00:01:15.000And today, There's such a list of amazing things that are happening.
00:01:20.000First, we will talk with Ryan Dawson and Nick Fernandez.
00:01:24.000These 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.
00:01:38.000These are two great independent thinkers, and we will be talking about probably race, probably religion, also, and maybe a little bit.
00:01:48.000A little bit of friendly talking about Israel at the end.
00:01:55.000Well, I hope by friendly talking about Israel, you mean friendly smacking Israel around.
00:02:00.000And congratulations on your full time YouTube.
00:02:04.000It 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.
00:02:12.000That's been my case for over a decade.
00:02:42.000This 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.
00:03:02.000However, 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.
00:03:25.000So, starting with Nick, could you just lay out your thoughts so that we know whether you two agree on this question?
00:03:33.000So, you know, I watched Ryan and I watched him challenge Halsey on Bloodsports on Andy Worski.
00:03:41.000And, 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.
00:03:48.000But then I watched his debate with Halsey and it was pretty good.
00:03:51.000I 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.
00:03:58.000The subject of Israeli influence, and he's been doing it for a long time.
00:04:02.000But 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.
00:04:25.000And, you know, when we and Richard Spencer talked about it last week, I think it was last Wednesday.
00:04:31.000We talked about the fact that we were nationalists.
00:04:34.000I'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.
00:04:44.000And 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.
00:05:04.000And 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.
00:05:11.000And I don't even say that as a pejorative.
00:05:13.000I say that descriptively, but maybe doesn't understand so much the importance of biology and of race.
00:05:18.000And that's always been my position that, you know, race is real, race is important.
00:05:23.000You 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.
00:05:32.000And so that's basically my position on that question.
00:05:46.000I mean, I watched your debate with Halsey, and you said it was less important than economic systems.
00:05:52.000You said that Israel being like ethno nationalist or ethnocentric was problematic.
00:05:58.000And so I don't know, is that a mischaracterization, or what would you say your views are?
00:06:02.000Well, 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.
00:06:12.000Israel is the original migrant crisis because you have a bunch of Polish and European Jews moving down to Palestine and displacing the native population.
00:06:20.000And so that's very different than South Korea or Japan or something like that.
00:06:25.000As 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.
00:06:54.000I mean, if you're a double digit IQer on average, anyway, then on average, you're not going to succeed as well.
00:07:00.000But 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.
00:07:09.000And so I was just taking the other side of those systems because it's a voice that is seldom heard.
00:07:14.000Just saying it's DNA doesn't really explain very much.
00:07:17.000And I would like to talk about the policies and things because those are things we can actually fix.
00:07:22.000You can't really do much, you know, not quickly about biology, but you can change your policy.
00:07:30.000And 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.
00:07:38.000I think that's where I distinguish myself a lot from them as well.
00:07:40.000I wouldn't say that race is ever irrelevant or arbitrary, but I do agree with you.
00:07:45.000You know, you look at a country like China, for example.
00:07:49.000A high IQ country like China that for a long time didn't fare so well.
00:07:53.000And it was because they did not have efficient means of organizing capital.
00:07:57.000They did not have advanced technology.
00:08:00.000So I agree it's not everything, but I do think it's a big part of it.
00:08:04.000And back to the question of you being a liberal, here's where I say you're a liberal.
00:08:08.000I say that not to be like a boomer and like, shut up, liberal.
00:08:12.000I don't mean it like that, but you seem to have a problem with this violence.
00:08:16.000You say that, well, Israel is created through violence and that's a big problem.
00:08:20.000And, 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.
00:08:55.000And you can have a conquest or you can have expansion without murdering everyone.
00:09:01.000You can live together, which is what we ended up doing after the 1890s anyway.
00:09:05.000I 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.
00:09:13.000But, you know, I don't think putting natives on reservations was a good thing.
00:09:18.000And I think it was definitely avoidable.
00:09:20.000And we could still have the United States without murdering the indigenous population.
00:09:25.000Yeah, 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.
00:09:39.000I 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.
00:09:50.000And I think kind of the liberal mistake is this idea that we can have it the way we want.
00:09:54.000We could have America the way we want, but not so messy, not killing indigenous people, not putting them on reservations, not bloodshed.
