Debate MELTDOWN: Worst opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate

Then remember them many m I know what the hell is going on? Yes, thank you chat for reminding me how late we are. That's okay, this is a show worth waiting for. It's mixed bag panel. Uh, it's number what what number are we at? We're at number five? You guys, it's already number five. I can't believe it. It's going great. So we have some some guests tonight, some exciting guests. I'll bring the first one up. He'll introduce himself where he can find him some of

his background and whatnot. Welcome to the stage, Austin Peterson. Hey, thanks for having me. Jim Bobbinson honor appreciate. It's good to see you again. Yeah, people call me AP for Liberty. You can find me on everywhere Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, but probably the best place to catch me is on my Wake Up America show. So if you've got a Rumble dot com slash AP for Liberty, I've got a five day a week

morning talk show. It's a great way to start your day, stay informed about what's happening in the world, and yeah, keep up to date with everything in the world of Liberty. So thank you, awesome, thanks for being here. And Jay let the audience know. Yeah, Jay Dyer, I cover everything from geopolitics to movies, film symbolism, esoterica, religious debates, open panel madness, fairal wine, moms with Virginia slims in their mouth calling in to argue and wrap battle with me. Literally. We also do

the I also do the fourth hour of the Ox Jonesho every Friday. Uh and yeah, that's got a few books. You can find me over at jays Analysis or on YouTube or j Dyer or on Twitter as well and Instagram. Awesome. All right, well thanks for being here. Jay. One of the first things Austin said is I said, oh, we have other panelists like Jay, And he said, we're gonna talk about God, are we? I said, no, it's come it could it could come up.

But this is a more relaxed, uh sort of fun. We don't We try to stay a little bit away from like the meta and the philosophy because it you know, we like it, but it could bore some people. But we do want to get into some technology. And I actually wanted to start with this as Jay has been covering, you know, smart cities and these concepts for many years now, and now people are starting to really

hone in on on on what it is. Someone like Patrick Wood I think his name is wrote these great books where he outlines all of the companies why they're positioning themselves the way they are. Uh, And from my view it kind of looks like this. If you're a big company and you could mass produce and be the you know, the explicit provider of all products and services, well the next step would be take ownership in this over the city, right and takes some sort of stake in the city, kind of like black

Rock seems to be doing. And this is an interesting topic because it seems that technology companies, along with products and service companies are looking at cities now as platforms. Now, that sounds wacky, right, we go, what's a platform? Oh, it's the thing on my phone I use. Are you on that platform? Well, platforms come with tos and they come with

community guidelines and all these things. So what if a city was owned by a company and the company had tos and community guidelines that in a way maybe replaced you know, your bill of rights, your basically everything we know about how to behave in society. I think that's the plan I might be. It might be hyperbolic. I don't think so, but I did want to get your take, Austin is I'm gonna let you actually let Jay give a

summary of that. See if I missed anything. But I did want to take your position, Austin, because as a libertarian, I wonder I wanted to know from you how you see that progressing and if there's any red flags that might come up from the view the principal view of libertarianism, because it seems like if a company can take over a city, a company can take over larger than a city, and if they buy it, you know,

in a way it's fair game. Right, So Jay, give a quick summary of smart cities and what you think, and then I'll let Austin tackle that hard question. Yeah, it's interesting that you mentioned this idea of cities as platforms. I remember watching Metallic, the co creator of Ethereum not too long ago, talk about the possibility of creating cities as platforms, and they're marketing, at least in the crypto side, and maybe even Trump has given

a nod at times to the idea of freedom cities. I don't know exactly know what that means, but the idea is that well, there will be smart cities. It's unavoidable. So maybe we can have like a libertarian smart city where it's where it's freedom oriented versus I don't know, you know,

Google and Bill Gates's smart city, which will not be freedom oriented. It will be you know, oriented towards I'm sure you know, carbon credits, controlling your movements, rationing meet all the things that we would expect the dystopian smart city to be. I think the idea comes out of the technocratic movement in the nineteen twenties thirties forties, which was kind of a weird fringe version of socialism at the time, and it kind of got resurrected when Brazinski wrote

Between Two Ages. There was always technocrats. There's always people in different power strata or strata the power structure that believed in technocracy and thought they could have these these you know, plastic computer AI cities of the future. But I think Brazenski really breed new life into it with Between Two Ages and ended up

being something that the rock Filler sought was a great idea. They put a lot of money behind it, promoting it, and it really became you know, US policy officially throughout the Cold War and then the corporation Silicon Valley, really Silicon Valley I view as a bunch of kind of private, private,

corporate partnerships that also adopted this model under a veneer of libertarianism. So that's the danger I think is that it'll be sold as convenience security utopia, and even the ones that are billed as kind of libertarian I would be very suspicious of. Yeah, before you answer to this, Austin, welcome to the stage, Chad. Thanks for sorting that out. Why don't you introduce yourself to the audience. Let us know where you can find you and what you're

all about. Yeah, can everybody hear me? Okay, yes, sir, okay, good. Sorry, I was having internet complications at the most convenient time. So yeah, my name is Chad O. Jackson. I am an independent researcher and business owner here in Dallas, Texas. I'm also a film producer or co producer, I should say. I can be found on YouTube at Chad oh Jackson, as well as Instagram at Chadow Jackson and x at Chadow Jackson. So awesome. Yeah, good, and so I'm

I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry, dans reupt good. You're not a what I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat. I'm I'm politically interested. But I don't believe that any of the political parties or anything like that have the answer to our problems. I believe that most of the problems that we have can be handled at the individual or ground level. So that's my take on politics, or that's the approach that I take on politics. So got

it all? Right? Well, thank you for that, Austin. Now you see the challenge of this question and right, the smart city complex, as Jay and I laid it out in our various ways. You know, bigger companies owning more of everything and having a natural or unnatural monopoly on it. You decide. But the thing is what occurs now, Like, what's your take from a libertarian position? What are some of the advantages you see? But are there some things that you're going Well, maybe I don't know,

maybe there's something off here about about companies taking over like this. I mean, nots so much. I do like what I'm hearing from Chad and Jay, and I definitely think that there's a little there's a little Chad and a little Jay inside of me. Right so maybe they're the angels on my shoulder, But how can corporations possibly screw things up more than the government already has? I mean, how can you not be excited about a little bit

of an experiment with anarcho capitalism. How can you not look at what Javier Mala is doing in Argentina and not be like Ron Swanson slash slash slash it and have an opportunity for Samsung, who builds these beautiful cell phones that I love, my Galaxy Samsung S twenty one Ultra. You know, there's a little community outside of Soul speaking in South Korea where our phones are manufactured.

This is a really fascinating case of what you guys are talking about. It's a modern private city called song Dough, built from scratch fifteen hundred acres of reclaim land. It's a smart city known for its advanced technology, eco friendly design, high quality infrastructure, developed by gael International and the Incheon Metropolitan City song Dough. It's a new model of urban development focusing on sustainability, technology and the quality of life. Do you think that they could do worse than

they're going to do worse than San Francisco? Do you think the people in South Korea, the corporations that build these are going to let their private property turn into what are our major cities are turning into here in the United States. You know, there is no utopia, right, There's not gonna be a perfect city or or there's there's some cities that are better than others.

There are some cities that are doing better than others. But the you know, there is no such thing as a fully private city, and there's no such thing as a fully government city. Every city and every country has aspects

of both market and then government control. U the only few times that there've ever been like real true experiments to try and set up privatized communities, most of the time it's failed miserably, but that's because they got chased out either by local tribes or governments come in and prevent them from setting them up. So, you know, let people experiment a little bit, you know, let these cities, Let these cities come to fruition, let people try and

live there. You know, Epcot, remember Epcot, The whole experiment of Epcot was supposed to be this new city of the future. It didn't really work out well. This new world is not bad, but Epcot didn't become that perfect, shining example of a private city that everybody wanted to live at.

Turns out people don't really actually enjoy living in those types of community communities, but they should have the choice to do it, and a corporation certainly isn't going to do any worse than Gavin Newsom of California and whoever the mayor of San Francisco is at this point. I mean, I think those are good arguments. What do you, gentlemen think. I'll let either of the two on the bottom respond to that. Good Well, go ahead, Chad. I think I follow what's going on here, although I was a little

late to the show. When it comes to smart cities, that's what we're talking about, right, smart cities. I do think that when you look at technological advances over the course of the last fifty years, it makes me wonder how will we advance quote unquote technologically over the next fifty years. So I think smart cities are to some extent and inevitable. I am totally against the federalization of such cities or taxpayer dollars going to such cities on a state

or federal level. When it comes to the local level. However, if some random city in the middle of you know, Washington or where have you wish to utilize whatever local tax dollars to build this thing as a kind of experiment, I mean, you know, go ahead, But there is a lot of issues that come up as a result of these things, namely intrusive

surveillance and other such issues. So I think people should think twice. I mean, I know, for me, in the city that I live here in Texas, we're pretty much like minded in so far that if some politician come out of nowhere who's wet behind the ears and have these big visions and ideas about how to change the city and how to make us more towards friendly, this person is typically laughed at a court because we tend to be people

who want for our government to be small. We don't want our property taxes raise, and so we want for our councilmen to be a lot of boring old guys who don't have any ideas or any visions about anything. Just keep things the way they are, because we don't want you to to build the next Disneyland at the expense of our tax dollars. And so understandably, in a country as ideologically diverse as ours. You're going to see more and more of these cities coming up or popping up. I mean when you see the

technological advances just in smart homes, A lot of people's homes. I mean the business that I that I own happens to be in the construction kind of industry, and we're seeing a lot of these smart homes popping up where you can talk to your house and you can set the oven. Just the house

rights, I call it the direction toward house rights. No. Yeah, yeah, I think your summary there is is good because I do agree with the inevitability of some of these things, but then pointing out like, well, what are some of the what are some of the things that we might not be able to foresee or some of us might be Jay, do you see anything that was missing in Chad or Austin's assessment of this. Yeah, I think they run a really good point. I don't. I didn't hear

anything I disagree with. The only thing I would take issue with, maybe is just for me. I mean just from a practical perspective, it looks like the same structure that that would build the smart city, whether it's Gavin Newsom trying to do it, or whether it's Google. I mean, to

me, it's like the same. I don't really see a huge difference between the two because for so long we've had really controlled by a military industrial complex that is essentially a unit party, that is a public private partnership, secret deep state that runs everything. So to me, it's going to be the same thing, whether it's marketed as Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook City or whether it's marketed as Batalics Ethereum City. Like, to me, I think it's going to

be the same. I just see a lot of this as irrelevance. You could look at, for example, the structure of how in the Cold War, when well right before the Cold War set off, you can look at the way that Lenin structured cities and tried to utilize corporatism. Stalin also tried to utilize corporatism. So I don't really see a huge difference between between corporatism

and you know, private what's called free market libertarian governance. To me, it all ends up being the same thing in practice, and what we end up debating is a lot of ideals we end up debating. Yeah, but in theory, you know, the city that's truly voluntaristic. An archo capitalists would be so much better. Yeah, but like, where is that right? It's to me, it's no different than Marx's end goal of the withering way of the state and the final freedom that's going to result from Marxism.

And so for me, again, I like a lot of libertarian ideas. I was libertarian for a while when I was younger. To me, it's just like, at the end of the day, they kind of have the same presuppositions, which are materialism, which are essentially the highest goals of man, are temporal gains, pleasure, security, safety, Those end up being the highest things to attain to. And so when they measure societies on the basis of what is a good society versus a bad society, it's always something

like that. So it never transcends those values into valuing things that are in any way ever transcendent. There's never a notion of the good. The good is always presumed. There's never a notion of what freedom actually is or freedom to be, what freedom to do what. It's always just freedom. And so because it's anti metaphysics most of the time, because it's an enlightenment philosophy, it's always just kind of put out their sort of generic ideas of freedom,

liberty, you know, quality of life or something like that. So anyway, that's my take. Yeah, yeah, I wanted to get more into something specific regarding what Jay's pointing to is like practical things. I saw a comment thanks for that. You know, right now we have this this system where you know, we're on platforms, and I used platform as a term to that that cities will eventually be seen as platforms. But if that's the case and we're pissed about a company who's woke, you know, DEI

woke, you know, don't say this, don't say that. If a company does run a city, and from your review Austin, you know, it's principled, so great, but it seems like the people who do pursue these company run cities, like Jay said, it's all going to be Google these kind of things, and their philosophy is going to actually dominate what the behavior of the city is. And what I mean by that is maybe Austin wakes up in the city thinks it's awesome, you know, we're progressing here.

You start your coffee machine, right and there's a little I'm sorry, Austin, your tweet last week violated blah blah blah, and you agreed to this and your you know, crypto agreement. Right, suddenly you can't make coffee. These little things, these little things add up. It's not even necessarily a big thing, because guess what if you can't make your coffee,

you'll find an alternative. Great, But it's not like you're gonna get up and move because you didn't get your coffee because the company shut off that particular aspect of your life. But maybe they add it. Maybe they say, you can't go to the gym now, right, Maybe they say and so these are not fantasies. This is an extrapolation of what we see now with corporations owning shit right and being able to tell you the ethics that you ought

follow if you're gonna be on their platform. And so you'd say, well, no, that's just an agreement. But what if they can just change the agreement once you're already in the apartment, right the Amazon uh, well we call them coom pods. But you're in the pod and it's going great, and then suddenly you start getting these notifications, right, like that's what we're pointing to, at least I'm pointing to when I go, are there

any red flags with these views? Fine, let's say they're not utopian, like Austin says, I think they're tied a little bit to some vision. But let's say they just we try them, all right? Does that seem inevitable Austin that the the woke corporations who are actually ahead of the game in all of this, By the way, they're gonna in the same kind of bullshit tos for you to get your coffee. Sorry, buddy, showers not

today. You don't get a shower today. So what do you is that that has to be something you admittedly concede and say, well, yeah, that's gonna that could be a big issue, right, No, for sure. And I mean, like one thing I would say though, first is that, like you have to consider that those things are happening right now, and they're happening under the current system that we have now. But what I'm

advocating for is, excuse me, something a little bit different. But like you know, in presupposing in this also too, is like that the business owner and the person who creates, who builds the coffee machine doesn't have some rights as well. I mean, there is like such a thing as a private contract, Like if I want to create a contract with someone and say I want to create a coffee machine that if one day I want to shut it off, then I should be able to have the right to create something

like that. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to create that kind of a private contract. Now, we all live in the United States, and I agree that we should have a bill of rights in a constitution, and that people should have rights, and that we should elect representatives to govern us to solve some of these problems. Right, So I don't I'm not an anarcho capitalist. So I don't believe in a completely you know, private utopia because one, I don't think that that could exist.

Because two, because two the times that it has been tried, it hasn't worked successfully, just like socialists utopias have failed to have failed spectacularly and phenomenally. We have a lot though, we have a lot more examples of socialist utopias that have failed. Jamestown and New Guyana where everybody drank the kool aid and killed themselves, perfect example of a socialist utopia. Right, that went wrong North Korea. We have example after example after example, but we have

so few examples on the other side. And you even said that, you pointed it out and said, well, where does this exist? Where has this existed? Right there? Ford Landia was an example of Henry four trying to create a community that was based on a utopian ideal that was mostly market based. The Corporation of Ford in the rubber plants where they were, you know, harvesting rubber for the tires, where they set up this community.

And Ford was he was a very conservative man. He wanted to have conservative values and he tried to impose them on the community of people in ford Landia, which included workers. Were not allowed to drink alcohol, they had curfews, they had very strict rules, exactly what you're talking about right here. And it failed. So the thing is is that these utopian experiments that we're

discussing right now, I don't think that they exist. They can't exist in a vacuum and in the times the very few times where the experiments have been tried again, whether it's a socialist utopia of Jamestown or whether it was ford Landia created by Henry Ford those utopian experiments always fall apart because reality has a way of getting in the way of people's dreams too. To centrally plan some a society, it didn't work with Epcot Center, it didn't work with Jamestown,

it didn't work with ford Landia. Right. What tends to work are people who are able to make individual choices on a level with a certain basis of rights, a modicum of movement of freedom that they're allowed to have, to be able to make their own decisions, and then to go out and transact into contract to get all the goods and services that they need to accomplish

whatever their goals are in their life. So really, what we're at the end of the day, what you're talking about is still central planning, right if it's a whether it's a corporation or whether it's a government, like, it's still something that I oppose in principle. This concept is central planning, which does tend to fall apart because one of us can never be as smart

as all of us each. And it's not that there's no plan, it's that there's more planners, right, and individuals are free to make these decisions about what coffee companies they want to contract with. But again, these these utopian experiments tend to fail on their own merits because their idealism usually just it can't work in reality because people are people and their individuals and they make their

own decisions. And sometimes, you know, if somebody may want to break their contract with the coffee company that they entered into, and for that you're going to need a court to step in into adjudicated dispute. So there's always going to be some layer of a regulation on a corporation. That's going to be some neutral arbiter third party. It's always going to exist, whether or not anarchocapitalists say it should you know, it should be all private courts as

well. There's gonna be some outside regulatory force. The question is what that looks like and how the rest of us can manage ourselves and manage society on our own, you know, absence of some central vision and central plan handed down from us from a pollic bureau. If you well, you did you said one thing there and I'll let Jay or Chad John been here. Is that you said, well, even in the corporate city, you do have

rights. Well, I'm actually saying what if what if all the materialists and all these coomers coming up are gonna say, well, I actually don't care much about rights. Give me stuff, right, give me stuff, Give me a conveyor belt, subscription to my own life. Let me sit in the city, and I'll trade off my liberties and I'll abandon that construct and

I'll trade it for another construct. Now, what do you say to those people, Because regardless of whether you think it's gonna fail or succeed, right, I agree with you that these things fail, I think because they fundamentally don't account for other aspects of being a human being, which includes transcendental categories and things like this that we value actually more in the end. But regardless, if someone goes into the city and goes, hey, this is great.

I get three years, three to five years here, and they give you everything, everything you could imagine. Right, you can't see yourself into slavery, right, so the thirteenth Amendment, no indentured servitude, no slavery. You can't, but you can willfully, but you can willfully forfeit your rights through a contract. I don't see something like that happening. I think

most people don't want to live in the pod or eat the bugs. Are there people who absolutely listen jonestown happened, People drank the kool aid, they committed suicide out in the junk. There are absolutely people who do that, Like you know, those people here are people who want to live in a cult. How are you going to stop people from living in cults? Okay, there are cults. There are still cults. You're never going to stop

people entirely from living in cults. Right. You want to try and minimize it and encourage free thought, but you can't force people not to be in cults. It's impossible. There's too many cults and we're all prone to cult thinking. Anyways, continue Well, one thing that I would say a couple of a couple of things is that it's not so much just a matter of

do people join cults just be because people are cult like. You can also have an intentional top down degradation of the population through weaponized culture, and that's something that's existed for a long time, but particularly throughout the Cold War. Pop culture was from the top down, both corporate and private and government in a dual operation toxified to degrade the population. And this is something that the

libertarians typically miss or not aware of. I'm not accusing you guys of that, just saying that, in my experience of a lot of debates libertarians, they will sort of pass over this idea of toxic culture which is created by the establishment to grade the population so that they become pliable and ready to go into these kinds of settings and basically rat mazes is what I would say these

smart seaes will be. So my question to you guys would be, let's say, I mean, surely some of us probably have worked at a Fortune one hundred watching for five hundred company at some point, right, I've worked for a couple of them. In my in my mind, the the smart city run by one of these fortunes, it's gonna be like living at work. Okay, Yeah, I remember working at a fortune one hundred company and I had a fat bitch manager screaming in my face managing every little thing I

did, and it was a nightmare. So I can't imagine that living in it. So if I'm given that but with also with my com pod, like, that's gonna be somehow a better thing. So my question is just that you said something earlier like why not let Sony have a hand have a spot at running a smart city. And I'm like, I mean, dude, that's gonna be the same fat bitch manager, maybe even an ai fat bitch manager telling what you what you can eat, what you can do,

an Ai an Ai manager. Yeah right, Like she popped in on the hologram right while you're in the toilet, and it's like, and they forced they forced her to be overweight. So their representation and all that accurately represent manager operation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they have to listen. We're gonna shift a tiny bit here. I think we got a good chunk of

meeting there, Chad. We were talking just before in the green room about how uh you know we pick I think that people pick famous people right, and they approach them at this point, especially this is I think this has always been the case, but now I think it's even more rampant. And Jay's covered this a bunch where you seek a spokesperson who's flashy, charismatic, talks loud, whatever is pretty, and you approach them and go, hey, hey, I'm gonna yeah, yeah, we wanna you wanna you wanna

work for NATO. It's it's underneath the radar, though, Like can you push some of these narratives. Don't worry you're doing a good thing. Don't you want to be bigger than your the scripts that you read that you didn't actually create. Yeah, I know, I'm gonna be great. I'll you know, Jesse Smollett, I'm gonna put a noose around my neck. I love it. So we've seen this now, Chad, You've done some decent

work on MLK and you get a lot of backlash. Right. I think MLK Jr. Is one of those people where whether or not it's organic in the beginning, that's not the point. The point is there are agencies that can sniff out influential people. Right, The blue check marks of the fifties and sixties existed, and so you find them, you sort of groom them in a way, and then you have them become a product. I think

you and I would agree, maybe J Two. I'm not sure Austin's take on this that someone like Martin Luther King Jr. Was definitely utilized to the advantage of some other people and to push certain things in certain Yeah, yeah, certain out outcomes. Right, But now we have this, Jay, you did a little bit on I mentioned NATO. It was NATO right with Taylor Swift. Now we were all called like complete lunatics when we'd say well,

no, there are actually there is culture creation. You know a lot of work has been done again in this regard as you know, go back to the the rel you know, the sexual revolution and all of this. We can document it, we can look at it. So the question is

today is this running out of steam? Right? This this? I think the the veil is dropping where you start to see, well, there's more famous people, so there's some saturation now, so they don't have the same influence of like Muhammad Ali being like, oh oh I'm going to do this thing, and you know everyone's all like yeah, that that guy. Well, so many people are this now that it's almost making it sterile in a way, which I think is not a bad thing. But I'm wondering,

is is the veil dropped? Jay? You've covered this, is it dropped? Are people already seeing well famous people they just really don't have much influence now they kind of they kind of blew it. I think they blew it

with the KRUNKA. We can't say the other word on YouTube, but I think they utilize too many talking heads and Everyone's like, wait, how is this possible that every single person with a bright, you know, you know, bleach smile ends up being on the same basically like a border directors side of a big, big pharma. This doesn't make sense. So is it over? Is it the end of this? Jay? I don't think it's over. Okay, good, No, Chad, go ahead, you want,

won't you go? Yeah? I don't. I don't think it's over. I think that they've grown more sophisticated in the way that they carry out these kind of agendas, and more often than not, you'll find that the celebrity or the individual in question themselves aren't really privy to exactly what it is or a part of I would say that Lebron James and his dealings with China is I mean, he's not a very smart person. I don't think he

knows what he's up to or how he's being used. But he's definitely being used in the same vein as say a in the same vein as say a Paul Robeson circa nineteen eight, who was being used by the eight nineteen eighteen, nineteen nineteen nineteen twenty area. He was a full blown communist and I think he was more aware of how he was being used and all too willing to be used in the same way that MLK was. But I don't think

Lebron James is fully aware of what's going on. But again, they've grown more sophisticated because over the course of the twentieth century, what we've seen is the so called expert class influencing the trajectory of our country. These were the ones who were acting as the kind of brain trust, if you will, of the FDR administration, both Republican and Democrat administration throughout the course of the

twentieth century. I mean the whole political theatrics of it all, where you think that you're pulling the lever for one party's agenda over the other is when in reality it's just one uniparty. This isn't anything new. This has been the case for a very long time. The vell is breaking, so to speak, in so far that folks like myself and you, Jim, Bob and Jay and others are growing more aware of how ideological subversion works. But I think part of the reason of that is because we have, like we

know what the word ideological subversion is. We know about uri Besmanov sitting down with g EDERG. Griffin in nineteen eighty four talking to us about the way in which the KGB and the Soviet Union influenced ideological subversion cultural demoralization here in the United States. And so we're aware of how this thing works. And even though someone like a Uribezmanov was able to put into a nicely packed four

point process of how ideological subversion works, that's more for our understanding. The reality is it doesn't actually quite work out in exactly those four stages. It's kind of zigzag in the way that it truly works. We learn because we are all educated by the same mass compulsor very public school education system. We understand everything in phases and bullet points, and this is the way that we

understand things. And so part of Yuri's genius is that he understands the way that we were educated in the West, and so he gave us a framework to understand how ideological subversion works. But the reality is, when the rubber hits the road, it's more zig zag and more kind of fluid in reality. So we don't know at a given time whether they're in a stage of

normalization or crisis, or destabilization or demoralization. Sometimes all these things are happening simultaneously, but they're happening nonetheless, the point being to make the public think that everything is happening in a vacuum, or everything's organic, there's no hidden

hand behind whatever is going on at a given time. And then along comes some bright, smiling politicians saying that he has the answers if you would only vote for him or support his policy for the sake of safety and security. We end up pulling the lever for that politician, not realizing that the whole time, the whole point was to empower the federal government all the more at

the expense of the rights and the freedoms of the American people. So this thing continues to happen over and over again, and I think politicians in the expert class today are working simultaneously to that end. And so that's the sophistication of it all, which and entertainment. And you add that element of entertainment as well, which has never been as accessible like technology allowed entertainment and high production value to be ubiquitous such that we can have a show like this.

I mean, imagine this panel right now this show this quality. You know, forty years ago it would be like what the hell do you? Who do you know? But now everybody has that, and so I would yeah, everything you said, Chad, but add in the technological aspect that you know, actually kind of adds to the confusion in a sense. But it also allows us to seek out alternative views and information so that we can it's like a it's like a double edged sword, like you know, you open

it up to everybody, so you get more garbage. Like YouTube there's gonna be eighty five percent garbage. What's the parido principal? Eighty twenty and then and then what you know, you have to find out the truth of the matter. But we're you know, some people say we're even in post truth. So like people don't even care that it's fake. You see this with AI stuff, You go, that's an AI influencer. The person goes, I don't care. They're filling this thing, this thing that I need,

And that's that's the that's the value. The value isn't that it's real or breathing or authentic or has a soul or you know, it's this other thing. And I think that's true for politics, at some level where if the if the character fits and they say all the right lines, I think there's enough metadata they have access that you say X, you could probably predict a

movement to the right or to the left to some extent. I'm not saying there's like there's an effective wizard of oz who really can do it all, I think, and it ends up being quite a mess. Right, So I'm not that big of a conspirat hard but I'm a little bit like I earned a helmet, but I'm not that bad, right, I agree. I think Chad is definitely right on the money. And I liked your point

made by Jimbob. You talked about control over the culture, and you know, I'll be first to admit, like I'm very white pilled right, Like I very much like am an optimist and see a lot of good things in our future. Maybe short term pessimistic, long term optimistic, because I'll say this, like when you think about the Hollywood system and how it used to be so much easier to control the media and the message. Right, there

have been sort of you know, information revolutions that have been occurring. You know, in our lifetime, there have been several information revolutions, not just because of the medium with which how we're able to spread information, but what we can all how we can also broadcast information and who is considered to be

credible in terms of public information. Right when I was a child, there were you know what five six networks, how many you know five or six news you know shows, and only one Walter Cronkite was like the most credible person in reporting. And even with the Pareto principle, if like there's twenty percent good information eighty percent bad, right, that's still that's a low you know, noise to signal to noise ratio there. But the at least the

tools are available for people like us to get the information. I mean, we are in some sense the elites because we are seeking out that information. And you are, you know, you able to control three hundred and twenty people who are going to listen to this show live as what I think of

the numbers are. It used to be that when we had four or five channels, a million people were watch a show and that was that barely ever exists anywhere except online in the means, if you get a million people on live, like you're talking about breaking like a stream or something like that.

It does happen like you get close. But mostly what we see with like the biggest information streamers now like Dan Bongino, I think he got like eight hundred nine hundred thousand people watching live at some point and it was like the biggest stream in all of history ever and that was just recently. So there

has been a power change. Can corporations and and you know, near do Wells come in and control their voice and you know, yes, sure, but I mean the mob is even more powerful now than it used to be. The mob has more tools to uncover corruption. I mean, how many times are we saying I mean Sam Bankman Fried and FDx and the fraud that

was uncovered at FDx was uncovered pretty damn fast. Bernie made off. I think it took them like over a decade to reveal his fraud Enron for example, Like every thing is speeding up now, I mean, including the speed

of the scams, but also the justice that's occurred because leoks. Be honest, we frequently do not get justice from our justice system, which is why you see you know sometimes unfortunately cancel culture mobs that will destroy a person unjustly, but because there's such a desire for people to know the truth about the

people who are spreading information, find out who they're connected to. You do get justice, you do find out, you know, people who are public figures that are pedophiles, a lot faster than you would have found out years ago. People might have gone their whole lives and you didn't know that they

had these associations, either to Jeffrey Epstein or God. You could probably find a dozen people in the media that you know, you don't know their names, but they had a small following and they got busted talking to a twelve year old girl at a park because you know, some kid with a cell phone was able to go out and record them and capture them and play the role of what used to be the was the to catch a predator. Now everybody's to catch a predator, right, So well, that's what the that's

what the policing would be in the smart cities. It would just be like a mob of bees ready to sting someone, right, maybe unjustly the well smart city will mandate that you meet your pedo quota every yeah, yeah, right, graiger than that. But so there's a positive side to this, which is true which is that we're at this inflection point where there's a massive war going on with controlling the voices, controlling the reach of stuff. I've

dealt with this for since twenty sixteen, got my whole website deleted. You know, it's it's a nightmare to to fight. But also at the same time, we're at a point where we're starting to have some victories. And it's not just in like alternative media and speaking about these kinds of issues. I mean, it's other areas as well, like Kat Williams talking about comedy being a gate you know, there's a bunch of comedians out there and ain't never been and funny, by the way, put into your face every day

like they trying right, no, right, and they're not. And the establishment has been doing that. There's even like non establishment people still trying to gatekeep and I don't know if you guys have seen this, but you know, one of the biggest things on YouTube is comedy. And there's this whole fracas in the last year on YouTube of people pointing out it actually started with Amy Schumer and people pointing out that she was foisted on everyone and she's not

funny. Then it came. Then it became Brendan's jab and everybody being forced to supposedly, you're supposed to like Brennan's jab, and he threatened people that were making fun of his his stand up, and so it's like people are not understanding the way the internet works. You can't threaten your audience to not

people laugh. It's just crazy. So there's this revolution that's happening Elon with X. I mean, whatever you think of Elon, I mean, certainly there's areas to be critical, but just in the issue of being able to have a little bit more free speech and make Twitter like the Internet was in twenty fourteen has been very good for me. My Twitter has grown well in

the last year. So there are positives of our pluses. But I think if we zoom out at the metal level and we think about this, I still just like I'm worried that the Internet itself was given to us by the public private corporate partnership of the Deep State and the Pentagon. I don't think it was given to us for freedom and liberty and libertarian values. I think that it's there ultimately, I mean I wish I want it to not be. I hope it's not going to be bad. There's a lot of positives

on pro bitcoin and pro you know, all of these things. But I'm also worried that it will have the effect of degrading society to the point where the future generations gen Z and younger are going to actually be that blob of people who don't have any critical thinking skills and will be raised in a smart city and will be he populated. I think that's the danger. And I don't know what the answers are. I mean, I think there are some

things that we can do. I don't have any big scale solution to everything, but but I mean, I'm just worried that the internet itself is also contributing to the decline. I don't know. And also in regard to your revestment of I mean, he's a great example of why I don't think the libertarian ethos itself is the answer. I think it has a lot of good points and the good good critiques of the state, But if you look at your REVESTMENTOV, I mean, for one, everything that he says when he

defected is what the CIA wanted him to say. So that's why you find if you watch the full lectures. He goes on to talk about how we have to we have to liberate the Eastern Europeans who are being oppressed because they can't have the butt sex, and we must give them the freedom of all the liberties of the gay and it's like, wait a minute, So he's just another kind of tool, you know, voicing what the CIA wanted in the Cold War, and we're actually doing the very things right now that Uri

said. So I don't know why people if people have a problem with what's happening in Ukraine. I mean, Uri said, we need to liberate these people so that they can have you know, skittles, weddings and whatnot. So again, it's just liberty. I mean, yeah, he says some good things, but it wasn't the KGB that was running these operations in the Cold War. It was the Fortune one hundred, Fortune five hundred running those operations demoralized in America, not the KGB. And the CEOs of the Fortune

five hundred were not KGB agent. Okay, well, just you know, maybe maybe your Abezmanov was a liar, right, so it's possible that he was also full of shit, right because he was a Soviet. So just remember that it's possible that your a Bezmanov was telling us, well, we you know, we the anti establishment. Why we the revolutionaries, right, we who are the anti Hillary Clinton's, the anti Mitt Romneys of the world.

You know, whatever you consider yourself to be, if you're not a libertarian, right, we're on this side, and right and met Romney and Hillary Clinton and everybody else is on the others. But just because Yury Besbanov told us a few things that we wanted to hear, it doesn't mean that we ought to take Ury Besmanov as the gospel truth. Like, it's possible to think that Hillary Clinton is a fraud and Vladimir Putin is a murderous killer,

right, Like, you don't have to buy into either narratives. And my favorite, actually, my favorite former Soviet who I don't trust completely is a guy by the name of Mitroschkin, who was a former KGB general who defected to the United States, and he had a whole treasure trove of not just conspiracy theories that he brought with him, but actual conspiracies that intelligence agencies

overseas had perpetrated upon the American public. Americans love conspiracy theories and the Soviets knew that, and they know that if you wanted to have power over the American people, the best way is to spread conspiracy theories because we love it, mostly because we're so prosperous and wealthy compared to the rest of the world that our wives, who are bored at home, or at least were in the nineteen fifties and the Cold War until the eighties, they love conspiracy theories.

The board Housewives, man, you see them on Twitter now because now they have social media and they're out there spreading the nine to eleven inside job. Oswald didn't shoot alone from that, They've got nothing better to do with their lives than spread Soviet horseshit on Liot Believe because and the deep State loves it because it keeps us retarded and arguing over things like an assassination from the nineteen sixties and whether it's important that there was somebody on a grassy knoll or

not, instead of fighting about the fight that's happening right now. So like foreign intelligence agencies are just as as guilty as spreading horseshit conspiracy theories that Americans love and believe because we are believers, man, We love to believe in conspiracy. But don't you think that when somebody defects, they're going to they're going to put out what we didn't let me? Haven't you let me finish? Yet? You don't know what I want to say? Yeah, you

don't think that they're going to say what their new masters want. No. I think they're going to say whatever is going to make sure that they get the champagne and the Coca cola flowing, and it's going to get them, and that would be what the c wants. Right. Perhaps, maybe maybe, but just you know, just because the CIA says something doesn't mean it's wrong. You know, Ana Hitler drank water, right, so the truth to be true, you're a fallacy, which I didn't argue. I wouldn't

argue that. My point is is that your a vestment off. Some of what he said was ostensibly true, and some of what he said I think was ostensibly false. Right, So you gotta be careful, especially when we talking about Soviet defectors, because a lot of those people they weren't necessarily defectors. They were still working on the side of the Soviets. Some of them were double Okay, I understand people have that theory, but let me give

you an example. So again he says that one of the things that has to happen is that we have to support the efforts of the West and the CIA and the Cold War because of the fact that there's a lot of oppressed people on the other side of the Iron Curtain, in the Eastern Bloc countries who don't have access to coke, pepsi and gay marriage. So what I'm

saying is that that is the CIA's line during the Cold War. They adopted through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the liberal policy of social ethics and liberal art ideas. That's why they funded modern art, abstract art, all of that. So if you understand the dominance of the CIA in American pop culture from the nineteen sixties all the way up into the nineteen eighties, that look smart Jay, that worked, right, that was effective. I mean you're

making the CIA's point for them. I mean, they funded jazz artists, they funded American artists and work it and it worked. I mean, job, the CD, the c i A aren't necessarily ideologues, right, They don't necessarily operate on an ideological fashion like you do. Right. Their their

mission changes based on the administration that controls them. The mission is the mission of the narrative in the nineteen fifties, it's kill Castro and kill It's not the same mission as the CIAM narrative of what the CIA is and what they know. Jay, you've been drinking. You've been drinking a lot of kool aid yourself. It sounds like you want to believe that. You want to

believe the alternative mainstream narratives that agree with you completely entirely. And it's possible that maybe the mainstream narrative is horseship drinking cool and specifically ship that comes out of Info Wars on a daily basis, because you want to sell us Dick pills and the establishment wants to sell us Dick no arguments whether I buy you're going to whether I buy my Dick pills from Pfizer, or whether you don't have an actual do you have actual debate or you want to go into Dick

bill ship. I'm that that you are just you are not immune to the same corruption that the establishment is engaged in, because against the establishment, you can still spread the same horseship. You're a Bezmanov. That doesn't prove that I've actually done that. A non can wait. So I've actually done that by saying that it's possible for someone to spread misinformation, that's not an argument. Do you do you have you think? Do you think misinformation? Yeah?

Do you think Jay through I guess through info? Wors? Are you saying that he's he's part of a disinfo thing or that it's just possible? I know I'm saying that, you know, building on my point from people who are bored tend to believe in conspiracy theories, that what your a bezmanofs spread here in the United States may not have been the high truth, and that things like that. Just because the CIA says something doesn't mean that it's

wrong. They may say something that's true on one day. They sent me this a lot, but their job isn't made an argument. Yeah, it's all strong men, none of those. I'm not talking about your argument. How can I strang man my own argument. I'm only saying you're not addressing my argument. Then, okay, well I didn't hear a question. They

may have cut out, So did you ask a question? No, a question is not an argument, So not addressing the arguments I made, then there was no reason to go to Dicktills and this would you like me to what would you like me to address? Jay, Well, let's go back to the CIA in the Cold War. You said it was effective, and I didn't. I didn't question whether it was effective or not. My point was that they adopted and utilized the arts and the principles of degeneracy as a

form of cultural warfare. Don't give a ship. I don't give a about your degeneracy like I don't sit around. That's why I don't care like I'm not. You don't care that I'm not. I don't thinking about butt sex all the time. Bro, I'm not obsessed with, but care about you are obsessed with. But made my point you you can't stop thinking about it, and and it's your it's your primary goal in life. It's just I don't identify with that. Hold on a second, Hold on, Hold on

a second, Jay, Hold on Austin. If what we're talking about is cultural and ideological subversion, right, yes? Would you say you just that doesn't care? Right? Well? Do you get what about what I'm in favor of? Cout cultural and ideological subversion? I'm we're engaging in it right now. We want to subvert the culture. Who wants to We don't want to keep the culture the same. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a

conservative. I'm a revolutionary. I want revolution. Wait, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on a second, I'm almost done. Don't get it, don't get it twisted here. I don't want an old world order. I want a new world order. I want things to be changed. I don't want things to be how they were. I want bitcoin. I want monetary reform. I want to end the Federal Reserve. I want to see Hillary Clinton in jail. I want to see Donald Trump be

president. I want to see I want to see a revolution. I want to see things get shaken up because I don't want things to be the same. I don't have that. I don't want to know a worldview. All you have is subjective libertarian pleasure principle. Okay, well you know the things you made up your head is your fast moral principle. But mine is completely subjective. But yours is completely objective, literally just based on something in based

in fast in reality. That's why you don't even know what a fallacy is. You've made multiple fallacies already in this discussion okay, because you separate subjective argumentation from objective So, Austin, I want to ask you if if cultural subversion, if you're for it, you're not for every version of it? Right? No, I'm okay. What's the basis for ethics here? Oh god, please, I'm not going a key and ethics. I'm not going to get into like ancient Greece and and uh marcus right, I'm not going

to sit down. I'm not going to sit down stoicism. And you're making arguments that we need to adopt this. Dude, can you answer this or not? Right? And then you're saying I want n and ethics, but I don't want to answer for what it means to go to ancient Greek ethics. That is no, I don't because I think that ship's boring, bro, And I don't care that you think it's boring. I need a basis. If you don't think that I have a fixed moral principle in the standard,

that's fine. We won't agree on that. I want to know the argument for it. Let's talk about what people give a shit about. Nobody cares about an everybody in the audience cares about it because you came with a moral they do not. You can't justify, yes they do. The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one the ranks of the insane. Marcus. There there's the base. Read memes, Marcus. I'm reading Marcus Aurelius. Hold on, hold

on stoic ethics exactly. So it's something I didn't hear. You say, why should we accept stoic ethics? Oh my god, All right, listen. You don't want answer it because I think it's a pointless discussion. That's j J. Hold on. Let me ask you different, Let me ask you, Let me ask a different way. Is there any Is there any degeneracy that you point to that we ought not pursue in society? Are you asking me? Yeah? Does the term degeneracy mean anything to you at all?

Yeah? To to some extent, we probably wouldn't share the same definition of what and what defines what makes it what you degenerate? Right, so to to so the actual literal definition of digit to have to have a pod, which you have degenerate. But I'm not like Jay Dinalds, sit around worrying about the butt sex, right, it's not it's not the top of my concerns for you got to stop them from Okay, wait, let me j j. Let me take it one step at a time. Here are

is the current culture that I called degeneracy and Jado's as well. Are they pushing that on children? Yes? And as yes, and listen and as a man who got booed when I ran for president for saying you should not be allowed to sell drugs to children, I can tell you that there are moral standards and principy you do not cross. And are they so so? So there are? There are absolutely some moral standards and are they stuff? But but I draw the line at children? What you want to answer?

Answered? I just answered, I draw the line at children? What are they? What are the standards? I draw the line children your personal opinion what the standard is. But consenting adults are a different matter. So it is debate being this. Listen, you're being arbitrary. You understand in philosophy you can't be arbitrary. Yes, I can't all I can do whatever the funk I want. It's a free country debate. I want to be arbitr debate whatever. You just lost the debate by saying I could do whatever I

want in the debate. Yes, of course I can. Of course I could do it. This isn't format, you know. Jim Bobby even said, do whatever you want. It's not a it's not a hard debate format. So I can do whatever I want. I can say whatever I like. I don't even understand that doing it doesn't mean that you're I'm talking about following the laws of debate, the laws of logic. You think you can commit fallacies and the arguments are still good? Okay, mister Uri back is

minov is. Everything has the same mission from the nineteen fifties until today, right, Austin Alston, let me hold on, hold on. J Jay can make it up on the spot, but I have to hold on. I'm amuse. I'm gonna mute. I'm gonna mute both you hold on a second. I have a question. I'm gonna bring it back on the on tracks in a way that still follows the where this is going. You, Austin, you do appeal your foundation? Would you say is based on rights? Am I unmuted? Okay? Yes? Yeah? Rights? Yeah,

okay? And so from your view, is it fair to ask what what these rights are? Oh? Of course it is okay, So what are what are rights? From? From your view here, all right, would you agree that a right? Would you'd agree with the definition that a right is an entitlement absent to duty. Uh? Yes, that's that's a pretty close to the technical definition of what our right is a right? Like, the simplest way to explain it is that as a right is a guarantee.

Okay, So if a right is an entitlement absent of duty. From your view, when you say, well, I have a concept of degenerate right, there's some degeneration of something. So there's a positive thing that's unraveling. Let's call it a fabric. Right. So let's say from all of our views, there's a fabric and when we see that fabric unraveling, we call it degenerate. We call it degeneration. Right, that's a clearer visual way

to say it. So my question is, if a right is a is an entitlement absent duty, where do you get the duty to defend rights from? Where do you get the duty to defend these rights from? Yeah? So could you rephrase your question in a different way? Why give hold on

hold on? Yes? Because it's it's low I Q to want to understand it's okay, it's okay, hold on, what why Basically if a right, if the thing you're defending is the rights, which is an entitlement, apps and a duty, I want to it entails that a duties somewhere in there right entangled. And I'm asking, like, what is the what's from your view from a libertarian view, what actually grounds that we ought to defend rights if they are in fact just entitlements absent the duty? By definition?

Well, not everybody, not everybody has to defend rights. Very few people actually do, right, It's usually a very small people group of people that end up defending rights overall. So, I mean, you know, are you asking why every person should have to acknowledge or let's say, let's say acknowledge then asking a tactical question here? How about philosophical question? How about how about how about acknowledge instead of defend? Well, uh, a duty

to acknowledge that that that they have. I mean, it depends, right, like, not everybody has a capacity to do that, right. That's why the rights exist to an extent to protect the liberty of people who don't even necessarily have the capacity to acknowledge it, like children for example right or the mentally deficient right, the mentally insane right. Those people have rights even

if they don't you know, can't acknowledge that they have those rights. They still just like the unborn, the unborn in the womb, they can't acknowledge that they have rights. But they what they do have rights, they can't acknowledge they have a duty to protect those rights. So we do that on

their behalf through a constitutional government. Okay, So if someone who doesn't have the capacity to know that they have these concept of rights and they don't have the capability of acting out the duty right, that doesn't that's not embedded in the rights. By the way, the duty is added. I'm asking if if granting someone rights that they can't actually act on in a way, you you can violate their rights because they don't have the capacity to act on them.

Right, happens every day, But you should obviously, you know. I mean, like you know, I think abortion is a crime and a crime against the rights of an individual. That person can't speak out on behalf of their own rights. So you have a person who speaks out for them as an intermediary. But I mean most people, most people do not acknowledge or or have a respect for a one right or second j J. Let

me finish this one last thing. So my question is if Jay and I agree that someone who's walking around the street sort of not fully naked but almost and it's you know, from your view, it's their liberty. They didn't steal anything, they didn't violate anyone else's rights, and they didn't take you know, any anybody's stuff or whatever. From our view, we have a duty to actually violate their autonomy right and from our perspective take care of them.

In a sense, now, taking care of such a person is actually a violation of the rights from your view. And that's why I ask from a this is why I fundamentally reject libertarianism, having gone through a phase of it, is that if rights are are just privileges absent duty, you self have to ground the duty part. And that's why Jay's asking about the ethics, because the ought claim that we ought to acknowledge rights is separate from the rights itself. Right, So uh, from my view, it all comes

down to duties. And the problem with libertarianism is if you value liberty above all things. Liberty is a description of what is right. It doesn't tell us what we ought to do with liberty. It doesn't tell us when we should violate liberty or when we shouldn't violate liberty. It just gives you a baseline the beauty of it, right, I mean, isn't that sort of theist? Does san Francisco look beautiful? Are telling using San Francisco as an

example of libertarianism? Right? No? No, liberty, just liberty because it does. It's because like San Francisco is like the worst example. How about burning Man? How about burning Man? Well, burning Man, that's better, right, much much better, much more environment better than San Francisco. At least they clean up after themselves, right right. But it's but still again like that you ask yourself, I guess what I'm trying to understand

here is like, are you saying that people don't have rights? Yeah? I'm actually saying they don't have RIGHTO? I actually okay that that I did not know, so I was not aware that you do not believe that people did. Yeah, I think there are. I think they are a social construct that are left with what two things force, whatever the force is,

and to whatever the uh the standard of ethics is. That's being imposed, and and and we already all agree that rights as you even say them, actually not everyone gets them, because you can violate them to do certain things. You can stop people from doing certain things based on their situation. So the problem is it's the duties. I think my belief is that only duties exist. And if rights are privileges absent duties, you still need duties to

exist. And from the libertarian principle, the only imperative is to seek freedom, and to look at liberty or freedom as an end goal is to say, is to look at efficiency as the end goal. Well, efficiency is a description toward a goal, but it can't be the end goal, just like liberty can't be the end goal. It's actually a start point if anything. And that's why ought claims like Jay's pointing to the ethics, the meta ethics, which I didn't really want to get into. It bores the shit

out of everyone except for me and maybe Jay and maybe Chad. He has a pipe, so it probably doesn't board Chad. But it isn't important because if you organize a society around libertarianism, you're actually entailing that there is a meta ethical principle that you ought to follow. And when you say something is degenerate, you're actually assuming there's a positive in which being torn apart, and we just don't know what that positive is that fabric that's being torn apart.

Okay, I don't know that necessarily, other than the idea that we don't have rights, I'm not sure that what you and I are saying is saying

is necessarily in conflict some of what you're asked. You're saying there is a utilitarian claim, right, You're you're stating that, you know, if a society existed around these fundamental ideals, So it does beg the question of, you know, whether or not that society, if it were to come into creation, would be able to fundamentally create moral goods that then could potentially be degenerated. You know, if degeneracy were introduced into that system, Right would

the what would that degeneracy be? And how would that system be degraded through that degeneracy or that moral decline? So it seems that, you know, it doesn't sound like I'm disagreeing with much of what you're saying. Otherwise, well, other than the concept that individuals, you know, how don't.

No, this is this is where we disagree, is that when you go after jay about like the butt stuff, is that what the culture that we're seeing right in the West and other developed nations is that there is a clear, deliberate pushing of certain behaviors, in this case sexual. They're not just sexual. There's there's drug behaviors being pushed. There's a lot of behaviors, but that specific thing is actually directed pretty much directly, explicitly towards children.

And so what we're saying is that if San Francisco metaph I mean, like when I confronted you on the San Francisco example, I mean like you don't believe San Francisco is an example of a libertarian city, right, No, No, I didn't use libertarian, but but it's liberty based. It's liberty. It's based on the concept that liberty about because there's no self evident definition of what liberty actually is or what your position actually is. You yourself said

it was subjective. And that's why I asked you, why do you think that ballacies are able to be done in a debate? Do you not think that a debate is governed by the rules of logic and critical thinking? Well, I never said that that the definition of liberty was necessarily subjective. So talking about straw mans, I never said I asked you what it was. You said, oh oh, you asked me. You asked me for where my moral standards came from. You didn't ask me what my objective defina.

I don't think liberty is. Is that not a value judgment? It is a value judgment. But I never said it was subjective. So you can you know, you can disagree with me, but please put those things are subjective. I asked you about value judgments? Are you? Are you asking about about value judgments now? I asked you then, and I'm asking you now, okay, So what about value judgments? Are you asking me specific? Where do you get the standard? Because if you're going to say there's

aughts, you gotta have a basis for the standard. Okay? Is it okay? Is it okay? Do I have to have one standard like you do? Or am I allowed to use multiple? Understand what? It doesn't even means? I'm not like you, guys, I don't. I don't. I am not a social conservative, okay. So I do not conform to an an inherently monotheistic view of society that bases all value judgments on one single standard handed down to me from on high. I don't have. I

don't have understand he doesn't know. I'm not No, I'm not a postmodernist. No and no and no. I do not agree with the wokies that there is no such thing as objective truth. Okay, so, but I don't believe in one one truth handed down for you. You do. I don't know as you do. I believe in amalgam. I believe in what's called triangulation. What's the one thing? Hold on, awesome, you said

something false, you gotta be corrected. There is one truth. There is one truth that you rested on. I do not believe in one metaphysical Yes you do, Yes, you do, Yes, you do? You understand that the only way that the only way that that the only listen, Jay, I don't call you like basement dwelling retard that looks like you smell bad

and you haven't taken a shower in a month. So if you could keep the personal at least before you criticize, if you're gonna you should take a shower, as I could smell you from here and how you look as there's the copy more listen, you fucking retard. I'm speaking. Okay. There is a concept to find what is true called triangulation, and what you do is you don't even understand you have a Let me tell you that I doesn't even understand that it's one. Let me let j let him go. Let

me. Let me explain to you how you find logic. You go out and you find information. There's an information gathering you. You don't start with a conclusion. That's not what you don't. You don't start with what's truth. Hold on, Jay, hold on a second. Let me, let me, let me just manage this. Austin, you said you don't you don't stand on a single truth, right, a monolithic truth for your values. And then you said that I do not believe the truth is handed down

to us from high as a revelation. I do not believe. I do not believe a revealed truth. Okay, hold on, hold on how And then you said you triangulate to see what's logical and true outside And I'm asking you from both of those standards, right, from both of those statements, that you don't get any revelation of what's true. You try angulate and you

use rationality and reason. Right, I'm asking you, Well, it seems as though your foundation is actually rested on one solid brick that you assume before you can look out in the world and find it, and it's called a human right. Well, that's only one example amongst many. See. The thing is is that if these concepts they work together, just like the construction of a building, Right, you have to have one pillar and then the

next, and then you have to build it all on the foundation. Okay, And so in order for us to determine, in my view, in order to determine what is true, we have to go out we don't we don't know what is true, and then go out and find facts to support it. Where did you find rights and facts? We find facts and then we put them together. Where did you find Where did you find? Where'd

you find rights? Where'd you find rights? Though? Then, if your standard for epistemology and what's true is looking out and doing triangulation and reason, I'm asking you, how did you come to the conclusion using that method that rights exist? Well, here's the here's the thing. I'm willing to change my mind if I'm wrong, But I drew this conclusion based on a litany of literature that was convincing enough to me, and I would present to you

a whole body. I find that I find literature. What if we say, well, that's what revelation is to us. So you still have a problem in your method because you said your method is you don't start from your conclusion and you go out and find things. So let's say you found literature, right, I'm asking you what method did you determine to say that rights exist? I'm not sure how you would possibly come to the conclusion by looking to the external world that something like with that. Listen, Jim Bob,

I wrestle with that, right. I wrestle with that, just like I wrestle with a lot of concepts. And you know, I absolutely could be wrong. Uh. And you know you you could convince me that that what I have divined from my education and my knowledge and limited experience, UH could

be incorrect. But I'll tell I can only show you what I have read in regards to the natural law, in regards to you know, the treatises of government John Locke, right, life, liberty, and property, I can only show I can only point to those right because of me being a being a secondhand purveyor of ideas. I can only show you those and say this is what I believe to be true based on how closely it corresponds to what I believe to be reality. And I ask you to believe it as

well, sure, based on whether or not you can. But but I could be wrong. I'm willing I observe. What I observe in reality is force winds, both in the animal kingdom and the human And so for me, you mean this is the descriptive truth about reality in all animals and humans?

Is that force force winds? Do you disagree? I mean, like you just mean in general, like one hundred percent of the time, it's always there's always force ready to go, either looming or there's always forced Yeah, yeah, I agree, And I mean, like, and so I wrestle with that, and I'll tell you it's I think that you know, it's it's difficult to live in a society where we can balance or to create

a society where there's a balance against those laws of nature. Right, So, like, just to create a civilization, if we will, is to sort of reject the fundamental root you mean appeal to you mean you mean appeal to something supernatural right. What do you mean you have to reject You reject the brute nature right for us to have dignity as human beings, right to ground, the value of us being human beings, which is not identical to your dog, is something not found in nature. So we don't find these

things. You know, rights assume dignity, right, but it also assumes some sort of duty. And so if we both agree the descriptive truth in premise one for the world is that force wins, and force is always in action or it's looming at least, right, it's always looming. And so if that's if that's the case, then would you agree that it actually wouldn't be a right that informs our behavior, but rather a duty that would actually

give us how we ought right? Okay, So, so if the truth of the matter is force winds and and that's the way of the land for animals and humans, that there's something that intervenes that isn't necessarily an entitlement, and would you say, if that entitlement even existed, which I don't believe it does, you would still have to point to the duty in which tell informs us how we should interact with each other. Not necessarily. I mean,

you're partially right. I mean I do think that like force wins in nature outside of what man has created. But you know, they're you know, cops, courts, you know, nuclear weapons, right, the instrumentation of the state. Right. So since I'm not an anarchist and I do believe in a limited government, then that means that I do believe in an artificial third party, you know, interceding in order to ensure that force doesn't always win. And I think the truth is is that it doesn't. Right.

The fact that no, hey, wait, wait, wait, I'm almost done. The fact that Grandma you know, can safely go and get groceries here in mid Missouri without having to worry about bands of highwaymen or theefs because of yes, because of four. But that's introduced in a way to ensure that that force doesn't always win in the threat of force. The threat

of force does the threat of force always wins? Yeah, if you want to if you want to appeal to rights, all you're appealing to is an agreement that you have an entitlement that ought not be violated, and if it is, there's a consequence that is force. Right, And so force wins

is still descriptively true even in your system of rights. Now, what we're pointing to is that's actually not good enough for a society that has any sort of fundamental principles or good, a sense of a good, and these things that you actually need to confront the problem that entitlements themselves actually just leads you down a path like we're seeing today, where now you have modifiers for entitlements. You have the gay entitlement, you have the this entitlement, the black

entitlement that you know whatever, and you just keep adding entitlements. Now, notice how no entitlement that's ever given is ever paired with the duty. What what grounds this duty that we ought to value or acknowledge entitlements at all? And from your view, you can't ground it in the natural natural world. It's nowhere found. And so the thing that actually makes us intervene as human beings is the assumption that we're actually not just animals, we're not just a

part of nature. That something is in us that's bigger than that, and it necessarily needs to be supernatural, because you can't find these things in nature, And so we're asking you can I can be convinced I could be convinced of that. Uh, and certainly I'd love to see your evidence for it, and I'm willing evidence supernatural. Well, what's the evidence of a right? I'm not listen. I'm not the one making claim super I'm not making

you did right. It is a supernatural everything that everything that I say can I can point to and where is the right? And where is the right? But you're the one making its right exists? Require extraordinary You're saying that rights exist as makes sense that the rights exist, rights exist supernat Talking over, do you believe that you could be wrong about your worldview? Are you

willing to admit that that your metaphysical claims could potentially be wrong? No, because metaphysics needs to be No, because here's why, Austin, hold on, hold on a second. Let's just go one, one thing at a time. Uh, Austin, you said extraordinary claims require evidence. I simply asked you. I'm telling you that a right is an claim, and I'm asking you where the evidence. I'm telling you, Austin, as a as an olive branch, you already believe in the supernatural. A right is meta

natural? Where is it? Where is it? Where is it, guys, guys, because answer that someone who is telling you that, like a basis of rights that's built on a found evidence, it's not the same thing. What is it's claiming? Literally? Right? And audience, we don't we're we're not even speaking of we're talking past each other. Are there evidence? Rights? Claims the supernatural? And where's where's the right? Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it's grounded. That's the point. Where's the right?

Though it's supernatural? Are not found in natural? Well? Where is your thought? Do you have thoughts? Are they in your brains? Open up your brain? You have great? We both agree that there's a thought? Were good? Good? We reject we reject materialism? Do we both not reject material materialism? Now? Right? No? I do not reject material Okay, so where's the right? So where's the right? Then? I like you? So you're saying concept which molecules make up? Or right?

Yeah? Tell us where right is? Well, listen, you'll have to talk to a brain chemist listen to explain to you what the electrical chemistry can tell you where a right is? Okay? All right, well listen listen. You may have an actual or not. And I simply deny them and say I don't see that that's the case. I'm willing to believe it. How about take another example? How about take another example that you appeal to. Are the laws of logic real? Do you believe they exist?

The laws of logic? Do I believe that they exist? Yes? Where? Okay? So where do they exist? The laws of logic? Right? Oh my god, Guys like you want to go on every time you it's a fair question. You want to talk about debate? Right, so how do the laws of you're asking? Does Socratic debate method work? Okay? Now, no, that requires to explain to you like how to use the Socratic method. And we're still please enlighten us like awestin debate like Austin

debate is not the same as the laws of logic. Debate presuppose the laws of logic. We're asking you if I don't know why this is hard for you to concede to. You appeal to things that are not found in nature, that don't weigh or smell or you can't see them. Right, we this isn't a big this isn't controversial. You appeal to things that are not found as matter? Correct, No, you don't. Okay, So where is a right found as matter? So right is a concept that arises from

matter? How does it arise from matter? Is it matter? Then you're not a materialist. It is a it is. Just because something is a concept doesn't mean that it's not material. Right is created from materials. Make up a consonant material. Guys, this is not even an interesting conversation, and I feel bad because you don't have an answer to you. He accused me. Hold on. The thing that got this all salur was that he accused me of foisting conspiracy theories. He doesn't even know what I talk about.

He just assumed that because I'm on info Wars, I foiced all the conspiracy theories. Name one thing that I teach that's false, or one thing I've said false about Mary Besmob. You said I just made it up. Can you explain it? Because you immediately got salty over that. No justification

for those accusations. Okay, Well, so the question that I had for Austin was, I mean, you you accuse Jay of building a straw man if I'm not mistaken, but you then use a straw man to explain Jay's view as being of wanting people not to have butt sex and basically policing people as far as they're more and things are concerned. I guess my question for

you is like, how is your view not a postmodern view? If your basis, if your argument isn't based on any kind of objective understanding of truth and morality, if you are kind of adhering to this more fluid way of thinking and of having your views changed by I guess the next smartest person in the room, how is that not most? How is that not postmodern?

Well? I mean, I mean it's god man. I hope you're asking that question legitimately, because postmodernism is to suggests that there is no objective truth. I do believe that there is objective truth, but I don't necessarily claim to know all of objective truth. I don't claim to know all of the answers I only know of. Actually, I think I know very little in

regards to all of the potential of human knowledge. Most people know very little, right, So, like the concept of knowledge itself is, we are very very limited as humans with these meat brains of what we can actually have a capacity to understand. So just because I just because I don't know it all doesn't mean that I don't think there is an objective standard. I do. And when I find those bits of truth along the way, those very rare jewels in my search for knowledge, like I reveal them, I believe

and and will, I'm willing to have them challenged. I'm willing to have them question. But I don't think you wait, I don't, I don't don't immediately went as soon as I postmodernist. If you if you don't believe, you like, it's not like, it's not Christian talks over that's you can you can slander me in a moment, Chad, you it's not this question. It's not theism versus postmodernism. Right, you don't have to be

a theist, you know, in order to not be a postmodernist. You do, right, you can you can be You cannot be a postmodernist and not necessarily believe that the objective truth is handed down knowledge logical. There are plenty of secular There are plenty of secularists who do not accept the postmodernists a fallacy? Do you even know what a fallacy is? Like? You just appealed to a mass fallacy like mass like mass appeal? Do you know what

fallacies are, So he doesn't so awesome, do you? Would you say that your views as it relates to morality and and things like that are more humanist? Yes, okay, and what is a what's a fallacy? Here? Let let Chad run this line? Let Chad run this line. Go ahead, Chad, So, so break that down if you will. So, so you're you you would be more humanist in your I guess moral worldview.

Yeah. I consider myself a secular humanist in the sense that I think that the concerns of humanity and of material concerns things on this planet should be the primary concern for humans and not that which is celestial. Right, So that's and and that's how I would define you know, I wanted to immediately go to the ad hominyms. Did you want to follow up with that? Chad? You're not going to answer, so he's just ignore me because you

went to ad hominems first. You said you wanted to be challenged. You don't want to be challenged, and I don't. I don't roll around in the mud with pigs because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. So you want to be challenged when your challenge. You go to Ad HOMINYMS. Why okay, So Chad, you're not going to answer is your question? Then? And I don't want to. I don't want to put words on your mos enlightened. Hold on, let I want to Chad hasn't talked

a lot. I actually want to see where he runs this. I want to see where he runs like do you like if postmodernism like secularism and humanism are intrinsically tied to postmodernism? How how aren't they? Well, I mean an example in front of you. Right, So I believe that there are objective moral standards and that truth is a real concept that exists, right,

But it's not ever changing. Now our knowledge and our understanding of it may be changing, because when I say I think I know the truth, I could be wrong and I'm willing to change my mind if you provide evidence that contradicts my beliefs and my world where my understanding, or you provide facts that

contradict and you're able to effectively persuade me. But the truth was the truth even if I didn't understand it. A postmodernist would say the truth changes or I'm living my truth, and that's not what I'm saying hold on, but

hold on a second. You are saying that. And here's how, Because if you're a materialist and truth and the logic and these things are material and they come from a mechanism called the brain, then these are just kind of like effects that come from a machine, right, And so those effects could change. Like how could you say one group of molecules called the truth from a brain is true and another group of molecules from another brain is false.

I don't know how you're gonna say the truth is incorrect. Yeah, but that appeals to that appeals to the chemical reactions again to another brain. Right. And so this is why materialism should be rejected wholesale because when you say, well, Chad just said a truth, but that just came from his brain. It's just an emergent property of a machine. And then you say, well that's true for what you just said, right, Uh, Austin, you have to say, yes, it is. How could it not

be? How could it not be? Well, you know, there's there's a lot of complicated concepts in what you've said, right, and and so you know there's a lot there's a lot to unpack there. But I don't know that necessarily materialism is you know, requires one to believe in an unfixed concept of what is true? Right I I I actually I believe the opposite of that. So I do think that materialism and objective reality and objective truth like they all exist within the same plane or the same spere. Let's go

to aesthetic. Let's go to aesthetics. That's good. Uh, hey, this guy is not gonna answer any questions. There's no there's no point may being being here early. So all right, thanks, thanks, appreciate. Good luck with being a single gay man in an apartment with a lot of books. Okay, well, good luck with obsessing over gay sex. You smeg muss smelling retard, see you later. You don't even have good jokes, at least if you're gonna make a good joke. I got hopefully,

I got a rebel tooth that you got tonight. A bath is an wash your hair you shampooed. Drink the Florida drink the Florida water. I don't forget to run the Florida the water. Don't let the C. I don't let the C. I a chip mind control you? Anyways? Can we please have a different Okay, awesome, Yeah, what is your reason for saying something is more beautif