SHNEAKO - Richard Spencer VS Orthodox Muslim ｜ White Supremacy, Morality, and Islam DEBATE

00:00:00.000 hey good to finally meet you guys i've been wanting to collab with the both of you separately

00:00:04.320 for quite a while richard i i'm sure you saw the dms i damned you in 2024 and 2025.

00:00:11.360 yeah sorry i'm kind of bad with emails and dms it was nothing personal it's just my it is personal

00:00:17.680 i'm just lazy oh no issue and then i saw you made a tweet about the the anti-zionism thing

00:00:23.680 conflating it with like the leftist idea that anti-zionism is separate from being anti-judaism

00:00:31.040 and you know we could have that discussion and orthodox muslim i've been wanting to speak to you

00:00:34.640 for a while they are very happy that you're here they've been saying that we should have collabed

00:00:38.480 for a long time and so the pretext for this conversation discussion slash debate or whatever

00:00:43.760 is that i did want to speak to you both uh individually and it seems like as soon as i

00:00:48.800 texted orthodox muslim he's like feed me all of them i want to i want to debate i want to immediately

00:00:55.280 so yeah so there's a couple things to discuss i think you know there's a couple separate ideas

00:01:02.320 so maybe we could uh we could lay out some of the the topics of discussion for today or

00:01:08.160 richard how about we start with uh where you think there's a point of contention

00:01:11.600 well i've noticed among leftists that they want to de-judify zionism basically they either want

00:01:23.360 to say that it is an episode in european colonialism and or they want to say that

00:01:31.120 it's the aircraft carrier of the u.s empire basically we the washington just benefits

00:01:36.560 from israel because we use it to attack enemies and steal oil or whatever i think both of those

00:01:42.800 positions have a kernel of truth to them but i do think they're fundamentally wrong

00:01:48.080 i think zionism is a full expression of judaism and i don't think you can understand it without

00:01:55.920 that and thus if you are going to attack zionism you at some point have to attack judaism and the

00:02:02.800 left is totally unwilling to do that now i've seen i probably lumped you in there with like

00:02:06.880 ilan omar or whatever i mean apologies obviously you can prove me wrong you know um but uh yeah

00:02:14.880 that i i think that is worth saying like they are fulfilling prophecies in the torah and so

00:02:22.400 if you do find this problematic which many do you need to start to be more skeptical of the torah i

00:02:29.600 I don't think they're willing to do that.

00:02:31.120 Many leftists are atheists, and they're not willing to do that.

00:02:34.940 Muslims aren't willing to do that as well because the Torah is ultimately sacred.

00:02:39.380 Christians, a lot of Christians, particularly Protestants, take the, you know, oh, they get it. 0.69

00:02:45.020 And in a weird way, I agree with fundamentalist Protestants. 0.81

00:02:49.100 I just don't believe them.

00:02:51.280 Yeah, go ahead. 0.99

00:02:52.500 So you said Muslims are also in the same camp because they view the Torah as sacred. 0.94

00:02:59.060 can you just disambiguate what you meant by that well i mean your islam is obviously created

00:03:07.300 hundreds of years after the compilation of the hebrew bible uh but it's a sort of sequel or

00:03:14.260 continuation of judaism in the sense that you are descended from ishmael who's descended from abraham

00:03:21.700 and um you know when uh when muhammad made his ride he went to jerusalem and i don't think that's

00:03:30.520 a coincidence it's sort of you know and much in the same way that jesus comes to jerusalem on a

00:03:36.540 donkey um they're all both religions are kind of going back to their source it's i mean i guess i

00:03:43.120 would think of it as judaism as you know it's it's like the source code christianity is judaism 2.0

00:03:49.860 There are some significant differences, but it's derived from Judaism.

00:03:53.640 I mean, Jesus is a rabbi, and Islam is 3.0, a new version.

00:04:00.600 And all of these things are written by Jews as well. 0.97

00:04:04.680 Yeah.

00:04:05.160 So I think you have a very confused idea of what Muslims think, to be honest, with all due respect.

00:04:12.900 So no, we wouldn't say that because I'm talking about from our position. 0.56

00:04:17.660 I mean you as somebody externally looking from the outside into Islam

00:04:22.340 You may come to that conclusion

00:04:23.880 But Islam from within

00:04:26.400 We don't think that we're a continuation

00:04:28.920 Rather we think rabbinical Judaism 0.93

00:04:31.180 Is an ideology that broke off from Islam 0.67

00:04:36.720 Christianity is an ideology that broke off from Islam 0.86

00:04:40.840 And the Torah 0.96

00:04:42.660 Going back to whether Judaism is Zionist or not 0.60

00:04:46.140 so i agree with you to a certain extent that rabbinic judaism is inherently zionist i mean

00:04:55.200 there's no doubt about that if you open up the talmud you look at what the sages say the tenayim

00:05:00.160 the rabbis i mean it's very clear the jewish objective is to have a jewish state the messiah

00:05:08.080 will come he will rule the world they'll have you know however many numbers of slaves and so on so

00:05:13.940 forth but that's rabbinic judaism if you read the torah within an islamic lens i would say it's not

00:05:22.020 zionist because then the land promised to the israelites is really promised to muslims

00:05:28.900 israelite muslims not on the condition that they are israelites per se but on the condition that

00:05:36.020 they are israelites and that they keep the commandments and not break god's covenant

00:05:41.540 so if you keep god's covenant god will give you the land and you are worthy to have the land

00:05:49.600 if you're loyal to god if you're not loyal to god whether you're an israelite or not then he's

00:05:55.920 going to give you to your enemies which what happens with the israelites when they you know 0.93

00:06:00.820 worship false gods they worship baal they god sends them into exile because they're not worthy 0.91

00:06:06.120 of having the land so i would say muslims have an inherent ownership to that land not just to

00:06:13.640 the land but to the whole world i understand your perspective i mean you have to be honest here

00:06:20.840 though when this might make perfect sense in your mind and among your colleagues and friends but if

00:06:28.760 you tell an average secular person that christian christianity broke off from islam and rabbinic

00:06:36.600 judaism broke off from islam i mean they're going to look at you funny because it seems like you're

00:06:41.400 looking at this backwards and and so the things that were of the recent past are kind of closer

00:06:47.560 and you're assuming that those are original now i you know i understand you're you're a sincere

00:06:53.400 you're a sincere believer so i i understand but i'm just telling you that many people might find

00:06:58.600 that a bit discombobulating I'm objecting to that though and I'm saying this is a claim that we could

00:07:05.160 historically substantiate without assuming the conclusion of Islam okay so do you let me ask you

00:07:13.560 a couple of questions so I can better understand your worldview so do you believe that Moses when

00:07:21.160 he was leading the Israelites while they were wandering that they were practicing Islam yes

00:07:28.600 oh wow okay but what do you think what's this one sec what's islam

00:07:32.640 submission okay no way so okay so no no so that's that's too broad somebody could say hey i submit

00:07:42.200 to my ps5 or i submit to my pregnant baby does that yes okay well i don't know about that

00:07:49.340 so sub islam is not so linguistically islam is submission but religiously what is islam

00:07:57.860 in a more specific theological definition.

00:08:01.240 What is Islam?

00:08:02.300 Because you asked me, was Moses a Muslim?

00:08:04.840 If you mean linguistically,

00:08:06.840 then you have conceded that he's a Muslim

00:08:08.460 because he submitted to a deity.

00:08:10.540 So you must not mean linguistically,

00:08:12.180 you must mean in a different sense.

00:08:13.780 That is the more specific theological sense.

00:08:17.680 So what is a Muslim theologically? 1.00

00:08:21.980 You are submitting to Yahweh, 1.00

00:08:25.280 the God of Abraham, the God of Israel, 0.93

00:08:27.860 the god of jesus and is that i'm trying to define it in the most you know uncontroversial way okay

00:08:34.520 let's let's just let's just go with that did moses submit to yahweh yes when he circumcised himself

00:08:40.400 so moses was a muslim oh you just you just you just said was moses a muslim and i said 0.97

00:08:48.120 yes and you you just like laughed like it's so ridiculous right well i mean just just one second

00:08:53.740 then i asked you to define what a muslim is i gave a definition and you can see that that moses 0.93

00:08:58.860 moses satisfies that definition so you can see that moses is a muslim look i i understand where

00:09:06.700 you're coming from i i really do but you you have to put yourself in the shoes of a secular westerner

00:09:14.300 they're going to think that you're playing word games with this i mean did not exist until the

00:09:20.940 seventh century and when when the quran was not constructed until well islam is not contingent on

00:09:30.940 the quran you've misunderstood what islam is well islam is not contingent on the quran that's why we

00:09:36.620 say the quran is the final revelation of islam if the quran is the final revelation of islam then

00:09:41.820 islam can't possibly be contingent on the quran so if you're telling me oh well you have to look

00:09:46.540 at it from how the western sees it or the foreigner or the secular well obviously this is not something

00:09:53.180 they're familiar with they're not muslims right obviously they're not just going to accept the

00:09:57.340 face value the question should be is can i as a muslim historically and theologically substantiate

00:10:03.420 my claim without begging the question without circular reasoning without assuming my conclusion

00:10:08.380 i say yes without a shadow of a doubt jesus was muslim moses was a muslim abraham was a muslim

00:10:13.260 they're all muslims and christianity and judaism are heretical

00:10:16.860 sects that are condemned by god do you think that jesus was the messiah foretold in 0.73

00:10:26.380 zachariah and other you know parts of the hebrew bible that he he was from the house of david that

00:10:33.660 he is the anointed one do you believe that or do you yes so i i do so i think jesus is the messiah

00:10:43.260 Now, whether Jesus, according to what we find in Christian literature

00:10:48.980 and our biographical material that exists,

00:10:50.940 such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Gospels,

00:10:54.420 Jesus doesn't quite fulfill what the Old Testament says

00:11:00.160 the Messiah will fulfill.

00:11:02.300 So the only reason, or there are some fulfillments,

00:11:06.600 but they're too vague to be specific fulfillments.

00:11:09.980 Like, for example, like Matthew says, Jesus came riding on a donkey into Jerusalem.

00:11:15.960 This was to fulfill what Zechariah says. 0.71

00:11:19.020 Behold, Jerusalem, your king comes lowly riding on a donkey. 0.84

00:11:22.660 Now, besides the fact that Matthew misinterprets Zechariah and has Jesus ride two donkeys, however the hell he did that,

00:11:29.760 I would say that a man riding a donkey in Jerusalem is not enough to substantiate he's the Messiah.

00:11:36.360 The Messiah is not supposed to just ride donkeys.

00:11:38.120 I could ride a donkey.

00:11:38.980 You could ride a donkey. 0.99

00:11:39.620 supposed to be a king who will restore israel so that's why i only believe jesus is the messiah 0.67

00:11:46.980 because the prophet muhammad tells me he's the messiah there's nothing in the gospels that

00:11:52.100 would convince me jesus is the messiah fascinating so is muhammad the the messiah

00:12:01.940 no muhammad is not the messiah so if we just want just want to break that down a little bit

00:12:06.660 it messiah in the hebrew bible linguistically just means anointed one as a matter of fact

00:12:13.700 the awaited messiah that the jews are waiting for is never called messiah in the hebrew bible

00:12:19.860 he's called a branch he's called the seed of jesse he's called prince david he's never called

00:12:28.080 messiah but other people are called messiahs uh the priests are called messiah cyrus is called

00:12:34.040 messiah david is called god's messiah so if you mean is the prophet muhammad anointed is he

00:12:39.800 anointed chosen by god i would say linguistically yes is he the messiah the awaited eschatological

00:12:45.480 figure i'd say no that's jesus okay so in that but i thought you just said he jesus was an

00:12:52.200 incomplete messiah no i said there's nothing in the gospels that would convince me

00:12:58.680 as somebody just reading the gospels not contingent on the quran that jesus fulfills

00:13:06.120 messianic prophecy and profile oh i see but i believe he's a messiah because the quran says he

00:13:12.120 is because i have demonstrated and established that the quran is revelation from god is true

00:13:17.480 therefore its content is true therefore if it says he's the messiah then jesus must be the messiah

00:13:21.800 so are you waiting for the messiah the another messiah or the second coming of jesus i believe

00:13:30.500 that jesus does return in the islamic you know sort of parallel to revelations the end time

00:13:37.380 scenario yeah we believe jesus is going to come back we believe in the second coming yeah

00:13:41.140 oh okay yeah this is all fascinating stuff so in terms of rabbinical judaism and 0.53

00:13:50.860 zionism the modern state of israel etc you think that these are heretics in the sense that they

00:13:59.540 have they rejected jesus they rejected islam even though they had a chance to convert uh to islam

00:14:06.700 with the coming of the Quran and Muhammad, et cetera. 0.85

00:14:11.440 And so they're just waiting for their own Messiah 0.60

00:14:14.180 that is never going to come.

00:14:15.680 They keep missing it.

00:14:17.300 They're waiting for the Antichrist.

00:14:19.900 Waiting for the Antichrist.

00:14:21.540 Oh, interesting.

00:14:22.200 Yeah, so they're waiting for who they think is the Messiah,

00:14:25.440 who we know is the Antichrist,

00:14:27.660 and who we know that the Antichrist

00:14:29.280 in our eschatological tradition

00:14:30.820 will have a number of followers of Jews.

