.000 A little competitive between me and you, but that's all right.

00:02:36.000 It's good content.

00:02:37.000 But how are you doing, my friend?

00:02:38.000 I'm doing excellent.

00:02:40.000 All right.

00:02:41.000 So let's get this started.

00:02:42.000 This whole story started between you and Ryan, exchanging a little bit of banter on the internet, and it built up into a discussion in private in DM. where themes like races, religions have come, and it's not even clear to me what will be the main theme, and you guys bring it wherever you want.

00:03:02.000 However, it seems to me, having talked, talked to you two, and having exchanged a lot with you two, that there is a fundamental disagreement about race, maybe, maybe the existence or the scientific reach of the concept of race, as well as the link between race and IQ, and the use of race as an identifier in politics.

00:03:25.000 So, starting with Nick, could you just lay out your thoughts so that we know whether you two agree on this question?

00:03:33.000 So, you know, I watched Ryan and I watched him challenge Halsey on Bloodsports on Andy Worski.

00:03:33.000 Yeah, sure.

00:03:41.000 And, you know, he gave his thoughts about Israel and I got a certain idea about him in my head, which I think a lot of people did.

00:03:48.000 But then I watched his debate with Halsey and it was pretty good.

00:03:51.000 I mean, in terms of the content about Israel, and I will say, to his credit, Ryan Dawson is probably one of the best experts on Israel.

00:03:58.000 The subject of Israeli influence, and he's been doing it for a long time.

00:04:02.000 But I think myself and a lot of people like myself saw towards the end there was kind of this I don't want to say it was a disappointment, but there was something unexpected that I think Ryan Dawson said that there was race and nation and some of these more biological components were not as big of a determinant in a nation's success as a lot of people feel.

00:04:25.000 And, you know, when we and Richard Spencer talked about it last week, I think it was last Wednesday.

00:04:31.000 We talked about the fact that we were nationalists.

00:04:34.000 I'm a nationalist in the sense that I see that part of a nation intrinsically and part of the definition of the word nation is a racial and a biological component.

00:04:44.000 And I heard Ryan say something to the effect that the reason why a continent like Africa doesn't fare so well or sub Saharan countries in Africa don't fare so well is more owing to economic systems as opposed to the fact that in many cases you look at some of the countries and the average IQ is something like 65 or it's lower than 70.

00:05:04.000 And I look at something like that, I hear a statement like that and I say, well, you know, here's somebody who seems to be.

00:05:08.000 Like a woke liberal, maybe on Israel.

00:05:11.000 And I don't even say that as a pejorative.

00:05:13.000 I say that descriptively, but maybe doesn't understand so much the importance of biology and of race.

00:05:18.000 And that's always been my position that, you know, race is real, race is important.

00:05:23.000 You know, certainly I don't judge people in a day to day basis based on it, but I think as a civilization, as a political person, you have to look at it realistically.

00:05:32.000 And so that's basically my position on that question.

00:05:37.000 And Brian.

00:05:37.000 All right.

00:05:40.000 Yeah, can I just ask what you assume my position on race is?

00:05:45.000 Well, I didn't assume.

00:05:46.000 I mean, I watched your debate with Halsey, and you said it was less important than economic systems.

00:05:52.000 You said that Israel being like ethno nationalist or ethnocentric was problematic.

00:05:58.000 And so I don't know, is that a mischaracterization, or what would you say your views are?

00:06:02.000 Well, Israel, like I live in an ethno state, but the difference between Japan and Israel is Israel's ethno state is based on violence, and Japan's isn't.

00:06:12.000 Israel is the original migrant crisis because you have a bunch of Polish and European Jews moving down to Palestine and displacing the native population. 0.58

00:06:20.000 And so that's very different than South Korea or Japan or something like that. 0.64

00:06:25.000 As far as some people, I feel they take one extreme or the other because it used to be the case where you couldn't attribute anything to biology because it was so, it's all, oh, it's just a social construct and blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:06:39.000 By the way, I'm not a liberal.

00:06:42.000 But I think as a reaction to that, People went too far the other direction.

00:06:46.000 They want to put everything on biology or too much on biology.

00:06:50.000 And I'm trying to balance that out, saying, yes, race is real.

00:06:53.000 Of course, IQ matters.

00:06:54.000 I mean, if you're a double digit IQer on average, anyway, then on average, you're not going to succeed as well.

00:07:00.000 But also, what happens is when you're a little bit below your neighbors, your neighbors have the ability to greatly increase that gap through other means with economics and so on.

00:07:09.000 And so I was just taking the other side of those systems because it's a voice that is seldom heard.

00:07:14.000 Just saying it's DNA doesn't really explain very much.

00:07:17.000 And I would like to talk about the policies and things because those are things we can actually fix.

00:07:22.000 You can't really do much, you know, not quickly about biology, but you can change your policy.

00:07:26.000 Sure.

00:07:27.000 Yeah.

00:07:27.000 And I think that's fair.

00:07:29.000 I think you're right.

00:07:30.000 And I think maybe there's some common ground on that, that there is a little bit too much of an importance or an emphasis on race, at least in the alt right.

00:07:38.000 I think that's where I distinguish myself a lot from them as well.

00:07:40.000 I wouldn't say that race is ever irrelevant or arbitrary, but I do agree with you.

00:07:45.000 You know, you look at a country like China, for example.

00:07:49.000 A high IQ country like China that for a long time didn't fare so well.

00:07:53.000 And it was because they did not have efficient means of organizing capital. 0.84

00:07:57.000 They did not have advanced technology.

00:07:59.000 They didn't have open trade.

00:08:00.000 So I agree it's not everything, but I do think it's a big part of it.

00:08:04.000 And back to the question of you being a liberal, here's where I say you're a liberal. 0.96

00:08:08.000 I say that not to be like a boomer and like, shut up, liberal. 0.92

00:08:12.000 I don't mean it like that, but you seem to have a problem with this violence. 0.96

00:08:16.000 You say that, well, Israel is created through violence and that's a big problem.

00:08:20.000 And, you know, I kind of get where you're coming from, but I look at a country like America, where we drove out the Native Americans from their land. 0.76

00:08:28.000 And I don't see that as a problem.

00:08:29.000 I don't see that as an immoral thing.

00:08:31.000 I think conquest is a part of history.

00:08:33.000 You could say it's anachronistic, maybe in modern times, very recently modern times.

00:08:38.000 But I think that's where I call you that because of these kinds of moral prognostications about, well, this was violent and this was not.

00:08:46.000 I think violence is kind of just a part of history.

00:08:49.000 I don't think opposing genocide is a liberal or conservative thing.

00:08:53.000 It's a sane versus insane thing.

00:08:55.000 And you can have a conquest or you can have expansion without murdering everyone.

00:09:01.000 You can live together, which is what we ended up doing after the 1890s anyway.

00:09:05.000 I think all the bloodshed and war, I mean, most of it was from disease, which you can't help, things like the spread of smallpox. 0.59

00:09:13.000 But, you know, I don't think putting natives on reservations was a good thing. 0.89

00:09:18.000 And I think it was definitely avoidable.

00:09:20.000 And we could still have the United States without murdering the indigenous population. 0.68

00:09:25.000 Yeah, see, I think that was, you know, again, I tend to look at history where I define conservatism, I define it as kind of this understanding that history and people and society is a messy business in terms of.

00:09:39.000 I almost look at Hayek, where many people would say that Hayek was a libertarian or a liberal, but he described this in terms of constructivism or constructionism versus what he called spontaneous order.

00:09:50.000 And I think kind of the liberal mistake is this idea that we can have it the way we want.

00:09:54.000 We could have America the way we want, but not so messy, not killing indigenous people, not putting them on reservations, not bloodshed.

00:10:02.000 We could have it the way we want without it getting messy, without it getting ugly.

00:10:06.000 And I think that's where you really have to draw the line between someone who's a realist, somebody who's a pragmatist.

00:10:12.000 And fundamentally, a conservative, not in the sense of like neoliberal free markets, wars for Israel, but in the sense of like a Bismarck, a Metternich, somebody who says we're going to forge our history through blood and iron, that kind of thinking, as opposed to, well, killing people and genocide is evil.

00:10:28.000 And I'm not saying I'm pro genocide.

00:10:30.000 I'm just saying I tend to look at things a little bit less through a moralist lens and more through a pragmatic lens.

00:10:36.000 I think that's where I define it. 0.97

00:10:37.000 So, would you say the migrant crisis in Europe, displacing them and having cultural suicide is fine because that's just part of history, like Mike makes right? 0.97

00:10:47.000 But I would say that if Europe. 0.89

00:10:47.000 No, of course not. 0.89

00:10:48.000 They do it, but okay when we do it.

00:10:50.000 No, I would say that if Europe responded to that, I would say that that would be a part of history. 0.97

00:10:56.000 I mean, look at the reconquest of Spain and then look at the Inquisitions. 0.55

00:11:00.000 I mean, look at the Crusades against the Holy Lands.

00:11:03.000 I think that's all part of history. 0.99

00:11:05.000 And to your point, though, when you say that Muslims are pouring into Europe, I would say that's bad, but only because they're interfering in the interests of Europe. 0.89

00:11:13.000 But I wouldn't say that because people are conquering land like. 1.00

00:11:17.000 That makes them morally bad people. 1.00

00:11:19.000 Like, I look at immigrants coming into America and I say, it's our fault for letting them in. 1.00

00:11:23.000 It's Europe's fault for letting this happen. 1.00

00:11:26.000 And these people are invading.

00:11:27.000 I mean, that's their will to power.

00:11:29.000 They're projecting, I think, their natural interest.

00:11:31.000 What's immoral about that?

00:11:34.000 I was asking if you think it's immoral. 1.00

00:11:36.000 I just don't like the migrant crisis because it doesn't work for either side. 1.00

00:11:41.000 When you import the third world, you don't bring them up, you just bring yourself down. 1.00

00:11:44.000 It's not in the interest of the migrants and it's not in the interest of those taking the migrants in because they're going to have a collapse. 1.00

00:11:50.000 You can't have social welfare and open borders at the same time. 0.84

00:11:53.000 That's been proven over and over again.

00:11:55.000 But I definitely have to disagree.

00:11:57.000 Like, I know you're not advocating genocide, but I wouldn't just brush that under the rug and just say, well, necessary evil.

00:12:04.000 I definitely disagree.

00:12:05.000 You can have expansion without slaughtering 90 million people.

00:12:10.000 Well, I mean, that's just it.

00:12:11.000 Ideally, you wouldn't have it that way.

00:12:13.000 But, you know, sometimes things happen.

00:12:17.000 And I think part of being conservative is saying, Again, that's just how things are, unfortunately. 0.98

00:12:24.000 And back to the point about the migrant crisis, you know, I speak out about it all the time on my show how it's a terrible thing and it doesn't work for anybody. 0.97

00:12:31.000 But you look at people from sub Saharan Africa who are, you know, they're making their way up through Africa and they go like, what, 10 miles off the shore of the Maghreb and they're picked up by the Europeans and brought all the way across to Europe. 0.82

00:12:45.000 I mean, at the end of the day, is life better for an African in Nigeria or is it better in Italy? 1.00

00:12:50.000 I mean, that's in their interest to be in Italy where they could get free stuff or be in Germany or Sweden where they could get free stuff, they could rape the women. 1.00

00:12:57.000 They don't even face consequences most of the time.

00:13:00.000 And, you know, so I would just say from a political standpoint, I wouldn't say like these are bad people pursuing their interests.

00:13:08.000 I would say it's bad that we elect leaders that allow this to happen.

00:13:11.000 They're responsible, they're culpable.

00:13:13.000 In the long run, it's not good for them. 1.00

00:13:15.000 It's probably better for somebody to stay in Nigeria. 1.00

00:13:18.000 It would definitely be better to leave, say, Sudan or some shithole like that. 1.00

00:13:22.000 We also have to look at a lot of the policies that help sustain the shitholeness of these nations, the predatory loans from the IMF, the World Bank. 1.00

00:13:29.000 Et cetera. 0.89

00:13:29.000 There are a lot of policy changes that we could do to curb the immigration crisis. 0.89

00:13:34.000 Because if from talking real politics, like obviously, why don't you just close your borders and stop putting sugar on the floor? 0.52

00:13:40.000 Well, obviously, the European states, Merkel, et cetera, aren't interested in doing that.

00:13:44.000 But as Americans, are there things that we can do with our international banking, lending institutions, things, policies that we could change that would also help Europe out?

00:13:52.000 And the answer is yes.

00:13:53.000 But they always focus on the most obvious, like, we'll just shut the border.