00:10:02.000We could have it the way we want without it getting messy, without it getting ugly.
00:10:06.000And I think that's where you really have to draw the line between someone who's a realist, somebody who's a pragmatist.
00:10:12.000And 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.
00:10:37.000So, 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?
00:11:05.000And 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.
00:11:13.000But I wouldn't say that because people are conquering land like.
00:11:34.000I was asking if you think it's immoral.
00:11:36.000I just don't like the migrant crisis because it doesn't work for either side.
00:11:41.000When you import the third world, you don't bring them up, you just bring yourself down.
00:11:44.000It'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.
00:11:50.000You can't have social welfare and open borders at the same time.
00:11:53.000That's been proven over and over again.
00:12:11.000Ideally, you wouldn't have it that way.
00:12:13.000But, you know, sometimes things happen.
00:12:17.000And I think part of being conservative is saying, Again, that's just how things are, unfortunately.
00:12:24.000And 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.
00:12:31.000But 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.
00:12:45.000I mean, at the end of the day, is life better for an African in Nigeria or is it better in Italy?
00:12:50.000I 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.
00:12:57.000They don't even face consequences most of the time.
00:13:00.000And, you know, so I would just say from a political standpoint, I wouldn't say like these are bad people pursuing their interests.
00:13:08.000I would say it's bad that we elect leaders that allow this to happen.
00:13:13.000In the long run, it's not good for them.
00:13:15.000It's probably better for somebody to stay in Nigeria.
00:13:18.000It would definitely be better to leave, say, Sudan or some shithole like that.
00:13:22.000We 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.
00:13:29.000There are a lot of policy changes that we could do to curb the immigration crisis.
00:13:34.000Because if from talking real politics, like obviously, why don't you just close your borders and stop putting sugar on the floor?
00:13:40.000Well, obviously, the European states, Merkel, et cetera, aren't interested in doing that.
00:13:44.000But 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?
00:14:33.000I don't have a problem with Israel because they established their nation and in the Middle East.
00:14:37.000That's caused a lot of problems for us.
00:14:39.000My 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.
00:14:48.000My problem is that they've become a parasitic, they've forged a parasitic relationship with us.
00:14:54.000And 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.
00:15:01.000They're pursuing their own self interest.
00:15:03.000They're doing Israel first in Israel, and by all means, as long as we're putting America first here.
00:15:08.000Yeah, I think it's going against their interests.
00:15:10.000They might not realize it like that, but I think they cause more anti Semitism than any other action.
00:15:15.000And for me, it goes way beyond that because there wouldn't be wars in the Middle East.
00:15:19.000You'll probably agree with this too, but there wouldn't be all these wars in the Middle East.
00:16:01.000And a lot of them, and for Germany, I talked to a German citizen yesterday.
00:16:05.000It's other European states going into Germany, but same difference.
00:16:09.000It's a different culture, different language, and it's sacking the system and sucking off the government tit.
00:16:13.000But 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.
00:16:26.000But people don't trace it back to Israel.
00:16:28.000They act like everything happened yesterday like, oh, there's just a war in Syria, just cause.
00:16:54.000I 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.
00:17:11.000I'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.
00:17:29.000And 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.
00:17:38.000And it's like these people invented terrorism.
00:17:40.000These people, they created all these catastrophes.
00:17:45.000But I don't have a problem with that in and of itself.
00:17:50.000Driving people out in and like, you know, people talk about national sovereignty.
00:17:54.000You have a problem with the consequences of it.
00:17:55.000You 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.
00:18:09.000So, 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.
00:18:17.000I'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.
00:18:28.000Well, yeah, but that's what I'm saying.
00:18:29.000I'm saying I have a problem with it from a consequentialist lens.
00:18:33.000I have a problem with it from the sense that Israel was established.
00:18:37.000And 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.
00:18:48.000I mean, can you agree that you look at the Excursions we've gone on there.
00:18:52.000You 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?
00:19:03.000How do we incorporate that into the order?
00:19:05.000And I'm saying, yeah, that's a big problem.
00:19:08.000That's why I oppose it exclusively for that reason, but not because I have an intrinsic problem with conquest, because I really don't.