00:14:35.540 most of his followers in the end times will be jews um from the middle east and from that region so

00:14:42.180 yeah they're waiting for the antichrist and yeah so i agree with you again that

00:14:48.040 rabbinic judaism is inherently zionist but what snekel is meant to say is that there is this pure

00:14:55.740 bare religion of submission to god found in the torah and the hebrew bible and that is original

00:15:03.420 judaism aka that is islam original judaism or original christianity i want to clarify my

00:15:10.780 position on that because uh based on richard spencer's tweet conflating my belief with like

00:15:15.500 the leftist muslims who say they that anti-zionism is not anti-judaism and then of course we all know

00:15:22.220 the torah jews who say free palestine and but my belief is that rabbinic judaism replaced it and 0.89

00:15:28.460 that this is the new religion and that's uh that's a falsehood and so i think that leftist muslims

00:15:33.820 will i think that that's kind of a a coping mechanism for them to not get anti-semitism

00:15:40.140 allegations right they don't want to conflate the two because they are separating from nazis and

00:15:47.180 coming off like they're racist i i i get it yes the medi hasan types do that well i misrepresented

00:15:54.140 you and i'm glad to be clarified uh in that sense so i guess i could unfurl my perspective but

00:16:02.600 before i do that i so when you're saying that judaism so there's a rupture in judaism does

00:16:08.780 that rupture occur with the destruction of the second temple in 70 ad oh you mean when judaism

00:16:16.200 oneself right yeah yeah so it would be with the rejection of the messiah and that's actually the

00:16:25.020 reason god destroyed their temple actually jesus prophesied about this very event in the parable of

00:16:31.860 the uh in the wedding banquet in the parable of the tenants basically god you know he sent israel

00:16:38.320 prophet after prophet after prophet these uh israelites who are supposed to be god's chosen

00:16:45.140 people and uphold his covenant they kept killing the messengers and prophets killing one after the 0.95

00:16:49.460 other and god has enough he gives them one more chance he sends the messiah they try to kill him

00:16:54.340 as well and so he destroys their temple he takes away the vineyard he kicks out these tenants 0.89

00:17:00.900 that's a parable right tenants in a vineyard the jews are the tenants he kicks them out 0.69

00:17:06.180 and he gives this vineyard to other tenants to another nation that will produce its fruits 0.85

00:17:14.180 historically speaking the nation that produces fruit after the jews were kicked out of the

00:17:19.860 covenant are the muslim arabs they came with one arab prophet did what the jews couldn't do with 0.94

00:17:28.660 thousands according to them there's been over a million prophets according to talmud they couldn't 0.99

00:17:33.460 do what islam did in over in just six seventy years they controlled more land than the roman 0.96

00:17:40.420 empire did in 800 years and they controlled all the lands of their enemies and all the 0.99

00:17:46.980 land that was promised to abraham the muslims controlled yes so let me tell you a little bit 0.55

00:17:55.940 about my perspective on this so the there's a scholarly consensus that the gospel of mark

00:18:03.860 was written around 50 AD 70 or so yeah that well I agree with you actually but um so there is a

00:18:14.500 prophecy by Jesus that the second temple will come crashing down in the gospel of mark there's also

00:18:22.260 a consensus among scholars that mark is the original or it's I shouldn't say that it's the

00:18:27.700 earliest of the four gospels john is the final one it's the most florid and developed you have

00:18:35.220 the synoptic gospels of uh uh matthew mark and luke mark was actually older and it is a little

00:18:41.300 more laconic in its writing it doesn't narrate the bethlehem birth uh nativity scene it sort of

00:18:48.260 of begins in right in the middle um with jesus as a uh itinerant rabbi um so they're most scholars

00:18:58.120 believe that it was written around 50 a.d now if you were i agree with you but let me just just let

00:19:04.260 me go with this okay it's not 50 though it's 70 but yeah continue i you're okay well many scholars

00:19:12.600 have suggested 50 that would imply that jesus offers a prophecy and accurately foresees the

00:19:21.440 destruction of the second temple which which scholar says 50 the overwhelming consensus

00:19:27.060 is 70 i don't want to argue with you about this well you made a claim brother you can't just make

00:19:33.560 a claim and just yeah i know but it's not an important one i'll grant it you if you want to

00:19:37.460 well it's important because you want to say that jesus made a prophecy well if it's written in 70

00:19:41.840 that's not really a prophecy is it well it's sort of funny you you're arguing with me but you're

00:19:47.380 sort of making my point if you i don't just let me roll here sure sure sure go ahead yeah because i

00:19:53.220 i'll great you know if it's not this is a dispensable point what i'm trying to say okay

00:19:58.220 i believe that mark was written after the roman destruction of the uh of the second temple and

00:20:07.460 the revolt in jerusalem that was narrated in josephus we have archaeological evidence for

00:20:14.260 that i don't believe that jesus foresaw anything i think that christianity as a kind of judaism 2.0

00:20:23.540 was developed after the destruction or at least the gospels um was developed after the destruction

00:20:31.940 of the temple and it was a sort of new way forward um okay we we can't claim that we are

00:20:42.260 you know the descendants of this davidic kingdom and we kick ass and have this magnificent temple

00:20:49.860 and we're amazing we actually need to find another way and we need to open up the religion

00:20:55.700 um even you know beyond the uh the 12 tribes etc it was a sort of new version of it that was

00:21:02.660 constructed after this failure almost like after the fall of the soviet union there is an attempt

00:21:09.700 ongoing to reconstruct and kind of reframe marxism for the 20 21st century understanding the

00:21:18.500 dramatic dramatic failure of marxism in the 20th sorry failure on whose part

00:21:25.080 with the temple marxism oh no oh with the temple point oh with the temple um i i don't believe

00:21:32.240 i i don't believe that jesus as he is depicted in the gospels ever existed i think jesus

00:21:38.220 is a literary figure much like hamlet brother hey so there's no evidence for jesus outside of

00:21:46.880 books about jesus yeah so i mean i don't know what to tell you no no no problem brother so

00:21:53.360 he's not mentioned by many roman historians who covered the time so just let me tell you i'll

00:21:59.680 let you go yeah just let me tell you okay to say jesus didn't exist yes is a historical blunder

00:22:09.040 brother no serious historian believes in jesus mythicism it's a joke the evidence is overwhelming

00:22:17.840 why because the existence of jesus satisfies our rigorous historical criteria for for

00:22:24.480 authentic historical events jesus is independently attested by multiple early sources

00:22:30.000 josephus yes i don't take the gospels as an attestation of jesus's why wouldn't the gospels

00:22:40.400 be attestation well do you think that hamlet existed i don't know who that is oh well shakespeare

00:22:47.680 has a famous play called hamlet you probably heard it yeah that's that's fine when i traveled to

00:22:52.960 denmark i uh one time this many years ago there was actually a castle um and uh there's supposedly

00:23:01.760 hamlet's grave oh this is where he might i don't believe that in the slightest bit hamlet as he

00:23:07.120 exists in our imagination exist in words he exists he speaks english he was born in 1600

00:23:15.520 in london i'll tell you the difference okay yes you're assuming that the gospels

00:23:21.520 are not biographical material which most historians agree that the gospels are ancient roman

00:23:29.200 biographies that's point number one point number two forget the gospels jesus is attested by the

00:23:36.720 year 50 by the pauline letters there are seven undisputed pauline letters paul is writing as

00:23:44.800 early as the mid 50s and jesus is attested in pauline letters paul never met jesus he doesn't

00:23:52.480 he doesn't have to meet him he attests to his existence and paul meets his disciples and those

00:23:59.120 who are acquainted with him like james acts like peter not enough that's another that these are

00:24:04.560 another just fabulous history not not not an act in the late other but no no you just said something

00:24:10.560 wrong brother not an act in galatians where paul himself writing he says when i first revealed my

00:24:18.520 revelation my first instinct was not to go to jerusalem rather i went to sinai in arabia then

00:24:25.480 after a few years i went to jerusalem and i acquainted myself with peter the and james the

00:24:31.520 lord's brother but i didn't see anyone else then after a few years i went to jerusalem again and i

00:24:37.420 met with the disciples and they gave me the right hand of fellowship now you have me defending paul

00:24:43.100 for some reason i hate paul but your position is so ridiculous that you have me defending the

00:24:48.140 historicity of jesus the fact of the matter is sorry i'm on my light here the fact of the matter 0.56

00:24:55.360 is jesus is independently attested by so many early sources christian and non-christian to say

00:25:02.300 that he didn't exist is ridiculous it's completely absurd and there's no evidence for it yes the only

00:25:09.500 way that we have attestation of the existence of jesus is through canonical works of the bible

00:25:18.720 and particularly with the gospels paul is an ideologue but with the gospels he is depicted

00:25:25.720 in a mythical way that would have been accepted by the audio the original audience of these gospels

00:25:32.920 um basically equating him with uh gods including adonis and dionysus he is a mythical figure

00:25:41.460 who does mythical acts paul discovers a jesus paul does not talk about jesus's exploits very much at

00:25:50.660 all in the epistles he finds jesus in the old testament or the hebrew bible with which he was

00:25:57.300 very very familiar so it's like find he is finding a character in literature and cre in creating this

00:26:06.740 image but in terms of the narration that you see in the bible we don't see any of that in

00:26:11.700 in paul there's just ideal so you're not actually addressing anything so so all you're doing is

00:26:17.620 spewing nonsense you're not addressing anything okay you're just you're just saying oh the gospels

00:26:22.260 are myths okay well what's the evidence for that so look i'm not because they adhere to mythic

00:26:27.880 archetypes and tropes it would have been familiar to readers in the first century they do not and

00:26:33.960 i'll tell you why i'll tell you why do you think romulus is a historical figure no romulus is not

00:26:41.700 a historical figure no he's a mythical what about apollonius what about apollonius of tiana

00:26:47.160 remind me who that is apollonius of tiana is a contemporary of jesus

00:26:53.040 he is a philosopher who goes around preaching healing and so on and so forth then his followers

00:27:00.480 after that um write biographies about his life so do you think apollonius i don't i don't have

00:27:06.360 i i simply don't know enough to express an opinion no problem what about what about what

00:27:10.960 about caesar i think caesar was a historical figure oh but there's oh but accounts of his

00:27:16.240 life he does miraculous things he's called the son of god he's called the god on earth

00:27:21.420 is he is he a fable is he a myth yes i think he is almost surely a real person we have

00:27:29.440 archaeological evidence we have numismatic evidence just hold on we have evidence from

00:27:34.560 people who were his enemies who had no motivation to talk about oh oh good good was josephus

00:27:41.520 a jew yes was he a christian no does he mention jesus yes he does good does does tacitus the

00:27:52.560 roman wars not really tacitus mentions christians he's writing much later oh no no you're confused

00:27:59.540 you're talking about pliny no you're confused tacitus mentions jesus by name he calls him

00:28:06.340 christus that that might be the case but tacitus was not a contemporary of jesus christ he doesn't

00:28:12.260 have to be a contemporary that's not i think he's writing in the second like the mid-second century

00:28:18.180 okay if i'm wrong i mean i can go look it up obviously but he's not a contemporary of jesus

00:28:22.580 christ but okay tacitus doesn't have to be contemporary josephus doesn't have to be a

00:28:26.980 contemporary okay that's not how we figure out people existed for example you think alexander

00:28:32.400 the great was a historical figure yes is there anybody in his life who attests to his existence

00:28:39.580 contemporary by that again as i as i explained is that just hold on just look is there anybody

00:28:48.340 who attests contemporary to alexander to the existence of alexander yes who i i don't know

00:28:56.680 offhand you don't know brother the earliest i'm not jack gpt brother i mean but you make it well

00:29:04.040 you're making historical claims you should be able you should be able to substantiate your historical

00:29:08.680 yeah well if i if i had if i had time to substantiate this i could but i we're speaking

00:29:14.120 live so that's you know it's a little bit of a high obstacle to clear right there but no what

00:29:19.320 i'm for historical figures for us to know that they exist yes numismatic evidence for political

00:29:26.200 leaders is powerful uh we don't have anything like that all of that comes in in terms of the

00:29:32.260 images of christ come later um uh archaeological evidence direct could we find a diary of someone

00:29:40.800 who witnessed an earthquake after the uh after the crucifixion we don't have anything resembling

00:29:47.780 you're not you're not actually dealing with the evidence is jesus existence independently

00:29:51.940 gospels can't be evidence okay just look just look you said the gospels can't be evidence why

00:29:56.980 because they're canon do you think shakespeare is evidence that hamlet existed no because that

00:30:02.020 assumes that shakespeare intends to write history that's the difference okay well he did write some

00:30:08.340 histories and there's a lot of historical context you keep cutting me off when i'm trying to respond

00:30:12.900 to you brother okay you cut me off too a little bit but i will i take your point i take your

00:30:17.460 point go it's okay it's natural to cut to cut each other off right there go ask me something

00:30:22.340 i just won't respond so that assumes the gospels are like um some kind of novels or some uh yes

00:30:31.380 you know they're they're written they're a genre that's written that's not some you know not to

00:30:35.380 write history that is contrary to the evidence that is contrary to the consensus okay that's

00:30:41.780 number one there are ancient roman biographies about an ancient person that's number one

00:30:47.460 You can't say, well, we can't take them because they're canon.

00:30:50.360 Well, that doesn't work because genius, they weren't canon when they were being written.

00:30:53.680 They're not canon until the 4th century.

00:30:55.640 That's when you have the Council of Laodicea, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage.

00:31:00.860 Then you have Irenaeus of Leon in the year 185 tell you that, you know, these are our Gospels.

00:31:06.100 There's four Gospels because there's four corners of the earth and all that stuff.

00:31:09.200 Then you have Justin Martyr quoting them in the 2nd century.

00:31:11.220 But when they were written, we're not thinking they're writing canon.

00:31:14.640 they're writing a biography about their beloved christ so it's not just the gospels by the way

00:31:21.380 we have this is how scholars classify the source material in the gospels you have mark that's the

00:31:28.940 earliest gospel you have matthew and luke they rely on mark and they uh literary dependence on

00:31:34.840 mark that's called the synoptic problem then you have john john is an independent tradition

00:31:39.640 So now, let's look at our independent sources that mention Jesus Christ and his historical life.

00:31:46.280 You have Mark. You have John. You have Special M, the special material that Matthew uses that doesn't depend on Matthew, that doesn't depend on Mark.

00:31:56.860 Special L, special Luke and material that doesn't depend on Mark

00:32:01.820 And Q, the material that Matthew and Luke use and agree with each other against Mark

00:32:09.840 And Paul

00:32:11.520 So you have Paul attest to Jesus 0.78

00:32:14.060 Q attest to Jesus

00:32:15.800 John attest to Jesus

00:32:17.580 Mark attest to Jesus

00:32:19.240 Special M and special L

00:32:22.500 as seven early independent attestations

00:32:26.800 within the first century of Jesus,

00:32:28.960 what do you have to tell me Jesus didn't exist?

00:32:31.880 Let me ask you a question.

00:32:32.920 So do you believe that the gospel writers

00:32:36.660 were Roman journalists?

00:32:40.600 Do I believe what?

00:32:42.660 You said that they were Roman biographical accounts.

00:32:46.200 Do you believe that they were sort of the equivalent

00:32:48.240 of romans that is non-jews writing journalism or something like that so i don't know what you mean

00:32:56.620 by that all i'm saying when i say they're ancient roman i guess what i i'll explain what i take from

00:33:02.480 what you mean by that is that they are just you know only the facts hard evidence written from

00:33:09.040 a roman perspective about what really happened you know via a guy again like evasion and the

00:33:14.840 roncian tradition this just the facts what happened is that how you take the gospels

00:33:20.280 no when i said when i say ancient that's not how i read them so when i say ancient roman

00:33:26.360 biographies i'm referring to them as a or as pieces of literature in respect to the genre

00:33:34.260 they belong to so the genre they belong to is that these gospels were written in conic greek

00:33:41.860 in the Roman Empire

00:33:43.320 2,000 years ago

00:33:44.900 and these Gospels are biographical

00:33:47.720 materials about somebody

00:33:49.560 who existed and lived called

00:33:51.520 Jesus Christ.

00:33:53.340 All attest to him.

00:33:54.480 How I take them

00:33:56.500 You haven't answered

00:33:58.220 to the independent attestation.

00:34:00.500 What evidence do you have against the seven

00:34:02.660 independent attestations

00:34:04.520 of a Jesus Christ?

00:34:06.060 You're coming up with the

00:34:07.360 Kvela source and all of these kinds of things.

00:34:10.720 Kvela source?

00:34:11.860 Q source.

00:34:13.480 The Q source is consensus, and it is posited, as Dr. John Klopenberg says in his book,

00:34:21.420 as a logical necessity that follows from the synoptic problem.

00:34:25.440 So Q is accepted by 95% of Jesus' callers.

00:34:30.060 Okay.

00:34:31.300 Clearly, John is also relying on the synoptic gospels.

00:34:35.180 I mean, I would say it's...

00:34:35.940 What's the evidence for that?

00:34:36.600 uh well i he's he's he's offering flourishes to these stories what's the evidence okay so

00:34:45.980 hold on you spoke for a little while let me yeah but you're not instantiating your claims you're

00:34:52.300 just you're just uttering the things and not not stating anything i'm not and that's a bit rude

00:34:57.120 let's let him answer without interruption please yeah go ahead yes throughout the ancient world

00:35:05.180 and throughout the world today there is a tradition of mimesis you could think of that

00:35:10.460 as copying and there's great works that you look to you want to bring the structure of the story

00:35:20.060 to a new work maybe change the characters you want to bring in some old tropes from older works

00:35:25.900 and make them sing in this new age i have no doubt i agree with the scholarly consensus

00:35:32.780 consensus that mark most likely came first he inspired uh luke and matthew and in my mind i

00:35:41.980 can't prove this for certain um in all likelihood the writer of john uh read the synoptic gospels

00:35:50.540 uh maybe there were other traditions or other sources that he read but you are claiming that

00:35:56.460 because this story is reiterated multiple times that that makes it more and more true the fact is

00:36:04.220 if you take something like comic books in the 20th century you know uh oh krypton that we we there's

00:36:12.460 the superman the original source the the drawings by uh schuster and i'm forgetting the other guy's

00:36:18.220 name and then later on in the radio version of superman they bring in krypton and or kryptonite

00:36:24.940 and then later on he gets a dog in the 1950s and so on but see there are all these different

00:36:29.660 sources and they're all looking at the same figure so this means that superman must exist

00:36:34.700 or clark kent must exist it doesn't work that way at all it it indicates that many different

00:36:41.580 authors and writers are engaging in a mimetic tradition with other sources john is clearly

00:36:50.540 inspired by Euripides, among other things, and his version of the Bacchae, and the structure

00:36:57.360 of that story as it's relayed in John's Gospel, which is the best one. He's learning from the

00:37:04.960 best. So you're not proving that there's a there there, that there's a real Jesus Christ who

00:37:10.860 walked on the face of the earth and walked on water. You're proving that there are many artists

00:37:15.900 sort of doing their own kind of spin on a material whether the synoptic gospels are

00:37:22.700 taking it all from mark whether john is looking at another source or looking at mark which is

00:37:27.660 what i would find most plausible it doesn't matter they're all sort of working on these

00:37:34.520 different stories over my lifetime there's been like three or four superman movies and they have

00:37:40.880 a lot of similarities there's sort of a key blueprint there's been 25 james bond movies

00:37:46.220 they're all sort of the same they all follow a blueprint and they're all sort of referencing

00:37:51.040 one another none of that means that james bond is a real man and so no if i would be totally

00:38:00.880 convinced that jesus was real if we could authenticate i don't know some sort of diary

00:38:06.200 entry, a legal document, some sort of archaeological evidence. I'm not sure what that would be.

00:38:12.600 But the problem with using the Gospels as a source is that these are brilliant, inspiring. I say this

00:38:21.340 as a sort of atheist Apollonian and so on. I love the Gospel of John. It is a brilliant piece of

00:38:28.260 work. I am moved every time I read these Gospels. Their symbolic coherence, their depth is actually

00:38:35.980 amazing. I understand why they are read 2,000 years later. I think the same thing about Euripides

00:38:43.500 and the Bacchae. I think the same thing about Oedipus Rex. I think the same thing about Hamlet

00:38:47.880 500 or 400 years later. They're great works of art that are taking inspiration from other

00:38:54.040 artists, and they're creating a magical literary figure that captures the imagination.

00:39:01.800 the the figures that have captured the imagination at least from the ancient world

00:39:06.560 are all sort of fictional are you gonna keep going on forever bro mohammed etc because they 0.77

00:39:13.560 are larger than life they can turn water into wine they can walk on water they can rise from 0.97

00:39:19.200 the dead they can say things they can engage in philosophy that was truly mind-blowing for people

00:39:25.400 in the ancient world that's why they're great because their literature go on okay well brother

00:39:33.640 i i just let you go on for i don't know how long five i'll let you go on too that was that was a

00:39:40.780 fair amount of time that was a fair exchange you you've got it you yeah go for it just just look

00:39:45.920 i want this to be a discussion back and forth when i get to monologue and then you get to monologue

00:39:53.700 we're not there's nothing going on i want you to engage with the substance because with all due

00:39:58.120 respect brother you're not you're just saying a whole bunch of things making all kinds of claims

00:40:03.660 when asked for evidence oh i don't know well i'd have to look at it that's not how conversations

00:40:08.480 work okay so the reason and i want you to engage i don't want a monologue the reason

00:40:15.100 that these are independent sources

00:40:18.980 is because there's no literary dependence.

00:40:23.740 So yes, Matthew and Luke are not independent

00:40:27.480 in the material they share with Mark,

00:40:30.720 but we can't use them as independent sources

00:40:33.420 for the things they say about Jesus

00:40:35.200 because they get it from Mark.

00:40:37.780 So they're dependent sources.

00:40:40.180 But there is special M material,

00:40:43.200 what scholars call special m that is methane material that is not from mark so then matthew

00:40:52.480 is getting his information from somewhere else this is independent attestation because it's

00:40:58.480 not dependent on mark it's another independent source they have matthew special or mark sorry

00:41:05.600 special m special l q and thomas and the pauline letters what now do you have evidence

00:41:17.120 contrary to say that no um although jesus is independently attested and he meets rigorous

00:41:24.080 historical criteria that he's not a real person okay i don't have to prove that jesus didn't

00:41:31.920 exist because it's impossible to prove a negative you have to prove that's not how it works that's

00:41:37.760 not that is that is how it works i can't prove that dragons don't exist oh yeah because there

00:41:42.560 might actually be a dragon over behind that tree i just haven't discovered him yet is there a buffoon 0.88

00:41:47.920 under your desk right now uh no there is not a buffoon well i know i'm the only buffoon in this 0.63

00:41:54.240 room okay okay good okay good so you came to a specific epistemic certainty

00:42:01.920 that a negative is true right well yes under the desk but i can't prove that there are no

00:42:10.500 i don't know what i can't prove that no dragon exists jesus is not under my desk either but

00:42:17.000 again so then it's it's it's on you to prove that he exists and let me finish just let me finish

00:42:23.100 there okay because i'm not claiming a buffoon exists i asked you does a buffoon exists under

00:42:29.080 your desk you said no you didn't even have to look under and you don't have to look under why

00:42:35.480 because you don't have epistemic reason to believe he exists therefore there is no justification or

00:42:43.480 reason to think he exists this is how you prove a negative if there is no reason sufficient reason

00:42:49.480 to prove something exists or to come to the conclusion that something exists we can therefore

00:42:54.360 reason to be conclude that it doesn't exist do you have a problem with that um yes okay what's

00:43:01.160 the problem with that well i don't know there might be some strange species of fish that we

00:43:07.000 have no reason to believe exist but that might very well exist and i'm going to have an open mind

00:43:13.800 towards science discovering a new fish one day so maybe you mix categories whether it exists

00:43:21.640 is a different question from whether you have a reason to think it exists therefore you

00:43:28.160 concluding that it doesn't exist right i i'm a bit mind boggled by this i know you're i know

00:43:34.820 you're boggled i know you're boggled this is how this is how it works brother if you have no reason

00:43:39.600 to think something exists then you are justified in concluding that it doesn't right millions of

00:43:45.000 People are inspired by Superman, James Bond, Hamlet, whatever.

00:43:50.300 And that is a tremendous reason for me to believe that those figures really existed.

00:43:57.080 I asked you a direct question.

00:43:58.280 Can you answer it?

00:43:59.580 I asked you a direct question.

00:44:00.640 Can you answer it?

00:44:02.060 Yes.

00:44:03.600 The answer is yes?

00:44:05.420 Well, no.

00:44:05.880 What was the question?

00:44:07.480 If you have no reason to think something exists, you are justified in believing that it doesn't

00:44:14.480 exist.

00:44:15.000 right if i have no reason to believe that something exists i'm justified in believing

00:44:21.720 that it doesn't exist yes no no you're not justified in believing if i have no reason i

00:44:27.820 have no reason to believe that there's life on other planets hold on but i don't i don't

00:44:33.880 foreclose that possibility good do you believe bigfoot exists i don't oh are you justified in

00:44:41.420 that belief is that a reasonable belief i'm justified but i'm i'm open to bigfoot oh you're

00:44:47.280 just oh good so you just you just contradicted yourself you just said if you have no reason to

00:44:54.020 think bigfoot exists that's my point if you have no reason to think bigfoot exists you're justified

00:45:00.700 in concluding that bigfoot doesn't exist if you agree with that because we discover things no one

00:45:05.640 had no one had reason to believe that giant uh lizards walked the earth 40 million years ago

00:45:12.280 and the fact had that's the point i agree if you have reason then you're justified but if you have

00:45:21.140 no reason you're not justified right look i i don't want to get like further boggled by this

00:45:27.420 I know. I believe that there is reason enough to create these powerful literary figures like

00:45:35.740 Jesus or Muhammad in order to create extensions of Judaism, new religions that have been wildly

00:45:43.660 successful in motivating people and changing the world and changing history. Paul is motivated.

00:45:50.920 Paul's an organizer and a philosopher and an ideologue. He's absolutely motivated. John is

00:45:56.500 motivated john is an artist he is a poet and he is a ideologue of sorts he does it through

00:46:03.380 narrative not direct prose they are clearly motivated to create this new religion much like

00:46:10.980 karl marx told stories about one day the working class will rise up and take over the world etc

00:46:18.900 they're storytellers with a motivation to change history and they did yeah so powerfully than

00:46:24.980 and Karl Marx, in fact. Richard,

00:46:27.620 you're saying

00:46:28.420 they're motivated, or that it's

00:46:30.860 a myth and a story, doesn't

00:46:33.040 make it that. Is there

00:46:34.980 any substantial evidence

00:46:36.680 you could offer to show

00:46:38.820 that Jesus, or by the way, you think

00:46:40.920 Muhammad doesn't exist either?

00:46:43.040 I don't think Muhammad existed, no. 1.00

00:46:44.480 Lord, have mercy. Brother, 1.00

00:46:47.300 the prophet Muhammad is

00:46:48.940 more attested to historically

00:46:50.880 than your grandma.

00:46:52.040 you know what the early no not through the quran do you know what the earliest historical

00:46:56.220 attestation to the prophet muhammad is that the hadiths or something no it comes from a christian

00:47:02.120 letter called the doctrine of yaqubi written two years after his death interesting uh well i'll

00:47:09.040 take a look at that um i so you haven't looked at the evidence and you've concluded that he

00:47:13.860 doesn't exist no i'm not alone uh i'm relying a bit on tom holland now look i am not an expert

00:47:20.120 on islam and i know less about islam certainly than i know about christianity and judaism so 0.91

00:47:26.840 i will just simply put that out there islam would fit the pattern of jewish scribes creating

00:47:32.920 a kind of judaism 3.0 to appeal to a wide population so it fits the pattern of what 0.91

00:47:39.080 they did with christianity and what they did with the bible in general the hebrew bible

00:47:44.040 i mean do you think adam and eve existed yes yes yes for goodness sakes this is just absurd okay

00:47:51.000 okay why is it absurd do you have any evidence because it's a literary text that says who

00:47:58.200 says me that oh it says you this person is not a myth just trust me bro i said i said that adam

00:48:06.200 and eve are not real therefore you should believe in what brother what is this man this is this

00:48:10.440 because it's obviously symbolic it's obviously symbolic literary and thus the way to look at

00:48:18.520 adam and eve in the garden is through literary analysis and not through history so you and i and

00:48:25.400 i think that there is a a big flying unicorn outside my house right now you should believe

00:48:32.360 me because i said it that's more plausible than jesus but go on okay i don't believe either that

00:48:38.120 says you see so i mean look you are not actually providing any substantial evidence which tells me

00:48:44.360 a little bit you have to provide the evidence i did i've all i've been doing is providing evidence

00:48:49.800 yes and i and i told you simply artists looking at other artists is not evidence it's a historical

00:48:56.840 fact richard your response was nah trust me bro no no it wasn't i addressed listen listen i don't

00:49:05.640 don't want to get testy here but i did respond to what you said you did not oh okay i i don't i

00:49:12.540 don't want to i don't want to engage in a yeah i did thing with you but sure but let's just

00:49:19.260 look look richard look i want to know because i i think on these religious topics you're way

00:49:25.940 out of your depth i want to know what what made you known why are you richard spencer what's your

00:49:33.240 ideology i think people will be interested in that and i'm also interested i only found out

00:49:37.620 about you yesterday but who are you and what do you stand for and what do you believe in yes

00:49:42.080 um well we are working right now on a critical analysis of the abrahamic faiths basically that

00:49:54.260 that we call, and I say we, Mark Brahman and myself, that we call REM theory.

00:50:01.560 And we do this every week, basically, in terms of literary texts.

00:50:07.380 We're actually going to read the book of Revelation on Sunday, and we've read all through the

00:50:12.500 Bible, etc.

00:50:14.320 But it's an original theory, and our book is actually going to be published this summer.

00:50:19.820 um it is a critical deconstruction of judaism and christianity islam gets a few mentions but

00:50:27.040 we're we're focusing on so what do you believe in though like what what are your what's your

00:50:33.580 worldview so when people say that you know what do you believe do you believe in this god or or

00:50:40.700 whatever um there's a there's a kind of christian background that that assumes so christians not

00:50:48.960 only believe that Jesus is the son of God and he redeems us from our sins and he's going

00:50:55.200 to come again.

00:50:56.280 They also believe that he was a real guy.

00:50:58.840 So there's a sort of historicity implied in Christianity.

00:51:02.960 There's a historicity implied in the Hebrew Bible in terms of Moses and Israel leaving

00:51:08.580 Egypt and the Holy Land and all that kind of thing.

00:51:12.200 There's that level of faith of you have to believe these things.

00:51:15.900 In fact, you're hell if you don't believe both of those things,

00:51:20.460 primarily that Jesus is your path to heaven.

00:51:24.120 But implied in that is that he was a real person.

00:51:28.640 We don't believe these things.

00:51:30.660 And I think we can access a different conception,

00:51:35.860 a pagan conception of religion,

00:51:38.640 where we see gods as fundamentally archetypes.

00:51:43.960 They're archetypes of virtues.

00:51:45.900 uh manliness warfare etc they're archetypes they're deep primordial archetypes like

00:51:53.840 venus or calus god of the sky or gaia erda etc but they're also ethnic archetypes okay and i think

00:52:04.860 that layer of analysis to look at it racially so to speak is actually quite powerful and that is

00:52:14.160 embedded in the bible it's embedded in ishmael who is a i have to be honest a rather demeaned

00:52:24.480 character to be the ancestor of muslims a son of a slave who was blessed but not chosen by yahweh

00:52:36.400 and sent out into the wilderness is jesus hold on just one second yes so this idea

00:52:43.680 of ishmael being demeaned is a theological development that comes after islam according

00:52:49.120 to scholarship jews and christians pre-islam i should say jews pre-islam didn't have a demeaned

00:52:58.320 idea of ishmael it was only until muslims come around that jews now start looking at ishmael

00:53:03.840 that way so that was my impression reading genesis to be honest i mean i think it's a plain reading

00:53:09.760 of genesis that ishmael is blessed but not chosen as yahweh tells okay so where does it say that so

00:53:16.000 again not now he explicitly said he'll tell me he's blessed too but it's isaac who's the one

00:53:21.600 nope it doesn't say that that's genesis i know exactly that's genesis yeah you don't have to

00:53:26.320 find it genesis chapter 17 verse 18 to 21. it's in the back of my mind brother you don't have to go

00:53:33.200 on your computer genesis 17 verse 18 to 21 read it you're gonna see that you've completely read it

00:53:41.680 the wrong way you have no idea what you're talking about man to be honest with you so

00:53:45.520 read it your wife sarah will bear you a son and you will call him isaac i will establish

00:53:49.760 my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him and as for ishmael

00:53:56.240 i have heard you i will surely bless him i will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his

00:54:01.280 numbers he will be the father of 12 rulers and i will also make him a great nation but my covenant

00:54:06.800 i will establish with isaac whom sarah will i mean yes i didn't start from 18 he's a wild donkey of

00:54:14.960 a man i mean that's how he's described you missed so you missed okay brother you just shotgunning

00:54:19.520 stuff can you start from verse 18 because you missed the context verse 18 please sure let me

00:54:26.400 just go back there just one second so just we could establish the context then we could go through

00:54:30.640 the points that you made yes i read verse 18. you didn't abraham said to god if only ishmael

00:54:37.600 might live under your blessing what does that mean according to the torah what does it mean

00:54:42.240 to live under god's face or before his face that's what the hebrew says right i i get it

00:54:47.920 i understand the question was what does it mean brother well i he's blessed i mean no no no so

00:54:55.680 in genesis i'll tell you what it means it's contrasted to genesis chapter one where god

00:55:00.800 says to abraham abraham be obedient and live before my face or under my blessing meaning

00:55:10.640 that to live under god's face is to be obedient to god okay so that's the context so then abraham

00:55:19.440 ask god make ishmael an obedient nation a nation that lives under god's face god says as for ishmael

00:55:29.280 i've heard you i will make him an obedient nation i will bless him i will make him into a great 0.61

00:55:35.520 nation then you said it says but but my covenant i will establish right a hebrew the hebrew doesn't

00:55:44.640 say but my covenant i will establish the hebrew doesn't use the word but it uses the word and my

00:55:50.880 covenant i will establish we have no problem with this because the initial covenant was given through

00:55:56.740 the children of uh isaac or the children of jacob then after their disobedience god's plan is to make

00:56:04.460 ishmael a great nation so how did ishmael become a great nation was it through islam

00:56:08.160 uh i guess beautiful so islam is prophesied in the torah according to you richard and

00:56:15.980 he's a wild donkey of a man you know what that means in hebrew it's an idiom you know what it

00:56:20.260 means tell me it means that he will live in the wilderness like ephraim is called a wild donkey

00:56:27.760 of a man and is a car in genesis chapter 49 is called a wild donkey of a man but he's an israelite

00:56:34.080 are they being demeaned are the israelites being demeaned when they're called

00:56:38.400 a wild don't give a man some israelite tribes do get demeaned yes

00:56:41.680 no i said is a car in genesis 49 when the blessings are given

00:56:45.860 right is is is is jacob demeaning his not judah i mean i don't know what to say he is demeaned

00:56:53.340 slightly i'm not saying where he's demeaned you're just making stuff up it means he'll

00:56:58.360 listen listen okay i it's fine if we disagree all right but just let's dispense with the

00:57:05.960 you're just making stuff up or no you are it's just no you are brother because look look with

00:57:11.320 all due respect this is an insult to my intelligence because all i do is study this stuff

00:57:16.120 like you're reading hebrew you're reading hebrew no information is not knowledge and it's definitely

00:57:21.720 not wisdom and well yeah that's clear look that's in jacob's blessing in at the end of genesis

00:57:29.720 clearly judah is the namesake of the religion of judaism judah is obviously the primary one

00:57:38.440 he's the leading tribe exactly what i said yeah how does that make a subject demeaned exactly

00:57:46.120 when i say demeaned i am not saying that the bible says you're you're nothing what i am saying

00:57:54.920 is that they are of a secondary or tertiary rank to the primary line which rank from which

00:58:02.920 david will be descended right so rank in virtue or rank in authority rank has different respect

00:58:12.680 has more authority than his brothers he has more authority than dan and others yes judah has

00:58:18.920 authority how does that mean that the other tribes are any less in virtue well i i yes i i mean i

00:58:25.800 simply do think that they are lesser than judah judah is the namesake in virtue it is the primary

00:58:30.920 triath in virtue brother well this is we're just playing word games okay it's not it's not word

00:58:37.800 games you're just you're not being articulate when you say somebody is demeaned or lesser than

00:58:43.880 i need to understand what that means why don't i use the word demoted as opposed to demeaned

00:58:48.280 if demeaning yeah enough can we agree on that so we can kind of move in in authority not everybody's

00:58:55.640 going to be the leader somebody's got to be the leader so yeah sure somebody so he's somebody's

00:58:59.640 a leader and somebody's not a leader that's fine yes yeah that's what i mean so we can agree okay

00:59:05.720 Remember, we keep coming back to this biblical stuff.

00:59:10.120 I want to know, because, listen, I don't know exactly your position.

00:59:14.080 I heard about you yesterday. 0.90

00:59:15.260 Are you a white supremacist or something? 0.98

00:59:17.020 That's what I've been seeing. 0.91

00:59:18.160 I want to know more about that.

00:59:21.240 That's what I meant.

00:59:22.400 No, I'm not a white supremacist.

00:59:25.020 Okay, so what do you believe in in respect to that stuff?

00:59:28.500 Right.

00:59:28.820 I mean, we're focusing on criticism of the Abrahamic traditions. 0.54

00:59:34.300 And from out of that, we're developing a rejuvenated Apolloism, and that is returning to the height of Aryan civilization, which is the Roman Empire, a god of a son, the real son of God, son of Zeus.

00:59:54.540 And we want to return our civilization to this type of central worship of Apollo.

01:00:03.700 who's our europeans arians what satisfies an arian uh it's a good question sort of a linguistic

01:00:14.140 concept in many ways um but i think it implies a racial concept that we can just use the word

01:00:21.680 white for but that would they're obviously they're arians in the indian sub that's peninsula

01:00:28.320 So that's tautological. I'm asking you what's in it. You're just repeating the thing twice. I'm asking, what satisfies whiteness? What is that? 0.98

01:00:39.380 Well, just to repeat myself, one of the best ways to understand what an Aryan is, is one of the ways that we can scientifically is through linguistic analysis. There's an Indo-European language family. Stretches well beyond Europe.

01:00:56.900 but that is now that implies a race if you will okay now it's tricky and there's always

01:01:07.660 blurred borders whenever you do something like this but that is what i am referring to

01:01:12.940 when i use the term arian okay and you know if we want to use the word european or white just 0.91

01:01:19.280 because it's easier to converse we can although that's not the best so gypsies and roma would

01:01:26.280 be included in that right and not no oh they certainly don't speak an indo-european language

01:01:32.880 and they're they are of indo-european heritage are they not oh yes they are what are you talking

01:01:39.360 about well just because they were in a land where i guess we can connect it with sanskrit

01:01:45.240 doesn't mean that they're indo-european so how does that okay so now now you've lost there are

01:01:51.380 african-americans who speak english and that's the only language they know but i wouldn't call

01:01:56.100 them arian okay so one second you just said they're not indo-european they are they do speak

01:02:02.500 an indo-european language okay now why are they not included in your white race um because because

01:02:12.180 they originate thousands of years ago from a different land well guess what europeans

01:02:17.780 originate thousands of years ago from different land there to the degree that they speak an

01:02:23.540 indo-european language it's one that they were they inherited as i said african americans speak

01:02:29.420 english all right what does that mean inherited they're not part of the conquering arians who

01:02:36.140 why that's question that's question begging why that's circular they're just as indo-european as

01:02:44.220 anybody else okay you can actually trace history through language and it's a a remarkable thing

01:02:53.180 you know the word rex latin for king you've probably heard that yes regnum regime reich

01:03:01.800 there's also word raj in um hindi so you can look at these cognates and trace them back

01:03:11.820 to a proto-European language

01:03:14.600 that implies migrations and splitting.

01:03:18.620 The Europeans that are migrating? 0.58

01:03:19.960 We can use language to infer history. 0.94

01:03:23.660 Yeah.

01:03:24.180 It's blurry, it's complicated,

01:03:26.180 but you can do it.

01:03:27.400 And all Europeans, 1.00

01:03:29.480 they're a different tribe,

01:03:30.660 Germanic and Anglophone and all that stuff,

01:03:33.460 they all migrated from somewhere, right? 0.95

01:03:36.020 Right.

01:03:36.420 There is an implied original Aryan homeland, yes.

01:03:39.280 Oh, what's that original homeland?

01:03:41.820 We don't know, but it might be in Eurasia, it might be actually in...

01:03:47.140 How do you know that gypsies don't come from it?

01:03:50.820 Well, again, I'm going to... 1.00

01:03:53.780 Let me just look up.

01:03:55.780 I'm just curious if they actually speak an Indo-European language.

01:03:59.420 Now, that doesn't negate my point.

01:04:04.220 But what I'm saying is that when you find cognates in words,

01:04:09.200 where there are words that are clearly related,

01:04:11.280 and they would not have been it's not it's it's too close to be random you can trace different

01:04:18.300 migrations from a spot so there in all likelihood was a sort of proto-europe indo-european and

01:04:27.680 indo-european homeland somewhere on the eurasian continent these people went to britain and these

01:04:36.860 people went to the italian peninsula these people went to the indian subcontinent these people 0.61

01:04:42.080 became persian persian is a indo-european language now persians are white too well again

01:04:50.180 i use the word white advisedly but yes are they certainly indo-european yes okay and why why are

01:04:56.920 the gypsies not arian um just because a people begins to speak in an indo-european language

01:05:06.500 does not mean that they are from that originating tribe would you say that african americans are

01:05:13.440 white because they speak english oh i'm using your own standard that actually you can you

01:05:19.180 i'm non-rhetorical question would you consider africans americans white because they speak

01:05:25.020 english oh because whiteness has nothing to do with language in my view that's your view

01:05:29.680 yeah well if you can that's your view not mine yes i agree that race and language are independent

01:05:38.700 i could have i could go travel to china and my sons and daughters will learn mandarin

01:05:45.900 and they'll never know english but i don't think they would you would consider them chinese either

01:05:52.380 so yes language and biology two separate things right so that's why i'm asking you can trace

01:06:01.700 these things you can trace biological movements through language because it implies an original

01:06:09.880 people splitting and engaging in migration or conquest of other tribes so this is not like we

01:06:17.840 yes can we can we be totally certain about these things of course not can we engage in

01:06:23.640 informed speculation to the up to the point of absolute certainty yes again you keep begging

01:06:30.020 the question can you demonstrate that gypsies are not aryan that they don't come from this um pre

01:06:38.140 aryan homeland and cultural identity can you demonstrate that because they have all the 0.90

01:06:44.480 characteristics they live they're european they uh they are indo-european because they migrate

01:06:50.700 around europe everybody migrated dude everybody the germanic tribes did the english tribes did

01:06:58.360 the french everybody did so they did just like everybody else so now please demonstrate that 0.58

01:07:03.120 gypsies are not white otherwise you'd have to say gypsies are part of your yeah romani is okay 0.89

01:07:09.460 interesting romani is an indo-european language very interesting so are they are they why

01:07:16.260 as i've said just to reiterate language biology are not the same thing

01:07:24.100 however yeah however we can see how language implies biological migrations through the study

01:07:35.940 of cognates so the fact that a people like the roma or like um who speak a indo-european language

01:07:47.460 romani is indo-european you're correct or african-americans speak english we simply

01:07:54.020 have to make a distinction that they are not members of the original indo-european or aryan

01:08:00.980 people who brought these languages to other lands well demonstrate it why are they not white i just

01:08:08.580 i just did all you did is just assume your language moves without people like language just

01:08:14.820 like on its own the letters hop around and move somewhere obviously people carry the language

01:08:19.860 all right and why are the gypsy and roma not european why and how do you if you were called

01:08:27.700 the gypsy in roma indo-european because they speak romani you can't that's not what i said

01:08:32.820 i said why are they not white as you gave this you know arbitrary criteria for whiteness they

01:08:39.060 have to speak this certain um you know fam a language family their language has to fall within

01:08:44.580 this family language class they have to have a super certain migration route okay demonstrate how

01:08:50.740 they don't fall within what satisfies whiteness i i feel like i've answered this three times and

01:08:56.900 i'm just repeating myself that's okay well you don't have to ask everybody knows genetic studies

01:09:01.940 to also determine migration and you know intermixture etc i think a better question

01:09:08.580 hold on i think a better question would be to define whiteness specifically

01:09:13.620 define whiteness specifically he did this nico he said whiteness is when you speak and i didn't know

01:09:20.660 i specifically didn't say that can i hear the definition i want to hear richard's definition

01:09:25.460 of whiteness how about just before he does it because it's important because he switched it

01:09:29.780 when i first you can go back and watch the clip i said three times okay language race are different

01:09:35.780 we can study information biological migration through language it's very helpful

01:09:41.460 i don't think language equals race or race equals language just to be clear i don't know that's what

01:09:46.260 you're saying now when i if you play the clip that's fine just wait for the sake of the conversation

01:09:51.540 let's uh have a clear definition so we can move forward yeah so how do we change it but whatever

01:09:56.020 it's okay go ahead yes so a a race is a subspecies of humankind and there are largely three major

01:10:06.820 subspecies but we can argue about the blurry borders and so on you know it when you see it

01:10:14.340 i don't think there's any real question about who is all korean european white or not good

01:10:21.780 okay now see now he's saying something else in the beginning brother don't gaslight me

01:10:26.740 okay don't gaslight me please brother because we can watch the clip again when i asked you 0.72

01:10:31.220 what satisfies whiteness or what an arian is you said well they have to fall under the specific

01:10:39.540 family class indo-european that's what you said brother that's why we went into the roma and the

01:10:45.140 gypsy because they also speak indo-european language now you're saying i responded to this

01:10:50.940 okay no just let me finish you didn't respond you just begged the question now you're saying okay 0.86

01:10:55.340 well whiteness is something that's self-evident it's something you know well humanity has split

01:11:02.840 race into three main categories,

01:11:06.340 Caucasoid and whatever,

01:11:09.060 and those three main category,

01:11:11.760 and white people are just self-evidently known.

01:11:14.880 Well, I actually don't accept that premise

01:11:17.040 that whiteness is self-evident. 0.83

01:11:19.060 That's why I'm asking you, 0.90

01:11:20.420 please give a definition that is exhaustive

01:11:24.640 for what satisfies whiteness.

01:11:27.300 I'm not going to give an exhaustive definition.

01:11:29.500 I'm going to try to give a basic definition

01:11:31.780 so that we can move forward.

01:11:33.940 A race is a subspecies of humankind. 0.95

01:11:38.500 I asked you what whiteness is, not what race is. 0.99

01:11:40.520 It's a large breeding pool. 0.98

01:11:42.260 And we can trace the outlines of the breeding pool.

01:11:45.880 Language is very helpful.

01:11:48.060 Language is not perfect, as I've said multiple times now.

01:11:52.240 Like an African-American can speak English.

01:11:54.200 That does not make him Indo-European.

01:11:56.340 You're not listening.

01:11:57.400 I didn't ask you what race is. 0.98

01:11:58.860 I asked you what satisfies whiteness. 0.71

01:12:01.780 I didn't ask what race is. 0.79

01:12:04.200 I'm trying to define things objectively. 0.92

01:12:06.220 Okay, what satisfies whiteness? 0.83

01:12:08.060 That's another question. 0.68

01:12:09.720 No, that's what I asked. 0.88

01:12:10.860 What satisfies whiteness? 0.78

01:12:12.220 That's what I've been asking. 0.74

01:12:15.480 I'm trying to define these things objectively.

01:12:18.120 Like what is whiteness?

01:12:19.520 It's a kind of a blurrier question.

01:12:22.040 Lord have mercy.

01:12:22.760 Brother, you believe.

01:12:24.560 Listen, the races are actually given to us in the Bible.

01:12:29.040 And they are the sons of Noah.

01:12:30.620 Now he believes in the Bible. Now he believes in the Bible. I don't have to believe that Yahweh 0.58

01:12:37.520 is the creator of the universe to read the Bible and see what it is saying. What is the Bible

01:12:44.620 telling us about the three sons of Noah? Japheth, Shem, and Ham. Ham is going to be the ancestors

01:12:53.720 of Africans, Ethiopians, etc. Japheth is the ancestor of the Aryans, the Europeans, if you 0.91

01:13:03.040 will, etc. Shem gives us the word Semite, ultimately. Shem is going to be that strand.

01:13:12.020 Asians don't get represented. Watch this, ladies and gentlemen, because you just dug a deep hole 1.00

01:13:18.320 for yourself mr richard spencer in order for you to demonstrate what whiteness is you had to resort

01:13:27.120 to a biblical character in the time of noah and say that to satisfy whiteness you must be a

01:13:34.800 descendant of such person now according to don't cut me off according to the criteria you rejected

01:13:43.440 the historicity of Christ for? Is Noah and Japheth a historical person?

01:13:49.120 No.

01:13:50.400 So then what is whiteness if they are not historical persons?

01:13:55.360 Okay, first off, when you say satisfy the criteria of whiteness, I really don't understand what

01:14:01.680 you're asking. I am trying to objectively describe what a race is, and I try to do that.

01:14:08.240 not asking what a race is i'm asking what are the conditions that must exist such that somebody

01:14:15.600 would be white um they are part of this subspecies of humankind that's begging the question they're 0.58

01:14:25.760 white because they're part of whiteness what is whiteness it's just it's a breeding pool i mean 0.89

01:14:30.320 what satisfies being a moose sub you know yeah that's that's a good question what satisfies 0.93

01:14:37.360 being a dog or an ant or a moose or certain characteristics what is the woman i guess we're

01:14:44.880 asking i mean i agree that there's a little bit of a tautology there but i i really don't under

01:14:50.240 it's we're talking about a category so i don't really know how to satisfy brother you this is

01:14:54.480 this is the problem i have with your ideology brother so you don't think race exists no that's

01:15:00.160 That's not what I said, brother.

01:15:02.160 I'm asking.

01:15:03.240 I'm asking.

01:15:04.240 Race exists.

01:15:06.340 And there is this race that you believe in called white, white people, whatever, Europeans. 0.93

01:15:12.500 These people need to have their own ethnostate. 0.88

01:15:16.540 They need to self-preserve their cultural identity.

01:15:19.920 They need to survive.

01:15:22.980 You know, this is what biology and evolutionism dictates, right? 0.78

01:15:29.600 survival and stuff like that okay fine you sat you put this category as whiteness the white race 0.84

01:15:38.280 must persist and must survive and must have an ethno state and no immigrants and no mixing and

01:15:45.880 so on and so this is how we survive okay i'm asking you now i have two problems with this

01:15:51.780 The first problem is you are not actually able to tell me what satisfies whiteness in a way that is consistent with your view

01:16:01.160 Second issue is that even if you are able to give me an exhaustive coherent criteria for what satisfies whiteness

01:16:10.780 The second issue would be is why would you focus on the category white instead of category tribe, family, religion, civilization?

01:16:22.940 Why is it that what groups the people together is being white instead of being American or instead of being Muslim or instead of being from so-and-so tribe?

01:16:32.980 They're just different categories.

01:16:34.800 I am a white American.

01:16:37.440 Okay.

01:16:38.080 I have two different categories.

01:16:40.160 i grew up in texas and born in massachusetts those are two more categories there and you're

01:16:46.800 a yankee bit of a texan bit of a southerner these are just different categories i understand

01:16:51.960 mutually incompatible i understand just like white and non-white are different categories

01:16:57.860 the problem is no those are different terms in the same category there are there are different

01:17:03.520 cat there are subcategories that's what a subcategory is there's a category race okay

01:17:09.500 yes and a subcategory different races right exactly so now let me finish with my point

01:17:14.620 so just like you said oh well you know being american and being southern there's different

01:17:19.500 categories i agree but here's the problem just like being american or being roman or being

01:17:27.340 muslim or being jewish is a different category the issue is is you prefer one over the other

01:17:33.340 with no virtue why why should we prefer a white group instead of a southern white group or an

01:17:41.680 irish white group or an anglophone white group why well those are subcategories but why do i prefer

01:17:51.240 arians to other people because we're the best i'm asking you why your focus we're the most beautiful

01:17:59.160 we're the most creative

01:18:00.440 we've created the most effective

01:18:02.700 successful civilizations that's why

01:18:04.720 okay and why can't

01:18:06.640 why can't for example

01:18:07.980 western Europeans say

01:18:09.820 it is us who created the most successful

01:18:12.260 nation eastern Europeans 1.00

01:18:14.620 need to go 0.72

01:18:15.220 they could say that if they want to

01:18:18.260 oh they could

01:18:19.240 they often do

01:18:21.460 oh okay good

01:18:22.920 so then your ideology doesn't actually give us

01:18:25.940 why we should prefer

01:18:27.160 white race as 1.00

01:18:29.320 as a class instead 0.58

01:18:31.400 of white western european

01:18:33.520 as a class i think

01:18:34.680 i understand what i understand what

01:18:37.300 you're saying

01:18:37.820 i i do think that

01:18:41.280 there is a sort of call to blood

01:18:43.260 it's sort of like asking why do you

01:18:45.300 prefer your own children why are you

01:18:47.280 lavishing your own children with gifts

01:18:49.240 you never give a

01:18:51.300 penny to the neighbor's children

01:18:53.120 well yeah

01:18:55.200 is the answer to that we are humans we are inherently tribal and inherently based on

01:19:00.880 blood and family etc and that is just a part of who we are so i like arians i am in sort of in

01:19:10.600 their debt i'm part of their team whatever metaphor you want to use in a way that i am not

01:19:16.420 for chinese only when they're not and that just is what it is right but i would say that only if 0.99

01:19:23.180 also to the degree that i'll finish real quick to the degree that i can step outside myself 0.99

01:19:30.140 and put aside just pure blood loyalty i would absolutely 100 say that arians are the greatest

01:19:39.980 we create the great art we create science we create civilizations that can flourish period

01:19:49.180 Let's stay on that, okay?

01:19:50.760 Now, you didn't actually give me an answer

01:19:53.040 to my critique, but I want to

01:19:55.040 point out another issue.

01:19:57.040 Remember, my critique was

01:19:59.000 you believe

01:20:00.680 it is virtuous

01:20:02.740 that this

01:20:05.180 class of European

01:20:07.020 or Aryan people

01:20:08.340 must stay together as one unified

01:20:11.260 cohesive group. 0.99

01:20:13.060 They must have an ethnostate, 0.96

01:20:15.380 right? They must 1.00

01:20:17.000 cohabitate and

01:20:19.060 live and survive and marry each other and keep their lineage going okay you could hold that

01:20:26.100 my view against that is why is that more virtuous than a european doing that with his specific

01:20:35.300 tribe we are germanic we are cohesive we just we deserve a germanic ethno-state

01:20:44.340 why is your idea more virtuous than this idea i get it uh i think it's in a way largely historical

01:20:55.040 i mean i think people have been more ethnocentric in the terms that in the way that you're referring

01:21:01.400 to they've been more tribal in the past um with the onset of communications and transportation

01:21:08.300 we are part of a bigger block in the way that we weren't we sort of were 100 years ago but in the

01:21:16.740 way that we weren't certainly 250 years ago i think there are also deep problems with ethno

01:21:23.460 nationalism as you're putting it as you're putting it uh we had world wars that were at the very least

01:21:29.720 sparked by some sort of ethno nationalism and those have been two of the most catastrophic

01:21:35.700 things ever so i don't you know what i mean what it's all in terms of more virtuous look

01:21:42.640 what is no nationalism just wait one second ethno national what do you mean what do you

01:21:46.540 mean by that um an ethnicity so i'm referring to an ethnicity as a kind of sub sub race so

01:21:53.920 you're not just european you're german but you're not oh i said german maybe not even

01:21:58.860 german because germany is a collection of tribes you're prussian or something i said germanic

01:22:05.700 Well, that's already pretty broad, to be honest.

01:22:09.280 And white is it? 0.86

01:22:11.080 White is broad. 0.95

01:22:12.140 I don't doubt that.

01:22:12.760 But I'm just saying, Germanic is already quite broad.

01:22:15.920 So broad, this is not an issue.

01:22:17.980 Why can't somebody prefer the existence and persistence?

01:22:23.220 They can't.

01:22:24.640 Okay, so your view is not more virtuous than this view, right?

01:22:29.840 They absolutely can.

01:22:31.120 but i i also think more virtuous smaller nation state is going to be gobbled up is your it's not 0.69

01:22:37.520 crushed by larger blocks vis-a-vis a billion and a half chinese germany doesn't stand a chance

01:22:43.760 brother is it more european union germany does stand a chance so i have a question i have a

01:22:49.200 political preference for large blocks okay so i asked you is it more virtuous was the question

01:22:55.440 what do you mean by virtue because is it is it better is there more well that that

01:23:01.120 virtue okay what is the word virtue what is the origin of the word virtue

01:23:05.500 oh my god you're gonna you're gonna manliness so now so now so now we're gonna do uh what's 0.96

01:23:10.860 yeah we're more manly we can kick more ass when we're well i don't want to engage in semantics 0.98

01:23:20.260 but well hold on why i mentioned that is that many people will use virtue they'll they'll 0.98

01:23:28.240 they'll use the word virtue to refer to female chastity maintain your virtue honey uh don't

01:23:34.820 don't let him buy you a drink at the bar now other people christians will use virtue as sort of being

01:23:40.540 a christ follower or being like christ turning the other cheek not resisting evil people all that

01:23:47.180 kind of stuff when i mean virtue i mean it i mean it etymologically okay it means manly it means

01:23:54.720 kicking I don't mean it that way I mean yeah that's what I mean when I say it's more virtuous 0.91

01:24:00.520 to have a united empire we can kick a ton of around the globe when we are united as Aryans 0.70

01:24:07.340 when we're united as Germans this is being kicked you're preaching now you're just preaching on some

01:24:13.320 level that's all I care about to be you're just preaching you're not actually dealing with 0.99

01:24:17.660 So my objection is, is it more morally excellent to unite as a white race

01:24:23.940 instead of uniting as a white Germanic group? 0.77

01:24:27.300 Morality is, like, is it more moral? 0.63

01:24:34.980 Probably not.