00:13:56.000 All right.

00:13:57.000 Well, they're not doing that.

00:13:58.000 So you have to have some other.

00:14:00.000 Strategies to get that done if you want.

00:14:02.000 Yeah, I don't disagree about how we would fix it.

00:14:06.000 But the original point is I say you're a liberal because of this moralist kind of lens for international affairs and for history.

00:14:13.000 I mean, that was really the only contention there.

00:14:16.000 I agree with you.

00:14:16.000 Like, if we were trying to say, how could we solve the crisis with migration in terms of America, I think you're right.

00:14:24.000 I think we could flex our might with the supranational institutions and find a way.

00:14:28.000 But just in terms of how do we frame that?

00:14:31.000 And specifically the Israel issue.

00:14:33.000 I don't have a problem with Israel because they established their nation and in the Middle East. 0.96

00:14:37.000 That's caused a lot of problems for us. 1.00

00:14:39.000 My problem with them is that we give them this money, they hold our country hostage with their lobbying and with their infiltrators, these dual citizens in our government. 1.00

00:14:48.000 My problem is that they've become a parasitic, they've forged a parasitic relationship with us. 1.00

00:14:54.000 And if they were just doing this by themselves, the most I would say is, I don't really agree with that or that's not really great.

00:15:01.000 They're pursuing their own self interest. 0.83

00:15:03.000 They're doing Israel first in Israel, and by all means, as long as we're putting America first here. 0.89

00:15:08.000 Yeah, I think it's going against their interests. 0.93

00:15:10.000 They might not realize it like that, but I think they cause more anti Semitism than any other action. 0.55

00:15:15.000 And for me, it goes way beyond that because there wouldn't be wars in the Middle East. 0.68

00:15:19.000 You'll probably agree with this too, but there wouldn't be all these wars in the Middle East.

00:15:22.000 We wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

00:15:23.000 There wouldn't have been an invasion of Libya. 0.94

00:15:25.000 We wouldn't have a proxy war or fighting and funding ISIS if not for the Israelis. 0.81

00:15:30.000 So it's beyond just our foreign aid to Israel. 0.97

00:15:33.000 It's Israel's grip on the American system that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. 0.85

00:15:40.000 And these wars are contributing to the migrant crisis because everyone calls them, right?

00:15:44.000 They don't call them migrants.

00:15:45.000 They call them, what do they call them? 0.99

00:15:46.000 They call them refugees, right?

00:15:48.000 And maybe there's 400,000 Syrian refugees.

00:15:52.000 The rest, they're not from Syria. 0.93

00:15:53.000 They're from whatever, but they're all using this war refugee pretext when they're actually economic refugees. 0.94

00:15:59.000 Or, well, there's a spectrum of them.

00:16:01.000 And a lot of them, and for Germany, I talked to a German citizen yesterday.

00:16:05.000 It's other European states going into Germany, but same difference.

00:16:09.000 It's a different culture, different language, and it's sacking the system and sucking off the government tit. 0.81

00:16:13.000 But this all goes back to Israel because if we weren't in Syria and we hadn't disabled Iraq, if we weren't threatening Iran, had we not opened the cork on Africa because Gaddafi used to keep them from coming, then we wouldn't be in this situation. 0.86

00:16:26.000 But people don't trace it back to Israel.

00:16:28.000 They act like everything happened yesterday like, oh, there's just a war in Syria, just cause.

00:16:33.000 And they have no idea. 0.98

00:16:34.000 Maybe oil or some retarded leftist trope like that. 0.99

00:16:38.000 But it goes back to the Zionist state, which goes back to their philosophy of their self proclaimed chosen race of God. 0.98

00:16:45.000 Having to have this so called promised land that they had not been in, even according to mythology, for 3,000 years. 0.99

00:16:52.000 Yeah, yeah, I agree with all of that.

00:16:54.000 I mean, I agree, and I talk about it on my show how you could trace everything in the middle, most of it, almost all of the roads in the Middle East lead back to Jerusalem.

00:16:54.000 Don't get me wrong.

00:17:06.000 You know, the road to Tehran, the road to Damascus, it all goes back.

00:17:09.000 So don't get me wrong.

00:17:10.000 I'm not trying to evade. 0.90

00:17:11.000 I'm just saying, on grounds for why I have a problem with Israel and your debate with Halsey, and now you said, well, I have a problem with Israel as an ethnically Centric country because unlike Japan, they established their nation through force and they drove people from their lands. 0.83

00:17:27.000 And I would say that's a bad thing.

00:17:29.000 And I like to point that out because I think people are hypocritical and they say the reason we support Israel is because they're a shining beacon of liberalism and humanitarianism and all this. 0.81

00:17:38.000 And it's like these people invented terrorism. 0.85

00:17:40.000 These people, they created all these catastrophes.

00:17:45.000 But I don't have a problem with that in and of itself.

00:17:48.000 I don't have a problem with people.

00:17:50.000 Driving people out in and like, you know, people talk about national sovereignty.

00:17:54.000 You have a problem with the consequences of it.

00:17:55.000 You see, like, you don't, you may not have a problem with that, but the thing is, their ethnic cleansing is what led to the formation of Hezbollah, which led to the, you know, the access with Iran and Syria, which is why we go to war with Iraq and then Syria and Libya and so on. 0.55

00:18:09.000 So, as a result of their ethnic cleansing, we have all these other policies that create all these wars, which supplict the treasury, which creates a migrant crisis and so on. 0.58

00:18:17.000 I'm saying not only from a moral standpoint, But if you don't want all this happening in Europe and you don't want all these people, Americans and stuff to die and all this money to be spent, then you don't have ethnic cleansing and none of this begins. 0.76

00:18:28.000 Well, yeah, but that's what I'm saying. 0.57

00:18:29.000 I'm saying I have a problem with it from a consequentialist lens. 0.97

00:18:33.000 I have a problem with it from the sense that Israel was established. 0.94

00:18:37.000 And really, the reason why the Middle East is so unstable and why we're in this present quagmire is because we have really yet to reconcile how we fit this country into the Middle Eastern order. 0.99

00:18:48.000 I mean, can you agree that you look at the Excursions we've gone on there. 0.66

00:18:52.000 You look at the situation between the Americans and the Arabs, and just about a lot of it has been how do we integrate this expansionist, imperialist country that is foreign and that is Jewish? 0.79

00:19:03.000 How do we incorporate that into the order? 0.89

00:19:05.000 And I'm saying, yeah, that's a big problem.

00:19:07.000 And that's why I oppose it.

00:19:08.000 That's why I oppose it exclusively for that reason, but not because I have an intrinsic problem with conquest, because I really don't.

00:19:16.000 I have a problem with it because I guess to an extent, in the modern day, it creates moral hazard.

00:19:22.000 Like, we have a pretty good system going, like the Westphalian system, where we respect each other's borders, we have national sovereignty, and all that.

00:19:29.000 But I would never say, like, because, and here's what I go back to if you say Israel is bad, because they established Israel through conquest, then you would have to say, well, America is bad, because America established themselves through conquest. 0.95

00:19:42.000 We took the Louisiana Purchase, we had to conquer it from the Native Americans. 0.66

00:19:47.000 We bought it from the French, but really, we had to conquer it. 1.00

00:19:49.000 We conquered the Mexican Cession Lands in the Mexican American War. 0.88

00:19:53.000 We conquered, what was it?

00:19:55.000 Oregon and Washington through the war with, I think it was the British.

00:19:58.000 And so maybe I'm a little rusty on my history, but even Russia.

00:20:02.000 Russia was established through conquest when they paved all the way west through to Alaska.

00:20:07.000 China was established through conquest. 0.59

00:20:09.000 All these countries, and I don't think there's a problem with that.

00:20:11.000 The problem is that Israel has created these problems, but not intrinsically because of the conquest.

00:20:19.000 This discussion reminds me of you and I, Nick, talking about Syria.

00:20:24.000 And it's a fascinating aspect of your interpretation of politics because you are a moral realist.

00:20:30.000 You believe that there is such a thing as good and bad.

00:20:33.000 And I'm not a moral realist.

00:20:35.000 Yet I believe that there are things that are good and bad in the way humans interact with each other because, Precisely because humans are agents who are capable of being pissed off at some group.

00:20:50.000 And once you realize this, your pragmatic view can turn into something that looks almost like a moral realist view.

00:20:58.000 It seems that this is the position that Ryan is adopting here.

00:21:02.000 He's saying, don't be just pragmatic.

00:21:04.000 Don't be just saying, because something happened, it's okay.

00:21:09.000 Because the agents that you are repressing, the populations that you're oppressing, they are pissed off at some point and they can have a legitimate.

00:21:18.000 Revolt.

00:21:21.000 It has blowback.

00:21:22.000 And one thing, the Mexican War was one in that list that I would disagree with because the Mexican War, Northern Mexico was seceding from Southern Mexico.

00:21:32.000 And so that was a war for their independence.

00:21:34.000 And so it wasn't a conquest.

00:21:36.000 They decided to join the United States.

00:21:38.000 The Comanche and Mexicans fought other Mexicans because of regional scapegoating, a lot like the American Civil War.

00:21:44.000 But I say we're supposed to learn from history.

00:21:47.000 You can say, yeah, well, that happened.

00:21:49.000 Well, we could conquest or we can expand across land as we have done also.

00:21:53.000 You can buy land, you can live there with people, you don't have to murder everyone.

00:21:58.000 And maybe as an atheist, I have the morality to say, yeah, genocide is bad and mass murder and rape and theft and wars, not a good thing.

00:22:06.000 And you can say, well, it happened.

00:22:07.000 They're like, yeah.

00:22:09.000 And is America bad?

00:22:10.000 Well, that was bad.

00:22:11.000 Yeah, that was bad.

00:22:12.000 That doesn't mean we're going to give the land back or anything like that. 0.62

00:22:16.000 I don't want to destroy Israel. 0.74

00:22:17.000 I don't think it's unrealistic to say, well, just give all the land back to Palestine, move back to Europe.

00:22:23.000 They've put a lot of labor and time into building their cities in Israel, and they're there. 0.84

00:22:29.000 But just get rid of the settlements and lift the blockade and stop ethnically cleansing your neighbors. 0.81

00:22:35.000 I mean, that is a very simple thing. 0.92

00:22:37.000 I would think Christian just war theory would agree with that, too.

00:22:42.000 You don't wage war for those reasons. 0.83

00:22:45.000 And I don't think that style of racism, where you think put yourself above all others and the rest are just goyim and animals. 0.99

00:22:53.000 We're the Chosenites, so therefore I can just go into your private property, bulldoze it down, and shoot your kids. 0.99

00:23:00.000 I find that to be insane. 0.97

00:23:02.000 Well, yeah, I mean, I just think that, and it's a good point that you make, JF, because it is kind of funny how the two atheists on the stream are advocating a much more moralistic kind of a doctrine for foreign affairs.

00:23:17.000 And I'm obviously Catholic.

00:23:18.000 I happen to think, and maybe this is against Catholic doctrine, I'm probably going to get a big talking to by the Catholic Twitter after this, but.

00:23:26.000 I just happen to think, and I always have in terms of politics, that diplomacy and statecraft is largely immune from moral considerations, and only because I've always looked at it from the sense that the state is a corporate entity.

00:23:41.000 And I don't think corporate entities can make moral decisions.

00:23:45.000 Only individuals act.

00:23:47.000 I think only individuals can be held accountable for moral decisions.

00:23:51.000 And so if you're a government, how could you say that an institution should be held accountable for?

00:23:57.000 A moral wrongdoing, like America was morally wrong for this.

00:24:00.000 I think you could say that there were immoral decision makers or there was an immoral person on the battlefield. 0.92

00:24:07.000 But by and large, when I look at conquest, and certainly, you know, you look at the Jewish people in the Middle East and there's this conflict with the Muslims. 0.61

00:24:14.000 They were obviously not welcoming to the Jews, and the Jews didn't like the Muslims.

00:24:18.000 So it kind of went both ways.

00:24:20.000 I see this as there are two competing interests.

00:24:23.000 You resolve this through war, you resolve this through conquest. 0.97

00:24:26.000 And the Jews said, you know, in order to establish this homeland, in order to be safe, we're just going to have to cleanse the Holy Land. 0.93

00:24:34.000 I understand it from their point of view. 0.69

00:24:35.000 And I wouldn't say that just on the basis of that, am I opposed to Israel?

00:24:42.000 Because by the same token, you can look at many countries like this.

00:24:45.000 You could look at many countries that have established themselves through conquest.