00:19:16.000I have a problem with it because I guess to an extent, in the modern day, it creates moral hazard.
00:19:22.000Like, 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.
00:19:29.000But 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.
00:19:42.000We took the Louisiana Purchase, we had to conquer it from the Native Americans.
00:19:47.000We bought it from the French, but really, we had to conquer it.
00:19:49.000We conquered the Mexican Cession Lands in the Mexican American War.
00:20:35.000Yet 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.
00:20:50.000And once you realize this, your pragmatic view can turn into something that looks almost like a moral realist view.
00:20:58.000It seems that this is the position that Ryan is adopting here.
00:21:04.000Don't be just saying, because something happened, it's okay.
00:21:09.000Because 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.
00:21:22.000And 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.
00:21:32.000And so that was a war for their independence.
00:23:02.000Well, 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.
00:23:18.000I 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.
00:23:26.000I 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.
00:23:41.000And I don't think corporate entities can make moral decisions.
00:23:47.000I think only individuals can be held accountable for moral decisions.
00:23:51.000And so if you're a government, how could you say that an institution should be held accountable for?
00:23:57.000A moral wrongdoing, like America was morally wrong for this.
00:24:00.000I think you could say that there were immoral decision makers or there was an immoral person on the battlefield.
00:24:07.000But 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.
00:24:14.000They were obviously not welcoming to the Jews, and the Jews didn't like the Muslims.
00:24:20.000I see this as there are two competing interests.
00:24:23.000You resolve this through war, you resolve this through conquest.
00:24:26.000And 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.
00:24:34.000I understand it from their point of view.
00:24:35.000And I wouldn't say that just on the basis of that, am I opposed to Israel?
00:24:42.000Because by the same token, you can look at many countries like this.
00:24:45.000You could look at many countries that have established themselves through conquest.
00:24:49.000And I don't think you would say, well, they should stop doing this or stop doing that, or we oppose them for that reason.
00:24:55.000You'll have a lot of people who would maybe agree with these kind of moralistic judgments about Israel.
00:25:00.000They'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.
00:25:06.000But then they turn around and they support a country like Russia.
00:25:09.000Or 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.
00:25:22.000And that could be said for just about every country.
00:25:24.000I mean, how do you forge the modern nation state without some degree of conquest?
00:25:28.000And so, you know, again, to clarify, this is not in support of Israel.
00:25:32.000It'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.
00:25:49.000If you want to look at the state from a corporate, say, well, a corporation doesn't have any sort of moral sense.
00:25:56.000They just do things based on, I don't know, business incentives or whatever.
00:26:00.000Other corporations are made of people and they do make moral decisions now, and we don't poison the rivers and things.
00:26:06.000But we decided, even as an international body with the United Nations, to create the Geneva Conventions.
00:26:12.000And 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.
00:26:24.000I mean, remember who started World War I?
00:26:27.000The winning side started World War I and they annexed all this territory.
00:26:30.000So you had Danzig, which was separate from the rest of Germany.
00:26:33.000Some went to Poland, some went to France.
00:26:44.000They got their land back and then they got divided between East and West Germany.
00:26:48.000So it's just this cascade of bad events.
00:26:51.000When you have that mindset of, well, we're just not going to look at morals.
00:26:55.000We're just going to look at a business decision, it ends up being bad business too.
00:26:59.000So what they decided was, all right, we're not going to allow the annexation of land.
00:27:02.000Even if you win the war, you don't gain any territory.
00:27:06.000And that has been abided by because of the world wars and what we saw the consequences.
00:27:10.000You can look at it at a consequential standpoint.
00:27:12.000If you're a completely amoral, corporatist, psychopath, you can still see it's bad business.
00:27:17.000But 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.
00:28:20.000I'm pretty sure Russia invaded Crimea and then they held the referendum.
00:28:23.000Friend of mine, that was kind of the mass media thing.
00:28:26.000Russia has a base there anyway, and they put troops in their own base, but they're not patrolling the streets.
00:28:31.000No shots were fired, no one was killed, nothing like that.
00:28:34.000It'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.
00:28:47.000But with the Crimea was independent, they were an autonomous republic, and then they were, and it's disputed, but.
00:29:44.000And so that all goes back to you say, well, for business.
00:29:48.000The 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.
00:29:56.000Like you should be able to figure that out from a moral standpoint.
00:30:00.000Which is how you understand what is good and bad business.
00:30:04.000I 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.
00:30:12.000I 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.
00:30:27.000I think it is moral for the Chinese government or it's moral for China's leaders.
00:30:32.000To protect its people, to protect the interests of its people.
00:30:36.000And maybe that supersedes the moral calculation of, well, you know, this is a bad thing.
00:30:40.000Maybe 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?
00:30:48.000I don't, the moral thing doesn't really, it doesn't enter into the equation for me.
00:30:52.000Yeah, but it's not an A or B thing with China.
00:30:54.000It's not like, well, this is the only way they can be good for their people.
00:30:57.000You can lease land, you can buy things.
00:30:59.000You 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.
00:31:07.000This is going to have bad consequences for China and always has, but this is their policy.
00:31:13.000They're pissing off Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan.
00:31:17.000It's not going to be good for the Chinese.
00:31:19.000It'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.
00:31:40.000The people of said regime, or is this serving the interest of the elites?
00:31:44.000I 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.
00:31:59.000And you could say now, well, is this going to have consequences?
00:32:03.000Sure, but I think it remains to be seen in the long term whether or not this will be a good move for China.
00:32:09.000Certainly being beholden to the United States economically and The United States controlling the seas and being the global hegemon.
00:32:17.000I don't think that's in China's interest.
00:32:19.000Maybe you could say from your Western perspective that's in their interest.
00:32:23.000I don't think you could speak for the Chinese and say that.
00:32:25.000And so that's all I mean to say is that it's not necessarily immoral to conquer.
00:32:32.000Is it, like you said, bad for business?
00:33:45.000If China wants to buy the Spratly Islands or share them, then fine.
00:33:49.000But they're trying to butt out and bully all their neighbors.
00:33:51.000And it's already had backlash on them.
00:33:53.000They've lost a lot of business deals from the surrounding Indochina nations.
00:33:57.000And 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.
00:34:06.000I see a lot of that where they're like, those fucking Chinese, look what they did in Spratly.
00:34:10.000They don't give a damn what they're doing in Spratly.
00:34:13.000But now they have something to point to that they can actually make a case with.
00:34:17.000Well, but the Chinese are not, I mean, to at least.
00:34:21.000The islands or to lease the South China Sea would defeat the whole point.
00:34:24.000The point is to control the shipping routes.
00:34:27.000The point is to control the natural resources there.
00:34:30.000So 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.
00:34:40.000We could settle this through compensation.
00:34:41.000We could settle this through exchange.
00:34:43.000And I think this is a little bit naive.
00:34:45.000I think this is a little bit blind to the reality of force.
00:34:48.000I mean, what if Malaysia or America? who controls the international waters and is kind of the enforcer of international law.
00:34:56.000International law is kind of a fiction.
00:34:58.000Unless you had America to enforce international law, it really wouldn't mean anything.
00:35:02.000But again, to say that, where was I even going with this?
00:35:07.000To say that, yeah, what if these countries don't want to give or America doesn't want to give these islands?
00:35:11.000What if China can't lease these islands from international waters or from Malaysia or the Philippines?
00:35:19.000They want them to increase their trading capacity so that they could become a regional hegemon.
00:35:24.000Well, they're going to have to take them.
00:35:27.000And they'll do that by building artificial islands so they can project naval power there.
00:35:32.000And I don't think there's anything immoral about that.
00:35:33.000I think the world is governed by very different principles than a nation.
00:35:37.000A nation can be governed by Lockean principles because the state can enforce law.
00:35:42.000In 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.
00:36:17.000But that's not the situation, is Bratley Islands.
00:36:19.000You 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.
00:36:37.000Rather 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.
00:36:47.000So they're actually actively seeking conflict because it's a cash cow for select industries whose interests do not overlap with the nation.
00:37:13.000No, they're not seeking a hot war with the United States.
00:37:16.000They are looking at a cold war because it justifies their naval budgets to thumb their nose and rattle sabers at the United States.
00:37:22.000The United States does the same thing.
00:37:24.000Neither 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.
00:37:31.000I think this is a very libertarian way of looking at things.
00:37:34.000And 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.
00:37:39.000But I do think that nations can legitimately.
00:37:43.000Use force or take things to express the self interest of their country.
00:37:47.000I think that's what generally happens.
00:37:49.000And you look at China and compare it to the military industrial complex in the United States, it gets a much different picture.
00:37:56.000I mean, these countries don't operate in the same way the United States does.
00:38:00.000I mean, you look at Xi Jinping and it's almost, he's consolidating so much power, it's almost an autocracy in China.
00:38:06.000And 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.
00:38:17.000And this all goes back to China can take these lands.
00:38:21.000And we can disagree about whether this serves the military industrial complex or whether this serves the interest of China.
00:38:27.000What 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.
00:38:39.000And 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.
00:38:58.000Well, and that's sort of the point, though.
00:39:00.000Even if it's not in the national interest, then it's a bad example.
00:39:05.000Let's say that they were doing this for the sake of the national interest, or let's say they weren't.
00:39:10.000I'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.
00:39:19.000It doesn't really so much matter if that's Force is excessive.
00:39:21.000We could prefer that it not be excessive.
00:39:50.000And I don't really have a problem with that from a moral basis.
00:39:55.000They could have just built their railroads without slaughtering Indians.
00:39:58.000I 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.
00:40:07.000Obviously, 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.
00:40:19.000They couldn't have just worked with them.
00:40:22.000If you read anything about like the way they did in Canada, I mean, they worked with native populations everywhere but the United States.
00:40:28.000Well, 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.
00:40:58.000You say, well, the reason that the Comanches are.
00:41:00.000First, you say, well, they can live together.
00:41:02.000Well, I say, actually, they can't because the Comanches were killing the Americans.
00:41:05.000You 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.
00:41:14.000Like, That kind of insane thing where you're not really a person unless you belong to my theological cult is what leads to violence.
00:41:21.000And here we go to the religion obfuscation.
00:41:24.000Well, back to what I'm going to mention.
00:44:29.000I don't think they need loans from the Rothschilds.
00:44:32.000Glenn Kay says the divergent evolutionary strategies of Jews and European Gentiles are likely the root.
00:44:39.000Of our repeated historical conflicts of interest.
00:44:42.000Ace of Spades says the left is a tireless negative exception, criticism of the native while fetishizing the outside, foreign, ceaseless, undeterminate to ruin.
00:44:56.000Teasum says, My wife is Chinese, I am Polish, we live in America, we want America to be white again.
00:45:04.000Darius says, People like Fruentes and Richard with their white expansionist talk justify the reason whites are getting replaced and wiped.
00:45:45.000I 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?
00:45:55.000I call Ryan a liberal because I think he's a Wilsonian.
00:45:58.000I think he wants to put it into the 14 points and he wants to make it all clean and nice.
00:46:25.000And I found that, you know, just thinking about it, I think that's a really good illustration.
00:46:29.000Do 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?
00:46:40.000Or 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.
00:46:46.000And if it's through conquest, that's not going to fly.
00:48:05.000Alright, so we converge very quick on the question of religion.
00:48:09.000And I think that the comments of Ryan are in line with a view of the Vatican as participating in some acts of colonialism.
00:48:19.000And 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.
00:48:50.000I don't know if that's really contestable, that division.
00:48:54.000I 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.
00:49:03.000If only there wasn't religion, there would be no conflict.
00:49:07.000I just almost think it's kind of silly.
00:49:09.000I 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.
00:49:27.000Well, that's a silly and ridiculous thing.
00:49:31.000Why would people go to war over their conception of what is morally just?
00:49:34.000I mean, I think that kind of highlights the main difference between materialists.
00:49:39.000And people believe in God, which is the materialists see God as restrictive or oppressive or divisive.
00:49:47.000And I think people who believe in God say that the temporal world, there's no substance in it.
00:49:52.000There's nothing worth fighting for in the material world but what you believe in in terms of God.
00:49:58.000You 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?
00:50:08.000So I think that's just kind of a mustard.
00:50:48.000You'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.
00:50:58.000You don't see war right now, and you're right, but how long will this last?
00:54:08.000It 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.
00:54:15.000I mean, even in the Ten Commandments, they condone slavery in the sixth and the tenth.
00:54:18.000And 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.
00:54:27.000You can't get that kind of disgusting level without some sort of authoritarianism.
00:54:32.000And this is a slave master relationship.
00:54:34.000When you worship your Jewish God, which was invented by slaves.
00:55:26.000How can anyone have morality in dealing with what amounts to inanimate objects?
00:55:31.000I mean, we're animated, but I mean, we're not.
00:55:33.000If 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?
00:57:06.000You can say, you can say, Ryan Dawson can say, I think genocide is wrong.
00:57:12.000And I can say, you know, I'm not saying this.
00:57:14.000And you can justify it because you're a theocrat.
00:57:17.000Well, wait, but I can say, I think it's right.
00:57:19.000And who's to say who's right and who's wrong?
00:57:20.000Who has the authority to say who's right and who's wrong?
00:57:24.000You 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.
00:58:12.000So, 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.
00:58:44.000Like 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.
00:58:52.000There is nothing that binds you to your moral code in the absence of God.
01:01:18.000We have slaves and monarchies for over a thousand years after Christ came.
01:01:22.000But 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.
01:01:30.000I'm not an historical expert on it either.
01:01:34.000That you say that these things are repugnant is because you seem to have a moral code.
01:01:39.000But nothing binds you to your moral code.
01:01:41.000And your moral code comes from within.
01:01:43.000And if your moral code comes from within, then you cannot say that this is objectively immoral.
01:01:48.000You 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.
01:01:58.000I could say that it's objectively right.
01:02:00.000I could say that murder is okay and rape is okay.
01:02:02.000And I could say all these things are okay.
01:02:04.000And all you could say is, I disagree with that, but our two judgments are equal because they're both subjective and personal.
01:02:10.000And 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.
01:02:21.000It's subjective, it's based on personal interpretation.
01:02:36.000And truth is, You can see objectively things like science.
01:02:40.000If you're going to have a moral value like health, that's something that seems to be universal.
01:02:45.000Health is better than sickness, for example.
01:02:47.000And 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.
01:02:57.000Well, 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.
01:03:05.000And the result is fewer children are healthy.
01:03:07.000So, 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.
01:03:39.000Good 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.
01:03:47.000But 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.
01:03:53.000And if your authority is wrong, your entire civilization will remain wrong until people rebel against it and break the word.
01:03:59.000Because 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.
01:04:09.000Well, 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.
01:05:10.000I 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.
01:05:18.000But 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.
01:05:27.000But 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.
01:05:41.000There's all the difference in the world because.
01:05:44.000You 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.
01:05:50.000And I could say, empathy should not inform morals.
01:05:53.000I could say that morals should be decided based on the will to power.
01:05:57.000I could say that I read Nietzsche and my morality is the master morality.
01:06:01.000And so I'll dominate as much as I can.
01:07:51.000Yeah, I was kind of tacitly listening.
01:07:53.000They wanted to know the difference between property and possession.
01:07:55.000Yeah, 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?
01:08:11.000Ownership 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.
01:08:21.000Like, obviously, if they're already there and they're using it and farming on it and so on, that's their territory, absolutely.
01:08:28.000I 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.
01:08:38.000Someone was there, they existed, and we we somehow have a basic respect for this, usually.
01:08:45.000The aspect of this discussion which revolves around conquest.
01:08:52.000It 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.
01:09:02.000And if they control a state to do the crime, basically they are absolved.
01:09:10.000Isn't it a way to remove moral guilt to people who should be?
01:09:18.000If 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?
01:09:30.000Well, I think the difference is in terms of where do you assign responsibility.
01:09:36.000If 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.
01:09:53.000You 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.
01:10:06.000You could say that person did an immoral act.
01:10:09.000But the problem is that only, and this goes back to, I guess, my libertarian background, Mises talked about this, only individuals can act.
01:10:18.000And if only individuals can act, only individuals can be assigned moral responsibility.
01:10:24.000You 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.
01:10:34.000You could say that the ruler that made that decision was immoral in governing so.
01:10:39.000Or you could say that an administrator who carried it out this way was immoral.
01:10:43.000My problem is you cannot assign moral responsibility to a corporate entity.
01:10:48.000Not 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.
01:11:00.000I 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.
01:11:52.000Aydin says, the new atheist philosophy of Dawkins, Harris, etc. is per sophistry.
01:11:58.000Intelligent atheists like J.F. acknowledge objective morality needs a God.
01:12:03.000Uh, 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.
01:12:14.000J. Padge Dak says, Christianity is a religion following carrot and stick.
01:13:19.000You 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.
01:13:31.000And 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.
01:13:44.000Attribute this to the loss of religion without an adequate explanation for existence, for suffering, for death.
01:13:51.000In 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.
01:14:02.000I basically live in like a materialist utopia where I am right now.
01:14:06.000And I live in Chicago, but I live in the suburbs, so it's a little different, a little different.
01:14:10.000And I will say that despite the fact that we've never been better off in all the ways that Ryan Dawson says are.
01:14:16.000Moral, which is according to natural science, according to material benefit.
01:14:20.000We've never been better off, and yet we've never been more miserable.
01:14:23.000We've never been closer to the brink of disaster and demise, and everybody knows it and everybody feels it.
01:14:29.000And that dissonance is what brought me to God.
01:14:32.000It wasn't like, you know, I read the Bible and I was really inspired.
01:14:35.000I mean, don't get me wrong, I did read the Bible and I did get inspired.
01:14:38.000But 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.
01:14:52.000And 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.
01:15:01.000And so that's really what brought me to it that a priori reasoning, which I just think is lacking.
01:15:05.000I 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.
01:15:15.000We're simply just a little bit smarter than they were.
01:15:17.000We don't believe in that kind of shit.
01:16:25.000But his cosmotheism might be something interesting for the Super Chat folks because his view.
01:16:32.000He's atheistic in a way, but also not because he's a pantheist.
01:16:35.000And 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.
01:16:49.000And that you can think of the earth, this is sort of a Native American belief too, Mother Earth, as a giant cell.
01:17:02.000Is his purpose because to get to godhood, we have to evolve further and further to a hyper consciousness.
01:17:09.000And he's right now we're at a stage of consciousness as individuals, but that could advance over time.
01:17:15.000And 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.
01:17:26.000And that was, I thought, an interesting, a different religion.
01:17:29.000I think he basically did it for tax evasion purposes, but it is something that people might get behind.
01:17:36.000But 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.
01:18:11.000I think that they are very subtle thinkers, so it's very hard to take a position.
01:18:17.000I 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.
01:18:28.000Stein says, views on the development of.
01:18:51.000People like, Dariush says, people like Fruentes and Richard with their white expansionist talk justify the reason whites are getting replaced and wiped out.
01:20:32.000Ace of Spades says Indians would intentionally target settlers, disembowel women, hang her entrails around her neck, and leave her to perish.
01:24:10.000Ace of Spade says, Communism between number one and number two, body count by ideology after Islam, number two, global motivator of terrorism.
01:25:13.000And we agree on systems to communicate these things.
01:25:16.000And in the same way, we agree on language.
01:25:19.000In a given local society, people talk the same language.
01:25:23.000We could talk the same moral language.
01:25:26.000We could have an intersubjective agreement on morality.
01:25:30.000Uganda, not Wakanda, says Nick is contradicting himself.
01:25:34.000He's a Catholic cock who believes in Pontifex Maximus.
01:25:38.000His standard isn't God, it's Muslim feet, Kisser, Pope Francis.
01:25:47.000I 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.
01:26:06.000Ospin says, we're reaching moral fagging levels that shouldn't be possible.
01:26:11.000Philip S. says, God's compass equals genocide is a okay.
01:28:09.000A 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.
01:28:21.000It's gonna be fun, but when Patrick Little comes in, it's gonna be something else than fun.
01:28:27.000True Diltum, I saw your YouTube channel, True Diltum, that was awesome.
01:29:17.000I 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.
01:29:28.000I 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?
01:29:53.000And that was following the debate, well, the discussion of Richard Spencer and Nick Frontis right here on this channel.
01:30:00.000And 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.
01:30:14.000I am, in fact, thinking more and more about the nature of power.
01:30:19.000And I think that we have a lack of understanding of power dynamics in the alt right.
01:30:25.000So, 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.