01:24:36.320 I mean, but morality is not something I,

01:24:39.360 morality in the sense of, like, Christian morality,

01:24:42.000 are we going to be, like, more pacifist or nice or whatever? 0.99

01:24:45.120 I don't give a shit about any of those things. 0.96

01:24:47.660 but wants to be able to dominate other people and so we need to be united so that we can be 1.00

01:24:53.740 less moral hey bro brother you've been talking to too many jay dyers and evangelicals brother 0.98

01:24:58.860 that's what's going on there's nothing i don't talk to them that much there's yeah there's 1.00

01:25:03.260 nothing in the word moral or moral excellence that implies pacifism do you think jesus was

01:25:11.020 morally excellent let me finish brother let me finish there's nothing about being morally excellent

01:25:17.580 that implies this christian idea of being subservient and being a fruit cup and loving

01:25:24.060 your neighbor not loving your neighbor sorry hate uh not hating your enemy and given the

01:25:29.820 other cheek there's nothing there's nothing that implies that okay all that is fruit you're speaking 0.97

01:25:35.100 my language brother islam sounds so you should become a muslim maybe uh so do you have a problem 0.92

01:25:42.780 with this hypothetical white race 0.94

01:25:45.080 practicing Sharia Allah

01:25:46.540 being Muslim? 0.88

01:25:48.400 Yes.

01:25:49.600 First off,

01:25:50.180 I have a,

01:25:52.980 I grant that

01:25:54.720 there are more manly virtues

01:25:57.100 to tautology in itself,

01:25:59.060 redundancy.

01:25:59.740 There are more manly virtues 0.99

01:26:01.000 to Islam vis-a-vis Christianity

01:26:04.320 taken as a philosophy. 1.00

01:26:07.160 Now, have Christians 0.94

01:26:08.880 engaged in colonialism,

01:26:11.220 genocide,

01:26:11.940 conquest it's of course they have and in in many times not always they've you they've justified 0.50

01:26:19.020 their desire for conquest through christianity and it's a great irony of history but 0.90

01:26:25.420 taken as philosophies is islam more badass than christianity obviously it is 0.99

01:26:32.540 okay so i don't want i don't want arians to adopt abrahamism any longer 0.99

01:26:40.340 why well because you're ultimately going to be subservient to jewish ideas jewish

01:26:50.320 that's a misunderstanding of islam okay i just i just told you we there is nothing jewish about

01:26:58.820 islam is the furthest from rabbinic judaism that that correlations only exist because there is a

01:27:09.760 remnants of divine revelation not everything jews believe in is wrong there's some things i believe

01:27:15.840 in is true sure and because it's true we also believe it because we believe in what is true

01:27:20.620 but islam do you agree for example that islam has produced the most successful

01:27:26.240 dominant empire history known to mankind uh maybe in terms of territory i'll take your word for it

01:27:34.760 but in terms of developing civilization i i wouldn't agree oh yeah like what

01:27:39.760 I don't think it holds a candle to the Roman Empire, but you can stick up for your people.

01:27:46.020 I get it.

01:27:46.600 No, I want to challenge that. 0.99

01:27:48.500 What about the Roman civilization is more civil than the Islamic civilization? 0.92

01:27:55.160 I don't want to answer it in the terms of civility, but they adopted, they took Greek

01:28:02.340 culture and they created a sort of infrastructure that could support Greek culture.

01:28:09.080 They took the gods of the Greeks. They took so much of the literature and ideas of the Greeks.

01:28:15.540 They were a civilizing force in the sense that they developed infrastructure, armies, plumbing, political systems, et cetera, that could hold up that culture. 1.00

01:28:27.560 And practice a lot of homosexuality, right? 1.00

01:28:30.820 Well, they did at the end. But I mean, look, societies go decadent.

01:28:35.620 there well there's a lot of homosexuality practice in the muslim world oh no no there isn't no there 0.98

01:28:41.700 isn't brother not not not in comparison to the west brother that is not that you can never make

01:28:46.180 an experience and a comparison all throughout time it is clear that european uh identity and culture

01:28:56.180 as as as long as it's been christian has actually been a failing civilization

01:29:02.260 only when they moved away only when they moved away from christianity in the enlightenment

01:29:09.780 period they became economically uh successful but i look if christendom is the middle ages

01:29:18.200 then i absolutely see that as a failing civilization like there are a lot of beautiful

01:29:23.620 things about the middle ages i don't want to totally defenstrate it but um in terms of literacy

01:29:30.400 uh social organization hygiene etc it was a failing civilization it was a dark period so

01:29:37.860 so you and we just we started to pull ourselves out of it when we're rediscovering the ancients 0.99

01:29:43.280 one sec richard i just yes you do you agree while muslims were engaging in aristotelian

01:29:52.180 and platonic philosophy and in medicine and in all kinds of sciences and building empires and

01:29:58.540 schools and universities and and and uh hospitals europeans were not bathing for years on living in 0.91

01:30:05.340 mud house it's very good stuff i mean you were the the islamic golden age was a way of continuing 0.96

01:30:13.180 uh the culture of the greeks in a new form and i think you yes there's a lot to admire in islam 0.86

01:30:23.060 so it sounds like yeah but i'm afraid to say no country full of white people needs islam brother 0.87

01:30:30.580 that's what you need i wouldn't use i i don't think we're living in a muslim golden age now 0.92

01:30:37.940 and i feel like that but the darkness of superstition that europeans descended into 0.99

01:30:46.420 um after the the fall of rome at least in the west um that is what is muslim people

01:30:56.340 what i'm asking is so i i don't think the real real quick just to put a cherry on top

01:31:00.820 i don't think the answer to all of this is more abrahamic religion i mean i i just we we we were

01:31:09.220 truly christian we were 100 christian at a point at least after a thousand a.d and these are not

01:31:18.020 times of greatness and enlightenment we started to rediscover paganism and we became great again

01:31:25.940 and again faith starts to fall off christianity starts to split i mean i do think that the the 0.59

01:31:32.020 renaissance and the enlightenment was a way of breaking the chains of abrahamism for the white

01:31:37.860 race look richard i'm what i'm when i say why doesn't your hypothetical white ethno state be

01:31:44.460 muslim i'm not necessarily asking why aren't they muslim as in islam being true um as it

01:31:53.760 in as it relates or as as a corresponds to reality i'm asking what is your issue with

01:32:00.700 your hypothetical white ethno state being pragmatic muslims muslims that practice the law

01:32:07.580 and the civil moral code of the quran and the sunnah uh if you are a practicing muslim 0.71

01:32:15.960 you could exist within my hypothetical ethno state i'm saying why can't why can't the white 0.62

01:32:23.960 people be fully yeah that's what i'm asking yeah um because i don't think we will have

01:32:29.920 a great empire without rediscovering apolloism and and roman olympian worship now am i a bigot 0.95

01:32:42.480 who would want to prevent muslims from engaging in in their religion no um but it would be 0.70

01:32:51.520 subordinated roman religion has a way of hierarchy and subordination um that was actually quite 0.99

01:32:57.660 successful although it failed with yahweh new gods can enter the pantheon they can be secondary so

01:33:04.940 long as it is jupiterian or apollonian in this sense now the problem with monotheist is that you

01:33:12.140 believe there is only one and that that is the only way and so there's a sort of intolerance

01:33:19.740 within the monotheistic mind that is not present actually in the pagan mind where you can

01:33:26.860 understand other and confront of other deities as expressions of peoples that is ethnicities as

01:33:35.980 states um as ways of life etc so richard what i'm asking is forget about monotheism for a second

01:33:46.460 because that's to do with the theological aspect would you have a problem with your hypothetical

01:33:52.780 white ethno state practicing sharia law that should not be the public faith and that that

01:33:59.360 won't be the state religion what's the problem you have with sharia law uh you're it's not so

01:34:07.400 much the actual law i'm sure there's plenty in sharia law that would coincide with english

01:34:14.460 common law i don't i don't want to get into you know these kinds of things i don't just said you

01:34:19.860 don't prefer a lot of you said you don't prefer it i want to know why we need to exit the abrahamic

01:34:27.260 matrix in order to establish this world order but this has nothing to do with being abrahamic

01:34:33.880 this is just to do with the law is no no no in terms of sharia law look i don't like look i don't

01:34:40.740 like what i see when i see sharia law i don't like what that's that's what i'm asking like what

01:34:45.800 i don't like the hijab i don't like it okay good okay so not that's what i'm sure but that being

01:34:54.300 said i'll finish really quick that being said i don't know enough about sharia law and i'm sure 0.85

01:34:59.520 there's plenty of sharia law that i would be i would find totally reasonable but i would just

01:35:04.520 say in terms of its most ostentatious effects i don't like it okay so you don't like it when 0.66

01:35:10.140 your wife covers up you like when men look at her 0.58

01:35:13.500 yes you want men to look at your wife uh there's a difference between men looking at your wife and

01:35:22.460 men doing other things with your wife i said look i want to go back to an ancient world where we're

01:35:29.100 just wearing togas and sandals and you're just seeing cleavage and long legs so i just want to

01:35:34.420 i do want to live like that yeah i'm a more sensual okay so you want me to look at your

01:35:38.920 wife's cleavage you can look at my wife's cleavage uh so long as you're not doing some other things

01:35:47.220 brother you understand i mean like i mean like i mean look if if that's not brother i don't know

01:35:53.100 what is brother that is pure that is the opposite of the of the of the view you want us to to hold

01:36:02.560 to that oh you're a strong man and survival of the fittest yeah we are strong man we're so confident

01:36:08.600 We're not terrified of other people cocking us unless we have to dress them up in trash bags.

01:36:17.220 Richard, I thought that you're a strong warrior, but it turns out that you're just a liberal, brother. 0.53

01:36:22.880 You're a liberal. 1.00

01:36:24.220 You think your wife should walk around with their tits out. 1.00

01:36:29.440 Did the Romans put women in burkas? 1.00

01:36:32.800 They were wrong. 1.00

01:36:34.440 Okay, that's fair enough.

01:36:35.700 we simply disagree but my position brother i want to live in a sensual society where

01:36:42.580 we're surrounded by hot people and oh you want okay you want me to think you're so you want me

01:36:49.040 to think your daughters are hot for example you can think my daughters are hot like so long as

01:36:56.720 you're not doing other things and i don't i don't even mention this because it grosses me out yeah

01:37:02.680 boy so so okay so what about that i think it's beautiful i i think it's beautiful when look 0.99

01:37:09.560 there's a there's a difference between go being a vulgar and going around showing off your ass or 0.99

01:37:17.960 whatever there is a distinction between that and a beautiful young girl who is conservative but 1.00

01:37:25.160 sure a little sensual and she looks pretty and wonderful so there is a distinction what's no

01:37:31.720 no there's there's a hard line and you know where it is there's a difference between a

01:37:36.200 and a young lady who is uh confident and and beautiful confident with their selling around

01:37:43.480 i i just i just said that there there is and look it is a line that you know you know it when you

01:37:49.960 see it should be a difference between like erotic art and pornography right you know what when you

01:37:56.200 see it right uh no no i i think there's no difference so that's crazy no no it's not it's

01:38:01.160 not crazy you're just you're just you're just looking at less less extra skin brother that's

01:38:07.000 no it's it's the intention this is what this is what it's the intent no hold on it's the intention

01:38:12.440 in the filmmaker it's not it's not the it's not just the intention it is an intention that you

01:38:16.680 can discern there's a filmmaker well i'm going to finish real quick so i don't want to interrupt

01:38:21.160 look there's a filmmaker that can show a beautiful woman running through a field or jumping into the

01:38:26.920 ocean and it's sensual and it's it's wonderful the intention of a pornographer is to most likely

01:38:34.840 degrade sexuality or at the very least depict it in a graphic vulgar form there just is a difference

01:38:43.880 between being uh fun and being there's a total difference and you know when you see it oh so 0.92

01:38:51.880 richard what i asked you is is it okay for a woman to walk around with her breast out

01:39:03.160 and with her other parts special parts out is that okay or should you mean unclothed breast 0.76

01:39:09.240 and vagina even oh no not fully unclothed okay unclothed enough is that okay do you think that's 1.00

01:39:16.280 that's fine and acceptable in society yes in the sense of can you see the female form in and is it 1.00

01:39:27.640 sensual yes i do think that that is fine i want to live in a society where yes women are free to 0.97

01:39:34.200 act like that correct i got i got you now why can't somebody say i want to live if you must

01:39:40.840 so why why can't somebody say because look the response you're gonna give me here is gonna work

01:39:47.360 against you why can't somebody say well why you know we want to live in a free society where a

01:39:53.640 woman can just walk out commando what's the problem with that i mean just to reiterate there i i've

01:40:00.960 I've said this twice now. 1.00

01:40:02.360 I mean, there is a line between total vulgarity and sensuality.

01:40:07.560 I'm not asking about the intention.

01:40:08.560 You know it when you see it.

01:40:09.560 I'm not asking about the intention, brother.

01:40:11.560 What she intends, she wants to be a .

01:40:14.560 That's not what I'm asking.

01:40:15.560 What I see, is there a difference between cleavage and full breasts?

01:40:19.560 Of course there is.

01:40:20.560 You're not understanding, Richard.

01:40:21.960 What are the societal effects in case A and case B?

01:40:28.360 Could you just tell me what A and B are again? 1.00

01:40:30.960 A woman walks around with her cleavage out enough to, you know, enlight or put desire and lust in another man who's looking for her, at her.

01:40:46.640 She's not fully unclothed, but it's enough to kind of spark that in a man who looks, right?

01:40:51.600 Yes. 0.90

01:40:51.900 And then a woman that's fully commando, fully unclothed, the societal effects in point A, in example A, in example B, what is the difference? 0.99

01:41:02.700 Why is one societally better than the other? 0.99

01:41:04.720 You think there is a really big difference?

01:41:05.680 Okay, tell me. What are the societal benefits of A and B?

01:41:08.840 A woman that's wearing shorts and you can see some legs or a skirt or so on, it's sensual and it inspires desire.

01:41:16.000 I agree. And it makes life fun, for lack of a better word.

01:41:21.900 a woman full commando i it's simply demeaning and it's actually it's overly sexual maybe even 0.89

01:41:30.120 depressing good we can have discernment and have difference richard yeah according to whom is it

01:41:38.140 overly sexual and according to whom according to you so well yeah but we're talking about

01:41:44.520 preference here okay good so richard you don't think can we agree on this it's what women should 0.86

01:41:50.600 be in Perkis. 0.97

01:41:53.040 Come on, brother.

01:41:56.020 I was just joking.

01:41:57.260 Yeah, but anyways, look.

01:41:59.500 You agree then

01:42:02.540 that your positions

01:42:04.800 and worldviews are not

01:42:06.440 stance-independently true.

01:42:09.060 Yeah, because I'm not

01:42:10.320 a monotheistic extremist

01:42:12.560 who thinks that if I see

01:42:14.620 a little leg that I'm going to go 1.00

01:42:16.620 rip this woman or something 1.00

01:42:18.240 or I can't control myself. 0.91

01:42:19.920 i have discernment and taste yes yeah so okay so if that's how you want to talk then we're not

01:42:26.300 liberal who want their women and their wives to be stared at by random men but if you want to 0.97

01:42:31.440 throw shots like that i certainly can brother but you don't have to say oh extremist so she's a leg

01:42:36.440 and says i'm gonna go right so that just tells me one thing that i've noticed with some religious

01:42:41.620 fundamentalists it seems to be all or nothing no it's not all or nothing it's not it's not all

01:42:46.180 does seem to be all or nothing you've made no distinction between showing a little leg and

01:42:50.660 being fully commanded i said i said there's no distinction societally that's an intention yes

01:42:57.860 a woman can have the intention of being a straight and dress a certain way another can think oh yeah

01:43:05.060 this is a woman can be a and wear a burqa that's not that's what oh yeah of course but we're not

01:43:10.820 talking about that we're talking we're not talking about intention we're talking about the societal

01:43:14.980 effect. Because you, you're

01:43:16.900 trying to produce this 1.00

01:43:18.540 great empire, society, white people 0.74

01:43:21.080 dominate. We're manly. 0.98

01:43:22.660 I think the societal facts of putting women 1.00

01:43:25.100 in full burqas is 0.97

01:43:26.840 terrible. Just let me finish. 0.99

01:43:28.820 I know you think it's terrible because you're 1.00

01:43:30.800 a c*****, brother. That's it. 1.00

01:43:32.840 You want 1.00

01:43:34.680 other women to be naked. 1.00

01:43:37.040 You want your women to be naked. And don't cry 1.00

01:43:39.000 now because you implied that I'm an

01:43:40.900 extremist who looks at a naked

01:43:42.780 leg and says you said that first brother so don't let's not let's not play that game don't you get

01:43:48.060 the impression when you can't handle a little leg that maybe you have no self-control whatsoever

01:43:56.860 no no that's not what you know like i'm not i'm not talking about we haven't i can see a woman

01:44:02.140 walk down the street in a bikini i see it all the time in fact because it's summer out here so maybe

01:44:06.540 sure let's look at the stats who has more statistics the west or the or the middle

01:44:13.500 east and muslim countries well who has more statistics the west obviously does but we have

01:44:19.000 more statistics in general okay good okay okay good no no but we don't know what's going on in

01:44:23.780 this oh yeah we sure don't so in this area just just look richard because you tried to play it

01:44:29.560 off now we're going to talk numbers in the west 95 of women report this is in the uk

01:44:36.280 Okay, 95% of women report that they've been sexually harassed once, at least once in their life.

01:44:43.260 Is that right, Richard?

01:44:44.840 I imagine that that is correct, but we need to talk about the definition.

01:44:48.580 What is that? 0.99

01:44:49.100 Someone slaps their butt or something or someone actually rapes them. 1.00

01:44:53.480 I mean, this is... 1.00

01:44:54.560 You can include all of those things.

01:44:56.700 If you compare that, just Richard, let me finish, brother. 0.98

01:44:59.420 If you compare that with Muslim societies, it's not even going to be close. 0.95

01:45:03.580 now richard are you gonna stand here and tell me that the way women dress has no bearing on that

01:45:10.720 number um i i think i think it does have bearing on it but i think it might even go in the other

01:45:20.320 direction good i can't believe you're putting forth like middle eastern societies as paragons

01:45:25.620 of so yes they are yes they are yes they are we could talk about that there's a lot of social

01:45:31.380 problems in middle eastern societies that i don't want to go into because it's a bit rude

01:45:36.280 before we go into that you conceded that a woman who shows her cleavage even if it's not fully

01:45:43.440 naked or she's not a like you said this causes societal harm you conceded no i didn't concede

01:45:49.620 that yes you did you said it caused you sounds like you said it causes it causes it causes much 0.98

01:45:54.620 worse harm to causes more harm i think it causes much worse harm to put a woman in a burqa 0.91

01:46:02.220 and demean her like that i think sensuality and society look it's like salsa on food 0.97

01:46:08.980 food is terrible it's bland without a little salt put too much salt you it's an edible so that's 1.00

01:46:16.380 what yeah it's a matter of discretion and taste woman woman for a lot of i think a lot of arab 0.69

01:46:20.980 men why there are some many different social problems including homosexuality is because they

01:46:27.700 don't have that natural sensual encounter with women you just admitted richard that your view

01:46:34.580 of women is just it's it is public ownership you publicly own this woman they need to be

01:46:40.980 salted a little bit so you can devour them with your eyes richard that's that's the view you have 1.00

01:46:46.900 of women they are public property no no they are public property you deserve to salt the 0.92

01:46:54.180 woman that you're looking at so you can devour them we respect what i said yeah that is what 1.00

01:46:59.540 you said there is the analogy you gave you know the analogy i gave is sensuality and assault 0.82

01:47:05.780 and salt the woman salt and sensuality are the analogs so you put a little salt on a steak it's 0.92

01:47:12.980 it's wonderful. Put too much, can't eat it. Sensuality in society, a little bit goes a 1.00

01:47:18.380 long way. It makes everything wonderful, makes our lives joyful. If you have too much, it becomes

01:47:24.200 vulgarity at some point. For who to taste? Yes, because we have taste and discretion,

01:47:29.260 because we're adults. Richard, I said for whom to taste?

01:47:32.100 There's some movies that I'll allow my children to watch that I wouldn't have let them watch

01:47:39.300 just a year ago you can sort of get a little you can get a little and get a little darker a little

01:47:45.120 more dangerous maybe when they're three they should only be watching cute cartoons maybe when

01:47:49.980 they're 10 they can watch something that might have a little tragedy or violence to it so that

01:47:55.500 they can have that experience it's called taste and discretion it's not an all or nothing thing

01:48:00.320 where we can't and there are there are certainly things that i watch as a grown man that i would

01:48:05.160 never show a uh a 10 year old but i can watch it and i can experience it because i'm an adult and

01:48:12.180 i have discretion and taste i can understand artistic representation thank you for agreeing

01:48:16.380 i don't want to live in a society where everything is puritanically defined we've done that as

01:48:22.500 westerners richard you just admitted that woman dressing that way is not good for kids on the

01:48:29.320 street to look at right richard it didn't say that richard you just said there are some movies

01:48:36.160 that you don't let your kids watch richard why is that yeah well i would let there's death in star

01:48:42.280 wars but they can handle the way that it is represented in star wars they can't handle it

01:48:48.600 in the way that it's represented in the texas chainsaw massacre or something like that you

01:48:53.320 You have distinctions that you make in a society.

01:48:56.860 This is merely a preference.

01:48:59.320 I want a society that is more sensual and joyful.

01:49:03.700 You don't answer questions.

01:49:05.500 It's just merely an assertion or preference.

01:49:07.740 What would you disagree? 0.97

01:49:08.980 Do you allow your kids to look at half-naked women in movies? 0.82

01:49:13.900 Half-naked in the sense of wearing a bikini? 0.93

01:49:16.860 Yes.

01:49:18.460 Wow.

01:49:18.840 So you think kids should be walking around looking at women with bikini?

01:49:23.320 they did that just yesterday when we were at the beach so yes all right so richard here

01:49:31.420 wants a society where kids look at bikini photos and where kids or when men look 100 percent there's

01:49:39.960 nothing better than a beautiful woman in a bikini walking into the ocean or lake i can't imagine

01:49:45.820 anything more beautiful actually good so richard you have no problem i don't want like i don't want

01:49:51.940 to live in a society where that is impossible and you men are so repressed that they might

01:49:57.440 actually be more inclined to engage in violence because they can't get anything thank you i'm

01:50:02.840 glad you told us that richard and that also bans representational imagery brother you just keep

01:50:08.540 going brother i want to ask you a question we we've discussed the bikini thing i have said my

01:50:12.800 point okay do you think that art should be representational art yes represent the mona

01:50:19.900 Lisa, it's a representation of a woman done centrally.

01:50:23.540 Do you think that is her? 0.66

01:50:24.940 No, no, I don't think that portraits of naked women should exist anywhere.

01:50:30.520 Didn't say naked women.

01:50:31.760 I said the Mona, you know, the Mona Lisa, right? 0.58

01:50:33.860 Or maybe you don't.

01:50:34.460 I don't think portraits that are contrary to Islamic law should be public.

01:50:40.080 Is it, in Sharia law, is a representational image verboten or forbidden?

01:50:47.100 if if it clearly is uh an image of life if it's a life an object that has life in it

01:50:54.740 if it's a lifeless object there's no problem yeah because that would lead to adult you can

01:50:59.100 you can do a uh and i guess it does an apple have life or no no okay so you could do a plant

01:51:06.720 but you couldn't do a woman or yeah so are you are you are you trying to imply that the bodies

01:51:13.040 of women are art for you to look at in a way yeah what the flip is going on brother yeah i'm a

01:51:21.060 terrible liberal i i guess so richard you are also think the idea thank you richard you just you can

01:51:28.060 you you actually changed my mind about you today i came into this conversation thinking that

01:51:33.240 you are alternative right you are the the guy you're extremist you called for uh you know that

01:51:40.320 haitians should be enslaved but really you're just a liberal inside who wants his woman 0.69

01:51:45.200 to be looked at by people like me and enjoy her do you want us to enjoy your wife richard by 1.00

01:51:50.560 looking at her there is a distinction between sexual intercourse i didn't sense that i said 0.87

01:51:57.920 by looking at her admiring someone with your eyes could i enjoy your wife by looking at her 0.51

01:52:03.040 you can enjoy my wife by looking at her all right man i guess that's i guess that concludes that

01:52:12.240 i wanted to ask one before you go on to another subject could you thank you so much richard you

01:52:17.340 were saying that there's a line is that line is that vague is there a gray area what is that

01:52:22.960 specific line if you're against the hijab it is you know a lot of times the line is blurry

01:52:27.720 you know a woman can wear a bikini in a way that's sensual a woman can be out there and it's a little 0.98

01:52:34.460 too much and it's it's bordering on vulgarity even if she doesn't show her nipples and vagina so yeah 0.97

01:52:40.840 it's it's it's you know it's a little bit of a difficult one but like pornography you know that's 0.99

01:52:46.700 the definition of pornography from the supreme court you know it when you see it you know we

01:52:51.680 live in a society that is far too vulgar for my taste in terms of the way many not all but many

01:52:59.240 young people dress in terms of what's acceptable in music etc so how i'm not going to then say

01:53:07.740 that we need to ban it all or that you know like you you can't go go to the opera and enjoy

01:53:16.740 la traviata because it depicts sexuality i think we should as adults be able to

01:53:23.500 make distinctions uh like this yes okay and your ideology is based on the idea of apolloism

01:53:32.640 how would you define that

01:53:34.040 oh i mean we want to re-center the western world on roman religion and we want to break ourselves

01:53:48.480 out of christianity most immediately but abrahamism more generally are you a pagan

01:53:55.580 yes i'm a pagan so you believe in the gods of zeus and the old roman traditions

01:54:04.020 I believe in them in the sense that I think that they are archetypes of states of being,

01:54:11.340 virtues, and even racial and ethnic archetypes. And to that extent, I believe in them. I don't

01:54:20.040 believe in them in the way that a Christian believes in Jesus in the sense of he actually 0.89

01:54:26.060 existed or I'm going to hell if I don't put my faith in him. Okay. And I'm not trying to

01:54:31.140 uh, you know, put you in a bad light, but you, you started off by saying you weren't a white

01:54:35.200 supremacist when, uh, when you were asked, but this seems like it's the supreme ideology and

01:54:41.280 this is how the world should be. Why did you answer no to that question? Well, you know,

01:54:46.720 when they say white supremacist, it's a bit of a slur and I would rather just sort of define what

01:54:51.300 I believe you can call it whatever you will. Okay. But also Nico, he said that he doesn't

01:54:57.900 think his ideologies are stance independently true which means that he doesn't think that his

01:55:04.180 ideology is true he just thinks that it is a preferable for him but there's no reason that

01:55:11.760 anybody else should adopt it that's what he thinks so is that comparable to white zionism in a sense 0.88

01:55:20.000 it's like do you look at israel and think that this is something that white people should however

01:55:25.800 you define whites should emulate yeah it's funny i i talked about this it must have been 10 years

01:55:31.280 ago if not a little bit for a longer ago where um i i gave a speech about how immigration is sort

01:55:40.440 of over you know the america has already been transformed demographically and we should start

01:55:48.800 thinking about big ideas. And I used Zionism as an example of this. The Jews had been scattered 0.59

01:55:57.560 for some time through an ideal ideologue, much like Paul, in this case, Herzl. They came up 0.86

01:56:08.300 with a strategy, a movement, and a geopolitical plan to create a new homeland. And I don't think

01:56:17.140 that anything i'm doing is directly analogous it's not like oh we're gonna do israel but for

01:56:22.220 white people it's no but you know can you see some inspiration there can you understand what 0.57

01:56:29.960 he was going for sure okay do you find that to be reprehensible what israel is doing or 0.54

01:56:38.420 you said earlier that morality is so where do you get your ideas of good and bad how did you arrive

01:56:44.540 at this conclusion that apolloism is the way right well i'm being a bit flippant when i'm saying

01:56:51.500 morality is what i mean by that is that very often times people who are in a weaker position

01:56:59.980 who are or who are sick or themselves will make recourse to morality in the sense that if you're

01:57:08.460 For a little mouse being attacked by a bird of prey, the mouse might make recourse to

01:57:15.540 morality and say, oh, gosh, that's so immoral what you're doing to me.

01:57:20.520 Morality is itself a kind of weapon that can be used against other people.

01:57:26.180 I don't think there's an objective morality outside of survival.

01:57:33.640 But that's not exactly Christian morality. 0.76

01:57:36.700 I think Christianity was given as a gift in a way to Europeans, as a way of weakening them to a great extent, as a way of confronting Rome and offering a different way forward for Romans and etc. 0.67

01:57:55.500 and as as a sort of like bad conscience in their mind that could always be called upon 0.92

01:58:02.060 you know it's evil to be strong it's evil to dominate others it's evil even to be great you

01:58:08.880 should be like Jesus and um I I do think that we need to rethink these moral systems um that the

01:58:19.780 Abrahamic religions have given us I think it's good to be strong I think it's good to 0.67

01:58:25.340 dominate i think it's good to be the best and it's very bad to be weak or ill or soft and so on 0.92

01:58:34.060 so i just want to just want to add something right quickly there before you go that is not a product

01:58:40.580 of abrahamic religion that's a product of europeans adopting abrahamic religion and then

01:58:47.920 moving away from abrahamic religion principles because dominating and all those things are

01:58:54.380 biblical uh polygamous marriages and all those things right when you're when europeans adopted

01:59:00.320 those things they stopped practicing them just wanted to mention don't you think that morality

01:59:04.740 is embedded in say the sermon on the mount was going to say something yeah the enlightenment

01:59:09.080 era and european expansion this was adopted and they used christianity as a tool of empire but

01:59:15.960 it wasn't authentic to the teachings of jesus no not at all what i would say about gazans or

01:59:20.660 Palestinians in general is that like, look, you can call upon morality and it works with me. In

01:59:28.160 fact, I genuinely feel sympathy for victims in Gaza. I've never supported our relationship with 1.00

01:59:39.200 Israel. I don't support Israel now. So I get it. I feel sympathy. The question is, do you just 1.00

01:59:47.240 simply want westerners to feel sympathy or do you want to win and if you want to win you're going to

01:59:53.480 have to be more and more evil i mean those those liberals who are now you know crying tears over

02:00:00.940 gaza aren't going to get you any any uh closer to having a state you're going to have a state 1.00

02:00:08.240 you're going to have to dominate you're going to have to kill people you're going to have to be 1.00

02:00:11.760 more and more evil so there's just a limit to the kind of crocodile tears i can cry over morality 0.92

02:00:20.240 you know it's not it's like yeah i don't want those children to die i don't want those buildings

02:00:25.440 to be destroyed i don't want those lives to be ruined but you know i've also i have things to do 0.78

02:00:33.520 like if palestinians want to win they're they're going to have to like move beyond this victim

02:00:40.480 morality of like because i suffered i deserve a state or i deserve a state because you know 0.73

02:00:46.480 democracy good or something they're going to have to discover something evil in order to create 0.87

02:00:53.200 something good i think the objectives are different i think the palestinians want to

02:00:57.440 survive you're saying you want to win what is winning winning is is flourishing it's not merely

02:01:06.320 surviving it's dominating expanding that's winning okay and you said that morality is

02:01:13.200 subjective and that you don't believe in objective morality but you said being strong is good which

02:01:19.220 is a byproduct of morality how did you arrive at this conclusion no so how do you know what's

02:01:25.140 good and bad without objective morality um there there is no objective reality morality morality

02:01:32.780 is all subjective it's all in our minds it the the things aren't good or bad but thinking makes

02:01:38.260 it so to quote hamlet like we we value something by seeing it and putting a label on it that's

02:01:48.360 where that's how we engage in morality there's no morality that's sort of like out in the world

02:01:53.180 there's no morality in nature the morality of nature is kill or be killed reproduce uh dominate

02:02:01.680 conquest expand etc so something on that yeah morality is totally subjective

02:02:08.140 i okay so i i would disagree morality cannot be subjective because there are phenomenas

02:02:17.780 throughout human history that must be explained for example what explains the phenomena the idea

02:02:25.820 that peoples that are isolated from one another that are culturally uh and socially independent

02:02:34.940 from one another all seem to have the same pattern of conduct and same conclusions

02:02:42.100 why is it that for example all humanity throughout time has concluded that it's wrong to murder

02:02:51.160 you think they just came up with that and it's just a coincidence that all cultures

02:02:58.500 across human history okay so then it's stands independently true and embedded in human nature

02:03:05.100 well it's sort of embedded in human nature humans have no problem murdering other peoples they have

02:03:13.740 no problem murdering enemies i didn't engage a murder of one another in a civil war but yes

02:03:19.960 we have an evolved sense of you know to murder one's own child is maybe like the most shocking

02:03:27.620 thing imaginable in fact because of our like deep uh kinship there brother now murdering

02:03:36.400 an invader someone from another tribe that's great that's heroic brother but that's not

02:03:41.180 murder brother but that's not murder remember you're conflating killing and murder murder

02:03:47.820 is defined as the taking away the life of an innocent soul and invading external entities

02:03:55.140 not an innocent soul so i'm not talking about all that okay what explains that all these cultures

02:04:02.680 throughout humankind isolated from another culturally and socially isolated and independent

02:04:09.960 from one another all come to the same conclusion killing innocent lives is wrong what explains

02:04:17.440 that he disconnected or he's back you're myself i think a web browser just uh went out for some

02:04:26.720 reason you're back you hear my question you're talking about like murder versus just killing

02:04:33.120 right that's not no not versus i'm saying what how did all these cultures across human history

02:04:41.600 that are isolated and independent from one another culturally and socially come to the

02:04:47.040 same conclusion unanimously that killing innocent people is wrong uh i don't think we've ever

02:04:54.960 actually believed that we we learn to not kill people within our group so that we can have a

02:05:02.400 functioning tribe and that is an evolved behavior but in terms of killing other tribes we're evolved

02:05:09.920 to be killers yeah so that's that's just simply not true because we could we could look at what 0.63

02:05:15.760 ancient romans did ancient indians ancient chinese and yeah they killed a lot of indians

02:05:19.920 no brother i'm talking about murder brother you stop conflating it so you're saying oh well okay 0.80

02:05:25.780 i just said are you making a distinction between killing and murder and you said no and that i

02:05:30.420 no now you're saying yes i said we're not talking about what the distinction is because i assume

02:05:36.280 you already know it okay okay i'm asking it is evident and clear that ancient peoples didn't

02:05:44.440 think you could just kill someone because they're from a different tribe than you well really is

02:05:50.220 that what they believed well there was a lot of conquest i mean we are we are descended from the

02:05:56.340 people who won dude i am not talking about in mind the pacifist those are not our ancestors

02:06:02.220 the pacifists are grounded to dust brother can you track we're descended from killers brother

02:06:06.980 brother i'm not talking about conquest so that's then it's not murder i'm not talking about conquest 0.96

02:06:12.980 not talking about war okay hold on hold on define murder means like i i go and kill my neighbor

02:06:19.680 in the middle of the night or something yeah something like that the taking of the soul

02:06:23.860 of an innocent person ancient people cross-culturally think that just because somebody

02:06:31.860 is different they deserve to die well you you brought in difference i'm going to ignore that 0.95

02:06:37.640 And I'm just going to use the example of, I just go kill my neighbor because I just want to. 1.00

02:06:43.140 I have bloodlust. 0.63

02:06:44.240 Why is that wrong?

02:06:45.160 Did they think that's wrong?

02:06:46.620 Because if people...

02:06:47.560 No, no, not why is it wrong.

02:06:48.920 Not why is it wrong.

02:06:49.660 Did they think it's wrong?

02:06:51.280 Yeah, they did think it's wrong.

02:06:52.580 And then they thought it's wrong for a very long time, long before Abrahamic religion.

02:06:57.380 So now, what explains the unanimous agreement, although they were socially and culturally isolated and independent?

02:07:03.860 Right. Because the people who had too much sadism and bloodlust destroyed societies that were not successful and died out. Or those people who had the genes for sadism and bloodlust, they just wanted to kill their neighbor, kill dogs and cats, etc. Those people were executed by society as criminals.

02:07:27.660 and so they did not pass on those genes to the extent that they would dominate society if we're

02:07:34.240 all killing our neighbors because we love murder then the society is going to break down but if

02:07:39.820 you're if you have a consensual relationship with teamwork where we can kill the other tribe 0.89

02:07:45.340 then you're going to win and be successful that's my point why but it's just evolved behavior

02:07:51.680 you see look no brother don't eat each other let me respond to you brother okay okay let's say

02:07:58.780 there's a given tribe they agree let's not kill each other need to survive right but did they

02:08:04.800 think that just because they come across somebody from another tribe they can kill them yeah often

02:08:12.440 they did okay we're honest like okay we're talking about like pre-historic man i mean yeah yeah yeah

02:08:16.980 you're just making what's the evidence but look think about this evidence evidence evidence

02:08:23.300 please i'm using fish so these are like our deep deep deep ancestors talking about fish i'm talking

02:08:30.260 about moral morality brother lord have brother um the whole point is that i'm talking about

02:08:37.300 each other asians i'm talking about human beings i don't think we're we're moral agents i think we

02:08:43.940 come up with morality as justification that's that's my point so my let me but let me just make

02:08:49.160 this point you actually don't know in a river they will not kill one another a piranha does

02:08:56.380 not eat another piranha but they will eat other animals so they have morality you see morality

02:09:03.840 even in like very very old species of vertebraes other insects have a morality in a way

02:09:13.880 what that morality is is what is the best way to reproduce you are not addressing my point

02:09:20.540 richard that's my point fish do that animals do that humans don't that's my point do what okay

02:09:27.900 prove it well show evidence the evidence man's inhumanity to man needs no proof look at gaza

02:09:36.360 show evidence that ancient humans from ancient india ancient japan ancient china ancient arabia

02:09:43.860 thought that just because you're from a different tribe you are you have to die you should die

02:09:49.760 they they might not have said that but in terms of ancient humans engaging in warfare with

02:09:58.440 competing tribes i mean i'm not sure i'm not talking about warfare oh my god warfare is not

02:10:06.920 murder well it involves murder killing of innocence no doubt dude i you're like and it's not you can't

02:10:15.680 it's an murder is an indispensable component of warfare i'm telling you brother you gotta have

02:10:21.520 like room temperature iq at this point you can't even track the conversation brother no i can't

02:10:27.200 track the conversation brother i don't i don't appreciate the insults and i've not insulted you

02:10:31.820 this entire time you have you said i'm an extremist uh okay i'm an extremist who looks

02:10:37.440 at well you kind of are brother but i meant that as a compliment i guess you said that about me

02:10:44.880 earlier so don't yeah you said i'm an extremist but when he looks at a leg of a woman he wants

02:10:50.740 a raper i i didn't literally say that i i said that my god that's what you said i don't i don't

02:10:57.060 want to i don't want to pick nits all i'm saying is i i don't want to nitpick here all i'm saying

02:11:02.760 is i haven't called you low iq or anything like that so i don't appreciate i don't appreciate

02:11:08.680 you're doing that and i i so let's just not do it all right but that's fine you don't and i don't

02:11:13.960 appreciate you saying i'm an extremist who wants to woman when he sees their leg i don't appreciate

02:11:18.960 that either but let's not do the insults because this was getting somewhere so why do you feel

02:11:25.920 sympathy for the people in Gaza, the children, if Israel is just protecting their nation,

02:11:30.880 right? If they are looking for their own, why is this incorrect and why is this bad?

02:11:35.100 I have nothing against Palestinians and Gazans. I do feel a natural empathy with

02:11:42.040 fellow men dying. And so I don't want it to happen. There's no need for it to happen. I

02:11:48.940 have no grudge against Palestinians. I wish them the best.

02:11:51.860 okay but it's it sounds like maybe i'm incorrect that you would like this for you want the spread

02:11:58.740 of your nation with whites it sounds like you will there's some sort of uh comparison 0.94

02:12:04.340 oh we might have to do evil things when we're creating an empire we've certainly done that 0.93

02:12:10.180 before but it's not you know israel jews and muslims fighting it's not really my concern 0.89

02:12:17.080 okay okay so yeah i think this we got to some concluding point if there's any final questions

02:12:26.120 that either party wants to ask well um yeah so i'll just maybe uh have some concluding remarks

02:12:34.920 i appreciate the conversation with uh with richard spencer um obviously it got a little

02:12:41.320 bit heated here and there but that's expected when you're you know arguing about topics that are

02:12:47.080 fundamental to one's worldview.

02:12:49.840 I do appreciate you being here.

02:12:51.800 I appreciate Sneeko for hosting this.

02:12:54.460 I enjoyed it a lot.

02:12:55.780 It was a pleasure discussing these things.

02:12:58.020 We went through several topics.

02:13:00.420 Forgive me if you felt insulted.

02:13:03.280 Yeah, maybe it wasn't the best remark to say.

02:13:05.320 I also felt disrespected earlier with what you said,

02:13:08.300 but it's okay.

02:13:08.880 It happens.

02:13:10.680 You know, it happens.

02:13:11.620 I've forgiven your remarks,

02:13:13.760 and I would echo what you said.

02:13:15.540 Thanks for inviting me on here, Sneeko.

02:13:17.080 And I would say, Orthodox Muslim, you do bring a breadth of knowledge.

02:13:22.480 And I think you are a good faith actor.

02:13:25.560 And that is one of the highest compliments I could give to someone who is an ideological

02:13:31.380 opponent.

02:13:32.140 I think you're acting in good faith.

02:13:34.180 And I think you have studied this extensively.

02:13:36.240 And I respect that.

02:13:38.340 Thank you, brother.

02:13:38.720 You as well.

02:13:39.200 Appreciate it.

02:13:40.220 Yeah, I appreciate people willing to have these discussions.

02:13:42.220 A lot of people don't want to.

02:13:43.480 And it's important.

02:13:45.020 And this is free speech.

02:13:46.100 This is democracy.

02:13:46.740 there's american values right so thanks to both of you coming on and i would also like to interview

02:13:50.660 both of you individually at a point i'll text you privately about that thanks for coming on

02:13:54.820 awesome thank you bye

SHNEAKO - June 27, 2026

Richard Spencer VS Orthodox Muslim ｜ White Supremacy, Morality, and Islam DEBATE

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript