Modern Wisdom - #427 - Carl Benjamin - Surviving The Madness Of 2022

Episode Date: January 27, 2022

Carl Benjamin is the YouTuber formerly known as Sargon Of Akkad, a political commentator and host of The Lotus Eaters Podcast. Every year we don't think the world can get any weirder and then every year, reality manages to exceed our expectations. I had to get Carl back on to try and make sense of what's happening. Expect to learn Carl's thoughts on Jordan Peterson getting called out by Ethan Klein and HasanAbi, how society has lied to young girls, whether the pope should have told pet owners that they're selfish, what Carl predicts for the future of mainstream media, why family values are under attack and much more... Sponsors: Join the Modern Wisdom Community to connect with me & other listeners - https://modernwisdom.locals.com/ Get 15% discount on Craftd London’s jewellery at https://bit.ly/cdwisdom (use code MW15) Get 5 Free Travel Packs, Free Liquid Vitamin D and Free Shipping from Athletic Greens at https://athleticgreens.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Extra Stuff: Check out Carl's site - https://www.lotuseaters.com Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello friends, welcome back to the show my guest today. Is Carl Benjamin? Is the YouTuber formally known as Sargon of a CAD, a political commentator and host of the Lotus Eater's podcast? Every year, we don't think that the world can get any weirder, and then every year reality manages to exceed our expectations. I have to get Carl back on to try and make sense of just what's happening.

Expect to learn Carl's thoughts on Jordan Peterson getting called out by Ethan Klein and Hassan Piker. How society is lied to young girls whether the Pope should have told pet owners that they're selfish, what Karl predicts for the future of mainstream media, why family values are under attack, and much more. In case you missed it, next Jordan Peterson interview is coming in two weeks time I'm flying out to Texas with video guide Dean and we are recording in person with Jordan and the only way that you can make sure you will not miss that episode when it goes up is by pressing subscribe so take your thumbs for a walk and press the subscribe button on wherever it is that you are listening. Plus it makes me very happy indeed and it supports the show at no extra cost to yourself. I thank you.

But now, please give it up for Carl Benjamin. Carlos, welcome to the show? Thank you very much. I am very happy to see how well you're doing with Glowdeaseaters at the moment, man. It's really impressive. The team's massive. It's huge, isn't it? Yeah. It's like 13 people in the office now.

We're waiting for the next, and then the office next to, is the transport police that you saw when you came down. We're waiting for them to leave, so we can expand into their office, because they've got a huge office, and we're just gonna essentially just take it over. So I'm looking forward to it. Get another set. So it's just so cool.

What does it feel like going from being just some blokey YouTuber to now, you know, a proper company media team. Yeah, it's exciting, right? Like, because before I could feel myself getting worried by right now, I'm going to have to read these things and do this. And you know, you have to do all the back end stuff. And it was just hiring.

And it, you know, it's sat the motivation to do the things. You know, but now we've got like, you know, two people who do the video production and then we've got other people who are doing other things. And so I, and it's lots of other, you know, because we're all in the same office and I've been very insistent we work in the office. You get lots of different ideas being thrown into the sort of the ring and it's not just me having to think of everything myself and have to do everything myself. And so it makes it a completely different environment and the office is a really chill place and everyone seems to have a good time there as well. And so everyone's being

very creative with what they're doing. It's turning to quite the little think tank. Very, very happy then. It's definitely a good idea. I knew it would be, I had this instinct, it was like, yeah, that would probably be a good thing to have. It would be nice to be able to bring other people in, to do stuff, and I'm glad that was correct, a good instinct. Yeah, man. It didn't surprise me. I went down, the atmosphere is cool.

I mean, you've got your own servers, and you fit in there as well, You're as protected as you can get. It's, you know, what you guys do is the closest thing I think we've got in the UK to the daily wire. And that's one hell of a fucking operation. Yeah, I mean, we know we're near the scale of the daily wire, but, you know, we get something like seven or eight million views a month on our YouTube channel, 200,000 on the website, which is not that bad actually. We of speaking of YouTube dramas and people that are worried about losing their business, what do you thoughts on Ethan Klein's recent spat with John Peterson? I think that what we're witnessing is the inevitable radicalization of Ethan Klein because of his Twitter usage.

Ethan obviously used to be sort of anti-social justice commentator, he used to mock all of this and little by little, and I think it's because of the natural environment of Twitter having purged so many conservatives and suppressing conservative viewpoints that essentially it just makes it seem like the only and most sensible and common viewpoint is that of the far left. I mean, it's written in Twitter's terms of service that you can't misgender people and things like this. And there are so many, the political environment is so skewed

on the platform that it becomes a sort of water in which you swim. And I don't think Ethan Klein is the smartest person in the world. And so I don't think he recognizes that. And I mean, take for example, the way that he disavowed Jordan Peterson, he was like, you did something transphobic, You said something, you, this, you said that. And essentially, it was just a list of crimes against progressiveism. But I mean, that's the same as an imam coming to me and saying, well, you've eaten bacon, you've had, you've drunk alcohol, you've fornicated before marriage. I'm like, you're kidding, but I'm not a Muslim. You know, these are not my standards. I don't, I don't agree that these

are things I should care about. And Ethan Klein has adopted them unthinkingly because other people on Twitter, these are the things that the big Twitter, you know, viral Twitter threads and tweets highlight. And so it's put it into his mind that these are important things. But are they important things? Or is there something more important in Ethan's life, like his wife and children, perhaps, you know, rather than a very tiny fringe minority of which he probably knows very few people. But this is the thing. This is the problem with Twitter. And you can see this dramatic left-witch shift in his content.

And now he's hosting a podcast where the guy called Hassan Pyke, for anyone who doesn't know, he's a literal communist. And the kind of communist that one would call a tanky. What's that? He thinks the kind of communist that one would call a tanky. He thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea, and that America deserved 9-11. And so he explicitly said America is a 9-11, yes. He had to go, he's the nephew of Genk Yuga, of the Unterks, and he was working at the young Turks at the time, a couple of years ago. And he had to go on the unturks with his uncle and essentially be told he had to

disavow this position. He can't say that America deserves 9.11 and the things he refused to do so, and now he's no longer at the young Turks because even Jenk who obviously hates America himself was like, look, we can't just say that. You know, you can't just say, you know, we're Americans, we're in America, we're not going to say that America deserved the worst terror attack I've ever experienced. But Hassan, for some reason, thinks the ISIS position is the jihad-y position is more legitimate than the American position. Ethan's got him on a podcast now. Yeah, it's called Leftovers, which is a really stupid name, but then they're not very bright

people. But the interesting thing about this is that Hassan looks like the smart guy next to Ethan. But the best part, though, the best part, even though he's a literal communist, and Ethan is basically a communist now himself, the best part about it is that phenomenal success. Their set costs three million dollars. And in the middle, between the segments of their thing, I watched an episode of it. And they have to do like three adverts, you know, for, by this product and you'll grow, I don't know, some sort of anti-capitalist chest hair or whatever it is they sell. But it's the most hyper-capitalist thing in the world. And you can see, during the chilling,

Hassan's face, he just looks like he's dying inside his sight. This just isn't worth money. Got to pay the setback. Exactly, you got to pay for it all. Got to pay for that $3 million mansion that he lives in. And so by promoting communism, they're literally being as capitalist as possible and dying on the inside.

And I kind of love to watch it. I kind of love. Because I've never done a shill. I've never promoted a product. I've never had any kind of corporate contract or anything like that. And anything I do, I do want a gentleman's agreement because I think that's, there's something important there,

because it's about not just you are going to be forced to keep you word, but it's about the desired keep you word. It shows good will and good faith in what you do. And so that, I think think there's something there, but but the fact that I've never had to do the shill and I'm pro-capitalist and these communists who are constantly raging about leg-states capitalism are the ones shilling, shilling their hearts out. It's there's just a beautiful irony. So is Ethan, are you thinking that Ethan's sort of been passively peer pressured in just based on what he sees on Twitter?