00:24:49.000 And I don't think you would say, well, they should stop doing this or stop doing that, or we oppose them for that reason.

00:24:55.000 You'll have a lot of people who would maybe agree with these kind of moralistic judgments about Israel.

00:25:00.000 They'll say, well, they'll agree with you, and they'll say, well, Israel killed these people and Israel did this, and that's why we oppose them. 0.69

00:25:06.000 But then they turn around and they support a country like Russia. 0.81

00:25:09.000 Or Russia, the only reason that they are as large as they are is because they were conquering what was like 500 square miles a day for 400 years, conquering it from indigenous Siberians and Tatars and all these other peoples. 0.81

00:25:22.000 And that could be said for just about every country. 0.96

00:25:24.000 I mean, how do you forge the modern nation state without some degree of conquest?

00:25:28.000 And so, you know, again, to clarify, this is not in support of Israel.

00:25:32.000 It's just to say my issue with Israel is on different grounds than yours is, or maybe only one of the grounds that yours is. 0.53

00:25:41.000 Yeah, it's the same grounds as mine. 0.89

00:25:42.000 And then I add some because I do have a moral compass and I do think that murdering kids is bad.

00:25:48.000 I think it's bad.

00:25:49.000 If you want to look at the state from a corporate, say, well, a corporation doesn't have any sort of moral sense.

00:25:56.000 They just do things based on, I don't know, business incentives or whatever.

00:26:00.000 Other corporations are made of people and they do make moral decisions now, and we don't poison the rivers and things.

00:26:06.000 But we decided, even as an international body with the United Nations, to create the Geneva Conventions.

00:26:12.000 And most foremost of those, excuse me, was that we're not going to annex land because we saw in World War I what happened when a lot of land was taken from Germany, which was wrong.

00:26:24.000 I mean, remember who started World War I?

00:26:27.000 The winning side started World War I and they annexed all this territory.

00:26:30.000 So you had Danzig, which was separate from the rest of Germany. 0.53

00:26:33.000 Some went to Poland, some went to France.

00:26:36.000 And what did it lead to?

00:26:37.000 It led to another world war because obviously the people who were getting screwed in that deal didn't like the Treaty of Versailles.

00:26:43.000 And we all know what happened later.

00:26:44.000 They got their land back and then they got divided between East and West Germany.

00:26:48.000 So it's just this cascade of bad events.

00:26:51.000 When you have that mindset of, well, we're just not going to look at morals.

00:26:55.000 We're just going to look at a business decision, it ends up being bad business too.

00:26:59.000 So what they decided was, all right, we're not going to allow the annexation of land.

00:27:02.000 Even if you win the war, you don't gain any territory.

00:27:06.000 And that has been abided by because of the world wars and what we saw the consequences.

00:27:10.000 You can look at it at a consequential standpoint. 0.62

00:27:12.000 If you're a completely amoral, corporatist, psychopath, you can still see it's bad business.

00:27:17.000 But Israel has been the only one that has continued to annex land directly against the Geneva Conventions, which, of course, they never signed because they didn't exist yet when they were made. 0.63

00:27:30.000 Well, China annexes land.

00:27:32.000 Well, not technically land, but they annex the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands and they build artificial islands.

00:27:38.000 Russia annexed Crimea.

00:27:39.000 Russia annexed.

00:27:43.000 Crimea was originally part of Russia.

00:27:45.000 Oh, yeah, sure.

00:27:46.000 They speak Russian too.

00:27:47.000 And they had a popular referendum with over 90% of the people decided to rejoin.

00:27:52.000 Russia, because Ukraine is 15 billion euros in debt and tried to outlaw the Russian language.

00:27:58.000 So the population living there said that was a straw that broke the camel's back, the debt, the war, and the language.

00:28:04.000 So they decided to rejoin Russia.

00:28:06.000 It wasn't a conquest.

00:28:07.000 That's an example of convenience.

00:28:09.000 Well, but they didn't just hold a referendum, right?

00:28:12.000 Wasn't it Russia who sent in their military forces and then a referendum was held?

00:28:16.000 Or am I wrong about that?

00:28:18.000 You're wrong about that.

00:28:20.000 I'm pretty sure Russia invaded Crimea and then they held the referendum.

00:28:23.000 Friend of mine, that was kind of the mass media thing.

00:28:26.000 Russia has a base there anyway, and they put troops in their own base, but they're not patrolling the streets.

00:28:31.000 No shots were fired, no one was killed, nothing like that. 0.69

00:28:34.000 It's when they tried to outlaw the Russian language that Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev, who was from there because of Holdemar, because of all the people that the Russians had murdered leading up to World War II.

00:28:47.000 But with the Crimea was independent, they were an autonomous republic, and then they were, and it's disputed, but.

00:28:54.000 They were annexed.

00:28:55.000 And look, even if you don't agree with Crimea, then you could look at Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Georgia.

00:29:00.000 And you could say, well, you know, historically these were a part of Russia.

00:29:03.000 And I agree with you.

00:29:04.000 Historically, Crimea was a part of Russia.

00:29:06.000 Historically, Ukraine was a part of Russia.

00:29:08.000 But the point being that, I mean, this happens all the time.

00:29:12.000 And I don't find any moral problem with annexing territory.

00:29:15.000 And you could say, well, we find that when you annex territory, when you conquer land, that's bad for business.

00:29:22.000 And I agree with you.

00:29:23.000 And that's why we have the Westphalian state system and we have national.

00:29:27.000 Sovereignty right now. 0.61

00:29:28.000 I agree with you.

00:29:29.000 But I don't say that we honor national sovereignty because it's this sacred and moral thing, and to break it is a moral quandary.

00:29:37.000 I say it's like you said, because it's good for business.

00:29:39.000 It's consequentially a good thing for nations to participate in it.

00:29:43.000 It's mutually beneficial.

00:29:44.000 And so that all goes back to you say, well, for business.

00:29:48.000 The reason it's bad for business is because it's immoral, because it turns out stealing stuff from people and murdering them pisses them off and causes revolt and problems.

00:29:56.000 Like you should be able to figure that out from a moral standpoint.

00:30:00.000 Which is how you understand what is good and bad business.

00:30:04.000 I think that a nation to execute the will of its people and to serve its national interest, I don't think there's anything immoral about that.

00:30:12.000 I don't think there's anything, you know, you could say that, well, when China takes islands in the South China Sea, it's immoral because it's stealing from, I don't know, like the Philippines because their EEZ expands out a certain number of nautical miles.

00:30:26.000 You could say that's immoral. 0.64

00:30:27.000 I think it is moral for the Chinese government or it's moral for China's leaders.

00:30:32.000 To protect its people, to protect the interests of its people.

00:30:36.000 And maybe that supersedes the moral calculation of, well, you know, this is a bad thing.

00:30:40.000 Maybe it's bad for the world order generally, but that's the only way I'd look at it is consequentially what is bad versus like, is it morally bad?

00:30:48.000 I don't, the moral thing doesn't really, it doesn't enter into the equation for me. 0.95

00:30:52.000 Yeah, but it's not an A or B thing with China.

00:30:54.000 It's not like, well, this is the only way they can be good for their people. 0.78

00:30:57.000 You can lease land, you can buy things. 0.91

00:30:59.000 You don't have to just take, or in China's case, create man made islands and put things on them because you're aiming to annex territory in the long run. 0.92

00:31:07.000 This is going to have bad consequences for China and always has, but this is their policy. 0.82

00:31:12.000 They want the Spratly Islands. 0.97

00:31:13.000 They're pissing off Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan. 1.00

00:31:17.000 It's not going to be good for the Chinese. 0.74

00:31:19.000 It's good for specific corporations that are tied to oligarchs that want this business for personal interest, but it's not for the good of greater China whatsoever.

00:31:26.000 I think it remains to be seen.

00:31:27.000 It's going to have long term consequences.

00:31:29.000 I think it remains to be seen.

00:31:30.000 I mean, you could just as very well say the same thing about the United States expanding.

00:31:36.000 I think that's always the argument as well.

00:31:38.000 You know, is this really good for.

00:31:40.000 The people of said regime, or is this serving the interest of the elites?

00:31:44.000 I think by and large, maybe not in the modern era with Western countries because they've been infiltrated and there's been subversion, but I think historically speaking, the interests of the aristocracy or of the leading or of the government, whatever you want to call it, has always overlapped with that of the people.

00:31:59.000 And you could say now, well, is this going to have consequences?

00:32:03.000 Sure, but I think it remains to be seen in the long term whether or not this will be a good move for China.

00:32:09.000 Certainly being beholden to the United States economically and The United States controlling the seas and being the global hegemon.

00:32:17.000 I don't think that's in China's interest.

00:32:19.000 Maybe you could say from your Western perspective that's in their interest.

00:32:23.000 I don't think you could speak for the Chinese and say that.

00:32:25.000 And so that's all I mean to say is that it's not necessarily immoral to conquer.

00:32:32.000 Is it, like you said, bad for business?

00:32:34.000 Absolutely. 0.91

00:32:35.000 Might it have bad consequences for the Chinese people?

00:32:37.000 I think it could go either way.

00:32:39.000 But to say it's immoral, it's wrong, and that's why we should have a problem with it.

00:32:44.000 An individual can't do it, but a state can.

00:32:46.000 Like, I can't just kick you out of your house and take your stuff, you know, but the government can.

00:32:50.000 Yeah, basically.

00:32:51.000 Yeah, 100%.

00:32:52.000 Because I think.

00:32:54.000 Well, I think the state is a different entity than an individual.

00:32:58.000 I think what you have is what do they call this?

00:33:00.000 The fallacy of composition that something that could be said of a whole cannot be said about its parts.

00:33:06.000 If you had that for individuals in a country, you would have anarchy.

00:33:09.000 You know, it would be Hobbesian anarchy.

00:33:11.000 But when you have it with the state, you have to look at foreign affairs as a mega Hobbesian anarchy.

00:33:18.000 And I think that those kinds of moral judgments cannot be projected onto corporate entities.

00:33:24.000 You know, if you come in and you say, I'm going to take your house, you stole from me.

00:33:29.000 But if the state says, well, the army's going to come and take your land, well, I don't know.

00:33:33.000 Who do you really blame for that?

00:33:35.000 It's a much more complicated situation.

00:33:37.000 They're going to take your land, they have to give you just compensation.

00:33:40.000 That's why we buy and purchase property on an individual level.

00:33:43.000 We can do the same thing with states.

00:33:45.000 If China wants to buy the Spratly Islands or share them, then fine. 0.92

00:33:49.000 But they're trying to butt out and bully all their neighbors. 0.85

00:33:51.000 And it's already had backlash on them.

00:33:53.000 They've lost a lot of business deals from the surrounding Indochina nations.

00:33:57.000 And it's causing a lot of anti China sentiment, which isn't just a regular Chinese person's fault, but that is being used by those factions here in Japan. 0.98

00:34:06.000 I see a lot of that where they're like, those fucking Chinese, look what they did in Spratly. 0.99

00:34:10.000 They don't give a damn what they're doing in Spratly. 1.00

00:34:11.000 They just hate the Chinese already. 0.99

00:34:13.000 But now they have something to point to that they can actually make a case with. 1.00

00:34:17.000 Well, but the Chinese are not, I mean, to at least. 0.99

00:34:21.000 The islands or to lease the South China Sea would defeat the whole point. 1.00

00:34:24.000 The point is to control the shipping routes.

00:34:27.000 The point is to control the natural resources there.

00:34:30.000 So to say, well, we could just do it in this Lockean way, this is why I call you a liberal, because you revert to this Lockean principle of, well, we could settle this through contract.

00:34:40.000 We could settle this through compensation.

00:34:41.000 We could settle this through exchange.

00:34:43.000 And I think this is a little bit naive.

00:34:45.000 I think this is a little bit blind to the reality of force.

00:34:48.000 I mean, what if Malaysia or America? who controls the international waters and is kind of the enforcer of international law.

00:34:56.000 International law is kind of a fiction.

00:34:58.000 Unless you had America to enforce international law, it really wouldn't mean anything.

00:35:02.000 But again, to say that, where was I even going with this?

00:35:07.000 To say that, yeah, what if these countries don't want to give or America doesn't want to give these islands?

00:35:11.000 What if China can't lease these islands from international waters or from Malaysia or the Philippines?

00:35:17.000 But they still want them.

00:35:18.000 They still need them.

00:35:19.000 They want them to increase their trading capacity so that they could become a regional hegemon.

00:35:24.000 Well, they're going to have to take them. 0.92

00:35:27.000 And they'll do that by building artificial islands so they can project naval power there.

00:35:32.000 And I don't think there's anything immoral about that.

00:35:33.000 I think the world is governed by very different principles than a nation.

00:35:37.000 A nation can be governed by Lockean principles because the state can enforce law.

00:35:42.000 In the world, you don't have Lockean principles because without the United States, and increasingly we have a multipolar world, you're not going to have anybody to enforce contracts or compensation.

00:35:54.000 It just doesn't work like that.

00:35:56.000 But it's not a what if.

00:35:57.000 It's that we do control international waters and you can lease the land because all the other countries are doing it besides China.

00:36:04.000 I'm not opposed to war if it's a situation where, like Crazy Horse killing Custer. 0.87

00:36:09.000 There was no negotiating with them. 0.97

00:36:11.000 They'd been murdering Indians. 1.00

00:36:13.000 They'd broken every treaty. 1.00

00:36:14.000 And so the only thing left is kill the motherfucker. 1.00

00:36:16.000 I get that. 1.00

00:36:17.000 But that's not the situation, is Bratley Islands.

00:36:19.000 You can pull out a lot of what ifs and go, well, all those things, if America didn't exist and Malaysia and all them just weren't going to share the water and no cash incentive and none of that work, then you have force.

00:36:30.000 Sure.

00:36:31.000 But that isn't the situation.

00:36:33.000 We have wars of choice and we use force because it makes a lot of money.

00:36:36.000 War itself is a resource.

00:36:37.000 Rather than stealing oil or gold or opium like in the past, as war got mechanized, Just the pure machinery in it is you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.

00:36:47.000 So they're actually actively seeking conflict because it's a cash cow for select industries whose interests do not overlap with the nation.

00:36:56.000 They overlap with just themselves.

00:36:59.000 I'm not talking about America, though.

00:37:01.000 I'm talking about China.

00:37:02.000 China's military industrial complex works on the same model.

00:37:06.000 I don't think the Chinese government is seeking war with the United States.

00:37:09.000 Is that what you're trying to say?

00:37:12.000 No, they're not.

00:37:13.000 No, they're not seeking a hot war with the United States.

00:37:16.000 They are looking at a cold war because it justifies their naval budgets to thumb their nose and rattle sabers at the United States.

00:37:22.000 The United States does the same thing.

00:37:24.000 Neither one's going to go to war with each other, but they're going to use them as a pretext to feed the public to justify budgets for their armies.

00:37:31.000 I think this is a very libertarian way of looking at things.

00:37:34.000 And again, I don't say that as an epithet, I don't say that as a way to delegitimize what you're trying to say.

00:37:39.000 But I do think that nations can legitimately.

00:37:43.000 Use force or take things to express the self interest of their country.

00:37:47.000 I think that's what generally happens.

00:37:49.000 And you look at China and compare it to the military industrial complex in the United States, it gets a much different picture.

00:37:55.000 The same is true with Russia.

00:37:56.000 I mean, these countries don't operate in the same way the United States does.

00:38:00.000 I mean, you look at Xi Jinping and it's almost, he's consolidating so much power, it's almost an autocracy in China.

00:38:06.000 And so to say that, well, it's comparable when the United States sabre rattles to when China tries to expand in the South China Sea, I just think that's just kind of a bogus comparison.

00:38:16.000 I think that. 0.52

00:38:17.000 And this all goes back to China can take these lands.

00:38:21.000 And we can disagree about whether this serves the military industrial complex or whether this serves the interest of China.

00:38:27.000 What I'm saying is that expressions of national interest, even if they involve force, and even if that force is sometimes excessive, at the end of the day, this is not a moral question.

00:38:37.000 This is a question of pragmatism.

00:38:39.000 And that's, you know, I think you like to get into the semantics, I think you like to get into the details, but, and we can disagree about, you know, who's really in charge.

00:38:49.000 I think the disconnect.

00:38:50.000 Here is what you're assuming is national interest isn't national interest.

00:38:53.000 It's something they purport to be national interest, but it's in their personal interest.

00:38:57.000 That's what I'm saying.

00:38:58.000 Well, and that's sort of the point, though.

00:39:00.000 Even if it's not in the national interest, then it's a bad example.

00:39:05.000 Let's say that they were doing this for the sake of the national interest, or let's say they weren't.

00:39:10.000 I'm saying that even if it is or if it isn't, I'm saying that if a nation is going to express its national interest, it doesn't matter if they use force.

00:39:19.000 It doesn't really so much matter if that's Force is excessive.

00:39:21.000 We could prefer that it not be excessive.

00:39:23.000 We could prefer not to use force.

00:39:25.000 But to say that it's immoral, I mean, that's the fundamental thing.

00:39:28.000 You could say that in this one example, well, this is not a genuine expression of the national interest.

00:39:33.000 I would say maybe that's debatable.

00:39:35.000 But let's say, let's find a better example.

00:39:37.000 Some other example, sure.

00:39:39.000 Okay.

00:39:40.000 And like a hypothetical example.

00:39:42.000 Then I would say, like America expanding out, doing manifest destiny. 0.99

00:39:46.000 They conquer the West, they drive out the Native Americans. 1.00

00:39:49.000 I think that's legitimate. 1.00

00:39:50.000 And I don't really have a problem with that from a moral basis.

00:39:55.000 They could have just built their railroads without slaughtering Indians.

00:39:58.000 I mean, that's what led to our Civil War the race to the West and end up with over a million Americans being dead and putting ourselves many decades behind. 0.85

00:40:07.000 Obviously, gaining territory and resources is in the national interest, but I disagree that the only way of doing that is to wipe out a native population that was no threat whatsoever to the United States. 0.92

00:40:19.000 They couldn't have just worked with them.

00:40:21.000 I think they were.

00:40:22.000 If you read anything about like the way they did in Canada, I mean, they worked with native populations everywhere but the United States. 0.97

00:40:28.000 Well, in the United States, you could read about how the Comanche attacks in Texas, they would ride into town, scalp people, they would do all kinds of horrible things, and maybe you didn't have to. 0.96

00:40:39.000 For nothing. 0.97

00:40:42.000 So, well, okay.

00:40:43.000 Well, then you're going to get into the question of, well, that's what I'm saying.

00:40:48.000 But then that's consequentialist.

00:40:50.000 But then that's consequentialist.

00:40:51.000 Yes, from a moral perspective and a business perspective.

00:40:54.000 I'm giving you both.

00:40:56.000 But you're telling me, but that's the thing.

00:40:58.000 You kind of flip flop. 1.00

00:40:58.000 You say, well, the reason that the Comanches are. 1.00

00:41:00.000 First, you say, well, they can live together. 1.00

00:41:02.000 Well, I say, actually, they can't because the Comanches were killing the Americans. 1.00

00:41:05.000 You say, well, they didn't do that for having a theological ideology where the Pope divides the New World to people he's never met and just awards it to Portugal and Spain. 0.99

00:41:14.000 Like, That kind of insane thing where you're not really a person unless you belong to my theological cult is what leads to violence.

00:41:21.000 And here we go to the religion obfuscation.

00:41:24.000 Well, back to what I'm going to mention. 0.85

00:41:26.000 I mean, religious war is historic.

00:41:29.000 That's what's going on in the Middle East right now. 0.85

00:41:31.000 You're like, oh, the Jews are mad at the Muslims, the Muslims are mad at the Jews. 0.84

00:41:33.000 If they didn't have that theology, they wouldn't be at each other's throats. 0.90

00:41:36.000 It's an important subject, and I want to come back to it, but let's see what the crowd says before, and then we'll move to religion.

00:41:43.000 Cat Mole says, Jeff, what is with your mustache?

00:41:46.000 I shaved it.

00:41:47.000 Grogster says, We need opinions on Trump withdrawal from Iron Deal.

00:41:51.000 Go see my previous episode with Ryan.

00:41:54.000 We laid it out.

00:41:55.000 Glenn Kay says, Hail victory. 1.00

00:41:57.000 Zyklon Pearson says, Glad that none of you are Zyoshils. 1.00

00:42:02.000 Uh, I don't get it. 1.00

00:42:03.000 Personally, I see Jesus as the original national socialist Jew. 0.95

00:42:07.000 Token Evil says, It's reasonable to infer existence of greater civilization somewhere in the universe. 0.89

00:42:15.000 Bronze Age audience relevance would have considered any such to be deity.

00:42:21.000 Deity, God equals not realtor is less than a a priori.

00:42:27.000 Stein says Ryan views on the development.

00:42:29.000 No, I will not read this.

00:42:31.000 Ryan, the feather is already winning.

00:42:34.000 Snapchat logic, cover up.

00:42:37.000 European bones are found to be original bones in America.

00:42:41.000 Happy, Cherokee, Townsend.

00:42:43.000 Castle Command is 9,000 years old and was proven to be Native American. 0.92

00:42:46.000 I know exactly what he's talking about. 0.99

00:42:48.000 All right.

00:42:48.000 And he then claims that the DNA of the Natives has been there for 20,000 years, way older than those bones.

00:42:54.000 All right.

00:42:55.000 Eddie completes with the DNA of Indians are European, Asian, Egyptian. 0.76

00:43:00.000 J Padge gives us $5. 0.86

00:43:02.000 Thank you.

00:43:03.000 Alfonso becomes a new sponsor of the channel.

00:43:05.000 Thank you.

00:43:06.000 Ace of Spades says, Amerindians conquering one another for thousands of years.

00:43:13.000 Culture. 0.96

00:43:14.000 When it's someone with white skin doing the same, Mogenocide. 0.94

00:43:19.000 J Padge says, What is that when anyone does it? 0.90

00:43:23.000 J Padge says, Where is the father of all things?

00:43:26.000 Heraclitus Taffer says, I don't have anything intellectual or useful to add.

00:43:31.000 Here's two bucks because Ryan is awesome.

00:43:34.000 Jay Paj says, might makes right.

00:43:36.000 I prefer might gives you rights, any rights.

00:43:40.000 Benny says, Ryan, who started the Arab Israeli wars?

00:43:47.000 Do you want me to answer that last question?

00:43:50.000 If you have something to say.

00:43:53.000 They echo.

00:43:53.000 There's my answer.

00:43:56.000 Uganda, not Wakanda, says, I mean, it depends where you want to start it.

00:44:00.000 If they say Arab Israeli war, then you're saying after Israel exists already? 0.86

00:44:04.000 Well, Israel started that war. 0.92

00:44:06.000 Yeah. 0.86

00:44:07.000 But it's way back.

00:44:08.000 It's tit for tat, really.

00:44:10.000 Absolutely.

00:44:11.000 Uganda says ask Nick to justify the Rothschild loans to Vatican.

00:44:18.000 I don't know anything about Rothschild's loans to Vatican.

00:44:21.000 Sounds like conspiracy.biz coming in for the.

00:44:27.000 The Vatican's not hurting for money.

00:44:29.000 I don't think they need loans from the Rothschilds. 0.76

00:44:32.000 Glenn Kay says the divergent evolutionary strategies of Jews and European Gentiles are likely the root. 0.92

00:44:39.000 Of our repeated historical conflicts of interest. 1.00

00:44:42.000 Ace of Spades says the left is a tireless negative exception, criticism of the native while fetishizing the outside, foreign, ceaseless, undeterminate to ruin. 0.81

00:44:56.000 Teasum says, My wife is Chinese, I am Polish, we live in America, we want America to be white again. 0.81

00:45:04.000 Darius says, People like Fruentes and Richard with their white expansionist talk justify the reason whites are getting replaced and wiped.

00:45:11.000 Output transcript Out.

00:45:12.000 No pity for me.

00:45:13.000 Stop asking, says Jeff.

00:45:15.000 I implore you to check out Brendan O'Connell's channel.

00:45:18.000 I will.

00:45:19.000 Grogstar says, Nick, what about Aquinas' just war doctrine? 0.98

00:45:26.000 Yeah, well, I mean, that's exactly right.

00:45:28.000 I mean, Thomas Aquinas wrote about this, and I think it's basically Catholic theology that there is such a thing as a just war. 0.98

00:45:35.000 I believe in just wars.

00:45:36.000 And is that, do you just want me to answer that question, or are you going to read more specifically?

00:45:41.000 If you want to respond to the super chat.

00:45:44.000 Well, yeah.

00:45:45.000 I mean, I think the main disagreement here, to boil it down, is really, and to illustrate it, I think it goes down to are you more of a Bismarckian or are you a Wilsonian?

00:45:55.000 I call Ryan a liberal because I think he's a Wilsonian.

00:45:58.000 I think he wants to put it into the 14 points and he wants to make it all clean and nice. 0.98

00:46:03.000 And I'm a Bismarckian.

00:46:05.000 I think that, and as he says, we forge the world through iron and blood.

00:46:09.000 That's how the future of Germany will be determined or the future of Europe.

00:46:14.000 I think there's some overlap between how me and Spencer see those things.

00:46:18.000 And he talked a little bit about that.

00:46:19.000 This nationalism for all the nations kind of thing is a little bit hokey.

00:46:23.000 That's why I call him a liberal.

00:46:25.000 And I found that, you know, just thinking about it, I think that's a really good illustration.

00:46:29.000 Do you think that you have to forge a nation and forge the interests of the people through a righteous war, through a holy war or a just war?

00:46:40.000 Or do you think that, you know, and I think Ryan believes in just wars, but I think he thinks that, you know, If there's excess, that's a big problem.

00:46:46.000 And if it's through conquest, that's not going to fly.

00:46:51.000 That's not by the rules.

00:46:52.000 They should just try and do it through currency.

00:46:54.000 I don't really believe in all that stuff.

00:46:56.000 I believe in history.

00:46:57.000 I think it's real.

00:46:59.000 All right.

00:46:59.000 And I guess you're supposed to learn from history, though.

00:47:03.000 You have more super chat.

00:47:03.000 All right.

00:47:04.000 No, but I'll read most of the super chat at the end.

00:47:07.000 But we have one that says, Ox Stevens, $20 US.

00:47:10.000 Thank you so much.

00:47:11.000 He says, on the real, these guys are the most important minds on the internet right now.

00:47:16.000 JF, well done.

00:47:18.000 And Snapchat logic says Dawson is wrong.

00:47:21.000 Smithsonianmag.com.

00:47:23.000 And he quotes a link.

00:47:25.000 So people have the link and they can go read it.

00:47:25.000 All right.

00:47:29.000 Now we came to the subject of religion quite a bit.

00:47:31.000 I read the Dutch study from 2013 that tested the DNA of the Keswick man.

00:47:35.000 See, I even knew what he was talking about without him being specific, and it's Native American bones.

00:47:40.000 All right.

00:47:41.000 And Stein sends us five New Zealand dollars, and he says, Jeff, are you going to stream with Patrick Little?

00:47:48.000 Well, guess what?

00:47:49.000 Tomorrow, Patrick Little is coming on the show to talk with Halsey.

00:47:56.000 Just Google his name, and you'll see that this is going to be exploding.

00:48:00.000 I don't think I can host this on my main channel.

00:48:02.000 It's gonna be explosive.

00:48:04.000 Be there tomorrow.

00:48:05.000 Alright, so we converge very quick on the question of religion.

00:48:09.000 And I think that the comments of Ryan are in line with a view of the Vatican as participating in some acts of colonialism.

00:48:19.000 And by defining borders in the way they want over populations that existed there, may have contributed to the oppression of certain individuals that you find morally repugnant.

00:48:33.000 Not the current Vatican.

00:48:35.000 The Vatican opposed the Iraq War, for example, but in history, that was their stance, and it didn't work out very well.

00:48:42.000 It just led to centuries of warfare.

00:48:46.000 Yeah, I mean, look, I don't know.

00:48:48.000 I mean, is that.

00:48:50.000 I don't know if that's really contestable, that division.

00:48:54.000 I think the broader point that you're trying to make, which is kind of the typical atheist talking point, which is religion divides people, religion causes war.

00:49:03.000 If only there wasn't religion, there would be no conflict.

00:49:06.000 And. 0.99

00:49:07.000 I just almost think it's kind of silly.

00:49:09.000 I mean, you think about what religion is, and it's not an arbitrary thing, you know, as though like a war for resources is something that matters, you know, or a war for self defense is something that matters, but a war to decide the truth about what is existentially real, about who God is, what is the meaning of life. 0.97

00:49:27.000 Well, that's a silly and ridiculous thing. 0.67

00:49:31.000 Why would people go to war over their conception of what is morally just? 0.94

00:49:34.000 I mean, I think that kind of highlights the main difference between materialists.

00:49:39.000 And people believe in God, which is the materialists see God as restrictive or oppressive or divisive.

00:49:47.000 And I think people who believe in God say that the temporal world, there's no substance in it.

00:49:51.000 There's really no content in it.

00:49:52.000 There's nothing worth fighting for in the material world but what you believe in in terms of God.

00:49:58.000 You know, is there any more just cause than fighting for the supreme being of the world if that's your belief as opposed to fighting for, you know, an oil field or this or that?

00:50:08.000 So I think that's just kind of a mustard.

00:50:10.000 It's a mustard.

00:50:13.000 Yeah, that's going to happen.

00:50:15.000 I don't, I am not a part of being a Catholic is not being a utopian or a progressive.

00:50:20.000 Man's tendency is.

00:50:22.000 But you can make a line and say, we're not going to murder each other.

00:50:25.000 I mean, most of the world hasn't had a war since World War II. 0.90

00:50:28.000 It's only in these theocratic states plus the U.S., which is highly religious, that continues to chop each other up. 0.96

00:50:35.000 Man's tendency is towards war. 0.93

00:50:37.000 And I don't think you're ever going to get beyond that.

00:50:39.000 And you can say, and I, theocrat's tendency is towards war.

00:50:42.000 Monarchies and theocracies tend towards war, but it's not man's tendency.

00:50:46.000 Oh, but democracies don't.

00:50:48.000 You're going to give me the democratic peace theory line that I think you'll find that liberalism without its content has brought war to its doorsteps.

00:50:58.000 You don't see war right now, and you're right, but how long will this last?

00:51:02.000 How long can this order last?

00:51:04.000 I don't think in Europe it's going to last very long without war.

00:51:10.000 Who's at war right now?

00:51:11.000 Because there's a lot of wars going on right now.

00:51:13.000 Well, you have all kinds of intrastate conflicts across the world, and you're going to soon have intrastate conflicts.

00:51:20.000 In Europe, and I think he'll have it in the United States and Canada as well.

00:51:25.000 And who doesn't have war right now?

00:51:27.000 Who doesn't have war? 0.96

00:51:28.000 I think China, right? 1.00

00:51:31.000 Yeah, Japan, all the atheistic countries.

00:51:36.000 Oh, but again, I don't think that that's really the right way to judge about whether or not religion is valuable.

00:51:41.000 Is that. 0.97

00:51:42.000 Oh, no, religion's valuable.

00:51:43.000 I just don't think it's true.

00:51:45.000 Like, I don't care what someone's religion is or isn't, but if their religion, because to me, religion is as religion does.

00:51:51.000 There are plenty of peaceful Christians, Ron Paul types, that are Christian but don't believe in genocide and war and might makes right.

00:51:58.000 I mean, that's an extremity. 1.00

00:52:00.000 They're not all Fuentes's.

00:52:02.000 I don't believe in genocide. 0.66

00:52:03.000 I don't believe in.

00:52:05.000 I think.

00:52:05.000 Wait, is this natural?

00:52:06.000 It's okay if the state can't genocide.

00:52:08.000 That's right.

00:52:09.000 Well, that's an exclude pull for genocide.

00:52:11.000 Well, I think now you're trying to oversimplify it, but basically, yes.

00:52:17.000 And you say that religion is divisive.

00:52:18.000 Of course it's divisive.

00:52:20.000 When Jesus Christ, it says in the gospel that Jesus Christ said he came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.

00:52:26.000 And the point was that he was going to do something divisive.

00:52:29.000 What's that?

00:52:30.000 Luke 12, 47, he came not to be.

00:52:32.000 Yeah, exactly.

00:52:33.000 He came and he said that his truth would divide the world.

00:52:38.000 He split up families, he split up nations.

00:52:41.000 And I think that's no, I don't think that is a bad thing.

00:52:45.000 I think that's, you know, if that's the truth, then it's worth it, right?

00:52:49.000 Well, if you think it's true, then you can live your life that way.

00:52:52.000 I don't think it's true. 0.99

00:52:53.000 I think a lot of the Bible is ridiculous. 0.99

00:52:55.000 It's got animal sacrifice and talking donkeys and men with magic hair. 0.99

00:52:59.000 And I just look at it as fables.

00:53:02.000 It also has monarchy.

00:53:03.000 I mean, that's the first chapter of Romans 13 is saying that, you know, the divine right of kings and things.

00:53:08.000 We broke away with that.

00:53:09.000 We made a republic.

00:53:10.000 We got away from theocracy. 0.99

00:53:12.000 I think being a materialist is a silly and ridiculous thing. 0.91

00:53:15.000 I mean, imagine thinking that all that this contingent universe exists, but for no reason. 0.96

00:53:23.000 It doesn't have to exist, but it just does. 0.59

00:53:26.000 I also think it's ridiculous that you're an atheist and you have a moral code. 0.99

00:53:29.000 That to me is more absurd than a talking donkey. 0.99

00:53:33.000 Somebody that.

00:53:34.000 Don't believe in or really can't believe in objective morality, but yet will cast these moral judgments about genocide and this and that.

00:53:42.000 I mean, what binds you to your moral code if you don't believe in the immaterial, if you don't believe in God?

00:53:48.000 Well, I don't think that the immaterial is part of objective reality.

00:53:52.000 I think reality is the exact opposite of that.

00:53:55.000 And I don't think that you're having a problem.

00:53:58.000 If the only reason you behave or be good is because your invisible man laid out some rules, then you have an infantile sense of morals.

00:54:05.000 You don't have a lot of argument.

00:54:08.000 It is a Sky Daddy argument because you have a Sky Daddy that says, don't murder, don't steal, but it's okay to have slaves.

00:54:15.000 I mean, even in the Ten Commandments, they condone slavery in the sixth and the tenth. 0.54

00:54:18.000 And the following chapter, Exodus 21 20, they're talking about beating your slaves with a rod, and it's okay if they get up and don't tie because they're your property after all.

00:54:27.000 You can't get that kind of disgusting level without some sort of authoritarianism.

00:54:32.000 And this is a slave master relationship. 0.98

00:54:34.000 When you worship your Jewish God, which was invented by slaves. 1.00

00:54:38.000 We're hitting all the notes now. 1.00

00:54:39.000 We're hitting all the.

00:54:40.000 The favorites.

00:54:41.000 Well, let's dissect the kind of authority they have.

00:54:45.000 And it just says they've been free for 1800 years.

00:54:48.000 And I find that morally repugnant.

00:54:50.000 And I don't think that saying the universe is just because is the only alternative either.

00:54:57.000 And why can't somebody have a moral compass based on their own empathy and reasons?

00:55:02.000 Well, I'll tell you why.

00:55:03.000 And, you know, we hit all the old favorites, which is Jewish God, Sky Daddy.

00:55:08.000 I think there was one more in there. 0.63

00:55:09.000 But to answer the fundamental question why can an atheist not have a moral code? 0.71

00:55:13.000 The reason is because without the immaterial, without soul, we are simply carbon. 0.99

00:55:19.000 We are simply stardust.

00:55:21.000 We're just neurons firing chemical reactions.

00:55:23.000 And so, what is morality?

00:55:26.000 How can anyone have morality in dealing with what amounts to inanimate objects?

00:55:31.000 I mean, we're animated, but I mean, we're not.

00:55:33.000 If we're all just stardust, if all we are is deterministic chemical reactions, what difference does it make that on this blue marble floating around and God knows where, somebody kills another person?

00:55:44.000 Who cares?

00:55:45.000 Why is that immoral?

00:55:46.000 What tells you that that's immoral?

00:55:48.000 I mean, we all have an intuitive feeling, which I think is evidence of God.

00:55:52.000 We all have an intuitive feeling that there must be an objective morality.

00:55:55.000 But without a God, without soul, without these kinds of things, There is simply no way to cast a moral judgment.

00:56:02.000 I mean, you can say that I don't agree with genocide or I don't like genocide, but who cares what your individual opinion is?

00:56:09.000 There is no objective way of determining what is true.

00:56:13.000 You know, if there is a moral law that is objectively true, what fits into that category and what goes against it?

00:56:18.000 There's simply no authority to establish that.

00:56:21.000 And it requires authority to establish that.

00:56:23.000 You need an outside authority to tell you the difference between right and wrong.

00:56:27.000 I'm not getting the connection here.

00:56:29.000 Like, why is the belief that a ghost is animating my body or not?

00:56:33.000 Determine any of my moral reasoning whatsoever.

00:56:36.000 Well, here's an immaterial ether or not.

00:56:38.000 Why does it matter?

00:56:39.000 And I also disagree with the idea like just stardust.

00:56:42.000 What do you mean, just stuff?

00:56:44.000 It turns out existence is a very wonderful thing.

00:56:47.000 Maybe you think of it as all billiard balls.

00:56:49.000 I don't.

00:56:51.000 Well, I'll tell you why.

00:56:52.000 Because without a belief in authority, and this is another reason why you're a liberal, you don't believe in authority.

00:56:52.000 I'll tell you why.

00:56:57.000 No, but you're an authority that can't be questioned that justifies things like slavery through 2008.

00:56:57.000 I do.

00:57:02.000 Well, well, that's a little anachronistic, but yes.

00:57:02.000 Absolutely.

00:57:06.000 Here's why.

00:57:06.000 You can say, you can say, Ryan Dawson can say, I think genocide is wrong.

00:57:12.000 And I can say, you know, I'm not saying this.

00:57:14.000 And you can justify it because you're a theocrat.

00:57:17.000 Well, wait, but I can say, I think it's right.

00:57:19.000 And who's to say who's right and who's wrong?

00:57:20.000 Who has the authority to say who's right and who's wrong?

00:57:24.000 You better hope that people like me are in this hypothetical scenario don't win out, that we don't, you know, we don't facilitate that on people like you did win out, which is why we had all these genocides.

00:57:36.000 Well, and why?

00:57:37.000 Who cares?

00:57:38.000 Who cares?

00:57:38.000 We're all stardust.

00:57:40.000 And to get to the point of the soul, if we're all just immaterial, I don't really understand what is the significance of an individual.

00:57:47.000 What is the significance of anything?

00:57:48.000 If you're just going to die and go to heaven, what's the matter? 0.99

00:57:51.000 You can have the same kind of silly play there. 1.00

00:57:51.000 What happens on earth? 1.00

00:57:54.000 Well, no, you can't.

00:57:58.000 In the Christian religion, it upholds the fundamental dignity and worth of every human being.

00:58:04.000 Our coherent worldview says that we are the product of.

00:58:07.000 Of a divine author who created us and loves us eternally.

00:58:11.000 Every human being. 0.92

00:58:12.000 So, if you open the world up and you murder 90 million American Indians, and genocide's okay, even though they're human beings, because they're not.

00:58:18.000 Evil happens.

00:58:20.000 Well, evil, it's part of free will.

00:58:21.000 That's why it is evil that the state did genocide.

00:58:25.000 Well, people killing people unjustly is evil.

00:58:28.000 I think you can't say that a corporate entity is immoral for doing something, but I think if somebody is killed unjustly.

00:58:33.000 Is it evil for a state to murder millions of people?

00:58:37.000 I think it's a bad thing.

00:58:38.000 I wouldn't say that the state is evil.

00:58:41.000 You don't want to say it's evil?

00:58:44.000 Like I said, it's more complicated than that, but you want to play the gotcha thing because it comes down to this that there is simply no answer for the question.

00:58:52.000 There is nothing that binds you to your moral code in the absence of God.

00:58:55.000 And you want to obfuscate it.

00:58:57.000 You want to get bogged down in philosophy.

00:59:00.000 What binds you to your morality, Ryan?

00:59:02.000 What binds you to your morality?

00:59:03.000 My philosophy, which doesn't require supernatural entities telling me what's right at all.

00:59:10.000 But that's the problem. 0.99

00:59:12.000 It turns out that I can reason better than ancient Christians who owned slaves and things and murdered each other. 0.98

00:59:18.000 That my moral compass is higher than that. 1.00

00:59:21.000 There you go.

00:59:22.000 Well, but according to what standard?

00:59:23.000 According to what standard?

00:59:24.000 According to what standard?

00:59:25.000 And then it's just according to what standard your moral compass is higher.

00:59:29.000 According to what you want, you want well, your standard you just said you think it's wrong to murder people, so you agree with me.

00:59:35.000 You think slavery is wrong, I assume, or do you think slavery is a good thing?

00:59:38.000 No, of course not.

00:59:40.000 Okay, then you agree with me as well. 0.76

00:59:42.000 But Christianity supported and practiced slavery for thousands of years. 0.72

00:59:46.000 Okay, but I'm asking you though, Ryan. 0.79

00:59:50.000 But Ryan, I'm asking you though, you think these things are bad. 0.88

00:59:53.000 You say you have a higher moral code than Christians.

00:59:56.000 According to what standard?

00:59:58.000 I'm not appealing to outside authority.

01:00:00.000 I'm appealing to your own reasoning.

01:00:01.000 You agree with me that's the right thing.

01:00:03.000 But we're not talking about my reasoning.

01:00:03.000 No, no, no.

01:00:05.000 We're talking about you have a morality.

01:00:07.000 You think this is bad and this is not. 0.99

01:00:09.000 You yourself said, I have a higher moral code than ancient Christians because I'm atheist and religion is immoral. 0.95

01:00:15.000 But according to that, I can be religious and still have a higher moral code. 0.99

01:00:20.000 Okay.

01:00:20.000 But according to that, according to what's okay.

01:00:20.000 Okay.

01:00:25.000 So essentially, you're saying my moral code is higher according to my own philosophy.

01:00:30.000 Who cares about your philosophy?

01:00:31.000 That's all you're doing.

01:00:32.000 You're saying I have a moral code based on my theology?

01:00:36.000 Except my theology says that our moral code comes from an extrinsic force, an extrinsic authority.

01:00:43.000 Your extrinsic force that is infallible and yet supported things like slavery, which you agree isn't right.

01:00:50.000 Well, I think things are different in their time.

01:00:53.000 But that's another question.

01:00:55.000 That's a fundamental historical question.

01:00:57.000 At what point did slavery become wrong?

01:01:00.000 I think when Christ came, that was when the New Testament came around, and that's when the rules changed a little bit.

01:01:06.000 Peter disagreed.

01:01:07.000 He said slaves should obey their masters the same way their masters believe, obey God.

01:01:12.000 Oh, then maybe a little bit after that.

01:01:14.000 Maybe a little bit after that.

01:01:15.000 Well, when?

01:01:16.000 Maybe a little bit after that.

01:01:17.000 I'm not a theological expert.

01:01:18.000 We have slaves and monarchies for over a thousand years after Christ came.

01:01:22.000 But again, the only reason you find this repugnant, we have to go back to, you can say, well, your religion said this, and I'm not a theological expert.

01:01:30.000 I'm not an historical expert on it either.

01:01:33.000 But the only reason.

01:01:34.000 That you say that these things are repugnant is because you seem to have a moral code.

01:01:39.000 But nothing binds you to your moral code.

01:01:41.000 And your moral code comes from within.

01:01:43.000 And if your moral code comes from within, then you cannot say that this is objectively immoral.

01:01:48.000 You cannot say in your worldview, if we say that genocide is wrong, that's only because it's our personal opinion, not because there's something objectively wrong about it.

01:01:58.000 I could say that it's objectively right. 0.87

01:02:00.000 I could say that murder is okay and rape is okay.

01:02:02.000 And I could say all these things are okay.

01:02:04.000 And all you could say is, I disagree with that, but our two judgments are equal because they're both subjective and personal.

01:02:10.000 And so that's the great contradiction of the liberal atheist, such as yourself, where you have a very moralistic worldview, but it's based on nothing.

01:02:21.000 It's subjective, it's based on personal interpretation.

01:02:24.000 And then that's why it's farce.

01:02:26.000 It's complete farce. 1.00

01:02:27.000 And so you say, well, talking donkeys are silly. 1.00

01:02:30.000 At least talking donkeys are part of a coherent worldview. 1.00

01:02:33.000 Your worldview is entirely incoherent. 0.84

01:02:35.000 It's not incoherent whatsoever.

01:02:36.000 And truth is, You can see objectively things like science.

01:02:40.000 If you're going to have a moral value like health, that's something that seems to be universal.

01:02:45.000 Health is better than sickness, for example. 0.89

01:02:47.000 And you have a practice like Christian witches burning off the last bit of umbilical cord from a baby's belly button because they think that's healthy. 0.76

01:02:57.000 Well, they can think that, but it turns out it objectively isn't because smoke going in the lungs does harm a lot of these babies and they do die. 0.59

01:03:05.000 And the result is fewer children are healthy.

01:03:07.000 So, if you have a practice, regardless of what your belief, which results do not land you with health, as where, say, an objective scientific soap, et cetera, is producing better results because it actually is true, then it's not cultural relativism.

01:03:25.000 It's not just subjective.

01:03:27.000 There is an objective reality that is discoverable that works.

01:03:31.000 If you base aviation on science, you can get a plane to fly.

01:03:35.000 If you want to base it on magic, you're probably going to crash.

01:03:38.000 And it is.

01:03:39.000 Good to say if you're going to say, well, the world is round and build satellites and so on based on that, based on objective reasoning, then it'll work.

01:03:47.000 But if you're going to continue to say, well, my book says it's flat, so it has to be, you know, that is just an appeal to authority.

01:03:53.000 And if your authority is wrong, your entire civilization will remain wrong until people rebel against it and break the word.

01:03:59.000 Because it turns out a lot of what's written in the Quran, the Bible, or any other religious text doesn't come from a God, it came from people and they made mistakes.

01:04:09.000 Well, it's funny you bring up the flat earth thing because actually, you know, the medieval Christian scholars all knew that the world was round.

01:04:16.000 That's a pretty popular myth.

01:04:17.000 But, you know, it's funny you bring up the natural sciences to explain away morality.

01:04:22.000 And I'll agree with you that you could say that objectively some things are better for the human body than others, you know, of course.

01:04:27.000 And you could say that a day lasts 24 hours and this and that.

01:04:31.000 But to say that something like murder is wrong, there is nothing in natural science that will tell you.

01:04:37.000 And what even would be right and wrong?

01:04:39.000 How could you deduce that from empirical natural science and establish a complex system of morality based on that?

01:04:46.000 You really don't think healing is wrong.

01:04:47.000 You really don't think healing is wrong.

01:04:48.000 Basic empathy and reason to determine something's wrong.

01:04:50.000 I wouldn't want that to happen to me in my family.

01:04:52.000 You can't reason that out.

01:04:55.000 The only way you can have any moral compass whatsoever is to come from baby Jesus or what have you.

01:05:01.000 We have 120 million people living in Japan who don't have God, and it is a peaceful society.

01:05:09.000 See, this is the problem.

01:05:10.000 I mean, and JF, I'm sure, is laughing because we had the same disagreement with Andy Warski, and he simply wasn't able to wrap his head around it. 0.74

01:05:18.000 But there's all the difference in the world between saying, well, we can have empathy, and you can have empathy, and say, I don't want somebody to be raped because I wouldn't want to be raped.

01:05:27.000 But having empathy and saying, well, I have a rationalization for why I've made a personal moral judgment, that's all the difference in the world from saying we have an objective moral code, a universal moral code that we can abide by.

01:05:41.000 There's all the difference in the world because.

01:05:44.000 You can say, well, I don't want to, I don't think there should be rape because, in terms of empathy, I wouldn't want to be raped.

01:05:50.000 And I could say, empathy should not inform morals.

01:05:53.000 I could say that morals should be decided based on the will to power.

01:05:57.000 I could say that I read Nietzsche and my morality is the master morality.

01:06:01.000 And so I'll dominate as much as I can.

01:06:04.000 And that's what's moral to me.

01:06:05.000 And you can say, I disagree.

01:06:07.000 And that's as best as you can do.

01:06:08.000 But to talk about morals in a universal sense is something that you can do.

01:06:12.000 Go ahead and keep talking.

01:06:12.000 Excuse me.

01:06:13.000 I got to get my door real fast.

01:06:15.000 All right.

01:06:16.000 Sorry.

01:06:17.000 Yeah.

01:06:18.000 Well, you know, for the audience, it's something that logically can't be done.

01:06:23.000 Yeah, we are in the same discussion that we were with Andy, as you pointed out.

01:06:29.000 That being said, yeah, your point is valid if we're talking about universal.

01:06:36.000 Your point is not valid if you're denying morality at all.

01:06:39.000 An individual can have morality.

01:06:41.000 In fact, a robot could be programmed in such a way as to prefer some things.

01:06:46.000 So, there I would say.

01:06:48.000 We can have local moralities in the universe.

01:06:51.000 Charles Thompson says, Why is the atheist here the one who has a priority of transcendental justice while the Catholic is Machiavellian?

01:06:59.000 Well, that's what we have to deal with when we talk with Nick.

01:07:03.000 A Catholic Machiavellian.

01:07:05.000 Killer must says, Morality is a product of natural selection, as all human behavior is.

01:07:11.000 It serves only one purpose social cohesion.

01:07:14.000 Outside of that, it is irrelevant.

01:07:15.000 If you believe otherwise, you're not an atheist.

01:07:18.000 Hawk Stevens says, Gnosticism is the way.

01:07:23.000 Tim M.K. says, My wife is Chinese.

01:07:25.000 Okay, this one I read before.

01:07:28.000 And John Doe says, Question for Dawson.

01:07:31.000 Outside of legal fiat, how do you determine whether or not an individual or group Own an area of land.

01:07:39.000 Do you make a distinction between property and possession, or do you conflate them as most do?

01:07:48.000 Did you hear the question, Ryan?

01:07:51.000 Yeah, I was kind of tacitly listening.

01:07:53.000 They wanted to know the difference between property and possession.

01:07:55.000 Yeah, they want to know outside of legal fiat, how would you determine if an individual or group owns an area of land, as is often the case if we're not talking about a kind of democratic society, if we're talking about nations versus nations, how do you determine?

01:08:11.000 Ownership well, if you if they're living on it and using it, you could say it was theirs, they don't have to have some piece of paper saying, Well, I bought this from a court.

01:08:21.000 Like, obviously, if they're already there and they're using it and farming on it and so on, that's their territory, absolutely.

01:08:28.000 I think there's no objective reason for this to be true, but I agree that this is, yeah, this is the common understanding of a sort of natural right.

01:08:38.000 Someone was there, they existed, and we we somehow have a basic respect for this, usually.

01:08:44.000 What sends me back to.

01:08:45.000 The aspect of this discussion which revolves around conquest.

01:08:52.000 It seems to me, Nick, that in the way you process conquest, you are allowing individuals to get away with crimes as long as they do it in groups.

01:09:02.000 And if they control a state to do the crime, basically they are absolved.

01:09:10.000 Isn't it a way to remove moral guilt to people who should be?

01:09:17.000 Held guilty for their action.

01:09:18.000 If five people or one million people get together and decide to unjustly invade another nation, it's the same as if one person was to do it, isn't it?

01:09:30.000 Well, I think the difference is in terms of where do you assign responsibility.

01:09:35.000 I think that's the difference.

01:09:36.000 If you were to say, for example, about the Native Americans, if you were to say that America was immoral because of this, or if you were to say the government was immoral because of this, or it was immoral that this happened, I think that's kind of inadequate.

01:09:51.000 So that's what I mean by that.

01:09:53.000 You could say if a soldier on the battlefield was excessive in their treatment of an individual Native American, you know, let's say somebody, the American, while they were raising a village or something, you could say that person was immoral.

01:10:06.000 You could say that person did an immoral act.

01:10:09.000 But the problem is that only, and this goes back to, I guess, my libertarian background, Mises talked about this, only individuals can act.

01:10:18.000 And if only individuals can act, only individuals can be assigned moral responsibility.

01:10:22.000 So you could say that.

01:10:24.000 You know, if it was an unjust war, for example, you know, if it was a brutal war, it was unnecessarily violent or unnecessarily aggressive or ambitious.

01:10:34.000 You could say that the ruler that made that decision was immoral in governing so.

01:10:39.000 Or you could say that an administrator who carried it out this way was immoral.

01:10:43.000 My problem is you cannot assign moral responsibility to a corporate entity.

01:10:47.000 That's what I meant by that.

01:10:48.000 Not saying like, well, if you just get in a group, then, you know, you could do whatever you want, but simply that you can't hold an institution morally responsible.

01:10:59.000 All right, and we have ASAC. 0.94

01:11:00.000 I think Custer's Corral, where they're taking nine year old Indians and putting them on stages and stripping them of their clothes and selling them to gangs of cowboys to be raped to death, was immoral. 0.99

01:11:10.000 There you go. 0.99

01:11:11.000 Agreed.

01:11:13.000 That was the state doing it for me.

01:11:16.000 We're back where we started.

01:11:16.000 Ace of Spence.

01:11:19.000 Science less of them means more resources for you and yours.

01:11:23.000 Try again with science equals morality.

01:11:27.000 Bill Raffi says Does Ryan believe I will not read the rest of the question for YouTube?

01:11:33.000 Censorship purposes.

01:11:34.000 Kurt F. says, reason is incapable of making moral assertions.

01:11:39.000 At best, all you can do is derive moral rules from moral axioms.

01:11:43.000 There's no innate morality beyond irrational belief, parenthesis, faith.

01:11:49.000 Also, miscience, kick.

01:11:52.000 Aydin says, the new atheist philosophy of Dawkins, Harris, etc. is per sophistry.

01:11:58.000 Intelligent atheists like J.F. acknowledge objective morality needs a God.

01:12:03.000 Uh, just to be clear on that though, needs a God, uh, No, I would say simply that a God provides an objective grounding for morality, but it could be something else.

01:12:14.000 J. Padge Dak says, Christianity is a religion following carrot and stick.

01:12:19.000 It is thus tailored to slaves.

01:12:21.000 This is enough to reject it.

01:12:24.000 Irredema says, It's bizarre formulation that atheist Europe has low murder rates than South American Christians.

01:12:31.000 Are the South, are the South Americans just more sinful?

01:12:35.000 Kurt F. says, South Americans, I will not read this one.

01:12:38.000 Archie says, Nick, Read some contemporary secular moral philosophers such as Parfit, Humor, and CourseGuard.

01:12:45.000 You'd learn a lot about moral objectivity.

01:12:49.000 All right, guys.

01:12:50.000 So we touched upon our two main themes.

01:12:53.000 Was there anything else that wasn't said or any other branch that you wanted to explore in this discussion?

01:13:01.000 I want to add that I also agree you should probably read some David Hume and Soren Kierkegaard.

01:13:07.000 David Hume, imagine.

01:13:09.000 Look, I mean, At the end of the day, I guess this is the one thing I will say.

01:13:15.000 You know, you can point to Japan and you could point to Western Europe.

01:13:18.000 And this is the broader thing.

01:13:19.000 You know, I was on Twitter the other day and I saw some study that said in America, more people are depressed than ever across all groups, ages, races, genders.

01:13:29.000 Everybody's more depressed.

01:13:31.000 And I think that you look at a society or a civilization right now, we live in a society, a civilization right now that is anemic, that is doing very badly.

01:13:41.000 And I 100% agree.

01:13:44.000 Attribute this to the loss of religion without an adequate explanation for existence, for suffering, for death. 0.93

01:13:51.000 In the absence of all of this, despite material abundance in food and healthcare and well being and leisure, peace, you know, we have low crime rates, we have low murder rates.

01:14:02.000 I basically live in like a materialist utopia where I am right now.

01:14:06.000 And I live in Chicago, but I live in the suburbs, so it's a little different, a little different.

01:14:10.000 And I will say that despite the fact that we've never been better off in all the ways that Ryan Dawson says are.

01:14:16.000 Moral, which is according to natural science, according to material benefit.

01:14:20.000 We've never been better off, and yet we've never been more miserable.

01:14:23.000 We've never been closer to the brink of disaster and demise, and everybody knows it and everybody feels it.

01:14:29.000 And that dissonance is what brought me to God.

01:14:32.000 It wasn't like, you know, I read the Bible and I was really inspired.

01:14:35.000 I mean, don't get me wrong, I did read the Bible and I did get inspired.

01:14:38.000 But what got me interested, what brought me to the embrace of the inevitable and I think intuitive conclusion that God exists and religion is important, is the fact that these material appetites.

01:14:50.000 They will never be satisfied.

01:14:52.000 And even if they are, it'll never be an adequate substitute for communion with our Holy Father, with somebody, with the author of the world.

01:15:01.000 And so that's really what brought me to it that a priori reasoning, which I just think is lacking.

01:15:05.000 I think there's a tremendous hubris in looking at the history of mankind, which is religious, and looking at all these texts and the scholarship and saying, well, we simply know better.

01:15:15.000 We're simply just a little bit smarter than they were. 0.99

01:15:17.000 We don't believe in that kind of shit. 1.00

01:15:20.000 We can figure it out for ourselves. 1.00

01:15:21.000 I think there's a tremendous hubris in that.

01:15:23.000 And so I guess that's the big thing.

01:15:27.000 Aside from the details, that's the big thing that brought me over.

01:15:32.000 All right.

01:15:33.000 So, thanks to you two for this awesome discussion.

01:15:38.000 There's lots of enthusiast fans in the chat who are saying, Nick BTFO, Ryan BTFO.

01:15:44.000 But in reality, it was just a very fine discussion.

01:15:47.000 I really appreciated.

01:15:49.000 And thanks to you.

01:15:52.000 Yeah, I don't know.

01:15:54.000 I mean, I was actually waiting and you weren't speaking.

01:15:57.000 Go ahead.

01:16:00.000 No, I was just waiting.

01:16:01.000 I'm very patient.

01:16:03.000 I live in Asia.

01:16:04.000 They have a lot of patience. 1.00

01:16:05.000 I think that came from fisherman DNA. 1.00

01:16:07.000 They had to sit there for a long time.

01:16:08.000 I don't know.

01:16:11.000 Yeah, I just think you might want to look into cosmotheism as well, where this idea, I used to talk to William Pierce.

01:16:18.000 Believe it or not, we were buddies.

01:16:20.000 He was a rocket scientist and he was also a total white nationalist and all that.

01:16:24.000 And we would argue and everything.

01:16:25.000 But his cosmotheism might be something interesting for the Super Chat folks because his view.

01:16:32.000 He's atheistic in a way, but also not because he's a pantheist.

01:16:35.000 And what he thought is rather than an immaterial God, he had an impersonal material God, and that the universe and its purpose was evolution, and that essentially consciousness was a long process of the universe looking at itself.

01:16:49.000 And that you can think of the earth, this is sort of a Native American belief too, Mother Earth, as a giant cell.

01:16:54.000 It's a people making thing.

01:16:56.000 And that people and folk and races evolve higher and higher.

01:17:00.000 And to him, his race.

01:17:02.000 Is his purpose because to get to godhood, we have to evolve further and further to a hyper consciousness.

01:17:09.000 And he's right now we're at a stage of consciousness as individuals, but that could advance over time.

01:17:15.000 And so, the utmost importance was preserving his race and people and furthering the genes so we become more and more intelligent and further the universe's ends.

01:17:26.000 And that was, I thought, an interesting, a different religion.

01:17:29.000 I think he basically did it for tax evasion purposes, but it is something that people might get behind.

01:17:36.000 But yeah, I'm an anti slavery, anti genocide, and I think you can have perfectly good moral reasoning based on your brain, the same way you do every other decision in your life.

01:17:48.000 All right.

01:17:49.000 Well, thanks to you both for coming.

01:17:50.000 It was really awesome to hear you guys on religion and on international affairs.

01:17:56.000 And have a great day, both of you.

01:17:58.000 Thanks for having us.

01:18:00.000 Thanks.

01:18:01.000 See you later.

01:18:01.000 Bye bye.

01:18:03.000 Bye bye.

01:18:07.000 All right.

01:18:09.000 That was pretty fun.

01:18:11.000 I think that they are very subtle thinkers, so it's very hard to take a position.

01:18:17.000 I will read some of the super chats that I skipped because I wanted to ask the questions that were relevant for the moments of the debate, but I've skipped some.

01:18:28.000 Stein says, views on the development of.

01:18:31.000 I will not read this one.

01:18:34.000 JPAC, $5 Australian, thank you so much.

01:18:39.000 This one I read.

01:18:46.000 Going through those that I read.

01:18:51.000 People like, Dariush says, people like Fruentes and Richard with their white expansionist talk justify the reason whites are getting replaced and wiped out.

01:19:02.000 No pity for me. 0.64

01:19:03.000 I read this one.

01:19:05.000 And Stop Asking for My Name said, Israel's Talpiot. Project is a serious threat to the world's critical infrastructure. 0.80

01:19:13.000 I will read about it as you proposed.

01:19:17.000 Zyklon B says, K for RD.

01:19:20.000 How far does Zionist influence go?

01:19:24.000 Oh, that's a question we might have for him the next time.

01:19:27.000 Uganda, not Wakanda, says, JF Google the Lavon affair.

01:19:32.000 This one I read.

01:19:34.000 And Benny says, Free Tibet, Northern Cyprus, and Constantinople.

01:19:41.000 Ah, Stephen, I read this one. 0.63

01:19:45.000 Aydan says, logical conclusion of Ryan's thinking is N-capism.

01:19:52.000 I'm not sure.

01:19:54.000 I'm not sure, logical conclusion.

01:19:56.000 I think that he is very, he is about liberty and he's a form of libertarianism.

01:20:04.000 I'm not sure it logically concludes into libertarianism.

01:20:09.000 J-Padge, Germany rejects.

01:20:11.000 Western Enlightenment ideas, I'll take goat over luck or hobs, Anglo slash French, any day.

01:20:20.000 Ace of Spades says When you're better at the game of war and conquest, you're bad. 0.54

01:20:25.000 When you try the same with sticks and sharp rocks, you lose.

01:20:30.000 Then you're a victim.

01:20:32.000 Ace of Spades says Indians would intentionally target settlers, disembowel women, hang her entrails around her neck, and leave her to perish. 0.97

01:20:42.000 All right. 0.95

01:20:43.000 Godzilla says, if whites didn't conquer the Americas, the Chinese would have soon after. 0.99

01:20:50.000 How do you think that would go down, Ryan? 0.93

01:20:51.000 Well, that's a very interesting alternative historical scenario.

01:20:57.000 Maybe Mr. Z would have an opinion on this.

01:21:01.000 It would be spectacular to think of what it would mean to have a Chinese empire or Japanese empire spreading through all of North America.

01:21:11.000 That would be a significant change to the world's development. 0.90

01:21:15.000 Phil's Lab says, great show, JF.

01:21:17.000 Good riddance, low IQ, Warski.

01:21:20.000 And by the way, for those of you who want to support the show, and tomorrow we have Halsey versus Patrick Little.

01:21:27.000 Patrick Little is a Senate candidate in California, and he is, he seems like a funny guy.

01:21:38.000 I can't wait to see him against Halsey.

01:21:42.000 He seems pretty based.

01:21:45.000 The other day, he was photographed as he was exiting the Republican Congress of some sort, and he stepped over an Israeli flag.

01:21:56.000 I think that he looks very good on camera.

01:21:59.000 He has some nice sunglasses, and I don't know what's going to happen with him and Ozzy in the same stream.

01:22:08.000 It's going to be quite explosive.

01:22:11.000 And for those of you who want to support the show, go check the new Patreon page.

01:22:16.000 I just put the link in the description.

01:22:18.000 It's patreon.comslash the public space.

01:22:21.000 We've just opened it.

01:22:22.000 If we can raise a hundred dollars or a few hundred dollars, I'll be able to buy a new camera and microphone for Lauren.

01:22:33.000 I would want to have a good voice from Lauren.

01:22:36.000 I think it's going to improve the show greatly.

01:22:40.000 All right, the Crypto Report says it was Anglo Protestants killing the Comanche in Texas, not Spanish Catholics. 0.71

01:22:47.000 Dawson is attacking a straw man.

01:22:52.000 And Baron S. Thompson says you should reach out to Dave Smith from the podcast, part of the problem.

01:22:58.000 I think he would make a good opponent for Nick.

01:23:02.000 Yeah, I think that Nick is not a specialist in arguing for God.

01:23:08.000 There are people like Jedire who are better at this, and I think Nick recognizes this.

01:23:15.000 Nick is just loosely able to make a case for God.

01:23:20.000 He understands the argument broadly.

01:23:23.000 However, he's not as radical as someone like Jedire in terms of being a fan of logic and universal truth.

01:23:31.000 So, of course, to me, this debate was not interesting.

01:23:37.000 Because Nick is the best defender of religion.

01:23:41.000 It was because these two personalities have broad interests.

01:23:46.000 Both Ryan and Nick are able to comment on anything in history.

01:23:53.000 I mean, you saw it, the way they were just dropping knowledge on history.

01:23:59.000 This is not like we planned this on a Google Doc.

01:24:02.000 These guys are too encyclopedia.

01:24:04.000 Killer Moss, morality is a product.

01:24:07.000 Okay, this one I read.

01:24:10.000 Ace of Spade says, Communism between number one and number two, body count by ideology after Islam, number two, global motivator of terrorism.

01:24:22.000 No religion. 1.00

01:24:24.000 All right.

01:24:25.000 John Doe says, Okay, this one I asked your question to Ryan.

01:24:29.000 Ace of Spade says, If your feelings create morality, my feelings can cancel morality. 0.99

01:24:35.000 See how that shit works. 0.99

01:24:37.000 Yeah, that's the. 1.00

01:24:40.000 That's where.

01:24:43.000 That's where Nick comes in and says we need an objective ground.

01:24:49.000 I would say we don't necessarily need an objective ground to guide moral principles.

01:24:54.000 We could have an agreed upon, intersubjective truth.

01:24:59.000 Just like we agree upon things that are commonly observed.

01:25:03.000 We agree that certain colors are what they are.

01:25:07.000 We agree that certain lights are more powerful than other lights.

01:25:11.000 We agree on things.

01:25:13.000 And we agree on systems to communicate these things.

01:25:16.000 And in the same way, we agree on language.

01:25:19.000 In a given local society, people talk the same language.

01:25:23.000 We could talk the same moral language.

01:25:26.000 We could have an intersubjective agreement on morality.

01:25:30.000 Uganda, not Wakanda, says Nick is contradicting himself.

01:25:34.000 He's a Catholic cock who believes in Pontifex Maximus. 0.98

01:25:38.000 His standard isn't God, it's Muslim feet, Kisser, Pope Francis. 0.92

01:25:47.000 I think that Nick has many times recognized this, not in this debate though, but many times Nick has said, no, no, he believes in what the church says as guiding morality in events where he doesn't have a statement by God himself.

01:26:06.000 Ospin says, we're reaching moral fagging levels that shouldn't be possible.

01:26:11.000 Philip S. says, God's compass equals genocide is a okay.

01:26:19.000 Token evil globalist says slavery gives humans objective value.

01:26:25.000 Stein says, big fan of Ryan Dawson now. 1.00

01:26:28.000 Nothing better than watching Catholics getting made to look silly. 1.00

01:26:31.000 Still love Nick, even though he thinks I'm going to hell. 0.99

01:26:35.000 Ace of Spades says, Science.

01:26:37.000 Oh, this one I read.

01:26:40.000 Kurt F says, Reason is incapable of making moral assertions.

01:26:45.000 At best, all you can do is derive moral rules from moral axioms.

01:26:49.000 There's no innate morality beyond irrational belief.

01:26:53.000 Also, Messiah's cake.

01:26:56.000 This one I had read.

01:26:57.000 All right.

01:27:01.000 Oops, I have a shift in my super chats.

01:27:05.000 Iridema says, It's a bizarre formulation that atheist Europe has lower murder rates than South American Christians. 0.90

01:27:12.000 Are the South Americans just more sinful? 0.95

01:27:16.000 Archie says, Nick, oh, this one I read to Nick. 0.94

01:27:19.000 Metal says, Nick, do I have to share heaven?

01:27:23.000 I will not read this one.

01:27:24.000 Vegard says, We live in a society.

01:27:28.000 We live in a society.

01:27:33.000 In a world.

01:27:35.000 Where everything was up for grabs.

01:27:39.000 One man.

01:27:40.000 Mark Nannman, $5 US, says St. Peter said the Jewish nation is corporately guilty of the death of Christ in Acts 2 on Pentecost. 0.74

01:27:51.000 Individual Jews can be forgiven through baptism. 0.54

01:27:56.000 Hawk Stevens, $50 US, thank you so much.

01:28:00.000 This is the best thing on the internet.

01:28:02.000 Please make this happen again.

01:28:04.000 Well, guess what?

01:28:05.000 It's happening tomorrow.

01:28:09.000 A debate that tomorrow I had scheduled an episode alone with Halsey, and it's gonna be fun because we're gonna have a part alone before Patrick Little comes in.

01:28:21.000 It's gonna be fun, but when Patrick Little comes in, it's gonna be something else than fun.

01:28:27.000 True Diltum, I saw your YouTube channel, True Diltum, that was awesome.

01:28:33.000 He does great work.

01:28:35.000 Please get me on your stream, I have 16k subs.

01:28:38.000 I'm desperate.

01:28:39.000 Don't be desperate at 16k.

01:28:43.000 You're just halfway through the Papa JF phase.

01:28:47.000 And yeah, we should have True Dill Tom.

01:28:50.000 I actually didn't even read his super chat and I watched his videos today.

01:28:55.000 It was pretty awesome.

01:28:56.000 Let's have True Dill Tom on.

01:28:58.000 Now I need his Twitter.

01:29:01.000 I'm sure I can find his Twitter.

01:29:03.000 Rawhide says, get True Dill Tom on to discuss Hans Hermann Hope.

01:29:08.000 We had so many super chats on Hope.

01:29:11.000 We're going to do a special episode on Hope.

01:29:14.000 I'm also talking to Richard Spencer.

01:29:17.000 I think that there is some amazing thinking going on in his head, and I want to pull it out before he even starts talking about it or think about it.

01:29:28.000 I want to have a discussion one on one with Richard Spencer on something very important, which I think Richard Spencer, what he did recently, is he has reacted on Twitter to a video made about him, and the video was asking, Interrogative for me, is Richard Spencer abandoning the alt right?

01:29:53.000 And that was following the debate, well, the discussion of Richard Spencer and Nick Frontis right here on this channel.

01:30:00.000 And the answer of Richard Spencer was, it was, no, I'm not abandoning the alt right, but the video that I quote here is right.

01:30:14.000 I am, in fact, thinking more and more about the nature of power.

01:30:19.000 And I think that we have a lack of understanding of power dynamics in the alt right.

01:30:25.000 So, I want to bring Richard Spencer on right here, and we're going to dig his brain on this thinking that he's been doing around power and how to influence it, how to gain it, and how to control it.

01:30:39.000 Frank Underwood, 100 knock.

01:30:41.000 Thank you so much.

01:30:42.000 God or no God, existence is a war for dominance and making babies.

01:30:47.000 Yeah, people who are not willing to use violence against others are in the end an evolutionary dead end.

01:30:55.000 Colin Kelly, $10, says, Camera Fund.

01:30:59.000 Thank you.

01:31:00.000 Vlad Hogan, $5, says, Ryan, what is your source for cowboys auctioning off native children?

01:31:07.000 I might ask him on Twitter and maybe I'll put it in the description.

01:31:11.000 Problematic Bob, he says, God, big if true.

01:31:19.000 True Diltum says, Did RS abandon the alt right?

01:31:23.000 Was my video.

01:31:24.000 Oh, yeah, so that's where I ended up on the True Diltum channel.

01:31:29.000 It's like, Oh, there's a guy that asked, Is Richard Spencer abandoning the alt right?

01:31:34.000 So, True Diltom, subscribe to his channel.

01:31:37.000 It was an awesome video, and Richard Spencer said, Absolutely, this video is right.

01:31:42.000 It describes my current thinking.

01:31:46.000 And True Diltom has seen right through Richard this time.

01:31:51.000 All right, guys, I think it's going to be the end.

01:31:55.000 I thank you so much.

01:31:56.000 There's already six patrons that have subscribed in the last.

01:32:01.000 Hour on top of the sponsors of the YouTube channel, and of course, you guys on the super chat who keep funding this amazing adventure.

01:32:12.000 I will be trying tomorrow.

01:32:14.000 I essentially fall into the phase of a full time YouTube career.

01:32:19.000 So, you guys have given so much money to this channel that I think I can live off of that while I develop this channel further.

01:32:28.000 And I thank you all for doing that and for allowing me to do this.

01:32:33.000 I'm gonna stream every day until I'm tired and I fall in bed.

01:32:38.000 I think we're gonna try to have streams every 7 p.m. Eastern time every day.

01:32:44.000 So keep supporting the show and we'll make it even better and we will do conquest just like Nick Fruentes has proposed.

01:32:54.000 We will conquer audiences together.

01:32:57.000 But you guys are what makes it possible and you guys are what allows me to dream of higher audiences to which we will get.

01:33:07.000 But we'll get there slowly without forgetting what is the fundamental of what we do here.

01:33:14.000 We do highly intelligent conversations that change the world.

01:33:19.000 Thank you for being there tonight.

01:33:21.000 And I'll see all of you tomorrow.

01:33:23.000 Maybe not on my main channel because it seems that these guys are pretty explosive.

01:33:30.000 So maybe on the clips channel, go subscribe to the JFJ live streams clip channel.

01:33:35.000 This is where I'm going to publish my clips and this is where I'm going to host.

01:33:40.000 Debates that I believe could be, I could lose the control of these debates, and I want to protect your ears from hearing illegal speech.

01:33:54.000 Have a great day.

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - May 13, 2018

Nick Fuentes vs. Ryan Dawson

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript