 When you think about it, all law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. That's exactly what we're doing here, is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good. You will see throughout our constitution, yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good. Everything needs to be balanced. And if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good. With governments like these, who needs terrorists? Hello everyone, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense, and that clip is from Irish Parliament. I don't know how they do government in Ireland, but whatever. As you know, there's been some kerfluffles in Ireland recently, and I'm not going to get into all that, but some people have been writing and some people are upset. So of course, the natural government reaction is this clip, where they're saying what they need to do here is restrict people's freedoms for order, society, and all those good things. And there's such a problem with this whole thing. I actually made a list of stupid statements. It's amazing how many there are in 40 seconds. So here we go. So the first problem is, of course, she says for the common good. She says that a couple of times. We need to do this for the common good, which is ever the line of tyrants and dictators. Well, it's for the common good. I need to take this thing away from you that you previously enjoyed and were allowed to do for the common good. I know it was fine and good and acceptable and for the common good yesterday, however today it's not. And so for the common good, for the good of all people, which by the way is always a made up statement, right? No one's actually benefiting when they say for the common good. That's not, no one's actually, there's no common goodness among that. It's just common tyranny and destruction. But they say for the common good because that sounds much better than, you know, for the common bad. So you'll see that phrase come up multiple times in this, again, 40 seconds, amazing how many stupid things she can say. But it's a ever dystopian phrase for the common good. Well, we just, you know, we have to do assistance, suicide in Canada, you know, for the common good. It's always for the common good. Hitler put the Jews away for the common good, right? Stalin had his, oh my gosh, what do they call it? The gulags, that's what they were called, for the common good, right? Stalin starved Ukraine to death in the whole Mador, I don't know how to pronounce that word, for the common good. China had the culture revolution where somewhere between, nobody knows, 50 to maybe 100 million people died for the common good, right? So, yeah, I just don't buy it. It's very 1984-esque. I can't even believe anybody actually says those words out loud anymore. The other phrase she has in there is everything must be balanced, right? Again, this is a dystopian view. First of all, says who? According to what? Does things have to be balanced? And what they mean is balanced like that, where it's tipped in the favor of government, tyranny, oppression, and we will tell you lowly peasant people what to do. And that way, you know, things are balanced and they're good, and they're orderly, and, you know, you want to be for the common good, don't you? So it's always this phrase of, well, that's, that's what we do. Things need to be balanced, you can't have too much freedom. I mean, imagine the craziness if people had freedom, we've got to balance that out, you know, a little bit of freedom on the scales and a lot of tyranny, and then things are balanced. That's what they mean, right? They never ever mean, well, the government should be less restrictive. Things have to be balanced. No one has ever said that statement from that position, ever. Why not? Because they don't mean it. They don't care about balance, what they care about is taking things from you. And this one's, this one's pretty good here. If your views on people's identity make them feel unsafe, insecure, or cause them discomfort so they can't live in peace, then it's their job as legislators to, to legislate that. So let's just break that down for a second. If your views on people's identities, so what she's saying there is, what you think about people is something we should regulate. That's what she's saying. If your views on people's identities make them feel unsafe, well that, that we need to pass a law against that. If your views, what you think on people's identities make them feel insecure, then we need to pass a law about that. If your views, what you think in your own brain, cause people, because you believe something, it causes other people to feel so distraught they can't live in peace, then we need to pass a law against that. Now there are lots of people's views that make me feel unsafe or insecure and cause me a substantial amount of stress, we've talked about it before on this channel. However, is there a law against them thinking that? Should there be? Now again what she means is if anybody disagrees with me we should pass a law against that. That's what she means, right? She doesn't actually mean well you know everybody should be able to not feel oppressed by the people's thoughts because if that was the case no one could think anything ever, right? Obviously. But that's not, again that's not her concern. She's not actually concerned with equal application of the law. She's concerned with making laws so that you, the opposition and people who don't think like her, can be prosecuted with the power of the state for thinking differently than her. That's what she means. It's clear as day, obviously. And if you're thinking well you know Dylan that's in Ireland, I'm in America, I'm an American like you, you know, you know, to hell with Ireland, I understand that. I'm on one hand you know, sure yeah. On the other hand this is just a sign of Western governments. All of them, America included, are going that way, right? Where we need to push and restrict other people's views, thoughts, discussions, whatever, about it so that they agree with us and use the power of the state to crush all political opposition that does not perfectly align with our own and think the way we think, right? In 1984, you know, it's illegal to turn the TV off, right? In the book, 1984. It's illegal to turn the TV off because you have to be hearing the party's message. How long till that's a law, you know? You have to sign a statement every day saying you agree with the state and you'll worship the emperor and all the other pagan things. So, all that to say, just again, sign of the times, right? And the language, the language guys, it's always going to be in a flowery for the common good. We need to make people feel safe and secure and you want people to feel safe and secure, don't you? They're never going to come out and say, hey, you know, we love tyranny and murder and so, you know, let's do that, right? That never, ever, ever happens. It's always for the greater good, the common good, making people feel safe. We don't want you to think things that make people feel unsafe. That's not fair to them. How dare you think those things? I just finished filming this and went to sit down and I saw that this tweet here about the law that they're preparing to pass in Ireland, apparently. Offense of preparing or possessing materials likely to incite violence or hatred against person on account of their protected characteristics. So, a person should be guilty of an offense under the section of the person, prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics with a view to the material being communicated to the public or section of public, blah, blah, blah. Prepairs or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or group of persons on account of those characteristics or any blah, blah, blah, blah. So, what they're saying is, if you even own something, that's a book, that's intended to incite hatred, whatever that means. Well, that's illegal, though. And you better absolutely believe that will mean the bible and other books that have been commonplace in history, in western culture history, since we've had the printing press. This will, if that passes, and I don't know what the likelihood of it is passing or not, but that will absolutely mean the destruction of traditional western culture, right? Because that's what western culture has been built on. I mean, one, the bible. But two, the fact that we can think and exchange ideas, right? And what they're saying is, no, we can't do that. You have to listen to us. The fall of the west is coming, ladies and gentlemen. Do brave deeds and endure. We're going to need you.