I don't think it's peer pressure. I just think that Ethan is not really a very philosophically minded guy. And these people, the ideology itself, and the people who are the authors of the main strains of thought within the ideology are very, very smart. And what they've done for the last 50, 60 years, probably since post-war, the time of post-war Europe, they've established that the way things they're working in the United States is not going to bring about communism and therefore we need to undermine this and deliberately engage in what communist Antonio Gramsky called a War of Position. So we can see that the society is a very powerful society. It's not going to be overthrown in a revolution like Lenin did against the provisional government. And so what what they need to do is wear away the society in order to open up the possibility of going towards communism. And so what they need to do is wear away the society in order to open

up the possibility of going towards communism. And so for the past, I mean, probably nearly 100 years now, that they've been creating memes, right? They've been working on ways of cracking open the contradictions or the inconsistencies within our philosophy as the sort of like classically liberal enlightenment west and trying to break it apart slowly but surely just as if you know you've got this you've seen the you've seen the the videos the viral videos you know the scene on Facebook of like some guy in India or something. He's got this giant stone and he's got like just a couple of metal chisels and hammer. And he puts a couple of them in and then crack the whole thing splits open, right?

It's that kind of effect that they're going for. They're like, right, there's a contradiction here, there's an inconsistency here, there's something that's just not filled out here. If we just hammer on these bits hard enough, the whole thing starts breaking apart. And that's what they've been doing to us. And they've been doing it very consciously. They know that they're doing this and they want to do it because frankly, they think that

communism is where we should all be, even though there's never been a good example of communism and never will be. But it's kind of like the unfinished puzzle of the Enlightenment. You know, the smart people look at it and think, I can solve this. This will fix all of our problems, but it's nonsense. But yeah, so Ethan is essentially the victim of that. I was going to say, because I'm always skeptical about the people that are whatever at the call face of this. I'm so non-conspiratorial with the way that I think. The fact that Ethan Klein could be co-opted into some grand attempt to try and take down the West just doesn't seem realistic.

But it seems like what you're saying is that he's sort of a willing, ignorant participant, like a useful idiot. The problem is it's not a conspiracy. It's all out in the open and I can just tell you the names of the people who are doing it and the books in fact the open, and I can just tell you the names of the people who are doing it and the books in fact, in fact, do I have one on my desk? Yeah. There you go.

So, I mean, it begins with people like the Frankfurt School, it's Theodore Dono, Hawkeimer, Mark Huser, and a bunch of others. This is dialectic enlightenment where they're literally trying to figure out what's gone wrong, why haven't we achieved communism, why is capitalism one? Then this is what's

called critical theory. This moves into what we now know as critical race theory, and then that's people, the begins with people like Derek Bell. Let me get out of my notes, actually, because of right. So you've got Derek Bell, you've got Alan Friedman, you've got Richard Delgado, Mary Matzuda, obviously Kimberly Crenshaw, Harlan Dalton, Anthony Cook. You can look all of these people up. I don't have the book with me, it's at work, you know, it's in the office. Otherwise, I'd be able to bring up that huge book. It's just called Critical Race Theory, The Key Ritings of Form the Movement. It was edited and curated by Kimberley Crenshaw. And she's got a bunch of essays in here. But a bunch of the essays that she's written in Harvard Law School, so on, back in 1987 and 1989, I think it was, that she expressly says this.

But I mean, and in various other writings of critical race theory, you can find this. For example, she's got an essay called Race, Reform, and Retrenchment, Transformation, and Digitimation, and Anti-Discrimination Law. And this is where she says, and I quote, she wants Gramsky to literally, she wants to use the Gramsky in tactics to begin withering away our society. And therefore, she says she wants to adopt a legal, the problem is that a legal strategy will not include redistribution of wealth. That's what she thinks. You can see exactly it is a communist, she is interested in achieving communism, and she

is in the legal arena, the legal academia, and she can't get the redistribution of wealth that she's looking for, through American law, because American law is, of course, based on classical liberalism, which is fundamentally based on the right to own property. Communism, of course, is that nobody owns property. So this is never going to happen. There's no justification for it. And so what she does is realize, well, if we can essentially expand the definition of the words, because one of the things she points out is that, look, if I just come in and say, right, we need a revolution, then all of the systems that are just carrying along happily

and she tries to put that down, this is gonna bash her out of the way. It's like, we're not having a revolution, get out here. We've got a constitution, for example. But then she writes, what we need to do, and she says, literally, she says this, quote, demands for change that do not reflect the institutional logic will probably be ineffective, which is true.

This is the demand for revolution, not going to work. And so what she does essentially slides into the institutional logic and expands the definition of the words Racism, she gives two definitions, the expansive and restrictive views of racism. What? Who can sense to this? Who agrees that there are two definitions of racism? I don't agree with that. Racism, in my opinion, is the conscious act of discriminating against someone because of their race, because you do not like their race. But that's not her definition. Her definition is an outcome that has a,

that can be categorized based on races that show some kind of difference. I don't agree that's racism, but if she redefines it to be that, and then if proliferates this view of what racism is, which is now a systemic structural, everything around us is complicit in the average white family having more wealth than the average black family. Then suddenly our entire society becomes racist and now you can see how the critical race theorists are saying, well, we live in a giant racist society. It's okay, but you can never point to an act of racial discrimination, but they don't care because we need to. They don't need to because they've concept creeped it and expanded it out.

Yeah. So is it the case with Jordan? Is he tainting the purity of Ethan when you look at his back catalog? Yes, without a doubt. And notice how this came unprovoked from Ethan Klein as well. So just to quickly finish this all, basically Ethan has found himself just, he's in this river, right, that's been redirected to the critical race theory view of things,

the woke view of things. Sorry, I've got a massive spot there, because the old day was reading something and I had a spot and I'd kept scratching it and it looks gross. And I'm trying not to scratch it now. Ethan is just in the river of wokeness. Wokeness is critical race theory. That's what it all comes from. And again, it, Kimlee Crenshaw is basically the chief strategist of this because in her essays, she was writing, well, look, it's not just we can do this for black people and black women. And she coined the term in sexuality because she was writing an essay about the intersection of how the way that American civil rights work at the time, this is back in the 90s or the 80s, is that they would recognize oppression because you're a black or because you're a woman, but they didn't insect into black women.

And you think about it, this was inevitable that this would come about. If you envisage, envisage the world that blacks were oppressed or women are oppressed, then why couldn't you have black women being oppressed, doubly oppressed? There's no reason that this logic wasn't going to come about at some point. And Kimmely Crenshaw is the first one to identify, calling the term in sexuality. And from this she even says, well, we can do this with the gay community,

with the trans community, and this is back in the 80s and 90s, she's saying this. So you can see how long these ideas have been on the pot for, on the boil, right? And it's just, it's not just her, of course, it's dozens and dozens of different, you know, left-wing academics, communist academics, because they're looking to destroy what they call the patriarchy,

the inherited structures of classical what they call the patriarch, the inherited structures of classical liberal society in the West because these are the things, as Gramsky says, are preventing the communist revolution. And they're not wrong. They're not wrong that the fact that we've got families and business owners and properties and governments and rules and laws. Yeah, these are all preventing a communist revolution. That's true. That's why we have them. We don't want a communist revolution. We want a prosperous society where we can feel safe and secure and we know what's going to happen tomorrow

and we're going to wake up and my car's going to be in the driveway and things like this because I only, you know, that's much more preferable than no one owning anything and the state having total domination over everything we have, which is even not even the end of what they're aiming for in communism. But the point is, this is the entire basis of work philosophy. And Ethan is the victim of the memes that the mnemetic warfare they've been engaging in.

So what they're doing is saying, well, look, trans rights, Ethan, he's like, well, I mean, they're human beings. Of course, they have rights. You know, everyone has rights. But what's a trans right? Why would you bring that up? Why wouldn't you just say human right? It's exactly, it should be exactly the same thing. Should it not? Except a trans right is something new now. You know, it's something different. There are apparently rights that trans people have that I don't

have, for example, which is implicit in the construction of the phrase trans rights. Anything, you know, being a bumbling idiot, he's just like, well, of course, I don't know. You know, of course, I believe in this. But once you start going, he's put like a foot in the river, you know, and then, oh, you know, affirmations and people retweeting and the general sort of radicalizing effect of Twitter, getting in bed

with other leftists who then take him down the sort of mimetic paths that they bring you on. And now he's like, and it knows that he just comes out and out of nowhere. No one was saying, you know, Ethan, you have to disavow Jordan piece. No one was saying it. This is an old infu, but he just came out and was like, I'm going to take down that Jordan piece and into your site. Okay. No one's making you do that. And you've chosen to do it because you've accepted a series of premises that have led you to the conclusion that actually used to be a terrible person. And it's like, that's weird because it looks to me and all the world. But you're the terrible person now.

