 May 40 here. So I saw a lot of people on the right side of the political spectrum, sharing academic article by economist John Lott trying to make the case for massive voter fraud in the 2020 election. And I didn't take it seriously. I said, John Lott is just not a credible source. He makes so many statistical errors. He lies. He's not a reasonable source. So to know a little bit about John Lott, he used to use a sock puppet by the name of Mary Roche. Okay. So in response to a dispute surrounding some missing survey and part of his work, a lot used a sock puppet by the name of Mary Roche to defend his works on use net and elsewhere. He finally admitted to the use of the persona and further accusations claim that John Lott praised himself while posing as one of his former students and that Mary Roche was used to post a favorable review of one of his books, More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon. So a little bit dodgy of a character. And now he's come out with a paper alleging all sorts of voter fraud. And he's getting it. He's getting it published in an academic journal, a right wing theoretical journal called Public Choice. And I remember his paper had already been refuted by a couple of political scientists at Stanford. At the Hoover Institute, which is a right wing Institute. But they wrote a few months ago, another focus of the Trump team's accusations was the profits of absentee ballots in key states that Joe Biden narrowly won. Among other claims they alleged that Fort County, Georgia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania were major centers of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Most of these allegations relied upon hearsay affidavits or debunked videos reportedly showing videos stuffing ballots. But a paper posted in late December 2020 by John Lott claims to provide statistical evidence that irregularities in the absentee vote counting procedures in Fort and Allegheny suppressed votes for Trump and bolstered Joe Biden's vote count. Lott examined it precincts along the border of these counties, argued that he detected anomalous support for Biden in his absentee ballot share relative to his in-person share of ballots in Fort and Allegheny. And his paper received immediate widespread attention. Peter Navarro, former assistant to Donald Trump, touted the claim as solid evidence of fraud. And President Trump tweeted out a link to the paper. Now, John Lott's claims do not withstand scrutiny, right? They're just an absolute mess. And I'll include links to this. Now, he's refined what he's doing. And he's got a new paper coming out. And this is being shut down by these two Stanford academics. Andrew Eggers and Justin Grimmer in an abstract they write. John Lott introduces simple tests of voter fraud and applies them to measure the extent of fraud in the 2020 election. Using these tests, John Lott claims to have discovered 10,000 extra votes for Joe Biden in Pennsylvania and Georgia, public draft of this paper. Second claim is based on analysis that by its own logic would show larger fraud in favor of Donald Trump. Third depends upon selective reporting that John Lott shows insignificant results when differential trends in turnout across states are acknowledged. So John Lott's analysis is riddled with errors, fails to accurately report the research that was conducted. Several points, the paper misstates the regression specific. A little bit like David Irving. His mistakes, they always go on one side when he's writing about World War Two, his mistakes always end up in favor of the Nazi perspective. Right, you're probably asking 40, where are we? As far as critical legal studies today, where are we? 40 was a, this is Steven Turner, basic text for the new left in the 60s. And that it was basically the tolerance, a nice liberal term, is actually intolerance. It negates the possibility of revolutionary truth and is just a form of intolerance. So it limits debate to the acceptable liberal viewpoints. And so intolerance is, tolerance is therefore a form of oppression. And Kierkeimer's version of this was, which he relentlessly pursued was the idea that there's no such thing as non political justice. So the idea of pure justice versus political justice was a non starter. Now, this is basic Schmittian thinking, and but it's in the form of the left version of it in, in both of these cases. So this is very much part of the critical theory tradition. But the basic idea that motivated political theory was the idea of false consciousness. So that was the explanation of the failure of the proletariat to do what it was supposed to do. And it was false consciousness, which had lots of interesting implications. So the, it implied the idea that there were experts in possession of true consciousness. And that this happened at the level of philosophy and the right philosophy was critical theory, which was now reconfigured as the science of false consciousness. Okay, so you guys are lucky. I have the true consciousness. And those who disagree with me, you only have false consciousness. But I am here to enlighten you with the true consciousness to provide you with an opportunity to move past your false consciousness. Anyway, reading this terrific book published in 2003 by Professor Stephen Turner, liberal democracy 3.0 civil society in an age of experts. So there's a great beginning to this book. If we imagine a historian in the distant future, okay, so what 500 years from now 1000 years from now faced with the task of explaining in just a few lines, the significance of the 20th century, specifically the task of identifying what remarkable and consequential transformations occurred within it. And Turner argues that two consequential changes would stand out. One is the development of science and technology. Okay, so for the first time in technical history, science and technology became closely linked. And the difference between the 20th century and previous centuries is stark. So earlier developments in technology were the work of craftsmen, technologists, even in the most advanced industries had little use for the scientifically trained. But by the end of the 20th century, academic science was becoming indistinguishable from commercial science, particularly the most advanced research areas, such as biomedicine. Now the status accorded to science grew steadily throughout the 20th century, particularly as a result of warfare, notably during the Second World War, you had all these advances in the field such as rocketry, atomic science radar that depended upon modern science. And in the case of the atomic bomb, technology depended on theoretical science of the most esoteric and advanced kind of a kind that, you know, only one person in 100,000 could understand. At the same time, you had all these tremendous advances in medicine. So penicillin completely transformed medical practice, binding it even more closely to science. So in 1940, chemists, the pharmacist, they still compounded their own products that have been the practice for centuries. But by the end of the 20th century, we get all these expensive and exotic science-based drugs that are in daily use, and they're a major political issue. So the notion of international justice itself seems to demand the universal availability of science-based pharmaceuticals as a basic human right, and that these rights overwrite international law and patent treaties. Now the second significant transformation in the 20th century began as an age of empires. And the European empires were largely run by parliamentary democracies with limited monarchies, but they were still largely controlled by an old regime of aristocrats and a civil service that came from a similar social strata. But by the end of the 20th century, crown princes and empires had ceased to have anything more than just merely ceremonial significance. So after a century, they began with a radical constitutional experimentation, such as Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazism, liberal democracies had, to a great extent, become the world's standard constitutional form. Now, our imaginary historian, looking back at our time from the perspective, say, of a thousand years, hence would see that the obvious question to us would be these. What are the connections between these two developments? What were the consequences for science and liberalism having their dramatic turns of fortune occur simultaneously? Damn, my audio in and out. So I read that if there are audio problems, it's either one of three things. One, it's a matter of power. Please, please. I don't think it's a matter of power. It's a matter of bandwidth. It's not a matter of bandwidth. And then the third possibility is a matter of 40 cables. Oh, God, this is driving me crazy. I will soldier on. Look forward is delusional, bro. Okay, so how do we have these developments of science and liberalism occurring simultaneously? So the historian, our imagined historian, would be astonished by the absence of any discussion of science in the major political philosophers of the 20th century. If she turned to such influential texts as the writings of the Frankfurt School, imaginary historian would find nothing that attempted to make sense of the connection. She would just find various paradoxes, categories. Now, if you turn to the key documents of American liberalism, something equally astonishing can be found, the greatest single work of liberal political philosophy of the late 20th century, John Rawls as a theory of justice, is utterly devoid of any mention of science. So the common perspective on politics is who gets what, when, and how. And so the normal understanding of politics, it's, it's all about justice and equitable distribution of resources. So the problems that concern practical politics are problems of race, gender exclusion, problems that arise because of the existence of competing conceptions of equity, or competing conceptions of the common good or the human good that must be struggled for and reconciled through political means and through the exercise of the state's coercive power. So science has only the most marginal relation to this domain of problems. Science may have some role in increasing the quality and quantity of goods to be struggled for, but its relation to these questions of politics is no different than the relation of these questions to plumbing. You often have heard that a goose neck drain pipe did more to improve sanitation and consequently to lower mortality rates than all of the scientific discoveries of the 19th century combined. Why did we manage to dramatically increase our lifespan over the past 150 years? Number one answer, goose neck drain pipes. How about those drain pipes? Now, if you look at a quality newspaper today, such as the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or the Financial Times back in 2002, these are the type of questions that you would see discussed. Are European Union standards for food imports from non-European Union countries actually health standards with a basis in scientific fact? Or are they reasonable judgments about risk? Or are they covert? There is such a thing as global warming. What is the quality of the evidence for the cancer producing dangers of cell phones? The new regimes of educational practice? Can a drug company's claims about the effectiveness of their treatments be believed? Should tobacco be regulated as a drug? Does mammography, taking radiation pictures of a woman's chest, does that reduce mortality? And if not, should it really be subsidized? So that arise over the assertions by experts. And if you look at the quality newspapers, you'll find dozens of similar examples. We've got a new politics of expertise, politics where expertise is at stake and in which the establishment of expertise, the judging of expertise, the assertion of expertise, the assertion of bias and conflicts of interest are central. So this new politics is politics, but it's not interest group politics of the traditional kind. Those specialized technical discourse, who is expert and what are the experts saying present a fundamental political problem for liberal democracy. And by liberal democracy, I mean government by discussion, in which discussion is intelligible and effectively subject to the political influence of the population generally through more or less effectively functioning representative form. So in the face of expertise, something has to give either the idea of government by generally intelligent intelligible discussion, or the idea that there is a genuine knowledge that is known to a few, but is not generally intelligible. So how can people of modest IQ participate in politics when politics revolves around questions of expertise? So writers such as John Rawls locate liberalism on universal principles. And there is a long tradition of universalism and liberalism, but liberalism is not inherently universalistic. Liberalism matches very nicely with nationalism. There's a strong equally strong tradition of seeing liberal democracy as dependent on circumstances completely out there. They are garnet having a population that is high IQ, that is reasonably self-disciplined, that is educated. Perhaps these are circumstances upon which liberal democracy depends. These conditions are not byproducts liberal democracy, they even conflict with basic principles of liberal democracy. So threats from anti-liberal minorities, hostile outsiders, think of the West trying to say assimilate Muslims who may not believe in liberal democracy or Orthodox Jews who don't believe in liberal democracy. So the decisions made by liberal democracies have the effect of undermining the very conditions that make liberal democracy possible. So you could have a liberal democracy under certain circumstances, then you bring in a bunch of anti-liberal immigrants, liberal democracy is no longer possible. So this exposes the fragility of liberal democracy and the risk to itself perpetuation. So if you bring in a bunch of immigrants who hate liberal democracy and are not interested in being part of the nation, but are only out for their own particular group and say feel no compunction about cheating outsiders, the very existence of your liberal democracy is under threat. If you have a nation state that generally shares universalist morality that does not believe there are different moral systems for one group as opposed to another, and then you import people who practice dual morality who feel like, yeah, there's one moral standard of how I treat members of my in-group, but everyone else, it doesn't really matter how I treat them or they're just lower standards for how I treat outsiders, there are different moral codes for different groups, that's going to undermine the ability of a liberal democracy to function. So basics of liberalism such as the rule of law and tolerance may be undermined by the importation of those hostile to these values. So these problems of liberalism provide a better framework for a serious discussion of expertise and science. So the problems of liberalism excite the most discussion within liberal political theory, they usually arise over multiculturalism and the credo character of liberalism. So liberalism is tolerant, then how does it deal with intolerance? What extent can liberal regimes tolerate enemies within such as parties that reject the liberal rules of the game and the conventions of discussion that make liberal democracies work? When liberal regimes are faced with external enemies of these conventions, for example, the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, what are the limits of tolerance and the limits of liberalism? What kind of limitation to discussion is appropriate? Is liberalism a fighting creed which needs to affirm its credo character and dispense with its universalist pretensions? So when liberalism is doing battle with Nazism and communism and imperial Japan, does liberalism need to modify its liberalism so as to win these battles? And now you've got the Western liberal democracies struggling with Islamic fundamentalism. So in 1956, there was a sociologist Edward Shills who published a classic work, The Torment of Secrecy. So every government has detailed measures governing secrecy. It has things to talk about which cannot be made public. It would render the state incredibly vulnerable if some secrets were made public. But if people in authority use their legal powers, given to them to classify as secret things that ought to be part of a genuine government by discussion, then public discourse becomes a sham. For all that is discussed is that which government secret keepers permit to be discussed. So there are clear parallels here with expertise. Experts are needed by liberal democracy, but only experts understand what they're talking about and what is a matter of expert knowledge to allow them to decide what belongs in the expert domain means that the experts might place topics that should be subject to public discussion in the domain of expert knowledge. And if you're just a regular Joe, you're not going to really understand. So your opinion is not going to matter much. Now, liberalism, liberal democracies, as we know them, essentially emerged in the West out of the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular the 30 year war in Germany. So liberalism arose by taking one huge area of life, religion, and neutralizing it. So here, here, Carl Schmidt talking about the age of neutralizations that more and more of life is being taken outside the realm of the political and essentially neutralized just as liberal democracies have done with religions. So liberalism in its modern form arose out of the wars of religion that racked Europe in the 17th century. And one issue was the relationship between religion and the state. What should state policy be in relation to religious minorities, people whose religion was different from and offensive to the religion of the rulers? So these 17th century European wars demonstrated that religious controversy and religious diversity were disruptive to the state that they threatened social peace and led to civil war. Now, Carl Schmidt would argue that you can't have a liberal democracy without homogeneity, that you can't afford a diversity of religions. So, religious differences were of a kind of discussion that did little to resolve, right? Discussion did not resolve religious differences, discussion inflamed them. So you had a whole variety of political solutions to the problem of religion that are invented by rulers and governments to effectively eliminate the problem of religion setting people at each other's throats. And the main response was for the state to disengage from actively supporting one religion or enforcing religious practice. So one response was for the state to constitutionally tie its own hands to refuse to be involved in religious questions and to firmly move them to the private sphere. So this is the American Constitution, First Amendment, the Constitution, we've got a rule binding Congress not to make any laws that serve to establish religion. And my favorite example of this is in Biolectic of Enlightenment, where he gives the movie stars Mitty Rooney and Victor Mature, it was one of these beefy strongmen types as an example of the thing that was holding everybody back, the kind of popular culture that was a distraction from the revolutionary cause, and also in these psychosexual repressive causes. Okay, so the false consciousness was the big story at the time. But at the same time, there's a parallel tradition, which actually then becomes much dominant today in the US. So there are many versions of this story that this is really the story that gets to Black Lives Matter and critical race theory. But the standard story is that it comes out of critical legal studies. And this group also purported to be inspired by critical theory. And it had by its basic idea was Schmittian, that there's no such thing as legal neutrality, that law is policy, and judges and lawyers are policymakers, and the idea of applying the law and the rule of law is really for second rate lawyers. And this is the way it was taught at the Harvard Law School. And so what the corollary of this was that the elite understands, it should understand its role as policymakers and that the elite of law are the sources of social justice. So it doesn't matter what is democratically agreed to, or what the law itself says, there's enough flexibility in the law to pursue the correct view of social justice. Now, this gets amplified into, it's already a critique of liberalism. So it's a critique of legalistic liberalism. Okay, we'll get back to Stephen Turner there on critical legal theory. Let's have a look at the chat. Angus says deviations in IQ between groups can cause incredible social upheaval because it determines the unequal equality of outcome. When you factor in basic in-group, out-group dynamics, it is a toxic combination. Most Westerners know they can accommodate Orthodox Jews because Orthodox Jews keeps themselves. Muslims do not necessarily keep themselves and maybe more his point is they may be more aggressive about imposing their way upon others. And this would depend very much on which Muslims you're talking about. So Muslims from South Asia don't tend to be particularly aggressive about imposing their way upon others. Orthodox Jews tend to be nonviolent like the Amish in the West, that's true. They don't tend to stir up trouble in Western lands. Look, what are your predictions regarding the Amish and order Mennonites? They have comparable birth rates to Asidim and are spread out and growing across North and South America. I think there are going to be limits on their growth, but modernity is going to take its toll on the Amish and the Mennonites just as it has on Jews, Judaism, Orthodox Judaism. So out of all the major world religions, I think Judaism has had the hardest time handling morality, has had the biggest drop-off into secularism out of any of the major religion. John notes, I noticed that the excitement on their show left when Luke stopped drinking orange-flavored crystal light during the shows. Honestly, Luke played the didgeridoo. That beverage just added a spark to Luke's voice. Yeah, look at Dover. Dover doesn't stir up any trouble for anyone. So I'm reading this terrific book by Professor Stephen Turner, Liberal Democracy 3.0, Civil Society in an Age of Experts. So is the expertise that we have today that goes into the administration of the administrative state, is this ever genuinely neutral or is it instrumental? If it's not genuinely neutral, but it represents itself as genuinely neutral, then its relation to liberal democracy is a problem. So you can see that liberalism rests on an illusion that conceals its political character and significance. So much of what liberalism does to try to forestall people going for each other's throats is to try to render more of society supposedly neutral. So expertise, however, is a kind of violation of the conditions of rough equality presupposed by democratic accountability. So some activities such as genetic engineering seem to be out of the reach of democratic control, even when these activities, because of their dangerous character, are perhaps to be subject to public scrutiny and regulation precisely because of imbalances in knowledge. So genetic engineering or medical research may well have given us COVID, right? COVID may well be the result of a lab leak. And people generally speaking have not had sufficient knowledge on what are what are proper safety standards for this type of medical research. And so we may well have had the experts unleashing a pandemic upon us. And they then told us to survive the pandemic, we need to do XYZ, which politicians and law enforcement then instituted. So we are faced with capitulation to rule by experts, which is generally speaking in America, the Democratic Party or the left of center perspective. And then the right of center perspective is we need democratic rule that is populist that valorizes the wisdom of the people, even when the people are ignorant and operate on the basis of fear and rumor. So then we have a another problem. If the liberal state is supposed to be neutral with respect to opinions that it neither promotes nor gives special regard to any particular beliefs, worldviews, sectarian positions. Well, what about expert opinions? What about the experts on COVID? Do they enjoy a special status that these things lack? If not, why should the state give them special consideration? For example, through the subsidization of science by treating expert opinions about environmental damage differently from the way it treats the opinions of landowners or polluters. So why was there one class of experts who we listened to during COVID and say not the will of the people, right? In a liberal democracy, shouldn't we be listening to the will of the people? Now, on the right, we have a rejection of state neutrality because on the right in America, we've got things like creation science. And what is scientific about creation science? And so the left and the secularity creation science is just something completely ridiculous and a violation of state neutrality. Then from the left wing perspective, scientific research on the genetic background of criminals is racist and government agencies have been intimidated into withdrawing support. So studies of race and intelligence have been attacked as inherently racist. That just doing this kind of research is inherently non-neutral. So you had a letter writer to Newsweek in 1994, wrote the theories of intelligence, the tests to measure it, and the social structures in which those predictions come true or developed and controlled by well-off white males for their own benefit. So this is a very common idea which dominates the news media and certain segment of academia, right? This is basically a matter of consensus in some academic fields while it's treated as absurd in other fields such as psychometrics. So the idea that science itself with its mania for quantification for prediction and for control is merely an intellectual manifestation of racism and sexism that it is not neutral. This perspective is widespread on the left and widespread on much of academia. So if the liberal state is supposed to be ideologically neutral, how is it to decide what is and is not ideology is distinct from knowledge? And this gets ramped up by feminist jurisprudence. And this is the, I think the most important actual turn in this long history because it's so influential. And it's basically a comprehensive critique of liberalism. Liberal morality is a kind of gendered expression of the male point of view. And it's really all about the status of women. So what appears to be neutral, what appears to be objective is neither. And we always have to ask the question, from which point of view? Who's law and order? What are we allowed to experience? And even our experience is constructed from, even our female experience is overwhelmingly constructed from a male point of view, which means that here again, there are experts in suffering who are superior to the people who are actually suffering because they're suffering from false consciousness. Okay, so critical race theory is definitely influenced by this, but it tells its own story of being based on critical legal studies. And initially had a focus on law. And the basic argument was always the form of oppression. And oppression means anything that produces a difference that favors the dominant group. So just substituted blacks for women, whites for male. And you get critical race theory. So what was even more extensive about this critical race theory is the list of topics which were supposed to be moved from the category of neutral to non-neutral. And now it's the stage of talking about mathematics as being an oppressive ideology for harming black people. And in addition to this was intersectionality. So the idea that this is a matter of perspectives gets turned into the idea that there are multiple categories, all of which have different perspectives. Each of each perspective has its own intellectual consciousness that corresponds to each of these perspectives. So, I'm going to be losing the internet here. I hope you got him. Oh, that crystal light is so good. Why would you add false consciousness to anti-neutral? I feel like the auditory do. I like that. Did you catch, Stephen, talking about how we now have experts in suffering. They really understand what suffering is. All right. So people are actually suffering. They don't really know what suffering is. Dominant group. So just substituted blacks for women, whites for male, and you get critical race theory. But what was even more extensive about this critical race theory is the list of topics which were supposed to be moved from the category of neutral to non-neutral. And now it's at the stage of talking about mathematics as being an oppressive ideology for harming black people. And in addition to this was intersectionality. So the idea that this is a matter of perspectives gets turned into the idea that there are multiple categories, all of which have different perspectives. Each of each perspective has its own intellectual consciousness that corresponds to. Yeah. And they're even experts for suffering. People who really know what suffering is. So if you add false consciousness to anti-neutrality, which is really just anti-liberalism, you get the following that the victims of oppression are additionally oppressed by false beliefs and liberal neutrality. The overcoming of these beliefs depends on education. Education depends not on distorted actual experience, but on experts. So consciousness raising coercive educational methods and so forth are needed to produce the correct expert derived form of consciousness. That is awesome, right? Ordinary people suffering, they really don't understand why they're suffering. They need experts to explain what suffering is all about. Thank you so much, anonymous professor. $20 super chat to bring back the didgeridoo and the orange crystal light classic, the classic orange. Yeah. I think we can generate 30 people in the chat with just our minds, the dogecoin to the moon. Our minds combined with the orange flavor crystal light will generate enough esoteric energy to go out into the universe and draw people in. So yeah. Wow. I feel so energized with a little didgeridoo blowing and some classic crystal light orange. Very good stuff. Okay. So on the one hand, you've got much of academia who says that any quantification, any study that different groups might have different levels of IQ, that's just inherently racist, that if so factor, any differences between groups are the product of evil white men. And then on the other hand, you have people who actually study the psychometrics. And they wrote a joint letter, I believe, to the Wall Street Journal saying that intelligence is real. All right. So claims about the nature of intelligence to which the letter righted to Newsweek objective curiously proved. There's a similar kind of collective letters signed by all these psychometricians. People actually know what they're talking about with regard to group differences in cognitive power. All these psychologists, psychometricians. So they were statistically oriented psychologists in the field of human performance and particularly with regard to cognitive science. And so they wrote a joint letter to the Wall Street Journal to correct what they saw to be the alarming disparity between what was presented by journalists and commentators as the accepted findings of psychological research on intelligence, what psychologists in fact accepted, namely that there were persistent differences in scores between different groups. So here the issues were different, the accepted facts, simply not known to the journalists who seem to assume that the facts fit with their prejudices, not so much. So how do we decide what information is ideologically neutral and which is tainted? So if experts are the source of our knowledge and this knowledge is not essentially superior to unaided public opinion, then the public is not merely less competent than the experts, but it's more or less under the cultural intellectual control of the experts. So this would mean that liberalism is a sham concealing an anti-democratic reality. So once again, to summarize liberalism is the product of the lessons learned from the 17th century religious wars in Europe. And the way that liberal democracy developed from there was to try to neutralize controversial topics such as religion. Now Karl Schmidt argued that parliamentary democracy depends on the possibility of persuading one's argument, opponents through the argument of the truth or justice or something, and to allow oneself to be persuaded of something as true or just. Now without some such appeal, if opinions were not amenable to change through discussion and persuasion, that all this phony discussion was simply a form of negotiation of compromises between pre-established interests, then parliamentary institutions would simply be meaningless shells. So Karl Schmidt saw Weimar era parliamentary politics as an assumption of parliamentarianism that was no longer true in reality. The parties of Weimar politics were not mere interest parties, they were totalizing parties that construed the world ideologically, that ordered the life experiences of social life of their members and rejected worldviews and arguments of other parties. So Karl Schmidt believed that the former historical domain of parliamentary discussion in which genuine argument was possible is simply vanished and that the world of totalitarianism, the rule of totalizing parties had begun. Now he didn't argue that the whole idea of liberal democracy and of liberal representation was wrong in principle, he said that it simply was not true at that time. Now there is an argument, an intellectual argument about liberal representation, that comes from the famous Duke English literature professor Stanley Fish who said that he wouldn't read poetry if he wasn't paid to do it. Now Stanley Fish claimed that liberalism is informed by a faith in reason as a faculty that operates independently of any particular worldview and Stanley Fish denied this could be anything more than a faith, a creed and concludes that this means that liberalism does not exist. So this is an argument for undoing the central achievement of the modern state and unlearning the lessons of the wars of religion. Taken as fact, the idea of liberal parliamentary discussion is intellectually at least a sham. So the factual claims that determine the direction of parliamentary discussion are exposed as ideological. So we are left with a picture of modern democratic regimes as shams for the public whose culture and life is controlled or steered by experts whose actions are beyond public comprehension, whose decrees such as think about all the COVID restrictions for many people these restrictions were beyond their comprehension. And we now have an administrative state largely run by experts and the decisions of the administrative state are beyond intelligent public discussion. But the expertise underlying it all may be nothing but ideology made more powerful by virtue of the fact that its character is concealed as neutralized expertise rather than ideology. So Thomas Hobbes essentially argues that authority not truth makes the law. And so we are told that the truth is making the law that we have to follow the size with regard to COVID restrictions in particular. But Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmidt would tell you it's not truth that is making the law here. It is authority and authority means the effective power to make and enforce decisions. Let's get a little bit more from Stephen Turner here on critical legal theories. So the core to this though in its ideal form is solidarity versus neutrality. And this is really in the terms of Michael Oakshott. It's the difference between a rule oriented and a goal oriented society. And when you look at this literature, it's very divisive identity politics but it always holds out in some vague way the idea of genuine solidarity that would somehow emerge after this work of criticism is fulfilled in politics. But what it doesn't point to is a new set of neutral rules. Neutrality is an impossibility from the point of view of this account. So you can think of politics as being about either solidarity or about rules. And so this puts all of the emphasis on the solidarity part. And so when we read in this commentary literature in social sciences that social science needs to be emancipatory, there is a particular coherent concept of emancipation there. But there is this kind of goal of rising to the level of some higher far in the future solidarity. And that this is an alternative to the rule bound neutrality of the liberal order. So this means the use of direct means by the state, not the indirect means of liberalism which channel people's energy. So think about all the constitutional scholars who come on and opiate. Are they truly neutral? And the chat says Luke spends way too much time reading and thinking what has it gotten him? He ought to have been fornicating. Words are not enough in life. And Angus notes the ideology determines which research is highlighted. Democracy is broken because higher IQ populations don't want to yoke their destiny to a low IQ majority why give the low IQ majority that sort of power over you. So and democracy. If some knowledge makes people feel bad, then it is not knowledge. The Australian government caters to the lowest IQ of one particular group. So much that by law their superstitions have to be catered to. That's pathetic. Yeah, so when you watch TV programs in Australia, particularly by the public broadcast ABC, they say this this program has contains depictions of dead people. You can't point a stick at Aboriginal Australians in Australia. Because that that is that violates their understanding of how the world works should work. Yes, they won't mention the name of Aborigines. What do they say indigenous? Indigenous Australians. Okay. What kind of ideology is this? It's not very coherent as an ideology. It's not really meant to be. But it's definitely makes sense as a friend enemy grouping. So we got a very bizarre set of friends and enemies here. People who don't particularly agree with one another, but nevertheless are on the alternative sides of the oppression paradigm. And this gets this is pretty coherent. That idea of oppression is pretty coherent. So but we're still we still have a problem that different perspectives have different ideas what the oppression is perspectives are in conflict. The goal is emancipation without a new form of oppression. And not nonviolent solution would be something neutral and like rule governed democracy. But neutrality is itself oppressive. And so what we need is something else that that's why solidarity in some new form firms like exclusion and coming becomes the solution. So you have to ask whether this is in fact something that will add up to something. A liberal answer is no that moral ideals once they turn into political realities like laws get turned into something that is going to sanction somebody. And it not only doesn't provide the solution to the problem of different conceptions of justice. It makes it worse and that the best solution the best liberal solution is democratic majoritarianism the protection for minorities. That's the liberal answer. The left answer is yes it is coherent that the remaining part of the old ideology of socialism of the march to universal solidarity and the replacement of politics with the administration of things is still possible. But it's out there in the distant future. So that's that's my version of where we are and why we're there. Thank you very much. Hey that was Professor Stephen Turner back to his terrific 2003 book liberal democracy 3.0 civil society in an age of experts. So you mentioned Richard Posner the libertarian judge who gives the example of United States constitutional law scholars. So this is a group that both speaks to a general audience and also serves or seeks to serve as experts for the judges who apply the constitution and the lawyers who argue cases on constitutional grounds. So constitutional law scholars play a role in assessing the qualifications of judges in the public domain and their opinions are widely reported and often consequential. So when you have supreme court nominees or other nominees they are judged by constitutional law scholars. Well are American constitutional law scholars neutral are they politically neutral when the the bar gives gives a rating on a on a judge they political is the the the bar neutral. The opinions they give are opinions about the law which presumably is just a technical matter. But when you look at what they do if you look at the areas in which they are supposed to be professionally expert and neutral they routinely present a highly partisan left wing interpretation of relevant law. All right so many of the crucial cases of present day constitutional law arise from the details of the administration of left wing programs enacted into law federal procedures such as affirmative action programs right rather than cases involving the responsibilities of corporations which was a theme of earlier constitutional law. So we've got this left wing drift of academic constitutional law the discussion of academic constitutional law includes few conservative scholars this would seem to be grounds for questioning the neutrality of particular scholars in the face of questions that are open to alternative plausible answers the neutrality of the consensus on such questions produced by academic discussion. So think about Bush versus Gore that legal dispute at near the end of the year 2000 right. There are very few conservative scholars in the field they are absent from public discussion because most of the conservatives who are critical of judicial activism on the grounds of their own academic original intent theories of constitutional interpretation were consequently unlikely to defend a US Supreme Court decision that required an activist rationale. So constitutional scholars in America routinely make claims that amount to a political act masquerading as a statement of professional expertise and so the not expert is vulnerable right these people say that they're just experts and that they're neutral but turns out that they are highly partisan and left wing. So the liberalism of the American founding tended to regard the truth relevant to politics as immutable and self-evident regarded them as neutral facts or manner created equal or manner endowed by their creator with the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think many of us would leave that anymore. Then have you heard of Gunnar Modal he was a Swedish economist who published a hugely influential book in 1944 called American Dilemma the Negro problem in modern democracy right is a classic of social science expertise and the book was made possible by lavish funding by the Carnegie Corporation which conceived the project paid the researchers whose specialist reports were then given to Modal to write the text and the promotion of the book was subsidized by the Carnegie Corporation all this was concealed. Gunnar Modal was chosen because he was not an American and therefore could not be immediately dismissed as non-neutral either as a North and a Southener. Now the aims of the funders were not neutral they were well hidden and left wing well think about how does one man Bill Gates essentially dominate American educational policy he essentially buys up all the experts but it's presented to us as just something that's neutral and we need to listen to the experts right to treat experts as authorities essentially requires us in an act of faith to believe that they possess some special cognitive powers analogous to those of charismatic religious leaders speaking prophetically of religious truths right in the case of the prophets the reason is the reasoning is hidden because it is God's reasoning the prophet simply pass on God's commands in the case of science it is hidden because it is meaningful only to scientists and similarly scientists report the results not the grounds for the results so the results are accepted as the sayings of the prophets are a matter of faith in the powers of the scientists and the experts not as a result of the reasoning that led to the results which is not accessible because it is not understandable so during the 1980s the evidence of risk of contracting HIV from ordinary heterosexual intercourse in the general United States population was always clear both through epidemiologists and to healthcare professionals with substantial experience with AIDS cases the risk level was negligible by contrast to the high risk level to certain homosexual practices and IV drug use but the fear of political pressure from AIDS activists and the desire of AIDS activists to prevent AIDS from being treated merely as a disease of homosexuals and IV drug users that the Center for Disease Control the CDC in the United States to endorse propaganda about AIDS about the possibility of contracting AIDS from heterosexual contact that was highly misleading and what's striking about this case is not simply the respected institution would lie but that it would lie for the higher purpose of preserving the appearance of neutrality so we similarly had all sorts of CDC lies about the importance of getting a flu shot when there are all these flu shots that weren't getting used and so the CDC came out with these ridiculous numbers of what you know 40,000 to you know 90,000 people supposedly die from the flu during a typical flu season but do you know anyone who actually died of the flu can you name a celebrity who died of the flu not so much right here a couple of our leading political thinkers I think and I'm trying to find that balance and you know that's that's what it is and I'll still do videos where I film myself with it you know a cell phone and shit like that thank god thank god but yeah awesome all right for saying stuff like you know all some relationship and oh your wife would be your best friend and all this kind of by the way what we're doing right now by the way is something that nick could never do be real for a second be logical be self-reflective that's what makes us different we could be jokers and crazy and fucking say crazy shit and be and at a certain point we could stop and go like hey okay you want me to be real for a second fine I'll be real for a second with him imagine trying to ask him these certain questions like these same questions that we've been answering but to him it'd be like this meme answers and that's what like makes him a joker the fact that he can't just stop being funny for a second or being whatever the fuck this is whatever this is for a second that's what makes us different right oh shut up I hold men like this in such low regard it's embarrassing frankly it's embarrassing I would be embarrassed if I were talking like that the only guy who understands this I feel like is Andrew Anglin that's why he's one of my favorite writers because he every time I feel like maybe it's just me maybe I'm weird maybe I because I am I'm an eccentric weird guy you know I'm I just am so I always have to check that and it's like well is it me or is it everyone else and then I read Andrew Anglin and I'm like okay I'm not alone someone else gets it someone else is picking up what I'm putting down you know or rather I guess they you know he just gets it on his own you know Ben says I was scrolling through the comments on a TikTok about you and some female liberals said wow Nick's cult of personality is so scary and all I could think was your damn right sweetie your damn right it is yeah I love when people say that people always say that like it's a dig they're like Nick Voigtus and his cult of groipers it's like yeah what about it bitch our cult is gonna take over America and guess what it's gonna be better for the people in the cult than outside the cult I'm just gonna give you a news flash you're gonna want to be in the cults when we take over the I'm just gonna say that right yeah and who would not want to be like like first of all the optics of saying that you're a cult and that you're gonna take over America and punish people who aren't in the cult like is completely insane and fucked up but the idea that Nick Fuentes and the groipers are actually gonna take over America is completely delusional if somebody like me and somebody like Andy who let's be real we're not the best in the world at this we're not the smartest we don't have the highest production values we don't have the most money we're two guys who honestly aren't in the best positions in our lives for real but we're still able to embarrass and Nick look foolish I think a total hegemony of the American state the federal agents the apparatus of the state the media Hollywood everything crashing down upon this young Mexican boy and he's gonna take over America you know and and it's the writings on the wall and the greatest example would be a clip that came from I believe it was like three months ago from Beardson I think you made a video about this it was called the Beardson Cobra or something and basically yeah you can remember where he basically like saying like we've lost there's no point in trying there's no point in doing anything just give up we lost we should have sided with the SJWs and all this fucking shit you know and and the reality is I mean that's sure you guys aren't gonna fucking win you fucking lost so for me at this point what I've come to the conclusion on is there really is no political solution but Jesus Christ said our kingdom is not of this earth so you need to focus on your own spiritual improvement and just living the best life you can and if God wills that there be a political solution then there might be one but trusting in Nick Fuentes to deliver you or Richard Spencer or me or anybody else is just a fool's errand or wasting your time and you know there are I think there are a lot more fruitful pursuits in life than spending all day getting pissed off about Joe Biden and ranting at the news you know the news just fucks up your mind and makes you negative and depressed all the time now I am a political junkie but I think a lot of that has been fucked up for me because I'm such a political junkie you start to get such a blackpilled outlook on life it's like holy fucking shit man you know and sometimes you just need to take a step back and be like well you know things aren't that fucking bad you know there's still opportunity to fucking go out there and start a family and build a life for yourself and look the society around you is diseased it is decayed there are a lot of flaws you know you can't fix all of those flaws it's not within your power but what is within your power is yourself your life and do the best that you can your family the people around you uh wow like ppp and andy waski have turned into voices of wisdom and common sense and you know I I lost a lot of viewers when I was doing twisted mind from saying this I was like too blackpilled where I was like look what I'm gonna focus on now is making money working working for myself being around my family and friends blah blah blah blah and it's like it is always like the same fucking thing the fetus attitude the fetus attitude the fetus attitude look I've been on the you know the political okay we've got a caller Elliot Blatt was going down bro yeah blessing bro thanks thanks for having me on bro uh hey um did you happen to catch the uh medica ralph stream no I mean a recent one or one a month ago yesterday yesterday yes oh no is it is it worth checking out it is worth but boy you got you you need like a vomit bucket next to your next to your computer bro it's it's hard to watch uh Ralph is completely spiraled out of control no I mean Ralph we're talking Ethan Ralph he's spiraled out of control no way I mean at a level that is I was thinking this morning that I'll be very surprised if he is an A in prison or B having committed suicide within three years he he does he just seems so far out of touch that it's it's actually scary it was hard I mean it was hard to watch it was like I was wondering if there's nobody he seems to have nobody close to him him they trust well enough to hear uh a cautionary word from right he just he literally seems at war at with everybody and everything around him he seems completely besieged and completely out of touch with reality um so but if you haven't seen it it's just it's hard to really discuss it but uh when does it get good so I see a video for like a 70 minute clip it doesn't get good right away um it's kind of a slow burn I don't recall there's I don't know if I haven't pulled out clips for you maybe I should I don't know uh I mean it's a fun watch but I don't know you know there's so many just stomach turning events within this video that I I was um I was taken aback um because you never expected Ethan Ralph to be this dysfunctional well obviously I did I knew it was within him obviously uh but uh it was sort of like a sustained it's a level of sustained cringe I've never seen so much cringe packing to such a short times period it was it was hard to watch and and the thing is I don't think he'd let's say you're right I don't think he'd be in this trouble if he wasn't doing a regular internet show successfully no right and then that's whole part of the drama is like he needs that that's sort of radically exaggerated personality that may have been an act in the beginning seems to have overtaken him and now he's just living it it's sort of the e personality incarnate that's right the dangers of e personality I mean it's been a favorite theme of mine for five years now yeah and it was very very shrewd of you to pick up on it really very early in the game um I mean you might have started feeling tinges of that I mean I mean because I've been blogging for living since 1997 yeah so I was aware yeah and so like you know I I'm very attracted to this space as you know I mean at colleges show frequently and you know I've thought about you know creating a stream and so forth but a part of me was just a little bit wary but for a reason I couldn't quite put my finger on you know it just seemed like um there seemed to be danger there but I couldn't even articulate what the danger was it's only through watching this story unfold over the years that I see it now you know well to break it down here are the dangers when you go online you immediately tend to become more impulsive so you will buy things that you wouldn't buy in real life you will say things that you wouldn't say in real life you will share things that you wouldn't that you wouldn't share in real life you will you'll go to a dark place more rapidly than then you would um then you would in real life so you become more you become more impulsive You naturally tend to have an exaggerated sense of your own capabilities because you're just talking and carrying on online and you're not getting that feedback from real life, which would tell you, hey, you lost your last touch here. So that happens. You tend to develop an outside need for admiration. And you start thinking that anyone who criticizes you is a jerk or worse. And you tend to become morbid. So those are the specific dangers of becoming an e-personality. Yeah. And with Ralph or Ethan, you see basically every single thing that you've ticked off as being true. And then also with our friend, Baked Alaska, who loves his cops and he loves our cops and our law enforcement, but he's sort of on a similar trajectory that's not quite as grotesque as Ralph's trajectory, but it's pretty close. Yeah, it's not far off either. And they're both in legal trouble. And I don't know how they could... You go through, you watch them and you feel a certain level of disgust and contempt for them. But then after that clears, you sort of feel a certain pity for them because you want them to sort of see a path out of this. And they just simply can't see it. They don't... There doesn't seem to be... It would seem to take an act of divine intervention to sort of have them climb out. People need a path backwards through. They go into a cave and they need to figure... They need someone to lead them back out once they're in the cave. And I like to feel like everybody's redeemable or can be redeemed, but they seem to be teetering on a real precipice here. And it's not rare that you like someone in real life, but you don't like them online. Like, you get emails or you get DMs or you get... You're exposed to their every thought on social media and then suddenly someone you were fond of, now you just can't stand them. That's happened many times and I'm sure it's happened in reverse. There are people that have blocked me and they think the absolute worst of me. And all I had really done was expressed a contrary opinion and through me expressing that opinion, they've sort of read into me a bunch of darkness that I didn't think that I had. But me, the reverse is true. The internet seems to bring people's id to the fore and lets them paste it directly in front of them. So it's the first thing people encounter of them. They're unfiltered version. Right. I mean, there are things in my life if the first thing you knew about were these actual things that I've said and done, 99% of people would want nothing to do with me. And I think that's true for a lot of people. If you put certain things out there, and that's the first or primary exposure that people get very early on, because we're always kind of seeking reasons to cut people off, to not go somewhere, to not put out an effort. That mind just naturally works that way. Give us any reason to cut someone off and we naturally cut them off. It's like people have to keep meeting some basic standards before we allow them to progress further into our life. Yeah, that's all true. That's all true. But there are people like Medica who seem pretty sane. And I gotta say, the little I know of PPP, he sounds pretty sane. He is sane, but I don't know. Like I said, I told you last time we talked, I've been following him for over two years. And he has done some really weird stuff online. There's a certain like, I don't know if you know his lore, but he has some pretty funny moments. Like once he sat down on a live stream and attempted to eat 100 chicken McNuggets in succession, one after another, you know, which is a just tremendous amount of junk food, right? And he got to like 90 or 89 or some, we got really close. Threw up. Just with the phone in hand, he just grabbed the phone and ran to the bathroom and threw up. He's a clown at the same time, you know. And so, yeah, I think he's very funny. And do you know who Godwinson is? No. Okay, so Godwinson, he's been docked. I don't know his real name, but he's like part of like the English aristocracy. I mean, he's like very well bred gentlemen, but they were streaming partners for, you know, a year and a half or so. And that Godwinson, and I wish I knew his real name, but now he's basically going to be part of the House of Lords. He's graduated from this sort of protest live streaming. I have to do more digging about that because there's only been like, you know, oblique references online to this, but I don't know what position he's actually occupying, but he's, you know, he's way up there in English society. So yeah, it was some great content. Let's put that one. Wow. So I don't know, Luke. Did Medica manage to talk any sense into Ralph? Well, you know, so it was Medica basically commenting on so Ralph had put on this bowling event in Dallas, some IRL bowling event, and he grabbed, you know, all of his fans. But of course, a good number of trolls showed up. So basically fights broke out. And there was just a lot of Ralph screaming obscenities at various people in the most grotesque and ugly way. And just it just was so unbecoming. It wasn't witty. It wasn't like, you know, in the old days, you know, you'd think of people in public having a, there was a certain reserve about them and they would sort of defend themselves with some sort of wit and panache and turn of phrase would sort of one up their opponents. But this was just the most, you know, ugly ghetto profanity just being hurled around back and forth. I would not expect this from Ethan Ralph. This is highly incongruous behavior. Yes. No, I know. But what I found so sad was that he seemed to just be so oblivious of how he appears to other people or people who are just, you know, normal people with sort of, you know, basic standards of decency, just how abrasive and how atrocious he seemed. It's like, I don't know, but for live streaming, I don't know how he could make a living in real life. And that's why if this live streaming income of him ever dries up, he is going to only be eligible for the most low level work in the society. Constitutional law professor. No, I'm afraid not. It's more like chicken McNugget dispenser. Maybe you'll become a judge. Yes. You know the joke? Cyber is a judge. Go ahead. No. What do you call the guy that finished last in his law school? Oh, yeah, he's a, oh, judge. Is that what you're going to say? Well, your honor. Your honor. No, no, what I heard is that the A students become law professors, the B students become corporate lawyers, and the C and D students become contingency personal injury lawyers and make more than the other two combined. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I heard like the C students get rich. Something like that. But yes. Right. Good old lawyer jokes. What do you call the guy that finished last in his medical school? No idea. Dr. Yeah, once you get into medical school, like once you get into Harvard, it's pretty hard to work out. Yeah. But there's, there are people walking around, you know, with a sort of dubious distinction of having finished last. Yeah. I don't think Michelle Obama did particularly well. No. No. Okay. Did you see this video of Obama and Biden together in the same gathering? Yeah. Everyone's talking about that. Okay. I got to look at it again. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Look it up. Yeah. That looks so sad. Biden. I mean, Biden looks so sad. Yeah. And Obama looks as though he's still the president. He looks like a complete rock star. And what in the same time? That's funny. So what do you think about Elon's move? I think it's great. I mean, imagine he gets dominant control of Twitter. So can you do that by oh, 9% of the stock and you can suddenly start calling the shots? I don't know. I mean, not just with 9%, but if you make coalitions, I mean, Elon Musk is a phenomenally competent person. Yeah. And he has a lot of coal. Oh, it'd be more than great. Back Donald Trump at the good times. Can you imagine that? People are already freaking out about this and like a big part of like the left is idolizes Elon Musk as well. So that makes it all the more hysterical. Because Elon Musk is this apostle of electric cars and green energy and so forth. I mean, I have these liberal friends that I fight with all the time on Facebook and they love Elon Musk. Right now they're throwing this monkey wrench into their worldview. And it's absolutely hysterical. That would be amazing if he got control of Twitter and started opening things up. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's in the to be continued file. So anyway, that's all I really got. Okay. Thanks, bro. Appreciate it. All right. All right. Take care. It was lower than him. Is your wife there to cook dinner for you or picking up your sloppy seconds on discord like usual? Daddy? No. Remember when you were obsessed over Ivy Clover and his relationship with with Jade? Why don't you talk about that to the world? Jim? Yeah, it was pretty upsetting when they bought her all the items on her Amazon wishlist. Oh, wait, I was mixing people up. That was you and Alice. Don't worry, chat. These all make a lot more sense as we go forward, but just roll with it. You married the e whore instead. Law. What an alpha. I should have followed your example and thumb the asses of hookers instead. Christ is king. Chat. Can I get a G? Can I get a G in chat for God's plan? All right, we need to understand something here. Ethan Ralph is a deeply religious man. He leads a religious life, whether that's not taking care of his children, fucking hookers, going to prison repeatedly. It's just engaging in degenerate gambling. Can we get a G for God's plan? I'm pretty sure that that's Jesus's message to the world. When I think good Christian morals, I think huff and shit out of hookers' asses. God's plan, everybody. Can I get that G? Thank you so much, chat. Nobody else will even talk to this pussy. He's an embarrassment who pushed the COVID lockdown lies. He still refused to renounce it on air with me. He's a coward who's deeply afraid of death. Remember when you tried and cried on stream, who laughed my ass off? I do. Seems our little hog has a bit of memory loss. Guess it's all those shaky, shaky pills. Do I have my pill bottle on me, Ralph? Oh, I always come loaded with a pill bottle when I'm talking about my dear old hog-ish son. That's gonna be a fun night. Except that never happened. Kind of like your tweets tonight, which I've sat and thought and like I've read over that a few times. I don't know what the fuck that really means. I guess that's, is that like wet brain alcoholism? You're kind of like your tweets didn't happen tonight. I'm reading the tweets. He's responded to them. What do you mean kind of never happened like your tweets tonight? I mean, I'm sure there's something clever in there. Maybe he's arguing with a fictitious person on my Twitter, you know, Twitter account. I don't know. Cops threw no one out. They investigated bomb threats from your fans. Uh-oh. Then they left. Every single one of them shook my hand. You pussy skank, shut shit down. It did happen. Live on Monday on Matt's channel. Don't you remember you were drunk like always? It was right before you ran away from Matt in terror. Ran like a little bitch. Imagine being a loser shut in. Who's afraid of people sneezing on him? Imagine locking down the whole country and giving away our civil rights forever because you're afraid of catching a cold? You're pathetic and scared old man. Imagine filming your incredibly small dick on camera as you smell shit from a woman's ass. Then turning around to tell your audience to donate for your Christian morals. It's right around this time that my boy, my rage hog, my hollerin' piggy, got a little angry, stopped responding. I'm not sure what exactly it was I was putting out there that made him upset. You know, just factual tweets really discussing things. Based on the images coming from his amazing bowling event. By the way, this is about Ethan Rouse bowling event. The kingpin, the killstream kingpin invitational. Oh, it was a, it was an amazing night. Star studded with lots of activities and satisfied guests, made a lot of money. Wasn't embarrassing at all. Stupid things didn't happen at all. It went really, really well for Ralph. He's doing so good, you guys. The rage paid was doing so good. What happened? Now being Ethan, I'm used to what happens next. Of course, once Ralph starts tweeting you in a seething rage, as he's just a pissing and a shitting and a coming in anger, you know what's coming next. He's pulling out that thesaurus, his dictionary, looking up at the degree on his wall, his bachelor's that he actually didn't ever get. Then he's writing a blog post about you. Of course, I try to cut him off at the pass a little bit here. Curse you cancer man. From April 3rd, 2022, I'm a hollerin' mad god dang it. And I tell you what, I won't be silent no more. As an award-winning bowler champion of the killstream king pain invitation, I've led a life of many accomplishments. Not many men have sniffed as many asses as I have, and with those whiffs came knowledge. It's like my daddy always used to say, nose and shit can't ever quit. And that's who I am, a man that doesn't stop. Sweet! Of course, the article I was waiting for still hasn't come yet. Now maybe that's because Ethan Ralph is on the road. Probably literally, because he's drunk driving his way across the country as we speak, that's an allegation. Well, it's more of a statement, really. He's probably slamming into light poles. He's probably hitting every light pole on his way from fucking Houston all the way on down to Richmond. You want to track him on a map you don't need GPS. Just look for damage to fire hydrants and light poles. That's how you know the direction Ethan Ralph drove. So maybe he's busy on the road. He can't really get around to writing those award-winning articles that he's so used to doing. I'm not sure, but I'm sure what Ralph is up to at the moment. Aside from his seething hatred. You know, so people out there covering the event. This is a beautiful story from the World Herald. Memphis Man with Downcenter Bulls. Perfect game. You could see Ralph eyes looking in different directions. I never knew Ralph was such a merch superfan. I mean, I'm just surprised like he'd take it to this level. I have people that are fans of my content. Usually they buy a hat. Okay, let's get a little bit more here from Mr. Medica. You know, put on a headphone and that's like their cosplay. But Ralph went the extra mile. He gave himself brain damage so his eyes actually cross. So that one Ralph is scanning the room. He's doing it like a gecko would. It's like a little lizard man. Yeah, let's get a little bit more here from It might be the total end of a free society, but you fucking facing your responsibility for your retarded actions isn't the total end of a free society. Well, I mean, it's like the federal agency that he's working for that's leading to the total end of a free society. Well, he's contributing to it. By working for the feds. And we're going to see the total vindication of Patrick Casey on this. I put in the title like confessing his guilt and his lies because he is. He's confessing his guilt and his lies. And we're going to go through it. When he now claims he knew he was under investigation and his bank account was frozen, which was in the on the 25th of January versus his kill stream appearance on the 12th of February, where he lies to every griper, to every single person in the movement's faces about the security of AFPAC too. But his accounts were weren't frozen. It was only a half truth. He wasn't under investigation to his knowledge. And this he'll just outright confess it because it's been six months. So in his mind, you know, his audience is fucking 12 years old. They don't even remember yesterday, let alone six fucking months ago. And they're fucking out of all fueled fucking Zoom or ADHD minds. They can't even fucking grasp time anymore. Okay. So he's just hoping that they'll forget about that fucking shit, but we will go through it. But anyway, this is just the total end of a free society. Okay, Nick, you know, it's not the total end of a free society that you're getting fucking shafted, bro. Sorry to say. If you weren't such a fucking retard, this wouldn't happen to you. But when you put fucking Judas snakes like fucking Beardson in your organization, fucking known feds like baked Alaska, fucking people like Patrick Casey, who even though he's vindicated here, I think he had some dirty fucking shit happen in identity Europa. You fucking surround yourself with this fucking snake pit of people, and then you expect that you're not gonna end up a fed. Like come on, fucking mommy Michelle and fucking Laura Loomer in the fucking organization. Some of the finest people in the movement are Jewish, but you can trust me, guys. Trust me with your financial details. Trust me with your docs. I'm not under investigation. My account's not frozen. Oh, wait, it was. You know, this is where we're at. This is fucking disgusting. Fuck. Let's continue. We're like fucking zero seconds in. America first film studio. You guys think America first film studio is ever gonna rival Hollywood? Is it gonna bring us massive big budget productions? The next fucking big action adventure film from America first film studios? They're gonna take down the Hollywood establishment through independent film. Like the fucking balls, the balls. It's America first film studio. This is like fucking James Rawl for Doug Walker claiming they run a fucking movie studio or something. Like who is it? Like two interns and the road dog, Jaden, is the fucking film studio? Give me a fucking break. Well, James Rawl for Doug Walker never worked with the DVC, did they? They probably did, actually. They did. I'm a little nipples. I was on the student council. Well, look, sorry, Randall Weems, you snitch FBI-fed motherfucker. We don't accept you as the leader of fucking anything. You're a Mexican child. Come back when your fucking balls have dropped, son. Come back when there's hair on your fucking pubes. You have some fucking experience, like fucking sad. Fuck. So here we're getting the photos of him as a child and him in high school, all school photos and stuff like this, to give the appearance that he's young. There's still time for him to be turned around, conservative establishment. Ben Shapiro, are you listening? Please, please give me a job, Ben. I can't make any fucking money or whatever. I need to be rehabilitated. I'm willing to sell out. This is what these images are for. They're to show him as young and immature. I started to realize that there would be consequences for my views almost immediately. I started... Well, of course there are going to be consequences for your fucking views. There are always going to be consequences for your views. Always. There are some people that are going to hate you. If you're outspoken, it doesn't matter what it is. Now you chose to go into the type of politics that have the most consequences. And you fucking knew. You weren't a fucking dummy. You knew that being on the dissident right leads to you getting fucking persecuted, getting fucking shafted. You knew the game before you started to fucking play. Okay? And you've kept playing the last four years because it was profitable. The only thing you're crying out now is because you're not getting the same fucking money. You're not getting the same donations coming in. So you cry out in pain. Oh, Eva! Now I'm facing these consequences. I didn't know. Be a man. Be a man. Most people learn about consequences as a concept in their late teens, right? So it does also add to the childlike character that you're talking about that he's trying to play, right? Yeah. So I don't even know. I didn't have no idea there would be consequences bullshit, motherfucker. Everybody knows. Everybody knows if you go around your university saying that if white and black people were to have sex, it's like bestiality, you're probably going to offend some people and you might get kicked out. So maybe while you're at Boston University, you put your head down and you shut your fucking mouth. Or you face the consequences of it like a fucking man and you don't bitch and complain. But you knew. You knew what the consequences would be. So what you cry about now? This is why Sam Hyde like talked about like outcome independence in that video. That's a really good video. The outcome independence one. And that's really it, right? Like you can't cry about consequences. You need to be outcome independent, sort of be in control of these things. You know, have control over your own personal life views. It's not to say it's right. Regardless whether you get kicked out of school or not. It's not to say he's right. It was right to kick him out of school or to shut off his payment processors or any of that fucking shit. But that's what you have to expect. It's like me fucking crying. My channel gets banned. It's to be expected. Fuck. It sucks. Look at this. He's got like a Kanye West poster on his fucking wall. Like he's got all these books. There's his Cookie Monster for fuck's sake. There's the Groyper doll up there. Fucking crucifix. This LARP crucifix. Do you know what I mean? The guy doesn't go to church. He's got his trophy from the debate club. Yeah, he has his like debate club trophy and shit like that as student council president trophy or whatever. And his crucifix. The guys never went to church. I don't even think he's gone one time. And the entire time he's run America first. He went to hell. It's literally across the street from his house folks. But he can't be up before noon to go to church. Now the Catholic church across from his house offers evening services. So there's no excuse as to why he's not at mass, okay? But he's a fucking pathetic man. It's a man child. It's a larper. He'll sit there, cross this king, cross this king. Well, you go to church? No, okay. But you tell everybody else, they should go to church on Sunday. That they shouldn't, they should have stained from meat on Fridays. That they should follow every Catholic dogma and tradition. But you can't even be bothered to partake of the Eucharist on Sunday? Okay. And, you know, it's partly my fault for sure, but also I'm not going to join a group of people and like defend them and be part of them and try to radicalize a new generation because right now it's about self-preservation at a certain point. At a certain point, I hit a point where even conservatives and conservatives now, by the way, were like, oh, so you're going to stop talking about politics that much and this and that and the other. When these are the same people who like literally talk mad shit about me. I got more shit from the conservatives actually, to be honest. So somebody read, Redmond Berry goes, you lost the right when you and JF split. I'd say to you, does JF have the right? Is JF a real intellectual leader of conservative thought? No, he's not. JF's a completely irrelevant fucking joke on a ghetto platform. He's not going to do anything. And nor did I want to. Also, here's the thing also meant your mind is trapped in this binary about left and right. Like, stop thinking about what's left and what's right. Like, not just every policy that's in the GOP platform is good. Not every policy that's in the Democratic platform or the liberal platform is bad. Why don't you try having some fucking nuance instead of blindly being on one team or the other team? No, I just don't get it. It's just retarded. So that's the crazy thing is say you're a conservative and you got a viewership that's conservative and blah, blah, blah. But you have one thought that's a leftist thought. Like one thing, whatever it be, whatever, like be a drug use or abortion or whatever. Just whatever the that entire group will disassociate from you and they'll berate you and try to destroy you. And that's why a lot of these people you'll hear. They'll be on these conservative or liberal, you know, idea mindsets and what they preach. But then when you find out about their like skeletons in their closet, it's against that exact policy or exact mindset. You want to know why? Because and that's where the term grifter comes in. A lot of these people who are conservative, you hear them like you hear about the private stories that I've heard many. Trust me. I know a lot of big conservatives who like when I was big and I'm not going to name any names, but they do drugs. They've cheated on their wives and they preach like if you do this. So that was the eye opener. It was during my coke, my like really bad spiral where I was meeting with a lot of conservatives and like learning about what was actually going on in these big circles. And I was going, wait, so it's all bullshit. And it sort of like really pissed me off and why I sort of like was like, I can't handle it anymore. I tell you this lockdown 2019 set is this chat stuck in 2019. And a lot of ways I think people are stuck in 2019. Yeah. When I watched Jim on, you know, the show with Gator today, I felt like he was stuck in like 2018 2019. A lot of people are just stuck and trapped in that mentality. And if you haven't been changed by the years 2020, 2021 that are the most transformative, upshaking years that I think we'll see in our lifetime. Look back on these years as being perhaps even more transformative than 2001 and, you know, 9 11 and things like that. If you haven't been changed in your perspective, changed by that from a left, right dichotomy into, you know, elite versus the people mentality. I think you're fucked. Fucked. You're completely fucked. The reality is there's an elite class. They've been elite for a really long time longer than any of us have been alive. Their children and their children's children will continue to be elite long after we are dead. They are the enemy of us who are the common poor people who have fucking nothing. If you're still trapped in a mindset of it's the trannies who are the problem. It's the pink haired feminists who are the problem. You're a fucking idiot. And it's the same thing for guys on the left. It's the Nazis who are the problem and those racists. That is what the elite wants you to do. They want you to fight between yourselves. And you fucking idiots play right into it every day. Culture war, culture war, culture war, news, news, news. Until you're so fucked up and mentally paralyzed and in delusional alternate reality that you are no longer an effective human being. Oh, anyway. And you're basically a pawn. You're the pawn in that side. You are the pawn. You are the pawn. You are the worker for them to extract value from. If you don't see that because you're a rightist and you're based capitalism, you are a fucking fool. You're a fool. You think working some minimum wage job makes you a fucking winner? Really? Fucking real, dude. They're fucking exploiting you. But my capitalist Protestant work ethic. Come on. Where does that get you? Where does that get you? Where did it get me? Where did it get anyone on the right? Where did it get anyone on the left? It's literally a joke. Everything is black and white. There's no nuance bullshit. You know, but Arx here is saying like name the Jays. How many times? Can you watch this channel? Shut the fuck up. Talking about naming the Jays. You know what? There's a lot of people in that elite class who aren't Jewish. Also, you fucking retard. There is a lot of Jewish people in the elite class, but there are also some people who aren't fucking Jewish. Wake up. Come to fucking reality, pal. And that's the thing. That take is insane. You're denying the reality of Jewish... Yeah. Jewish culture leads to some fucked up shit. Religion is wrong because they reject Christ, the chief cornerstone. I don't know. I'm just not going to have a fucking retarded political position where I say, you know what? I'm a conservative. I'm a liberal. That's not what I'm going to do anymore. I'm going to look at the issues as they are. Do they benefit me? Do they benefit my family? Do they benefit my people? And go from there. I look at my politics now like I look at a buffet at Mandarin. What do I want? Does that look good? Does that look bad? I fill the plate up. Okay. That's going to do it. Take care.