But Ethan used to do decent things. He used to actually help people. He used to he used to do a bit of investigative journalism occasionally. And he used to entertain people and just, you know, be an entertainer. He wasn't the active piece of shit that he has become. Like you can see this in his, like betrayal and deception of Stephen Crowder. There's just a scummy thing to do, absolutely scummy. And the way he's going off the Joe Rogan, the way he's going to have John Peterson, people that I would consider to be people of high moral character, you know, people I've both met, I've had conversations with them, they do not seem in any way deceptive, they seem to exhibit virtue in their daily lives, they have millions of adoring fans because of their virtues. And you've got this fact communist

idiots going there bad people, the peaceful people. Have you heard of the useful idiot of a bunch of people who are trying to overthrow the West, frankly? Have you heard of the purity spiral? You know what that is? Yes, I only learned about that this week, overthrow the West, frankly. Have you heard of the purity spiral? Do you know what that is? Yes, I only learned about that this week. So the situation, yeah, it makes sense. Like I understand the circular firing squad sort of analogy, but yeah, the fact that over time ideological groups require the binding of an in-group to be over the mutual hatred

of an outgroup and the easiest way to do that is to continually shave off little elements that allow one person to go out. Well, look, we are now moral because we're standing on the shoulders of the people that are no longer moral. And that really fucking, that increasing sort of zealousness about ideologies explains so much. I love when things piece together like that.

And there's a. So one, one thing I've been thinking about is the concept of ideology. I mean, could you define an ideology? Find what ideology is. Me, no. Exactly. And that's not what Chris is, me, though.

Most people can't. I couldn't. And I was just that the one day thinking about this, why can't I define what ideology actually means? I mean, you're going to dictionary and get like a very basic definition. It's more than a belief structure, right? It's more than norms. It's more than... Yeah, so what the critical race theorist, there's a chap called... I think it's Alan Freeman's

one of his essays. Let me just go through my minutes. Sorry, I've got loads of notes because there's literally like 40 essays in this giant dome of all of their ideas, right? But in this giant dome of all of their ideas. But they've got, like, their own theories on what the world is and how things mean, you know, what things are. And one of them has a theory of ideology, and this is not the only person who has a theory of ideology. But this theory is that ideology is a series of contested ideas that is a battleground for power games. And you're trying to assert one set of ideas over another, win a series of arguments and essentially conquer the field. And this was similar to a theory of ideology from a conservative philosophical Michael Oakshot, who said that it's an interlaced, an interlocking system, or lattice of ideas,

that justify the seizure of power. And also these are kind of a crib of a set of traditions. And there's a bit of overlap there. So it's a right, okay. This is interesting how the very notion that I have a series of thoughts and that justifies hurting people is just totally pervasive in society. Everyone thinks it. Like all of the left at the moment, they will do what they can to de-platform, to humiliate. And this is something that I can't stand watching.

Beta left wing men trying to humiliate right wing women. It's like, that's so feminist. You know, but because they think wrong, it's okay. And of course, you know, de platform anti fire attacking people like Andy no, and whoever it is. But it's this constant war that they're engaged in. You

know, this is the ideologists war. They're engaged in. This is the ideologists' war. They're eroding the power and the status and the position in society of anyone who opposes them. The circular firing squad is something that happens when they're in their own echo chambers. Now it's about status. How do you get status? Well, being the person who professes the most correct interpretation of the ideology, this lattice of contestable ideas. You get that to interject there, you get that ever increasing requirement to adhere to the tribal norms in conservative circles as well though, right?

In not in quite the same way, because the problem is that often what we call conservative circles are actually not conservative. They're actually wig circles, classical liberal. They are a set of ideologies themselves. Take, for example, the Republicans in America. They're not conservative. They have an ideological agenda. They're the product of a revolution. A conservative is someone who is the inheritor of tradition, which is innately anti-revolutionary, because of course you're continuing a long tradition that has been passed on to you with the expectation that you will maintain it, look after it, and pass it on to future generations. And so you don't have an ideological agenda, you're just looking at the real world

and the way things are done and you act accordingly. You don't really have like an agenda for the entire world, you've got a particular thing in a particular place at a particular time, and you are just preserving it for the next generation and making sure you're sort of polishing it, you know, you're buffing it up. But you don't have a series of ideas that can be contested and attacked based on someone else's rational thoughts. Like the British monarchy has a great

example of this. Why do we have all this pomp and ceremony? But you can't rationally justify it because it's the product of millions of people's inputs over thousands and thousand years. And you can't explain it. It's the inherited wisdom of generations upon generations of people. It's way more than one man could just sit down and be like, right, and so I'm going to explain why we do this. But we do it because, A, we know it works. It's lasted, so it must have some value.

And it's an irrational thing. It's a prejudice that we have. But it also has emotional resonance with us. It matters. It makes us feel at home in our world when we see the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. We're right, OK, the world is properly ordered. Everything is as it should be. We're going to watch the ceremony.

Everyone will do their part because they're supposed to do the little part because 300 years ago, someone fell over and it became a habit that now has fallen into the ceremony and stuff like that. But it creates a kind of sort of emergent order, right, that no one person is in control of and no one person is designed. The American Republic isn't like that, you know, Republicans aren't like that, progressives aren't like that.

They have got a series of basically, you know, holy books that people have gone right. So we're going to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, that, that, that, that, and then boom, we'll have the perfect system. It's like, okay, that's one guy with one opinion. Maybe he's right, but he's probably not, let's be honest. And, you know, the closest we've come to a decent version of that is the American Republic. Every other example of this, like, you, like the French Republics, which now there are on the fifth one, the Soviet Union, China, wherever, they've turned into terrible, terrible places that have made terrible, terrible mistakes. They've got millions of people killed. And so I'm very skeptical of ideologists at this point. You know, when a guy comes along and goes, I've got the ideas and it's like, so,

so what? I don't care. You know, I don't have to listen to them. I don't have to be bound by them. And you don't have any right to hurt me because you've got an idea. You know, you don't get to take things away from me. You don't get to persecute me.

You don't get to gain control of the entire country or the entire world in, in many cases, is what they're aiming for, just because you have a set of ideas. You know, this is just, this does not give you license over me. So just go away, you know, that's basically what anyone can turn around and say to any of these people. And so this, this is the difference. It like, because I know what you mean in like American Republican circles. I know exactly what you mean. But listen to the language that they're invoking when they do it. It's all this kind of ideologist rhetoric of the Constitution, the founding fathers, the ideological revolution that is the United States. And I'm not even saying that bad. I support the ideological revolution of the United States.

But it's not conservative. It's classically liberal. It's Wig, which is fine, I'm a Wig, but but it's not it's not the same thing and it's this this kind of murky confusion in our thinking that I think has allowed the progressives to be you know sit back very very cunningly and be right, I can see how I can get you and that's how they've come along I think. I want to talk about this Polina, Poris, Kova lady, the 56-year-old supermodel that dead to look her age. Do you see this? I did a video on it, yeah. Alright, okay, yeah. So Poriskova was once the world's highest-paid model, but as she hit her 50s, she says she was suddenly invisible.

Now 56, she's leading a new wave of older women taking their place in the spotlight, and on the catwalk and flaunting it on Instagram in her bikini. What do you think of Paulina Poriscova, Carl? I think that nature is a very cruel mistress. So women, very much so. Yes, to women. She's not overly kind to many, that's be honest, but we get the better end of the deal out of the two. When we get older, we do, yeah.

When we get older, but when we're young, we don't. It's quite rough, actually. Yeah, well, we're thrown into a world where we're competing with a bunch of men who have a bunch of advantages over us. And there's no way of getting these advantages until a set period of time has passed. So you just sat there right. So there's literally nothing you can do other than get your head down and get to work. That's all you can do as a man. But women have got a completely reverse dynamic and it's kind of unfortunate actually. In our society, they emerge into a society

that doesn't warn them that this doesn't last forever. They're birthed as they become a woman, 18 years old. And you see all these other okay-cupid data and things like that. Women are most attractive to men, all men are about 21 years old. Like every man will say 21-year-old is the most attractive woman. I've seen the same graph that you're talking about, yeah, it's hilarious. Whereas women will say, you know, the most attractive men will be roughly their own age as they get older and and peak at about 40, 45. And so men, men have that advantage over women.

So women are given a huge amount of social and sexual power in their youth that is just drained away as they age. And this is not fair, but it is a fact. And so this is what women should be, they should be using their time in their youth to find the the best man for them, the man they really want, and get him into a long-term relationship, preferably a marriage. So when they're in their 50s, they have the companion and they've earned the status of being the wife of this man. This is not, they're not gonna be finding themselves on their own because at 56,

men are not looking for a 56 year old woman, men who are eligible and who are looking for a partner, do not consider 56 year olds unless they're a significant amount older than 56. Well, the thing that I saw from reading that article, this polina lady is upset because previously she would walk into a party and everybody would turn and look at her and she would be the show stopper

and now that's not happening anymore and younger girls are doing that. The reverse is true. The guy at 18 that walks into a room no one gives a shit about, but at 48 when he's the CEO of a company and he's flown in on a private jet or he's got other markers of state It's a prestige or a claim or whatever. There may be people will so over time the Noterite and value and prestige that society holds you in is going to change. Yes. That is that is true

The issue the main issue that I saw with this is that the model was presuming that the thing which gave her value when she was younger should still be the thing which gives her value when she's older. And that felt really tragic to me. Because I can see how a girl who enters the world of modeling, who continues to be in that world, who is told that her looks are her primary contribution to the world of modeling, who continues to be in that world, who is told that her looks are her primary contribution to the world. And this was a woman who, I think, had two or three children and had a husband up until a couple of years ago and then got separated.

So this is someone who's had the opportunity to cultivate other parts of her life, other things that she feels she contributes to the world in a way which genuinely makes her something that appreciates with time that doesn't depreciate with time. And the problem is that, and this is true for guys as well, I think anybody that gets to their 30s and is still primarily taking their main source of value to the world from the way that they look, is they have invested their resources into a depreciating asset, because over time that is going to wane, and what you need to try and do is come up with grace, poise, interest, humor,

yeah, all of those things, right? These things are going to appreciate with time. These are the things that you can have on your 70 and still crush a room with. You know, you can have comedians, you know, your granddad, you don't think about your, you're not bothered about your granddad walking into a room because he's like the best looking guy in the room.

But he might be the one that's got the most virtue or wisdom or insight or humor or balance or whatever it might be. And there's a lie that's sold from the media and from consumerist society that the primary value that women have isn't even their beauty, it's their hotness. If you look at the sort of women that we see on TV, on Love Island, I'm aware that I'm shilling for this as well.

But the girls that go on there, not that they're not always... It's a part of your wisdom, don't apologize. True. Not that they're not always, they're not ever beautiful, but they're often hotter than they are beautiful. They're being signaled off a very, very immediate hotness as opposed to timeless beauty, which I think is...

Because I mean, you could be beautiful in a very conservative dress, you know, but you can't be hot in a very conservative dress, you know, that's what you're saying, right? Yeah, but you, I think you're making a great point. It's very rare for men to be able to leverage their attractiveness to any significant degree. That's a very, very small percentage of men who become famous actors or something in their 20s

and then get any woman in the world. Chris Hemsworth, the Odecaprio's of the world. It's probably not going to be you. That's probably the Leodicaprio's of the world. Yeah. It's probably not going to be you, right? So what you, you're probably about a five out of 10. Like, you know, like me. And, you know, most women are going to be about a five out of 10. But women are more attractive as they're young

and grow less attractive as they get old and men are less attractive as they're young and grow more attractive as they're old. And this is just the way that nature plays the game, exactly as you were describing it. But the, and it is exactly, as you say, like society is not preparing women to learn that, I mean, I can't even imagine what it must have been like

to be 21 years old and literally have the world at your feet. You know, and I think most men have no idea what that experience is going to be like because I was nobody of any importance and nobody cared about me in any particular way, apart from my friends and family, of course. I was not in any way impressive or important when I was 21 years old.

Unlike this model who was getting millions of dollars per contract and who was commanding the Roman who was at the very top of society. And so to just have that, just slowly fade away until no one cares about me. It's not, well, yeah, but you essentially were given a gift when you were young and you didn't, as you say, cultivate anything else. You thought, well, I've got this one thing. I don't need to do anything else. Whereas I've had to have this slow, laborious and often depressing ascent to a position where people actually give us what

I have to say, you know, people actually care whether I'm, you know, I say this or that on the thing. And it's a very privileged place to be, but I've worked really hard for it, you know, and it's, it's not something can just be taken away by, you know, my growing older and as I go totally seen out, of course, but then I think I've got the problems at that point. You know, it's something that I and I can, it's this, this thing that I can continue to cultivate that will continue to get better, whereas she's out of options now, you know, she can't do that. And we don't prepare women for this inevitability.

It is inevitable that you will get old, you'll become saggy, you will get wrinkly, and you'll become infertile. And then men will not be interested in you. So if you based your success of the interest of the opposite sex, that's eventually going to stop. And you need to be prepared for that. And most, most, throw all of human history, every civilization knew this and accepted this as part of the sort of teleology of being a woman. This is what's going to happen. So we and we had social roles for women to fall into, you know, to grow into after the beauty had faded somewhat, you know, you'd be married, you'd be a pillar of the community, you'd be involved in some sort of social club or, you know, a charity, you'd

be doing something and then you go to a mother and then to a grandmother. And so now you're, you know, as an older woman, you still have plenty of value to your children and your grandchildren. There are still people who care about you. And then, Ram, this other woman has children and will doubtless have grandchildren. So she at least still has that life path open. But a lot of women these days are not having children. But even the conversation that she brings up there, she doesn't say, she doesn't mention them, does she?

Precisely. No, it's weird, isn't it? Because you think she'd take solace in the fact that she at least has a family who love her, you know? But she's trying to gain the attention of men like she did when she was in her 20s. And it's like, that period of your life is over. You need to come to terms with that, because it's kind of embarrassing, granny, that you're posting bikini shots on Instagram.

Like, what are you doing? I don't want my grandmother to be doing that. because it's kind of embarrassing granny that you're posting bikini shots on Instagram. Like, what are you doing? I don't want my grandmother's to be doing that. I wouldn't have a bit of dignity and self-respect and to grow into the role that nature has expected of you because you can't avoid it. As she's found out, so her's to grin. And you're gonna be defeated by someone

who is 30 years younger than you now. Which she complains about in the article. There's no getting around it. But she was more than happy to take the success of that when she was beating the 56-year-olds when she was 21. Yeah, I'm very, very sort of not cautious, but it is sort of cautious of trying to be sympathetic to the situation that women have got themselves to that place perhaps, and they didn't know. If she'd known when she was 21 that if I'd Continue down this road when I'm 50 by the time that I'm 56. I'm going to be miserable

She probably would have done things differently So partly you think well, you know, you're culpable to some extent But also nobody warned you and I think it is important to to try and have these warnings out there for women I'm actually a bit more sympathetic than that because I do think that you are a product of your environment to a great degree. And if you're in an environment that venerates youth and doesn't have any time or consideration for wisdom and age, then you end up in a position where you just don't have anyone putting that in your mind. That's just not a thought that you ever have. And there's no reason for you to have had it.

And so it's kind of cruel, frankly, what I think our society does to women as they grow older. And you're getting now loads of millennial, why nots who are getting into their 40s? And I do these segments on the podcast all the time because whenever, you know, in whatever vogue or bustle or whatever the women's magazine is, where it's, I'm 40 years old. I have three degrees.

I own a hundred thousand dollars a year. I've got two cats and I can't find a man. What's going on? Who told you that you would be able to find a man with those credentials, you know? Why would you think in your 40s, you'd start settling down and finding a husband and kids man that earns less than them and is less educated, which means that they've competed themselves out of their undominent hierarchy

because there's no one above and across. The men that they're looking for around their age, but the men that are around their age are looking for women that are 10 years younger than them. And also the dating pool is very narrow at that point, very, very narrow. And it's more than that as well though, because think about what they're doing in the process of coming up to that point where they're like,

you know, I can't find a man, and why isn't society paying attention? And I hear the word invisible being used a lot by these women. This is a constant, and multiple times, she used it in the article, and I've seen it in other places. I was like, I'm invisible. And it's like, yeah, you're like me. I'm invisible. Like I just walk around and get on with my life. I don't have like women like looking at me and you probably do, but I don't have women's looking at me as I go past, you know, this is what life is like.

But the sort of like, not necessarily the model obviously because she's not competing in an arena where men would also be competing, but the the four year old why not who's the deputy CEO of a company or something. Her working in the corporate world is her occupying a position that a man could have been occupying. And so she's knocking men a man down on that sort of social scale. And so when you've got millions of women in the workplace, all like being girl bosses, well, you're generally innovating the status of men in society. You think, okay, well, you know, men deserve it. I don't care. I'm a feminist. It's like, sure, sure, sure. Yeah. But that's my point. You're innovating the level

of men in society for your own personal gain, getting to the pinnacle and then being like, I'm lonely. Where are all the good men at? Yeah, I'm lonely. Where are the good men? I can't find a man. It's like, yeah, well, you were selfish. You didn't consider what men need to be attractive to you. Let alone for their own self-esteem and for their own vitality and prosperity. You were just like, me, me, me, me, me, and then you still me, me, me, me, me. And all these guys have just checked out society. They're just, you know, playing their Xboxes, living in shared accommodation with each other until they're well into their late 30s, drinking beer every night and working crappy jobs. And they're fine, you know, because

they actually don't need much to get along. But I think if you asked any of them, they would say, yeah, I would like a wife, you know, I would like a family. I would like it. I would like a successful career. I would like to have the prestige of being the breadwinner in the household, you know, it's not that I'm saying women can't work or anything like that, but like be considerate. Where's the goodwill from either side, you know, and it seems to be the lack of goodwill on the part of the career woman has just ruined the way our civilization works. And it's not good for the men, it's not good for the women. And the results of this are smacking us in the faces right now. There's nothing we can do about it now.

Honestly, man, the more that I think about this, the more I feel like we might be totally fucked. Like it just feels like, you know that meme of the dog in the house and the house is on fire and he's just smiling through his beginning of the end. This is fine. Like if men don't kill themselves, they're exiting education and society and family life at the highest rates ever. Women are frantically pursuing careers

only to discover that they're unable to find a partner that they're attracted to and then jump on meds at 40 years old. The highest percentage, the highest group that the youth meds are between, white women between 14, 45 years old, and then the people who want kids can't find a partner that does as well, birth rates declining, faith in the leaders and the news organizations and nonexistent, and everyone's just about sufficiently sedated not to notice or care that it's going on. That's a precise and accurate summary of how the West has declined and will collapse,

yes. Fuck. I know. Do you know what's worse? The few that are in the generations that are coming up now are totally fucked by leftist ideology. The way that women, view men is evil. It is purely as a transaction, as they are essentially prostitutes, every single one, and they don't even realize it. And the young men, view women as trophies. Women are now just, again, they're not people. They don't view each other as people.

The thing a human being is a three-dimensional thing. It's got a material component, and then it's got an emotional component, and the spiritual component, you know, like the metaphysics we scribe to what is a person, and the thing that we consider, you know, you're not just Chris,

you're not just the body of Chris, you are a personality, and you know, I'm considerate of you when I'm talking to you and things like this. You know, when you message me on Facebook, I say, hey man, how's it going? You know, so, I don't just send you a link to my only fans, right? And I ask you to subscribe.

But that's how a generation of women have been trained by feminists to view men in order not to be oppressed by the patriarchy, right? And so these women, I think, have been essentially made unable to love men as people. They don't really see them as people. They view them as a kind of competition, like competitors on a playing field. And the young men don't know what to do.

And so now they're just following their base instincts of, I should try and have sex. I should try and see a woman naked. And therefore, that's flattening a woman down to merely her biological components. Now, it's not even romance. It's not about falling in love, it's about send-noods. It's an objectification from men to women and commodification of men from women. Was it you that said, in the same way that porn has skewed men's expectations of women, only fans have skewed women's expectations of men? I cited it by you, even if it wasn't.

It may work. But I totally agree with that statement. I may have said that, because it's awful. Only fans has commodified being a girlfriend, right? That's the thing. So everyone thinks, you know, you're just getting new, just like porn. It's not just like emotionally intimacy.

I've been watching a bunch of YouTube videos by women who do only fans who explain what they're doing on only fans, so I've never used them, God forbid, my wife would kill me. But so basically it seems like're sort of like an online artificial girlfriend service. And the sort of romantic nude that you'd send to one another and sexy post and stuff, they send to like, you know, 5,000 men or however many years, like, right, that's not good

as it. You know, that's that's pretending to have an intimate relationship with thousands of different men. And it's not surprising that there have been recently a bunch of only-fan models who have been murdered by subscribers. No way. Yeah, no, we recently did a video that in fact it should be out on podcast analysis already, but it's time this goes up. It's not out yet though, but yeah, we've got three examples in the last week where subscribers have murdered these people.

And there was one guy who had gone to Florida, stalked an only fans model, murdered her, and then written on like the walls, I shouldn't have come. It's her fault for making me love her or something like that and stuff like this. And it's just like, look, this is warped, what it is to be an in-romantic and sexual relationship, like pretending that we can just commodify these things and that's all the human being needs is not true. And both people on both sides can detach their emotions from the situation,

that the guy isn't going to feel anything more than, well, he knows that this is just messages, he knows that this is just work. And the same is the, yeah, precisely. They can't switch that off. They can't switch that emotional situation off. But for the sort of Gen Z woman, men are merely a mode of transaction because they've been indoctrinated by feminists in their schools and just in the culture at large, to view men as being parts of an oppressive structure

and they have to be on the guard against men. Men are here to take something from you, men are dangerous to women, you know, you've got to, you've got to view them as a thing to get money from. Well, if they're the enemy, then defeating the enemy makes sense. But the other side of this is I don't know, I wonder what it teaches women, not only the women that do only fans, but even the women that know that other women do only fans, but even the women that know that other women do only fans. What does it teach them about what they're worth is?

We've literally just said, if you enter the world and your primary source of value is your looks or your sex appeal, this is a depreciating asset and you need to be very, very careful. This is the richest, I wouldn't like to guess, there is a huge swath of some of the richest people in the UK and in America that are women that are probably getting their money directly from taking their clothes off and sending photos to people that pay them for it. And that's what other women are thinking as well. So, by osmosis, almost, there's these role models of women that are in a society that says, girls, you can be a girl boss two, clap back, don't settle for less, be a boss bitch, all of this stuff, be a career woman, and also some of the most successful career women that you know are the ones who are using the lowest form of female

value to the world as their way to climb this dominance hierarchy. Like it's not good, I don't think it's good for women, I don't think it's good for men either. It's terrible for society in general. You know, it's, again, it's teaching women that men aren't important and unique things. Because like, the root of every relationship, every relationship is unique, right? And no one else can have that relationship with you. Like the root of every relationship, every relationship is unique, right?

And no one else can have that relationship with you. Your relationship, my relationship to you, my relationship to my wife, my relationship with my sons, they'll never have that relationship ever again, right? You'll always have a different relationship with someone else. And relationships are like a chain, you know, and they're like a rope, you know.

And if you don't, if you don't, like keep it in good check, if you don't, you know, do the things like a rope, you know, and if you don't, if you don't like keep it in good check if you don't you know Do the things that the other person appreciates and if they don't reciprocate and do things you appreciate and the relationship fades and phrase and ends up breaking, you know And there can be other ways of breaking it, but like it's something you have to nurture something you have to take care of and something that is What I think is the the genuine content of the human experience. And I think that this is why, that if you go back a hundred years, people were so much poorer, but they were not on antidepressants.

They weren't all depressed. They weren't all sad because they had their families. They had their friends. They had their social life. They had a reason to live, you know, oh, I've got to go over to Mavis's house and pick up a groceries for her, you know, and stuff like this. You feel good about doing something good for someone else. Mavis will probably make you a cup of tea

when you get there and you have nice little chat and things like this. Like these relationships are the genuine, what makes life worth living. Ostracization used to be a punishment. And now people are literally just ostracized on their phones, thinking, God, I hope Twitter gives me some likes today from who?

You don't know, you don't know any of these people, you know? Some men also are choosing to ostracize themselves consciously. You know, that's what Mink Tao is. What are those guys in the apartment blocks in China or Japan? There's a particular name of the... ...for the Vormand. ...yeah, them, plant man or whatever it is. And, you know, these are guys that are consciously choosing to just exit society in the way that we would typically see it.

What do you think that celebrating family values and life is under attack, or is it just eroded as a byproduct of modern society, or is it a blend with both of something different? If we go back to what we were saying about the communists, looking at the sturdy structures of our society, we can see that it has been a conscious attack by certain people, by critical theorists, by communists, and it has been going on for quite some time. But this requires complicity on our parts. It happiness with pleasure, and you consider anything that's non-material to be non-valuable, then you end up at the place we are at now where it's just about satisfying the dopamine rush in your

membrane, constant consumption, you have to consume on your phone, you have to consume food, eat the sugar, you know, take the drugs, drink the alcohol, whatever it is, have lots of sex, you know, with random people who cares. What difference do they make? If that's happiness, which I don't agree that it is, I think that's pleasure, then that's appealing materialistic outlook. Whereas happiness, I think, in previous eras, happiness is defined as something that is not material.

It's not physical. I can't give you something that will make you happy, but you'll know you're happy when you feel it, and you'll feel it because it's a state of affairs. It's not one particular instance, or I'll take this pill and then I'll be happy, I'll drink this drink and I'll be, I'll feel happy. It's something that is, essentially what we call

now, a satisfaction. You just think, no, I'm happy. I don't want to change my life. I'm just going to carry on doing the things I habitually do. And I look around myself, I've got my, you know, my particular case, I've got my wife, my kids, my business, my job, my studies, my, my, my, my, my what hammer, you know, and I'm very happy. I'm very happy.

I love everything that I get to do in my life, you know, and I don't, at no point do I begrudge any of it. Even when some of it's hard and it's difficult, you know, you're gonna have to change my one-year-olds nappies or something, I don't ever begrudge it. It's never a chore, you know? And, but, no, it's not all pleasurable, you know? But it is, it does, it is making me satisfied

and it is making me happy. And this is a general sort of state of affairs over time, a continuum that could be broken. I mean, don't get me wrong, if my family got a bit diagnosed with car crash or something, then that would be broken. But it's not something that can just be given to me by a product, right? It's not something that can be given to me by a service or a product or anything like that. And it can't just be taken away by a lack of those things. And we've completely misunderstood what it is to be a whole and complete and happy human being.

And it's going to be very uncool to try and reclaim that. But on the plus side, I don't take any depression pills. I don't get a therapy. I don't have to worry about any of this. I never sat around going, God, I wish something would happen so my life wasn't shit. You know, I never think anything like that. I'm always, oh, God, I hope nothing happens. So it ruins what I've got, you know, I'm, you know, I, I, and then suddenly realize why I'm now conservative. You know, I've got everything I want. This is why families are in making me conservative. You know, I don't, I don't want to ruin the state of affairs.

Young people have been programmed, though, not just to avoid that state of affairs by the materialistic culture in which we found ourselves. And again, I think you can directly link things like critical theory to this process. But they, they are now unenviably in a position where, and this is something I get from a lot of young men, because I could a couple of years ago, I was like, look, this is what you need to do, Lads.

You know, get yourself a wife, get yourself a kid, get yourself a house, get yourself a job, get on with it. And a lot of them are like, yeah, okay, that's easy for you to say, because you're already married, you know, your wife isn't a gen Z, Zuma, and isn't on only fans, you know, like, this is easy for you to say, because you had the pick of women who were not essentially spoiled by materialistic culture of the modern era. But now these guys, I mean, I wouldn't date a woman who had only fans.

I wouldn't date a woman who took loads and nude photos of herself and they were all just all over the internet all the time. But not all women, it's a very small percentage of women that do do that. I don't know. I don't know if it is. And it's not just that, though,

it's the attitude as well. It's the way they view men is not as potential life partners because they have been trained by feminists to say, hey, you can have it all be the girl boss. Sleep around as much as you want. I mean, let's say that they're not all alone, I'm not even fans sure, but I mean, what are their body counts, you know, like by the time of women's 25, it's probably not insignificant at that point. And there are lots of young men who tell

me, I get messages about this all the time from different areas of the world, but they're just like, look, it's just, they're just no women that I would think of as suitable partners for marriage and to become a wife. And I'm so fucking well, that's terrible. That's just really terrible. I don't have a solution. I don't have an answer. And it's going to be really uncooled. So well, look, young women basically have to use their time

at their peak attractiveness to find the man of their dreams and get married and settle down with him. See him as a human being, fall in love with him. You know? That's not what's being pushed, no, in culture. It's about, you know, I think by 2030, you're going to have two women for every one man at a four year US college.

And again, as we said earlier on, if you've got that hypergamous nature where women are going to date up and across, that means that you have double the number of women competing for that number of men. Are you familiar with the sex ratio hypothesis? Do you know this? It's quite logical when you think about it. So, in a local area where you have an abundance of women or an abundance of men relative to the other sex, you see changes in mating patterns.

So, if you have an abundance of men, you see an increase in long term mating, you see an increase in sexual violence, you see women being more selective, more choosy, and waiting longer to have sex. When the reverse happens, and you have a surplus of women, and a scarcity of men, you see that women are having sex sooner. There are more casual relationships. There are fewer sexual aggressive encounters, but what that shows, first off, that's fucking fascinating. And this just happens, right?

No one's thinking this through consciously, or very few people are, but this means that human sexuality responds to its local ecology. Yep. How fucking fascinating is that? The fact that your sexual proclivities will alter just based on what you're sensing. Now, maybe a tiny little part of it might be conscious, right?

And you'll think, oh, actually, like, there's a lot of girls here. And that means if I don't maybe sleep with this guy on the third date, and he's maybe going to forget about me, because I know that there's other girls around here or whatever. But obviously the implication of this is that in colleges where you are having an ever-increasing number of women and ever-decreasing number of men, you have women that are no longer able to get the sort of relationship that they want. And not only that as well when they leave, they will, and I can't think of a more delicate way of putting this, they will effectively debase their own purity as well. And this is something that women have to

understand that men really care about. Men do not want a woman who has run through by the time she leaves university, that is not what they're looking for, that is not someone they're going to make their wife, they want, they want preciousness, exclusivity and specialness, they want to think that they are essentially conquering an undiscovered country of their wife, you know, they want it to be all of theirs and none of anyone else's, they want this, and this creates a kind of magical state of affairs in the mind of the man, And you have to, if you're a smart woman and you want to get the guy of your dreams, you will essentially maintain your purity as, as best you can. And again, it's the sort of thing we're hangin', I'm saying this, saying very much like what my conservative, Christian grandfather would have said. I'm saying, yeah. And he had

that tradition for a reason, you know, that was true true then it's true now. And you're unmarried approaching 40 and on depression medication as you go and see your fucking therapist, all right. You know, your grandmother didn't have this problem. She wasn't a hoe when she was young. She got married to your grandfather when you were like 22 and they're still married now, you know. But again with this, like to try and sing the song of sympathy for women, it's not like, it's not, I don't think up until really now anyone's been warning women about this, you know, sexual revolution wasn't too long ago, birth control. A whole lot of grandmothers. Yeah, but I mean, who's stepping in and saying, er, darling, are you bringing another boy

home? No one's stepping in like that. Yeah, maybe. It's a beyond patrol, you know, this is. Okay, this is not good. But you are right. I know, I agree with you. You know, there has been a total, total dropping of the ball

when it comes to understanding the nature of reality of the relationships between the sexes. I mean, even the Pope is telling people that they need to have more kids. Did you see that? He's right. That his selfish. Why? Because your pet will not look after you or someone else.

So this is another thing I was thinking about a lot, right? So I was thinking, look, I think we actually do have a moral obligation to have children. Because we are expecting there to be people around to do the things that we want done. As in, you're like, yeah, well, I'm going to get my retirement money. Okay, but someone's going to have to pay for that, you know, so you're going to have to have a body working to pay for the retirement money you've got. Okay. Well, I don't need kids. I'm just going to go to a retirement home. Okay. And who's going to run that out of your other people's kids.

Or the people's kids. Exactly. Other people's kids, you're expecting someone else to have done the work, to have engaged in the labor, to have raised a person, to you to then sort of like, parasitically sort of like, yeah, well, I've got money. Here's this money coming to, it's not gonna be enough for them to be like, yeah, but I'd rather look after my own mum,

even if I don't get your money, you know? Because I mean, I would like to think that, you know, when I'm old and in firm, my kids would rather look after me because I love them and take care of them and raise them well, rather than going off because they fucking owe you, Carl, that's why? Because you owe me. But because we there's a, there's a, there's a thick relationship there. This, this concept, it's not just the materialistic about thinking about money, there's love there. There's a desire to make sure that the person who looked after them when they were young is looked after

when they're older. And I'll do that for my parents. God forbid they ever need that. My parents are actually still quite healthy and active, so that's good. But when the time comes, I'll do the right thing. And hopefully my kids will do the right thing. And the selfish cat mother, who now and hopefully my kids will do the right thing. And the selfish cat

mother who now is expecting my kids to be able to pay them to work for them. Well, let's hope that they're willing or else you are just going to be there in your own unchanged shit, you know, where you can't move. No one has any obligations to you. That's the thing. It's about bonds of obligation and they are selfishly expecting other people to have obligations to them. It's like, sorry, no one does. No one needs to look after you. And you're, again, just the Pope is right, you're being very selfish. It's a lot of work to race kids. Yeah, it's a lot of work, but it's also really, really rewarding. And it rounds you out as a human being. Like you learn things from being a parent that you can't learn from being a pet owner. And you're essentially

absconding your position in the great chain of civilization. Like every individual is the result of a lineage that goes back like a billion years to the very, very first organisms to you. And you're like, yeah, so I don't need to carry on that chain. I can just, I abolish all of that. I'm just going to live off other people's effort and energy. It's like, you selfish shit. What makes you think you have the right to just be like, yeah, I don't need to do anything about upholding this civilization by producing future generations for it. I'm the sort of person who's going to get myself sterilized. And I'm going to sit there and drink my wine and live off the fruits of this, like some sort of conqueror. It's like, no, and this is a totally unsustainable

attitude. It's not going to last. You're going to be miserable, and you're a really selfish piece of shit. I don't know if it's a moral obligation, but I definitely think that it's an optimal way for society to move forward. Okay, let me stop you there, right? I ain't gonna fuck about what's optimal. You know, it is a moral obligation because all their life, they relied on the, that other people had done. And if they think that they can just inherit all of this and say, I'm just going take, take, take, take, take, then that makes them selfish, which is a moral judgment. It is a moral obligation. Interesting. I mean, Vingamaz, I can tell. Yeah, I can tell. Is this what keeps you awake at night? There's nothing wrong with us. There's nothing wrong with us. A certain, these sort of deep concepts

that we have naturally in our language, you know. Things like betrayal, deception, selfishness. We don't have to just go for the sort of thin scientific term that's like, well, it's optimal. I don't care. That's really interesting. Talking in what almost sounds not medieval, but certainly more grand terms. It's relational language. Yeah, every, every, you know, when you say you're selfish, you're saying there are two people involved and there's a relationship between them. And that should have been a certain way, but it's been betrayed or a mind or something like that. I've just realized that I don't, I don't see that sort of language used pretty much at all on the internet. I very rarely talk about betrayal, obligation, belonging,

you know, none of this stuff. And I wonder, I've noticed this trend on Twitter that let's say that it's just a donk fest, right? Everyone's just trying to get one over on somebody else. Whenever someone says something, let's say that there's a conflict back and forth between two people, whenever someone says something about the other person, the invogue thing to do is to come up with some dry, witty, quote, tweet response. Yeah. that the other person's just taking the piss out of. It's very rarely saying, this is out of order, this is beyond the pale, this is too much. It's always trying to place some sort of lexical game to make the original tweet look bad.

Very rarely do people go out of the way to say, look, this is too much. What you've said is deplorable, it's betrayal, it's et cetera, et cetera. It's the Hobbesian state of man against man. What, it's all going to have to explain that to me. What is it? Right, so Hobbes was Thomas Hobbes, I think it is,

and he's Thomas, was a very early enlightenment philosophy. It was like, look, man in the state of nature, his life was nasty, brutish and short. And for some reason, the early enlightenment thinkers all thought that like human beings were like atomized individuals running around the woods. And then you had some who were like, well, they were constantly at war with each other

and some that said, well, they never talked to each other and various other conceptions of it. And then the idea is that well, they would come together to form a society from this atomized state of nation. Now, that never existed, obviously. It's at best the thought experiment and at worst, fucking ludicrous.

But it underpins all of the thought that dominates our world today, the way that we, the classical liberalism, the progressivism, the communism, all of it is underpinned by this idea that that's what we used to be like. And that was never true. We always used to live in tribes like chimps do now,

there were deep relationships between these, the know, the members of the tribes and that's always been the way it's been from before we were humans. Archaeology bears this out. But the point is that you had the you had two conceptions, right? You had the French conception from Rousseau in which the, oh well, you know, of course, man just felt pity for his fellow man. And so, you know, if every saw another man in the woods who was hurt, he would just feel bad about it, unlikely, given the way that we can see the world is, or you had Hobbes' view, which was man was brutish, and evil, and savage, and he would just repatiously take what he could, and then get away with whatever was possible. And civilization makes us better than our animal cells,

our primitive cells, whereas from the French view, that's the English view, the French view is, civilization makes us worse than our primitive cells. Our primitive cells don't do bad things. And the Twitter appears to bear out the Hobbsian point. As in, no more on Twitter really has any relation to one little. You just set up your account and suddenly you're in the woods on Twitter, in this state of nature where it's all against all and everyone's dunking on each other constantly

and no one cares about anyone else because no one's got any obligation to anyone else on Twitter. None. Oh, no, no understanding that like, for example, I have an obligation to my neighbour. You know, everyone knows they have an obligation to my neighbor. Everyone knows they have an obligation to their neighbor not to play their music really loud later night. I mean there might be a law against it but even though it wasn't law against it you'd be like I'm not going to do that because that'd be rude right. They live next to me, therefore we have a relationship as neighbors, even though neither of us chose this relationship and we could break it by simply moving and that doesn't even need to mean much, you much, but there's still that station in life that is a neighbor.

And you've got an obligation to a neighbor, and you know this, this is just something you inherit in the culture that you live in and grow up with intuitively. But that doesn't exist on Twitter. And so it's just an evil savage thing of people just dunk, dunk doing it. And the dunks suggest a replacement for fist fights.

That's what they are. And you get the the dunks suggest a replacement for fist fights, you know, that's what they are. And you get the same emotional response from doing that as you do from actually fighting. And so this it's this awful, awful place, but nobody has any obligation to anyone else, because no one views themselves as part of the same community. And it's only in the sort of in and you've got like the factions that are formed on Twitter, like X Twitter is, you know, whatever feminist Twitter or whatever. And that's where you get the feelings of betrayal where it's an in group. And this is what we have failed to really understand, I think. It's the relational language is what mean

it's baked into our language and it describes the things that are truly worthy. And this is what all drama comes from, betrayal, revenge, all of these very deep, thick emotional concepts of what dramas are based on. This is just what East Enders is, a constant rolling basis of, oh, someone lied to that and stole from that and hurt that, but it's all of these, you know, and you can go back anywhere, you know, Shakespeare, you have to ancient tragedies. These are all what these things are about and it's all about the relationships of man with other men or women and women. What do you think the future of mainstream media looks like? Because I'm pretty bleak-usting. I'm pretty trusting usually if the people in power, and I say, I'm not, I am

dude, I was two years ago, I was, right? Two years ago, I was like that, but I was. Yeah, man, the last two years has completely eroded and annihilated any sense of trust that I have not only in mainstream media, but also in institutions and the powers that be. It's just a really lethal cocktail of neglect, malice, and incompetence, all sort of swirled together. But is there still a swath of people that have faith in these mainstream media?

And is it the older generation that pretty soon are going to, you know, within a couple of decades and maybe not going to be there anymore and we're now gonna have no institutions, no media that, that mainstream media that the people that are coming through are prepared to trust? It seems to me that's the older generation that is more skeptical of the institutions at the moment.

The sort of radicalised boomers who are voting for Brexit and Trump who are just like, you know what, no, this is fucked. I don't like this. We're getting out, you know, eject. And that seems to me that the, and God bless, they're the ones who did the right thing. The problem I have are the zoomers and the millennials who don't know any different and don't have any framework for legitimacy outside of the power of the state and the institution. This is the worst thing about intersectionality and what it's done having proliferated through our schools and through our cultures and through our institutions. I don't think I'm not sure what we could say it's proliferated through the schools and through our cultures and through our institutions. I don't think I'm not sure what we could say, it's proliferated through the schools yet, you know? Oh, absolutely. I mean, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, well, I'm really worried. I'm part of the LGBT community. I'm really worried about Transphobia.

She's 11. It's everywhere. It is everywhere. And this is not something that we can take lightly, because one problem that we have is that the entire thing is based on the worship of power. You can't define anything without power. Like racism is power plus privilege.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Power is a component of everything that they conceive of. And if you are expressly critiquing power relations and saying, if there is a power imbalance, then there is oppression, and therefore this is illegitimate, then you have made illegitimate the relationship between mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, you know, between teachers and students, between the prime minister or the president and the population. You know, if all of these become illegitimate, then why would I uphold any of them? You know, it's all about the, and the, and if the only logitimating factor is the raw exercise of power, and if that's literally, again, we're flattening it down to just the material.

So there's not, it's not that we've got obligation to these people and they have obligations to us, which is how you spend like the feudal view of the world as in the king had an obligation to a subject. You can go, go, go read like Robin Hood poems and stuff like this. The problem of king John is not any one thing, but it's the fact that his interests and his obligations are not being met as the king. And this is like Robin Hood is a deeply reactionary story, like he's not a revolutionary, he's not socialist. What he's saying is the king is not obligated, he's not upholding his obligations to the peasants in a loving way. He's not acting like their father, you know? And so if we've annihilated all of that and reduced it down to purely the material exercise of power, then great. Okay, now what legitimizes anything?

Well, it's strength, you know, that's it. And if generations are coming up who don't understand that there are moral factors outside of the pure exercise of power, then all they'll consider to be true is strength, power. That's the very beating heart of fascism. That's what the fascists believe. But the state is a god that creates the civilization under it and imbues the civilization with its rights. And so, in fact, this is a great point I wanted to bring up with you. Like, what's a human right? Define a human right. Where do they come from?

What are they anchored in? Right? And it seems fucking nothing. And you can tell this by people like Jeremy Corbyn, who are like, broadband is a human right. What does that fucking mean? Did he say that? Yes.

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn,n quote broadband is a human right What does that mean what does it fucking mean food water shelter health care none of these things a human missing broadband up the bottom of Mazda's hierarchy of needs absolutely it's the very basic need you know below Shelter and food and water I mean that what are we can do without it right seriously, he said this and it's just like, okay, what the fuck are you talking about when you say human right? You know, it seems to be whatever's in the front of his mind at the time as a human right. It's the same with Bernie Sanders,

and any of these communists because essentially, they take the same position that's, I look, human rights are constructed by the power structures. They are whatever the people in charge say they are. They're for put the socialist in charge. And he will say that housing, food, water, and broadband is all human rights and you'll be given all of these things by the state, like the state was fucking God.

And it's like, okay, I don't really believe in human rights as this conception of it. There are other views on rights, but they aren't, you know, like this. You know, are other views on rights, but they aren't like this. I believe in negative rights, where they're imbued in us by nature, because I'm not religious, and I don't think it was God. But this is a different conversation, we're in a different paradigm now. And all of these young people have been brought up to believe that healthcare can be a human right, that food can be a human right, that shelter can be a human right. So there is no more, there is no intellectual legitimate, you know, it means nothing.

Human rights are whatever we say they are. And that means essentially the party is always right. That's the problem. And this is deeply concerning. I don't think there's any hope for liberty while we allow these people to control the discourse. And things, I don't even know how we can go start invalidating almost everything that was done under these auspices. Like the healthcare is human rights, it's not. End of conversation. It is an entitlement. I learned this really interesting insight about ideological beliefs recently, talking about ideologies. So the usefulness of an absurd ideological belief is a form of tribal signaling. It signals that the ideology is more important to the person than reason itself.

It's a display of loyalty to your allies and a threat display to your enemies. It's not about what's true. It's about how does this make me look to my tribal in-group and out-group. So it's the commodification of beliefs as well. And one of the things that I thought that was really interesting there is it becomes almost like a badge of honor sometimes to hold increasingly extreme and absurd beliefs. And this happens on both sides. I don't think that this is in any way unique to one side or another. And yeah, I just thought that that was really interesting. You wear your beliefs

ideas. It's about, yeah, well, no, no, you're absolutely right, because if you think about it, like, they're holding to a set of, again, this, this lattice of ideas, but that doesn't, what's that got to do with the world? Like, that's not reality. That's a set of ideas. They're put together and said, right, this is important. And now the closer I'd hear to these ideas, the more morally correct I am, the more politically correct I am, the reality has been left far behind here. Reality might not reflect these ideas at all.

And so you get absolute lunatic takes that have got nothing to do with the real world, being lauded on places like Twitter as being perfect, as being good, as being the height of prestige. And the thing is, what has this person done? I've claimed a really extreme position that's you know fits in with this lattice by diss. Okay. How much effort was that? You know, how how how much sweat and tears and toil was it if you were to achieve this moral virtue that is saying something really extreme. You know, you didn't build a house, you didn't climb a mountain, you didn't raise a child, you didn't construct the building, you said something on the internet. It's amazing that that gives people cred.

So roll it forward for me, mainstream media, what do you think the future has in store? Oh god, the problem they have is people like Joe Rogan, wildly popular. I learned the other day that Joe Rogan's audience is about 24 years old on average, which is not good for them, but it is good for everyone else because Joe Rogan is a decent human being and he is a human being for a start,

he's not just a liar. It's not good, it's especially not good for left wing media. You get people like Tucker Carlson and Fox News is the the majority of the old mainstream media at this point. It's pretty much the only game on the right by plays. Oh yeah, by view count. Like by people tuning into their shows, but they're bound to be an older audience, you know, chose as quite a young audience. But no, it's not good. And the thing is, you don't want to make like hard and fast predictions, but we're seeing just a constant decline in viewership. And you see an end apparently after Trump left it wasn't the stat that was going around like they'd lost 90% of their audience.

I don't know. I saw one that was 14, one that was 90, so we'll give it for the 90s. It sounds more extreme. And no, but they've lost the huge chunk of the audience. And it's because what are they serving? You know, who are they serving? They're not serving the actual interest and needs of the people who they want to watch. Whereas someone like Joe Rogan is, you know, someone like you are, someone like me, you know, we're talking about things that might help those people, rather than trying to enforce an institutional gated narrative, whereas I'd look, the powers that be wanting you to believe this thing, believe it.

What's my investment? You know, why would I care? Why would I want to watch it? And I don't think they know that that's what they're doing, and I don't think they know how to escape this paradigm. They don't serve anyone other than the institutions themselves. And so the people who are deeply invested in left-wing politics and the preservation of the institutions will watch them and support them. But everyone else who's just getting one of their lives is just not going to bother. And so

I don't know what else we can really do other than enjoy the ride as they continue to fail. And so I don't know what else we can really do and enjoy the ride as they continue to fail. But I don't think they can maintain themselves and definitely on this trajectory. Carl Benjamin ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming on May. I always appreciate it. I'm really, really happy for how everything's going with load to seat. Is people want to check out what it is that you do? Where should they go? They can search for the podcast of the Lotus Seaters on YouTube or just go to loadseast.com on the internet. Sweet, we made it man. Thanks son. you