Documentary: A Glitch in the Matrix (David Fuller production)


Sometimes there’s a glitch in the matrix where the limitations of the old operating system are laid bare and something new pokes through They’ve been dozens of responses to the jordan peterson channel for interview already. What makes this one different? Well, I have a pretty unique perspective in October last year I went to Toronto to interview Jordan Peterson at his home you came in from where I came in from London last night, I turned the interview into the first full-length documentary about Jordan Peterson’s ideas I Was pretty sure he’d soon become a lot more famous and be recognized as one of the most significant public thinkers but I couldn’t possibly have predicted how he’d break through to a mass audience a few weeks later Peterson did an interview with journalist Kathy Newman on Channel four News in the UK a Program I worked on as a reporter and producer for ten years It was a sensation Millions watched it online Tens of thousands commented an overwhelming majority felt Peterson had been unfairly represented And in the week since it hasn’t stopped Peterson has been asked about it constantly on the most high-profile online shows 12 rules for life so without reading this So what you’re saying is There’s only 12 things you need to do in life right, that’s it well yeah this This interview that you just did with this woman Kathy Newman shit was that in the UK it was Channel 4 UK so what does this glitch say about the state of mainstream media and the culture at large By diagnosis of what’s actually happening is that people are moving further and further away from? what is what thinking actually is I’m at or more into merely running a script and What does Jordan Peterson actually think that’s so controversial you are? misrepresented more than anyone I know in a weird way. You are villainized in a weird way where I can’t believe that these people are honestly looking at your opinions and Coming up with these conclusions. I believe this encounter struck such a nerve because it’s a cultural watershed moment But seen properly as Peterson would say it’s archetypal in that it contains layers and layers of meaning That go right to the heart of the biggest rift. We’re seeing playing out in the culture Over the next 50 minutes. I’m gonna do my best to unpack it From the clash between new and old media. There’s also why YouTube is gonna kill TV Because television by its nature all of these narrow broadcast technologies they rely on forcing the story all the way down to the mythological an Archetypal level I thought of ideologies as fragmentary mythologies That’s where they get their archetypal and psychological power, but in the postmodern world and this seems to be something that’s increasingly Seeping out into the culture at large you have nothing but the tyrannical father nothing But the destructive force of masculine consciousness and nothing, but the benevolent Benevolent great mother and it’s a it’s an appalling ideology, and it seems to me that it’s sucking the vitality Which is exactly what you’d expect symbolically It’s sucking the vitality of her culture and to ask how do we move forward constructively rather than just adding to the polarization? I’ve been a journalist for 16 years in the newsrooms of the BBC in channel 4 and then making documentaries I moved away from the frontline of news some time ago and started learning psychology Which is what first drew me to Jordan Peterson? from a distance I’ve started to see the blind spots of the establishment media much more clearly I Spent some of the best years of my working life at Channel 4 News and have a huge amount of respect And gratitude to the program But I’m making this film because I feel so strongly that if we can’t have open conversations about the kind of topics Peterson is raising We’re in serious trouble My book went up to number two and on amazon.com in the US the next day right it’s number one in Canada it’s number three in the UK all on Amazon I Couldn’t have asked for more publicity right and so I could also be sitting back and saying well. You know she tried to My a person who regarded herself as my ideological opponent Tried to go after my philosophy and my reputation on national TV Failed brutally and has been taken apart for it. It’s like This is a good day, but I don’t regard it as a good day. I don’t think it’s a good day I think that it’s evidence of the Instability of the times that we’re in it would have been much better For me and for everyone else if what we would have had was a real conversation You said that it’s actually a sign of the times where things could go really wrong for all of us really soon Yeah, we’re playing with fire. Yeah, what do you mean by this? Can you can you elaborate? Well things go wrong in cultures all the time right you get you get the polarization Increases until people start to act it out Peterson is one of a new breed of thinkers made famous almost completely by the internet not the broadcast media Part of a powerful new informal network being called the intellectual dark web The mainstream media is based on an old dying model that is being replaced by new media And new technology so quickly that its faults are becoming glaringly obvious Fortunately, thanks to YouTube podcasting and however else you get shows like this one the mainstream media’s stranglehold on information Which really is a stranglehold on your ability to think clearly about the issues of the day is crumbling at an incredible rate? Now the question is who and what will replace it a few months ago one of my favorite people to sit across this table from Eric Weinstein came up with the phrase Intellectual dark web to describe this eclectic mix of people from Sam Harris to Ben Shapiro to his brother Brett Weinstein to jordan Peterson all of whom are figuring out ways to have the important and often dangerous Conversations that are completely ignored by the mainstream It’s why I would argue that this collection of people are actually more influential at this point than whatever collection of cable news pundits you can come up with If you think I’m being hyperbolic about the growing influence of this group just check the traction that these people get on Twitter or Facebook Compared to our mainstream competitors twitter may not be real life as I say in my Twitter bio But it is some barometer of what the zeitgeist is right now what unites this group of thinkers is a sense that the set of ideas that have run Western culture for years are breaking down and That the chaos of the moment is the attempt to find new ones It’s nearly all happening online part of the problem that we have right now in our culture is Trying to diagnose the level at which the discussion should be taking place And I think the reason that this is a tumultuous time is because it actually is a time for discussion of first principles and it’s that first principles are Virtually at the level of theology because the first principles are the things that you assume and then move forwards like well What should we assume well the dignity of the human soul let’s start with that you can’t treat yourself properly without assuming that you Have a relationship with another person you can’t stabilize your family You can’t have a functional society, so what does it mean for this human soul to have dignity? well The part of the idea is that you’re participating in Creation itself and you do that with your actions in your language And you get to decide whether you’re tilting the world a bit more towards heaven or a bit more towards hell And that’s actually what you’re doing so that’s a place where the literal and the metaphorical truth comes together and people are very They’re terrified of that idea as they should be because it’s a massive responsibility They also argue that the central problem is polarization boosted by social media Peterson’s work looks at how people are hard-wired to see the world differently a lot of what determines your political orientation is Biological temperament far more than people realize so for example left-leaning people liberals, let’s say although that’s kind of MIS misnomer, but We’ll keep with the terminology liberals are high in a trait called openness, which is one of the big five personality traits And it’s associated with interest in abstraction and interest in aesthetics it’s the best predictor of liberal political leaning and they’re low in trait conscientiousness, which is dutifulness and and Orderliness in particular whereas the Conservatives are the opposite? They’re high in conscientiousness They’re dutiful and orderly and they’re low in openness and that makes them really good managers and administers ministers and often businessman But not very good entrepreneurs Because the entrepreneurs are almost all drawn from the liberal types and so These are really fundamental fundamentally biologically predicated differences, and they’re you might think about them as different sets of Opportunities and limitations, and and certainly different ways of screening the world and Each of those different temperamental types needs the other type Let’s call this a diversity issue if you start understanding that the person that you’re talking to who doesn’t share your political views isn’t Stupid that’s the first thing necessarily. They might be but so might you be no stupid. He isn’t the Differences in intelligence are not the prime determinant of differences in political belief All right so you might be talking to someone who’s More conscientious and less creative than you if you’re if you happen to be a liberal But that doesn’t mean that that person’s perspective is not valid And it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t outperform you in some domains because they would so one thing to remember is People actually do see the world differently. It’s not merely that they that they’re possessed of love ilie informed opinions the whole point of the dava democracy is to Continue the dialogue between people of different Temperamental types so that we don’t move so far to the right that everything becomes encapsulated and stone and doesn’t move or so far to the left and everything dissolves in a kind of Mealy-mouthed chaos and the only way that you can you can navigate between those two Shoals is by is through discussion, which is why free speech is such an important value It’s the thing that keeps the temperamental types from being at each other’s throats in The aftermath of the Trump election that came as such a shock to most of the media One of the most widely shared analysis pieces was from deep code It describes how the establishment mainstream media perspective based around liberal values of openness and inclusivity He calls the blue church is being challenged by a new web-based insurgency a red religion based on the values of tribalism The culture were the the 20th century was a decisive success for blue any effectively a route for red So what we see first is that red was forced to move into a deeply exploratory phase Second that it did this in a context Where as it turns out? things were changing meaningfully quite significantly in fact it from my perspective in a world historical level the emergence of entirely new forms of communication and therefore entirely new sense-making and coherence He concludes that the blue church is in the process of collapse as its dominant ideology Can’t adapt to changing reality But that a combination of the two sets of values of blue and red is essential we are conscious and Effective in the world in groups, not as individuals and the ingredients of those groups Include aspects that are currently showing up as both red and blue I Propose somewhat strongly that Neither red nor blue as pure Elements contain the ingredients necessary to actually be adaptive to reality This is a disaster in fact It’s a little bit like Separating the hand and the eye Now you’re the eye can see if the eye takes itself as being the essence of virtue it separates itself from the ability to do The same thing with the hand for most of human history these groups have actually always commingled They’re necessary that they actually relate to each other in a deeply healthy and direct fashion their separations into armed camps is Extinction area actually you know the values of red that you think blue needs to integrate you also may also reintegrate. Oh well That’s actually pretty easy Responsibility I mean we’ve actually even seen it The ability to Make a commitment and keep it Which which by the way ideologically shows up is either duty or loyalty, but those are both ideologies the the deeper sense is that ability Responsibility both of the individual in the group level the ability to actually really make a Personal sacrifice on the part of the group that’s actually a deeply read value and I don’t mean that by the way as Politically ideological certainly there are people who? Are currently part of blue who feel that deeply what I’m saying is that that shows up much much more intensely in Read and when you’re feeling it in blue. You’re actually feeling a red value, and that’s good mixing is crucial Because that’s very Jordan Peterson esque – How would you how do you define Jordan Peterson? Or do you think the fact the issue is that he is is not definable within one of those two camps Yeah, I think that’s the point I think that he grasps directly the fact that human beings can only actually make sense of the world by virtue of communication with other human beings and this is all about the notion of admixture that one must have a mixture of of What I mean he uses the mythopoetic to make sense the order order and chaos The way right the taoist way is the alchemical admixture of order and chaos And that’s it like that’s how you do it, and so if you bias towards orderliness You find yourself in a rigid non adaptive non creative non exploratory framework Which will die because the world changes if you bias towards chaos You you eat your young and evaporate Which also ties for obvious reasons? And the key is to actually enable these things to be in relationship with each other and vital healthy relationship with each other, and I think that’s in some sense the essence of what he’s Focusing on and instead of the core what he’s asking about Peterson is hard for the broadcast media to get a handle on Because the depth of his thought means he doesn’t fit easily into any of their categories The clash with Kathy Newman was his breakthrough a moment where the new world met the old To give the context from Kathy Newman side she has to do dozens of interviews each month Peterson is hard to get a grip on and he sure as hell looks controversial She’s also focused on getting sound bites for a five minute cut down of the interview for TV. Not a long conversation for online The interview was ridiculous. It was a ridiculous interviewing. I listen to it or watched it several times I was like this is so strange It’s like her determination to turn into a conflict – it’s one of the issues that I have with Television shows yeah, because they have a very limited amount of time, and they’re trying to make things as salacious as possible They wouldn’t have these sound bites these clickbait sound bites And she just went into it incredibly confrontational not trying to find your actual perspective But trying to force you to defend a non non realistic perspective. Yes well I was that I was the hypothetical villain of her imagination essentially. No this is also. Why YouTube is gonna kill TV Because television by its nature all of these narrow broadcast technologies they rely on forcing the story right because It has to happen now It has to happen in like often in five minutes because they only broadcast five minutes of that in interview They did put the whole thing up on YouTube to their credit It it it hasn’t ceased to amaze me yet. I think that they thought that the interview went fine after the interview Channel four News found themselves at the center of an online storm Which included some nasty personal and misogynistic attacks? It’s understandable that they just wanted it to go away But online is forever and as the center of gravity continues to shift away from traditional media this interview is I would argue a slow-motion and Continuing car crash for Channel 4’s credibility, so why did it happen? Partly the limitations of the medium of TV, but also because of the institutional political blindness of the mainstream media I’ve always considered myself of the liberal left, but especially since the election of Trump I’ve been trying to understand what happened and I’m convinced that the polarization We’re seeing is mainly driven by the shadow side of liberalism in particular where supposedly Inclusive social justice liberalism stops being inclusive and secretly judges and despises people that don’t think the same way the rebellion of Trump and brexit was a direct response as Yuri Harris argues in this article in Colet the new gatekeepers of the media have become a new bourgeoisie Enforcing a rigid etiquette and using the rights of the oppressed as an excuse to put forward a vision of the kind of society they personally want to live in on the surface level it’s about how a narrow social justice worldview embodied by Kathy Newman in the interview became the new status quo and How this institutional bias of much of the mainstream media? Means it can’t see or understand the forces that are challenging this new consensus The counterculture used to be on the left, but once it won. The culture war it left space for a new counterculture The biggest manifestation is the red pill phenomena which the mainstream media? Mistakenly assumes is the same thing as the OLT right? I was surprised to just discover the overlap between What I minute II particularly like Greek philosophy and stoicism and The alt-right who I’ve always thought of you know if I come across on the tour. I thought the most kind Swivel-eyed bogeymen you know completely unpalatable extremists in their in their basements and then to discover that You know a lot of them were a lot of people in stoicism were also really into the alt-right Made me wonder. What was going on and why? People like me were getting radicalized I’m drawn into if you explain. What stoicism is for Stoicism is basically an ancient Greek philosophy, which was became very popular in the Roman Empire You know with like the Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a stoic for example? And it’s in some ways like a Western form of Buddhism It’s like a therapy for the emotions it teaches you to take Responsibility for your thoughts to take and thereby to take some control over your emotions so in some ways it’s putting forward a model of strength and integrity and kind of resilience Amid adversity and rapid change so for that reason it’s become very popular in the last 10 years I Think this is also. Why from my perspective at least someone like Jordan Pederson Is often looked from the outside as being aligned with the alt-right because he has a similar message But it’s but there are crucial differences. I think between what we would consider I mean certainly white nationalism would be an essential part of the alt-right I would say of any useful definition, and yeah, that’s that’s certainly not characteristic of of Jordan Peterson from my experience No, there’s a crucial difference at least between stoicism and the alt-right Even though a lot of alt writers into stoicism in that stoicism, and and maybe Jordan Peterson as well I don’t know. I’m not an expert on him talk about the way to gain strength and maturity and power is Internal it’s to take responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings Whilst I think people sometimes men might look for that sense of power and control externally by suppressing or Segregating anyone who they feel threatened by whether that’s other colours or other sexualities or Gender so there’s a crucial difference there one is about kind of inner Integrity and and and just kind of being strong within yourself and the other is about trying to take control through the kind of exterior I Mean every public appearance that I’ve made that’s related to the sort of topics that were discussing is overwhelmingly men It’s like it’s like eighty-five to ninety percent And so I thought wow that’s weird like what the hell’s going on here exactly, and then the other thing. I’ve noticed is that? I’ve been talking a lot to the crowds that I’ve been talking to not about rights But about responsibility right because you can’t have the bloody converse. What are you doing? You can’t have the conversation about rights without the conversation about responsibility because your rights are my Responsibility that’s what they are Technically, so you just can’t have only half of that discussion, and we’re only having half that discussion the question is well What the hell are you leaving out if you only have that half of the discussion and the answer is what you’re leaving out Responsibility and then the question is well What are you leaving out if you’re leaving out responsibility and the answer might be well, maybe you’re leaving out the meaning of life That’s what it looks like to me. It’s like here you are Suffering away, what makes it worthwhile, right? You know you’re completely. Oh, you’re completely you have no idea what you’re You it’s almost impossible to describe how bad an idea that is responsibility That’s what gives life meaning It’s like lift a load Then you can tolerate yourself right because look at your useless Easily hurt easily killed. Why should you have any self-respect? That’s the story of the fall Pick something up and carry it pick make it heavy enough so that you can think yeah well Useless as I am at least I could move that from there to there well What’s really cool about that is that when I talk to these crowds about this the man’s eyes light and that’s very good I’ve seen that phenomena because I’ve been talking about this Mythological material for a long time and I can see when I’m watching crowds people you know their eyebrows lift their eyes let light up Because I put something together for them. That’s what mythological stories. Do so I’m not taking responsibility for that That’s what the stories do so I say the story and people go click click click You know in their eyes light up, but this responsibility thing That’s a whole new order of this is that young men are so hungry for that. It is unbelievable. It just blows me away It’s like really that’s what’s that’s the counterculture? Grow the hell up and do something useful really I could do that oh I’m so excited by that idea no one ever mentioned that before it’s like rights rights rights rights Jesus It’s it’s it’s appalling. It’s and and I feel that that’s deeply felt by the people who are who are coming out to To listen to these sorts of things to they’re they’ve had enough of that So and they better have because it’s it’s a non-productive mode of being responsibility man Peterson is part of the counterculture that he describes himself as a classic liberal and yet he’s frequently Described as right-wing by the media This is not limited to Peterson James d’amours infamous Google memo was described everywhere as an anti diversity screed Despite him specifically stating he wanted to encourage more diversity in the workplace Many believe that the Channel 4 interview was a significant moment in exposing this mindset as dogmatic reactionary and fixed so during the interview we see an example of a Delusional framework that is what appears to be largely incapable of perceiving and reacting to reality in real time but much more interesting is what happened afterwards which was the sort of the self-healing and policing mechanism of the larger social consensus of how when how the blue church Reactively goes about maintaining the integrity of its frame And so what ended up happened was there was a break in the frame there was a glitch in the matrix the Mechanisms of the blue church reacted to endeavor to control the frame and to convert it into a way of sense of Making sense of the what occurred that still maintained the integrity of its frame? Do you mean when they tried to characterize it as sort of? abusive trolls and you’re right hero, and all of that exactly exactly it’s sort of a to use of a military language it was a fallback position that was a Reactive almost instinctual and not almost in fact precisely instinct was that pure habit there was no Thoughtfulness or even strategic Action there it was if if X then Y and in this case Y is. Here’s a set of things that one does to re-establish the dominant frame and Now we’re now were two levels deep you know the first. Level was a sort of self-evident disaster, but then the second level was also a relatively self-evident disaster and There isn’t really a third level In this approach so it ends up happening, and this is again. You can kind of just think about this from ordinary psychology This is how? delusions fall apart As try as we might our desire to interpret reality to mean what we wanted to mean at the end of the day. We’ll always Be checked against what reality actually is It may be some time. You know we’re pretty good at making things up and pretending, but eventually Reality is reality this isn’t to say that Peterson is not controversial He’s saying things that challenge the most deeply held assumptions of the new establishment narrative I guess the other reason that people are on My case to some degree is because I have made a strong case which I think is fully documented by the scientific literature that there Are intrinsic differences say between men and women and I think the evidence and that this is the thing that staggered me is that? No serious scientists have debated that for like four decades It’s that argument was done by the time. I went to graduate school everyone knew that human beings were not a blank slate that biological forces not Parameterised the way that we thought and and felt and acted and and and valued everyone knew that the fact that this has become somehow debatable again is just Especially because it’s being done by legislative Fiat. They’re forcing it Part of Peterson’s argument based on years of psychological research is that much of the political? Conflicts are due to try to integrate the different political temperaments of men and women we were talking about the relatively the relative evolutionary roles of men and women this is speculative obviously and and Because our research did indicate. It’s tentative research so far that that the the the SG is SJW sort of equality above all else philosophy is more prevalent among women It’s predicted by the personality factors that are more common among women so agreeable this and high negative emotion Primarily agreeableness, but in addition. It’s also predicted by being female and so I’ve been thinking about that a lot because well men are bailing out of the humanities like mad and Pretty much out of the university is except for stem the women are moving in like mad And they’re also moving into the political sphere like mad, and this is new right we’ve never had this happen before and we do know know do not know what the Significance of it is it’s only 50 years old and so we were thinking about this and so I don’t know what you think about this proposition, but imagine that that that historically speaking, it’s something like Women were responsible for distribution and men were responsible for production Something like that and maybe maybe that’s only the case really in the tight confines of the immediate family But that doesn’t matter because that’s most of the evolutionary landscape for human beings anyways what the women does did was make sure that everybody Got enough okay, and that seems to me to be one of the things that’s driving at least in part the SJW demand for for equity and Equality it’s like let’s make sure everybody has enough. It’s like look fair enough You know I mean you can’t you can’t argue with that but there’s there’s an antipathy between that and The the reality of differential productivity you know because people really do differ in their productivity I think that the SJW phenomena is different and I think it is associated at least in part with the rise of women to political power and and We don’t know what women are like when they have political power because they’ve never had it I mean there’s been queens obviously and that sort of thing there’s been female authority figures and females have Wielded far more power historically than feminists generally like to admit, but this is a different thing And we don’t know what what a truly female political philosophy would be like, but it might be Especially if it’s not been well examined And it isn’t very sophisticated conceptually it could easily be let’s make sure things you’ve distributed equally. Well, yeah Why One of Peterson’s main influences is the psychologist Carl Jung Young psychology was built around the concept of the shadow all the things about ourselves. We don’t want to accept our anger negativity Unconscious judgments, and how we need to integrate all those disowned parts to grow I’m convinced. That’s what’s happening on a vast cultural level since leaving channel 4 news I’ve retrained as a counselor and started leading personal growth workshops for men And thought a lot about how these unconscious gender dynamics are playing out in the culture One of the central concepts is Jung’s idea of animus and anima possession How each have both an inner masculine and feminine essence in? A man when he’s unconsciously possessed by his feminine side his anima he becomes withdrawn Moody and reactive and when a woman is possessed by her male side the animus she becomes aggressive and dominating and How many women are pushed into that by the nature of the modern workplace? The Kathy Newman I know is warm compassionate a successful and talented journalist none of this is criticism of her Just the role she was playing in the interview I would say technically and this is might be interesting for people who are interested in union psychology If you want to understand what Carl Jung meant by animus possession which is a very difficult concept? Then that that interview was a textbook case of having a discussion with someone who is animus possessed life has been moving forward for three and a half billion years and It moves forward in these pattered and manners like the dominance hierarchy for example, so that’s that let’s call that the masculine archetype It’s part of the masculine archetype in fact the onus Proclamation was that the female representation of the male so that’s the animus is the Dominance hierarchy it’s the patriarchy So that’s that that’s the unconscious archetype, which I think is extremely interesting given what’s happened say in the women’s movement because that’s what’s projected onto men and and It can be projected in a very negative way it doesn’t have to be but it can be and so an animus possessed woman treats a man as if he’s the Manifestation of the tyrannical patriarchy he’s a group he’s that group of men Yeah, the group of bad men actually you watched the Jordan Peterson Kathy Newman entity. What did he what did he think I? My whole body contracted, and I I felt so sad for womanhood I felt disappointed and I Could see how the shadow part of womanhood was acting out I could see how the collective rage was acting through Kathy Newman and This is what happens is that when that’s unknown its projected blindly on to Whatever stick wherever it sticks and it was very clear that she already had an agenda and she already had a projection that she was just Looking to state she was she was just looking to have that confirmed so I felt on behalf of women I felt sad and disappointed because we need to have intelligent conversations, and I also want to say that this isn’t even though the the specific example is the Kathy Newman Jordan Peterson interview, it’s not specific to – Kathy Newman I think the fact that that interview has resonated with so many people that it’s been so popular shows that actually something archetypal was going on in that in that interaction And I think as well why it’s gone viral is a lot of people watching it Recognize those dynamics. They’re like I’ve been in conversations like that I’ve been in this conversation where nothing I say works where nothing I say gets through So there’s something sort of fundamental about about the masculine feminine dynamic. That’s going on in there What do you think that is I think Jordan Peterson? He’s everyman Kathy Newman She’s every woman I can tap into that rage like this I know it in myself and women that say they don’t they’re just denying it because it is in the collective So in that sense it just highlighted what what’s that? It’s wonderful because here we really get to look at why is this so? Important why is it so important to listen to? To a thinker like Jordan Peterson and take it seriously and say what can we do with it? It’s just so obvious that it’s needed Because if this is where we are if this is where society and cultures is if this is the ability to have an intelligent conversations Conversation then we are in trouble, I really feel that there is this collective subconscious rage that is just boiling in women and it’s coming up in so many ways we see we see in the media and What’s going on is this? unknown Rage that comes up in in many different ways um And on one hand it needs to come out we need to clear it it needs to be expressed it needs to Be acknowledged on the other hand it’s not enough. This is only like this is breaking the ice So that the next step of evolution, can you know? Consciousness can start coming through and that’s what I’m lacking in women. It’s really to take responsibility for what we do as women in our Manipulation in our seduction in our control, and and it’s so easy for women to say but that’s just because we angry and men did this and patriarchy, but it’s It’s such a lack of responsibility and this Women really need to know I mean, that’s the the kind of shadow work is The acceptance that we all have shadows that men certainly have a shadow. There is a shadow around masculinity but there’s also a shadow around femininity and while part of the cultural conversation now is toxic masculinity and everyone knows what you mean by toxic toxic masculinity if You talk about toxic femininity Everyone still knows what you mean, but you can’t have that conversation Which is it’s it’s interesting? What is allowed to be said and what is not allowed to be said at the moment and that that I think is? is very Dangerous that certain topics certain conversations are off are off-limits And this is where we see where we see the victim persecutor dynamics activates it because women become the become the victims, and we make ourselves the victims and we Persecute men but in that aggression in that rage and when we are the victims. We are in perfect control we become the persecutors because we say It’s all about blame Men did this and men need to take responsibility But in that we become the persecutors, and it’s also very difficult as well because one imagines that that Combative attitude is something that has served her well in the past and it’s something that She’s maybe felt forced into because of the nature of the society that she’s operating in so it’s a kind of catch-22 situation for the many successful women because they feel that they’re pushed to be more masculine and Then when they’re more masculine they get judged for being more masculine It’s it’s very sad and and and I can see that dynamics being played out absolutely But I think the only thing we can do is to take responsibility okay? I’m doing that do I really want to compromise my femininity do I want to compromise my integrity? Do I want to compromise my gender and? Play that or is there another way that I can be powerful without being aggressive without playing a power game But resting in my natural power resting in my natural dignity Resting in that deep rootedness that we both have in our genders that When we are peace with it and when we acknowledge it in ourselves It’s there as a natural thing and and this is the thing I don’t want to make this personal about Kathy Newman Because it’s it’s in that potential is in every woman, but it’s because we are persecuting our own femininity What’s being played out that we’re doing it to ourselves because we don’t trust that it’s good enough to be a woman We don’t trust that we can have conversations that come from a felt embodied perspective. We don’t trust that we’re connected to truth because these these Masculine ways have been have been very strong and women have been denying their own power In my work over many years of working with this I find that very few women Grew up in households which really? Loved admired respected honored cherished the feminine and So there is intrinsically for so many women who’ve grown up in the I don’t know the last hundred years that say A kind of devaluation of the feminine that gets taken on and of course and as well as abuse aggression all sorts of things so very Many women out of an intelligent strategy to survive Develop their masculine side as a defense against that devaluation for the feminine and over time they become very Identified with that masculine side the male equivalent is animal possession in anima possession it’s the loss of relaxed confidence in the Groundedness in the masculine and is overwhelmed by his own inner feminine side a passive withdrawn moody bitchy Complaining not showing up kind of guy, which I think is really so much what feminists are angry about I Don’t see them as really angry about the masculine per se but it the way that Males behave, and you know I have got a lot of compassion for that Because for myself and most men that I know we weren’t really shown how to be as men We didn’t really get initiated into it and so and then this strong thing comes from feminism And we feel like it’s it’s maleness. That’s wrong, and it’s not it’s not maleness. That’s wrong. I don’t even think feminism feminists hate The masculine it’s like what the call is really for men is to develop their masculine strength presence courage be relaxed and confident be protective and be strong and Under this kind of assault which has come from a lot of animus possessed women a lot of men have retreated And I think gone into feeling guilty about being men and have become passive Indecisive and in that way a kind of feminized man has emerged Those who followed Peterson’s thought recognize his analysis goes all the way down to the bedrock to the Archetypal structures of consciousness itself the thing that I really see happening and you can tell me what you think about this in annoyance book Consciousness which is masculine symbolically masculine for a variety of reasons is is viewed as rising up? against the countervailing force of tragedy from an underlying Feminine symbolically feminine unconsciousness right and it’s something that can always be pulled back into that unconsciousness That would be the microcosm of that would be the Freudian eatable mother Familial dynamic where the mother is so over Protective and all-encompassing that she interferes with the development of the competence not only of her sons But also of her daughter of her children in general, and it seems to me that that’s the dynamic That’s being played out in our Society right now is that there’s this and it’s it’s related in some way that I don’t understand to this to this Insistence that all forms of masculine Authority are nothing, but tyrannical power so the symbolic representation is tyrannical father with no appreciation for the benevolent father and benevolent mother with no appreciation whatsoever for the tyrannical mother right and that’s that and Because I thought of ideologies as fragmentary mythologies That’s where they get their archetypal and psychological power right and so in a balanced representation you have the terrible mother and the Great Mother as Anointment laid out so nicely and you have the terrible father and the great father So that’s the fact that culture mangles you have to death well It’s also promoting you and developing you you have to see that as balanced, and then you have the heroic and adversarial individual But in the postmodern world and this seems to be something that’s increasingly Seeping out into the culture at large you have nothing but the tyrannical father nothing But the destructive force of masculine consciousness and nothing, but the benevolent Benevolent great mother and it’s a it’s an appalling ideology, and it seems to me that it’s sucking the vitality Which is exactly what you would expect symbolically, it’s sucking the vitality of our culture you see that with the increasing demolition of of young men And not only young men in terms of their academic performance Which like they’re falling way behind in elementary school way behind in junior high and bailing out of the universities like mad and so And I well the public school education it’s become completely permeated by this kind of my anti male propaganda I mean, and I need to mean public schools are just a form of imprisonment. You know right now They’re particularly destructive to young men who have a lot of physical energy You know you know I identify as transgender gay mic myself way But I do not I do not require the entire world To alter itself okay to fit my particular the self-image I do believe in The power of hormones I believe that men exist and women exist and they are biologically different. I think that I think there is no cure for the culture eles right now except if men start standing opera in demanding that they be Respected as men here’s the problem You know this is something my wife is pointed out to she said well men are gonna have to stand up for themselves But here’s the problem. I know how to stand up to a man who’s Who’s? unfairly Trespassing against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined Which is we talk? We argue? We push and then it becomes physical? Right like if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse We know what the next step is ok, that’s forbidden in in discourse with women So I don’t know like it seems to me that it isn’t men that have to stand up and say enough of this even though That is what they should do it seems to me that it’s saying women Who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say look enough of that enough man-hating enough? Pathology enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender but the problem there And then I’ll stop my little tirade is that most of the women. I know who are saying are busy doing same things, right? They’re off they have their career. They have their family They’re quite occupied And they don’t seem to have the time or maybe even the interest to go after their their crazy harpy sisters And so I don’t see any regulating force for that that terrible femininity, and it seems to me to be Invading the culture and undermining the the masculine power of the culture in a way, that’s I think fatal I really do believe that I too I too believe these are symptomatic of the decline of Western culture And we and it will just go down flat. I don’t think people realize that you know Masculinity still exists okay in the world as a code among jihadists, okay? And when you have passionate masculinity, okay? Circling the borders like the Huns and the Vandals during the Roman Empire that that’s what I see I see this culture rotting from within okay, and disemboweling itself literally We have this Bit of combat let’s say It produced a scandal Now we actually talked about it Yeah No tricks just a conversation And then everybody wins right because I can admit whatever mistakes I made she can admit whatever mistakes She made we can drop the persona So you’re saying the polarization that we’re seeing right now that we are speaking out. It’s not In the future we will act out that polarization well if we don’t if we keep Accelerating it especially if we keep accelerating with lies. Yeah, you know and and this this whole channel for Rat’s nest is like 90% lies. Maybe more and You know a lot of its ideologically motivated lies, but it doesn’t matter it still lies like Kathy as I said There was virtually nothing she said in that interview that was actually Coming from her like like a deep part of her the soul of her or so it was all persona It was all persona and and and all use of words in a in a Expedient manner as tools to obtain I think probably probably status dominant status and reputation I mean what advice would you give to people to? To navigate this new world the first is for your mind. Be aware of the fact that the habits of the blue church and And how it works Don’t work anymore recognize that your way of making sense in the world that used to work Don’t work, and you really really need to set yourself free to begin learning the new child’s mind beginner’s mind second this by nature must in fact be exploratory so Swim, do not make sense prematurely in spite of the fact that the world feels dangerous inside of that you may want to protect yourself in this dangerous world Doing so too quickly did not allow the natural exploratory Approach to do what it needs to do really, just listen and Learn go all the way dad back down to human base Turn inward Learn how fear shows up in you Learn how not to allow fear to drive the choices that you make Learn how to listen to the whole way that all of you perceives. What’s going on become more integrated with your own body Go out into nature Spend a lot of time not connected to the chaos That’s going on and a lot of time Reconnecting yourself with your fundamental capacity to perceive reality in all the different modalities these human beings have the capacity to do Then relearn how to use other human beings as allies in figuring out how to make sense of the world I mean that really relearn like we have been abused and constrained by institutional frameworks that remove us from our own native capabilities So relearn that understand how to be a friend and an ally how to have a conversation with somebody where you’re really listening closely To get a sense of what their perspective brings to you where you’re not obligated to agree with them We are not obligated to move out of what you feel is right to form some new Consensus reality, but where you’re actually authentically? Recognizing that their perspective has some capacity to bring richness to your perspective This by the way is almost exclusively possible in person and what we’re doing right now is an OK version of it But we need to be very mindful the fact that Linear broadcast is bad and even interactive Bandwidth like this. It’s not good enough. You know you’ve got to learn from raw Physical and get yourself into places where your consensus reality, and your habits are willfully destroyed Human to human conversations and and get as far away from ideology as you can Your job is not to know what the fuck is going on Your job is to be absolutely certain that you have no idea what the fuck is going on and learn how to feel from raw chaos from raw uncertainty up Then and only then are you finally able to begin the journey of Beginning to form a collective intelligence in this new environment That’s my advice this is why we’ve created rebel wisdom to host these conversations to try and unpack what’s going on and through our workshops and events Start to build this collective intelligence for the future To see longer versions of the interviews featured in this film and our full-length documentary about Jordan Peterson check the rebel wisdom website Help us create more films about these subjects by sponsoring us on patreon and come to our events to have these conversations in person You

How We’ll Win The Culture War


Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well. Today’s political landscape is, for
lack of a better term, a bit of a mess. It is characterised by two
warring camps, one on the left, one on the right, plus a large group
of exasperated, disaffected centrists and moderates in the middle,
whose necks are getting increasingly sore watching the back and
forth, back and forth of the bitter ideological tennis match that is the
culture war in 2019. It started off as a few hypersensitive university
students lamenting being “triggered” over certain words and
demanding safe spaces being gently poked fun at by snarky, witty,
highly amusing, very attractive right wingers who were sick of
being told what to think and say. However, it has turned into a vicious war
of not just words, but actions. From online dogpiling, to professional sabotage,
doxing, street brawling, and even mass loss of life;
the culture war has escalated to a place it never, ever needed
to go. So, how did we get to this point? Well, before I tell you how, pretty
please make sure you like this video, subscribe to my channel if you
haven’t already, and hit that notification button. Goodness knows
what’s going on with the algorithm at the moment, so if you like my
videos and don’t want to miss any, then I’d love you to like, subscribe
and smash that notification button right…now. Thank you! Here we
go. The left will have you believe the political
tension, or “division” as they call, it is caused by racist, sexist,
bigoted conservatives spewing so called hate speech led by a man named Donald
Trump who is apparently the second coming of Mussolini. To be clear, when I say the left, I mean the
“regressive” left; the faction teetering on the extreme, who, while
making up small minority of the population, occupy a disproportionate
number of influential positions in the media, academia,
Hollywood, and big tech. This allows them to dictate the cultural narrative,
and determine what is and isn’t publicly acceptable
to talk about. The right, however, will tell you this cultural
friction is caused by the blunt refusal of the regressive left to consider
opposing opinions, as well as their vicious smearing of any opposition. After all, if you tell a
group of people, that is conservatives, often enough that their entire
moral core is questionable because they support a certain political
candidate, you’ve got to expect that maybe those people will get a
little bit angry, eventually. And considering the left’s hostility i has
amped up bigly since the election of Donald Trump, for no other reason
than they are such appallingly sore losers, it’s no wonder
we have a reached a point where certain members of the two ideological
camps are role playing at civil war. From what I have observed and experienced
over the past few years, the regressive left, with their neo-Marxist
mentality of pitting people against each other as either the oppressed
or the oppressors, seems to have made it their sole mission to inflame
these tensions. So much
that conservatives, after years of ignoring or downplaying the
provocations, are starting to react. This is quite a big deal, because conservatives
are not naturally reactionary. Conservatism is not about reacting to things
so much as conserving what is good and true and functional. Conservatives want
to create and maintain, rather than react and destroy. Leftism, on the other hand, is by definition
a reactionary ideology. They are not about building things up; they
prefer to tear things down, with no discernible plan of what to
construct in their wake. It is in their nature to poke and prod and
harangue conservatives, to proverbially stick it to the man. Funny thing is, what the regressive
left doesn’t realise is that they already won that culture war back in
the 90s, and now they are the proverbial “man” to which people are
sticking it. Considering the tendency of the right to placate
rather than react, the regressive left has been dealt a surprising
hand in recent years, with right wingers finally making it known
they are fed up with the left’s rudeness. One thing I noticed after the 2016 election
is that it always seemed to the regressive left who were
suddenly talking about this “division” in society, and
how everyone was “divided”. And I remember thinking, uh, this isn’t
a new thing; everyone has always hated you, it’s only now that people
feel empowered to say so. You could say that the regressive left is
the ideological equivalent of Mean Girls Regina George So, why am I relaying my concerns and mournful
musings about the state of the culture war? Well, because, no joke, the West is on the
brink of devouring itself. We’ve seen this multiple times with the
violence perpetrated by Antifa, and also more recently the mass loss
of life caused by right wing extremists. There are a number of people out there who
are very keen to escalate, and I think we can all agree this
needs to not happen any more than it already has. Now, I’ve seen commentary from people who
tend to be somewhere in the so-called sensible centre lamenting
the fact there is not enough listening going on; that the two sides
are failing to hear and understand each other, and that’s why there’s
so much resentment and vitriol. Well, that, I think, is a load of rubbish. Conservatives do listen to leftists, because
we have no choice. All
they do is talk, we couldn’t not listen if we tried. They are so noisy,
and as I mentioned before, occupy such a large chunk of institutions
like the media there’s literally no escaping them. And the thing is,
conservatives are happy to listen! We don’t find hearing opposing
views offensive simply because they’re opposing views. The reverse,
however, is just not true. The extreme left is more than happy to admit
they will not absorb any opposing viewpoint. That’s why they demonize outlets like Fox News and Breitbart as fascist and company. It’s so they can excuse
themselves from tuning in on moral grounds; and thus avoid the
sheer trauma of listening to people they don’t agree with. They are
also much more likely than conservatives to break off friendships
over politics. A survey taken after the 2016 US election
by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute found Democrats
were almost three times more likely than Republicans to
have unfriended someone on social media after the election. There was a similar
disparity for self-identified leftists versus conservatives. Democrat women were by far the most likely
to unfriend someone because of politics, with 30% of them saying
they had done so. This
was followed by Democrat men, at 14%, then Republican women at
10%, then Republican men at 8%. Funny how those who so rigidly
preach tolerance show the most extraordinary intolerance while
doing so, amirite? This unashamed habit of packing themselves
into echo chambers, demonizing any opposing voices as morally
repugnant, and slicing people into tribes based on arbitrary characteristics
like race and gender, is why the regressive left, not conservatives,
are responsible for the division in society. I’m calling it, there it is. And they will
never, ever, ever see it. They will never admit fault, or consider that
somehow their behaviour is less than appropriate, because
they are so sure that they are the true, pure, moral, enlightened
class. Therefore, they feel
they are justified in being as vicious and as cruel as they want to anyone who disagrees with them, because they
believe those people are not only wrong, but evil reprehensible
scum. That’s the key difference between the left
and the right. The right
think the left are naïve, but the left think the right are evil. Big and
very significant distinction. Once you understand that, you
understand the mindset that we are dealing with. There is no
measure these people will not go to in order to protect their
narrative. So, if not enough listening, at least from
the right, isn’t the problem, then what is? Well, I would say it’s not enough talking,
specifically, talking from conservatives. As I mentioned earlier, conservatives are
not naturally reactionary. We’re also, funnily enough, not interested
in engaging in conversation with people who are going to
screech RACIST at us whenever we suggest something so horribly
radical as perhaps open borders aren’t such a good idea. That is what has landed us in this mess. Because of conservatives’
totally understandable unwillingness to let their opposition screech
at them publicly about what bad people they are, the regressive left
has been led to believe that their way is objectively the correct way
of thinking and speaking. And because there is no ideological balance
in popular culture, people in the middle who are desperate to
hear a different perspective are not given a reasonable alternative. All of this has allowed the regressive left to get away with
their thuggery and intolerance, under the guise of working for
the common good. This hall pass for bad behaviour they’ve
been handed is also what causes social justice warriors to act with
such hysteria whenever they suffer a loss. They are like spoilt children; their ongoing
global tantrum over the 2016 election proves that
they’d had it their own way for so long that they’ve forgotten how
to share. They are so emotionally attached to their
political beliefs that even a hint that maybe they are wrong on one or two
things goes to the very core of their being. To admit they are wrong would be to upend
the very fibre of their identity. Because of this, and also because of the left-wing
obsession with big government, it makes perfect sense they would
stress about who is going to lead them, and which politician does
what. Again, they’re
like children; they need to be reassured that the adult authority
figure is in the room, or they’ll become anxious and act out by crying
or throwing things. Literally. Conservatives, on the other hand, do not get
emotionally attached to our political beliefs, or at least not as
attached. This is, again, the
nature of conservativism. We don’t like big government. We would
prefer politicians to have as little to do with our lives as possible. Unlike the extreme left, we don’t look to
politicians for moral guidance; that’s what religious and community
leaders or family members are for. As such, whenever our political parties lose,
we shrug it off with an oh well, let’s work harder and win next
time. We do not need
therapy dogs and play dough and colouring books to get over the
appalling traumatic experience of losing an election. So, what’s the solution to all of this craziness? How do we generate
not necessarily a more conservative society, but a more balanced
one? A cultural zeitgeist where everyone feels
they can express their views without fear of losing relationships,
or having their reputation destroyed? Well, conservatives need to start finally
speaking up. It is very important we challenge the noisy
regressive leftists in our lives, but not for the reasons you think. It’s not to change their
minds; that’s not going to happen. The only way a social justice
warrior will seriously consider other viewpoints is if they go on their
own personal journey of soul searching. You won’t convince them of
anything. But, you can convince those who may witness
the discussion. To borrow from the Gospel according to Ben
Shapiro, never argue privately with a leftist. Always do it with an audience. They are the
ones you are going to persuade. Some of the best advice I ever got
when I was starting out on this journey of culture warrior-dom in
2017 was from my editor. Before I did my first TV panel gig, he said
to me, don’t go in there trying to win an argument. That’s not your job. Your job is to present
a particular perspective in an entertaining and interesting way, not
for the other panellists or the studio audience, but for the people at
home. Those are the people you are going to influence. The same is true in your own lives, without
cameras and studio audience. While you probably won’t influence your
opposition, they’ll be too busy hand-flapping and calling
you a bigot or something, you will influence your audience. Donald Trump embodies this. Yes, while he may be brash, and
seemingly spontaneous, and rude, and crude, he is what you would
call the first wartime president during the Culture War. That
brashness, while not typically conservative, is what is needed. Until Trump, the left has been the only side
actually fighting for what they value, and what a dirty, dirty fight
they have put up. And while
conservatives pride themselves on being dignified, and polite, and
not at all reactionary, that strategy hasn’t worked. Trump, for all his wonderful flaws, is actually
fighting that Culture War, using the left’s own tactics against
them. He is calling them out
at their own game, using words, not violence, and while he won’t
change their minds, he is proving to the silent masses just how
unscrupulous, disingenuous, and power-crazed the regressive left
actually is. His strategy, while unorthodox and uncomfortable,
is working. And yes, I know regressive leftists are aggressive,
I know they will denigrate and mock you, I know it is intimidating. But it is so
important we do engage with them to somehow swing the
pendulum of acceptable public dialogue to a happier medium, even if they cast you as the villain. Sometimes, you have to be ready to
play that villain to get the message across.

2017 Personality 17: Biology and Traits: Agreeableness


[CLASSICAL MUSIC] We’ve discussed the big five traits: extroversion, that’s sensitivity to positive emotion. Neuroticism: it’s sensitivity to negative emotion. Not all negative emotions. Mostly fear, anxiety, and emotional pain seem to load on neuroticism. Disgust, which is another negative emotion. It seems to be more associated [COUGHS] with conscientiousness, particularly its orderliness aspect. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. We’re going to talk about agreeableness today. Agreeableness is a very difficult personality dimension to understand, I think. Partly because it’s difficult to dissociate from neuroticism, and as well from extroversion. Because agreeable people like you, and so that kind of sounds like extroversion. And disagreeable people sound like they’re hard to get along with. And they sort of are. But people who are high in neuroticism are hard to get along with too. And they tend to be volatile and irritable. And so most of the time, if you’re engaged in a contentious issue with someone, and emotions flare, it usually has more to do with trait neuroticism than with disagreeableness per se. So what I’m going to do is try to describe to you what the agreeable trait is, on both of its dimensions. And also to lay out the pros and cons of existence on that normal distribution trait at more or less every point. Because I think, the way I look at it anyways, is, of all the traits, agreeableness is the one that seems to come with the most marked positive and negative aspects. Features, let’s say, so we don’t confuse it with aspects. The most positive and negative features at each point on the distribution. It seems to be a very, very complex dimension. So, I’ll read you some of the questions from the Big Five Aspects Scale and that will give you an initial rule-of-thumb estimate about whether or not you’re agreeable or disagreeable. And so here are some of the questions. Imagine that you’re answering these for yourself on a scale from one to five, strongly disagree to strongly agree. So the first question is: I’m not interested in other people’s problems. So, if you are interested in other people’s problems, that tilts you towards agreeableness. Agreeableness is divided into compassion and politeness. Which also sound like very positive things, right? Because everyone wants to be compassionate, and everyone wants to be polite. And so you might say, “Well, is that a virtue? Are those virtues, with the other end being actually negative, to be not compassionate, not polite.” It’s certainly worded that way. And that’s actually a mistake, because we know that these traits are normally distributed, roughly speaking, right? And that that means that there has to be positive and negative features at every single position on the distribution. And so to make the pre-supposition, for example, that being extroverted is better than being introverted, or that being emotionally stable is necessarily better than being neurotic, is to make a kind of confusion of moral obligation with trait position. You have to assume that there’s advantages and disadvantages all the way along, or the distribution wouldn’t have set itself up that way. Especially because these things seem to be biologically instantiated traits. So Anyways If you’re interested in other people’s problems, they like to unburden themselves to you, you care about them: that’s a mark of compassion. If you’re more or less indifferent to other people’s stupid problems and you wish they’d just get on with it, then you’re less compassionate. You’re harsher and more, well, at the extreme, more callous. Ah, let’s see. Respect authority. That’s politeness. That’s part of agreeableness. Feel others’ emotions. Compassion. Inquire about others’ wellbeing. Compassion. Can’t be bothered with others’ needs. Take advantage of others. That’s disagreeable, obviously. Sympathize with others’ feelings.’ Avoid imposing my will on others. Wait for others to lead the way. Okay, I think all of those are associated with the trait agreeableness or disagreeableness. So let’s think about this for a minute. So I’m going to tell you how I conceptualize agreeableness. The first thing you want to know is that women are more agreeable than men. About half a standard deviation. And that’s approximately enough so that if you took a random male and a random female out of the population, and you tried to guess who was more agreeable, and you guessed the female, you’d be right about 60% of the time. But what’s interesting about that, and this is something also to keep in mind, about normal distributions, you know. Imagine you have normal distribution, so that most people are in the middle. And then you have another normal distribution, male and female, and mostly they overlap. But, you see, out here, and out here, they don’t overlap at all. And so, even though on average, men and women aren’t that much different in terms of their levels of agreeableness by the group, if you go out and you look at the extremes, they’re very different. So all of the most agreeable people are women, and all of the most disagreeable people are men. And the thing is, the extremes are often what matter, rather than what’s in the middle. And so one of the ways that’s reflected in society, by the way, is there’s way more men in prison. And the best personality predictor of being in prison is to be low in agreeableness. It makes you callous. Now, you might think, “What’s the opposite of compassion and politeness?” And the answer to that is, I think it’s best conceptualized as a trading game. So let’s say that we’re going to play repeated trading games. And if you’re very agreeable, then you’re going to bargain harder on my behalf than you’re going to bargain on your own behalf. Whereas if you’re very disagreeable, you’re going to do the reverse. You’re going to think, “I’m in this trading game for me, and you’re going to take care of your own interests.” Where an agreeable person is going to say, “No, no, at worst this has to be 50-50, but I’d like to help you every way I can.” Okay, so you kind of understand that. Now the advantage to being agreeable, then, is that you’re good in teams and you’re very much likely to give other people credit. The down side of being agreeable is that you’re not good at putting forward your own interests. And so one of the things that predicts salary across time, for example, is agreeableness, and it predicts it negatively. And so it’s part of the reason why women get paid less than men, and this is something for the women in the class to really listen to. Because how you get paid across time depends on a very large number of things, right? It depends on your skills and your abilities and your position and your social network and all of that. But the other thing it depends on is whether or not you actually go ask for money. Or maybe that you don’t even ask. Because actually, you don’t ask for money. You tell people that you need to be paid more or something they don’t like will happen. And I don’t mean as a threat. I mean that you have to be willing, when you’re negotiating, to have an alternative. You go talk to your boss, who isn’t going to give you money, because everyone wants money, right? It’s a competitive game. You’re going to have to go there and say, “Look, here’s what I do. Here’s why it’s useful. Here’s why you have to give me more money. And this is my opportunities if you don’t.” And then, you’re not taking your boss’s money anyway, because it’s very frequently the case that he’s working for a whopping big company. But he needs an excuse to give you money because everyone’s asking for money all the time. And so you have to put your case forward powerfully and disagreeably. Now, you don’t want to do it too disagreeably because then he’s gonna think that you’re a son of a bitch and maybe he’s not gonna give you anything and maybe you’ll get fired for being mouthy, and all of that. And that certainly happens to people who are too disagreeable. You gotta get the balance right. But it’s definitely the case. And the other thing that happens to women that’s also worth noting, and this is probably because they’re higher in negative emotion, is they tend to underestimate their own utility in business settings. Right, because if you’re trying to evaluate what you’re like, and you’re more tilted toward negative emotion, then the things that you do that are wrong are gonna stand out more on the foreground than the things that you do that are right. So if you go into a negotiation, and you’re uncertain already, because you have self doubts, and then you’re agreeable in the negotiation, what’s going to happen is that you’re not going to win as often. And winning, in a business setting, or in a career development setting, means more opportunity for promotion and more revenue generated. Now, the downside of that, of course, is as you climb the business hierarchy, you also have to take on more responsibility, and that responsibility is sometimes unpleasant as well, especially to people who are agreeable. Because you’re not necessarily liked if you’re in a position of authority. And agreeable people really like to be liked. It’s their primary motivator because they’re concerned about the maintenance of intimate, positive relationships. That also makes them conflict avoidant. Okay so now, you guys can think about this, but I’ll tell you why I think the personality differences between men and women exist. Now, these are speculative hypotheses, but they’re reasonably well documented by the relevant literature. So let’s think about it. The first thing we might think about is: what’s the difference between men and women? How do they differ? Well the first thing we might observe is that if you look at personality differences between pre-pubescent boys and girls, they’re not very large. Boys and girls don’t differ in terms of their trait neuroticism, for example. What happens is that, when puberty kicks in, women’s trait neuroticism rises and it stays higher than men for the rest of their life. And this is why you see this reflected in the different kinds of psychopathology that beset the two sexes. So men are over-represented in alcoholism, drug abuse, anti-social personality, and a host of learning disorders as well as attention deficit disorder. And women are over-represented in depression and anxiety, primarily. That seems to be tightly associated with higher levels of trait neuroticism. Because if you’re at the 95th percentile or higher, let’s say, in trait neuroticism, there isn’t much difference between that and being somewhat prone to depression and anxiety. And because the curves overlap, the curves aren’t identical, the normal distributions aren’t identical for men and women, you tilt the women’s curve to the right towards higher levels of neuroticism. You go out and you look for the person in twenty who has the highest levels of negative emotion. It’s much more likely to be female than male. Okay, so let’s see if we can figure out why. So, we’re gonna tell you some basic differences between men and women and you can tell me what you think about it, if you agree or disagree. Okay, first. Size differential emerges between men and women at puberty, right? Because boys and girls are roughly the same size and roughly the same strength. But men get bigger at puberty, when testosterone kicks in. And more importantly, not only do they get taller and heavier, but their upper body strength is much higher. And that’s a real issue for combat, because human beings punch, and there’s other animals that do that. Kangaroos do that too, so we’re not the only people that punch. But we have clubs on the ends of our arms, and so that’s how we defend ourselves. And so if you have a lot of upper body strength, especially across the shoulders, and you’re heavier, then you can step into the punch and it’s a lot more devastating. Now it is the case that, if you look at the statistics for physical altercations in marriage, women attack their husbands more often than husbands attack their wives. Well, you think, “Why is that?” Well, let’s assume that there isn’t any reason, other than both people in a relationship can get upset, and the women know that if they hit their husbands, nothing’s really going to happen. Right, because if you’re a woman about that high, and your husband is, say, my height, unless you hit me with an object or something that’s sharp, the probability that you’re going to do me any serious damage is pretty low. You might hurt me. But if I do the reverse, and hit you, and I really hit you then I might kill you. And so, at least one of the reasons why women can be more physically aggressive in minor ways in a relationship is because everyone knows, the wife and the husband equally, that the consequence of the physical aggression is much more limited. So, men do more serious damage to women. But women are more aggressive in relationships. So that’s interesting. So ok, so there’s a body size difference that’s important, a strength differential that’s important. Next thing, I think… So let’s assume that the reason that women are higher in sensitivity to negative emotion is because the world is actually more dangerous to women, right? Because that would be the most logical reason why there would be a sex difference in something like fear sensitivity and punishment. Well first there’s the danger of physical altercation. Second, there’s the sexual danger. So women become sexually vulnerable at puberty. And why do I say vulnerable? Well it’s straightforward. It’s because the cost of sex for women is way higher than it is for men. Or it certainly has been throughout our evolutionary history. Because if a man has an unwanted sexual encounter, well then he walks away and maybe he is persecuted by the the state or prosecuted by the state for it. But if a woman has an unwanted, unwarranted, or incautious sexual encounter, and she ends up pregnant, then, well, in traditional societies, you’re just done. And even in modern societies that are rich like ours, you’re… it’s a… I don’t have to go into that. It’s big trouble. No matter what you do about it, it’s big trouble. So being more nervous about that makes perfect sense. But then, here’s the last thing. I think that women’s nervous systems are not adapted to women. I think women’s nervous systems are adapted to the mother-infant dyad. Because you are not the same creature when you have an infant. Not at all. You’re way more vulnerable. And it’s partly because you have to express the vulnerability of the infant. And you also have to care for it. Right, so, you think about an infant, especially under nine months. So let’s say, how are you going to be wired up if you’re going to optimally care for an infant under nine months? And I’m saying under nine months because women generally do the bulk of child care for infants who are under nine months old. And part of the reason for that, there’s a whole host of reasons, but part of the reasons for that, obviously, is that they breast-feed. But imagine what you need to be wired up biologically in order to care for an infant. First of all, they’re very demanding. Right? Because they’re completely helpless. And they’re demanding twenty-four hours a day. And it’s quite an emotional load. And an infant under nine months is never wrong. Right? What you do to an infant under nine months, is, when they’re in distress, you always respond. You never tell the infant, “Get your act together and stop whining.” Right? Which you can do to a child that’s eighteen months old. You can start having that sort of conversation. But under nine months, it’s like, nothing is the infant’s fault, it’s surrounded in an extraordinarily threatening world, and you have to be responsive to what it needs, regardless of what you want. And you have to be very sensitive to the threats that emerge in the environment. And so I think the price that women pay for that ability to have an intimate relationship with infants in the very earliest stages of development is that their nervous systems are actually wired so that they can perform that role optimally. And the disadvantage to that is that having a temperament like that doesn’t work that well when you’re dealing with adult men. Especially when you’re dealing with them in a business environment. Because it’s not the same thing. Not at all. It’s a competitive environment. So agreeable people are compassionate and polite. What are disagreeable people like? They’re tough-minded, they’re blunt, they’re competitive, and they won’t do a damn thing they don’t want to do. So it isn’t exactly that they’re aggressive, although they will push you the hell out of their way if you’re in the way. They’re not volatile like you are if you’re high in neuroticism. It isn’t defensive aggression, it’s more like predatory aggression. It’s dominance behavior. And so for someone who’s highly disagreeable, they look at the world as a place in which they can compete and win. And I’ll tell you a story. I have a friend. I gave him my personality test, the Big Five Aspect Scale that Colin DeYoung developed, in my lab. I knew he was a disagreeable guy. By interacting with him. I mean, he’s even rude to people sort of spontaneously on the street. I actually like him quite a bit. He’s very, very funny. He’s also very conscientious, so you can trust him. But he’s disagreeable as hell. So I gave him this test because I thought it would be funny, and he came out as the most disagreeable person in ten thousand. [STUDENTS LAUGH] Reasonable in compassion, about thirtieth percentile, but point zero-zero-one in politeness. So he’s extraordinarily blunt. He’ll just say absolutely anything, no matter how horrible it is. And he was often brought into corporations to sort of clean them up. So if a corporation was tilting and not doing well, they’d bring him in to find out who the useless people were and fire them. And I talked to him about that, because I had the mis-opportunity to have to not have graduate students in my lab, for example, that weren’t performing well. And I find it very, very difficult, to, you know, to dress someone down, and certainly difficult to fire them. I just hate it because I’m actually quite an agreeable person, much to my chagrin. And I asked him about that. And I said, “Well, what do you do? You have to fire people all the time. How do you handle that?” He says, “Handle it? I enjoy it!” [STUDENTS LAUGH] And I thought, “Wow, that’s so interesting, that someone would have that response.” So I said, “Well, what do you mean you enjoy it?” He said, “Look, I go into these companies, and I analyze the performance of groups of people. Right, and in those groups there are people who are really striving, really trying hard and working, themselves, really hard, and being productive. And then there’s these people that are just doing nothing. They’re completely in the way. They don’t carry their weight at all. They take advantage every chance they get. And they’re always whining about why they can’t work. It’s like, I find out who they are, I call them into my office, and I tell them exactly what they’ve been doing. It’s like, hit the road, buddy. You’ve had your run of it.” And I thought, “Oh yeah, okay, fair enough.” Well, I can tell you, you know, I’ve had situations in my lab where I had under-performing graduate students. And one of the things that was really awful about that was that it was really hard on the high-performing graduate students. You know, because they felt that even being in the same category as the people who weren’t working hard and pulling their weight devalued what they were doing. You know? And that’s exactly right. And so this is also why there’s a conscientiousness trait and an agreeableness trait. Because conscientious people judge you on your accomplishments, right? They don’t give a damn about your feelings. Not a bit. It’s like, “Are you doing the work, or not?” Whereas agreeable people think, “Well, you know, your mother’s sick, and you’ve got a bunch of family problems, and we all have to take care of each other.” “And it’s no wonder that you’re having a rough time.” You can’t say that one of those attitudes is correct and the other isn’t correct. You can’t say that! There wouldn’t be those two dimensions if there wasn’t something correct about both of them. But you can certainly point out that often they conflict. You know, and so the demand for inclusiveness and unity and care, and the demand for high level performance in a hierarchical structure- they’re very different orientations in the world. It’s complicated for people who are agreeable AND conscientious. And actually, I think often, that large corporations, large institutions of any sort, run on the un-heralded labor of people who are high in agreeableness and high in conscientiousness. And they’re disproportionately women. My experience in large institutions has been that if you want to hire someone to exploit appropriately, No, not appropriately.. If you want to hire someone to exploit productively, you hire middle-aged women who are hyper-conscientious and who are agreeable. Because they’ll do everything. They won’t take credit for it, and they won’t complain. And that’s nasty. And I think that happens all the time. And so one of the things you have to be careful of, if you’re agreeable, is not to be exploited. Because you’ll line up to be exploited. And I think the reason for that is because you’re wired to be exploited by infants. And so, that just doesn’t work so well in the actual world. One of the things that happens very often in psychotherapy, you know, people come to psychotherapy for multiple reasons. But one of them is they often come because they’re too agreeable. And so what they get is so-called “assertiveness training.” Although it’s not exactly assertiveness that’s being trained. What it is the ability to learn how to negotiate on your own behalf. And one of the things I tell agreeable people, especially if they’re conscientious, is Say what you think. Tell the truth about what you think. There’s gonna be things you think that you think are nasty and harsh. And they probably are nasty and harsh. But they’re also probably true. And you need to bring those up to the forefront and deliver the message. And it’s not straightforward at all because agreeable people do not like conflict. Not at all. They smooth the water. And you can see why that is, in accordance with the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward. You don’t want conflict around infants. It’s too damn dangerous. You don’t want fights to break out. You don’t want anything to disturb the relative peace. If you’re also more prone to being hurt, physically, and perhaps emotionally, you’re also maybe loathe to engage in the kind of high intensity conflict that will solve problems in the short term. Because it takes a lot of conflict to solve problems in the short term. And if that can spiral up to where it’s dangerous, which it can, it gets uncontrolled, it might be safer in the short term to keep the waters smooth, and to not delve into those situations where conflict emerges. The problem with that is it’s not a very good medium to long-term strategy. Right, because lots of times there’s things you have to talk about. Because they’re not going to go away. And so partly what you do with agreeable people is, you get them to figure out- and they have a hard time with this too. If you ask a disagreeable person what he wants, say, or she wants, they’ll tell you right away. They go, “This is what I want, and this is how I’m going to get it.” Agreeable people, especially if they’re really agreeable, are so agreeable, that they often don’t even know what they want. Because they’re so accustomed to living for other people, and to finding out what other people want, and to trying to make them comfortable, and so forth, that it’s harder for them to find a sense of their own desires as they move through life. And that’s not… look, there’s situations where that’s advantageous, but it’s certainly not advantageous if you’re going to try to forge yourself a career. That just doesn’t work at all. So… All right. What else do I want to tell you about agreeableness? Well, I can tell you a little bit about the regulation of aggression. One of the things I studied, especially when I was in Montreal, was the development of antisocial behavior in children and in adolescents. Antisocial children, so they tend to be aggressive, antisocial children tend to turn into antisocial… It’s conduct disorder, technically speaking. Conduct disordered children tend to turn into conduct disordered adolescents. And then they tend to turn into antisocial and criminal adults. And so I can tell you little bit about how that progresses, I think, because it’s quite interesting. And it isn’t what people generally think. So, the first thing is, if you want to be criminal, the best way to do it is to be really low in agreeableness and really low in conscientiousness. Because low in agreeableness means, “Things are for me and not for you. And you’re not going to get me to do a damn that I don’t want to do, and I’ll stand my ground.” And low in conscientiousness means you can do all the work and I’ll sit back and take the benefits. And so if you have someone who’s really disagreeable, and really unconscientious, you have someone who’s starting to border on psychopath. And if you add high intelligence and high emotional stability to that, then you have someone who won’t work but will reap the benefits, who doesn’t give a damn about you, who is assertive as hell and who’s smart. And a person like that’s also going to be charismatic because extroverted disagreeable people are kind of narcissistic. But they’re… they’ll put themselves forward strongly. And if they don’t show any signs of fear, that also indicates that they’re confident. And it’s easy for people to confuse that with competence. And that’s how psychopaths get away with what they’re doing. Although they have to move from person to person because their reputation will track them. So anyways, back to the development of aggression in children, the development of criminality in adults. Here’s how it seem to work, at least in part. It’s more complicated than this, but I’ll put in some of the sociological elements as well. So If you take children and you group them together in groups defined by age, So let’s say you have 30 two year olds, 30 three year olds, 30 four year olds, all the way up to eighteen. And then you watch them interact, and you code their behavior for kicking, biting, fighting, and property theft, then what you’ll find is that the two year olds are by far the most aggressive of the lot. So that’s pretty interesting, you know, because you think, “Well, children are naturally peaceful, and if they’re aggressive it’s because they learn it.” It’s like, no, that’s true for a small minority of children. But there’s a substantial number of children who are aggressive at two, by nature. Most of them are male. Now that doesn’t mean most children are like that, because they’re not, even if you look at two year olds, who are the most aggressive human beings. Most two year olds aren’t aggressive. But some of them are. And most of those are male. Okay, so then let’s say you identify this cohort of aggressive two year olds. And you track them across time. Track them for the next 2-4 years. Track them until they’re four years old. What you find is the vast majority of the hyper-aggressive male two year olds get socialized perfectly well. So by the time they’re four, they’re temperamentally probably still more aggressive, but they become civilized little monsters. So other people can tolerate them. And that means that they’ve had parents, or peers, or educational experiences, that enabled them to learn how to interact productively with other kids. And to bring their aggressive nature under control. Some of that seems to be mediated by the opportunity to engage in rough-and-tumble play. And that’s one of the things that we know that that helps socialize rats, for example. It’s vital to them, but it also seems to really be good for socializing young kids. And rough-and-tumble play, which is something that adult males particularly like to do with young kids, by the way, not before nine months, because they’re just too little, but once they become ambulatory, and kind of puppy-like so that they’re a little bit more robust, then you can play a lot with them. And you can play with them right at the edge of danger, too, which kids, they absolutely go nuts for that. They love that. When I had little kids, I made this kind of wrestling ring out of these two couches that we had that would hook together. And I’d bring them on there and, you know, toss them up in the air and catch them, you know. Eight, ten feet- no, no. [STUDENT LAUGHTER] A foot in the air and catch them, and they’d go like this, and then, you know, I’d catch them, and they’d laugh, and I’d throw them up and they’re all freaked out and then they’d laugh. So they’re learning trust with that in the bodied way, and they’re also learning, and this is from stretching them out, and wrestling them, and twisting them around, and letting them pull on your hair and hit you, and all of those things, they learn deep in their bones exactly what can hurt them and what doesn’t. And you want to kind of push them to the edge, you know, so that they can tell the difference between what hurts and what’s still within the realm of the game. And you do the same thing when they’re wrestling with you. So they learn not to, you know, awkwardly stick their thumb in your eye. Or do things that are actually painful like grab your lip and pull it. It’s like, no, no, you let go of my lip, you know? And so, that seems to help regulate the aggressive impulses. And help the child find a more appropriate embodiment. You can think that what you’re doing, in some sense, when you’re rough-and-tumble playing with kids is teaching them how to dance. Because that is what you’re doing. You know? You’re making them comfortable in their bodies in all of its extension. And building in that kind of body fluency that you see in people who are well-situated inside themselves. And so that’s something to really think about, you know? And it’s appalling. We know that the ability to engage in rough-and-tumble play among rats inhibits aggression, impulsive aggression, among rats. We also know that if you deprive rats of the opportunity to engage in rough-and-tumble play, they show pre-frontal cortical developmental deficits. And manifest behaviors that are akin to attention deficit disorder, which you can then treat with Ritalin. And so one of the things that’s happening with boys, because they’re way more dosed with attention deficit disorder medication than girls is that their natural proclivity to engage in robust and troublesome active play isn’t appropriate for a school environment where you’re supposed to sit down and shut up. And so the kids get hyperactive. And instead of letting them out to run around until they fall over half exhausted, which is exactly what you should do, you know, and you medicate them, so that their exploratory systems, the activity of which is facilitated by the dopaminergic agonist, that’s the ADHD medication, suppresses the play function. It’s absolutely appalling. There’s no excuse for it. You know, but it’s a good indictment of the education system, because why in the world would you take six year old kids and get them to sit without moving for five hours, unless you want them to grow up fat and stupid? Why in the world would you train them to do that? Well it’s easier. That’s one thing. And when they’re sitting there, there’s nothing disruptive about the rough-and-tumble play, and that can be quite disruptive. So anyways, most of these kids are reasonably well socialized by the time they’re the age of four, using one mechanism or another. They learn how to regulate their aggression and they learn how to engage in fictional play structures with other kids. They learn how to cooperate and compete. And the advantage to having a well-socialized disagreeable person is that they really don’t let much get in their way. So if you can get a kid who’s disagreeable socialized, that person can be quite the creature, you know? Because they’re very forward-moving in their nature and very difficult to stop. But if you don’t get them successfully “domesticated,” tamed, roughly speaking, by the time they’re four, their peers reject them. And that’s a big problem because your job as a parent is to make your child socially desirable by the age of four. You want to burn that into your brain. Because people don’t know that. That’s your job. And here’s why, it’s easy if you think about it carefully. So you imagine, you’ve got a three year old child, so halfway through that initial period of socialization, and you take that child out in public. Okay, what do you want for the child? Who care about you? What do you want for the child? You want the child to be able to interact with other children and adults, so that the children are welcoming and smile and want to play with him or her, and the adults are happy to see the child and treat him or her properly. And if your child’s a horrible little monster because you’re afraid of disciplining or you don’t know how to do that properly, then what they’re going to do is, they’re going to experience nothing but rejection from other children, and false smiles from other parents and adults. So then you’re throwing the child out there into a world where every single face that they see is either hostile or lying. And that’s not something that’s going to be particularly conducive to the mental health or the wellbeing of your child. If your child can learn a couple simple rules of behavior, like don’t interrupt adults when they’re talking too much, and pay attention, and try not to hit the other kids over the head with the truck any more than is absolutely necessary, and share and play properly, then when they meet other kids, the kids are going to try out a few little play routines on them, and that’s going to go well, and then they’re going to go off, and socialize each other for the rest of their lives. Because that’s what happens, is that from four years old onwards, the primary socialization with children takes place among other children. And so if the kids don’t get in on that early, they don’t move into that developmental spiral upwards and they’re left behind. And you can imagine how terrible that is, because a four year old will not play with another four year old who’s two. But a five year old certainly will not play with a five year old who’s two. Right, because the gap is just starting to become unbelievably large. And so the kids start out behind, and then the peers leave them behind, and then those kids are alienated and outside the peer group for the rest of their life. Those are the ones that grow up to be long-term anti-social. They’re already aggressive. It doesn’t dip down. Now what happens to normal boys, roughly speaking, imagine the aggressive two year old types, they get socialized, so their level of aggression goes down, and then they hit puberty, and testosterone kicks in, and bang! Levels of aggression go back up. And so that’s why males are criminals between the ages roughly of sixteen and about twenty-five. And it matches the creativity curve, by the way. It’s so cool. If you look at the spike of creativity among men, sixteen to twenty-five, it starts to go down, criminality matches that absolutely perfectly. So that’s quite cool. So the testosterone levels raise the average level of aggression among men, more dominance than aggression, actually, and testosterone is by no means all bad, and then it starts to decrease around age twenty-five or twenty-six, which is usually, with men, stop staying up late at night, stop drinking as much, develop a full time career, and take on the burdens and responsibilities and opportunities that are associated with a long-term partner and family. So that’s the development of what I would call predatory aggression, because I also think that the agreeableness distribution is probably something like predatory aggression, versus maternal sympathy. It’s something like that. So if you look at other mammals that are predators, because we’re predators as well as prey animals, if you look at other animals like bears, the male bear has absolutely nothing to do with the raising of the infants. In fact, the female bears will keep the male the hell away because he’s likely to kill the infants, and maybe even to eat them. So there’s no maternality at all in solitary, male, mammalian predators. Now it depends on how social they are, but roughly speaking, that’s the situation. Whereas with human beings, males are quite maternal. So, but anyways, I think the extreme of agreeableness, on the low end, so disagreeableness, is predation. And the extreme on the upper end is maternal caring. And those two things compete, right? Obviously, it’s very difficult to be both of those at the same time. And so men, of course, in the wild, so to speak, are… Very, very few women hunt in modern societies or in archaic societies. And you can also understand why that it because hunting actually requires hurting something, killing it. And it’s usually something that’s not very impressed about being hurt or killed, and it will emit a lot of distress while it’s happening. And so for anybody who’s compassionate, who’s got compassion as one of the fundamental elements of their temperament, that’s something they’re just not going to be able to tolerate at all. In the evolutionary landscape, because that’s really what we’re talking about, there’s tension behind the development of different modes of being in the world. And if you’re good at one thing, that sometimes means that you can’t be good at the other thing at the same time. So… I was going to have a guest speaker for you last week, but the person I had invited in had some familial trouble, so that didn’t work out. She’s a graduate student of mine and one of the things that we’d be working on in my lab, generally speaking, is the delineation of the relationship between personality traits and political belief. And so I told you a little bit about the things that distinguish liberals from conservatives, right? The conservatives are high in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, and low in trait openness. And so that means a conservative is someone who puts someone in boxes, puts the boxes in order, and doesn’t like them to be messed up. So they like the borders between things to remain determinate and what would you say, inviolable. And I think that’s true at every level from the conceptual all the way up to the political. I think that the fundamental political question and I think this is why the temperaments align across these political dimensions, is whether the borders between things should be open or closed. We see this reflected worldwide right now in then arguments about immigration, right? Because the liberal types are saying, “Open the gates.” And the conservatives are saying, “Wait, you don’t know what you’re inviting in.” And you might say, “Well, who’s right?” And the answer is you don’t know. That’s the thing. Because sometimes the right answer is, “Open the gates, these are interesting people, we could trade with them, we could learn from each other.” And sometimes the answer is, “Don’t bother. What’s going to come in is going to wipe you out and kill you, and really do it.” I mean, so, here’s an example. This is why I think orderliness is associated with disgust sensitivity. And it’s one of the determining factors of conservative political belief. What happened when the Europeans came to North America? What happened when the Spaniards came to North America? 95% of the Native Americans died. Why? Because the Spaniards brought illness. Smallpox, measles, chicken pox, all these things that the Native Americans had absolutely no resistance to. There were hardly any diseases at all in North and South America. The Spaniards showed up, within 15-20 years, 19 out of 20 of the Native Americans were dead. You never know what people are bringing with them. And so what that means is that how should you respond to people who are outside of your circle of familiarity? Well the answer is One, they might kill you, in all sorts of ways . Two, they might bring with them things to trade that are of inestimable value. So you’re stuck. It’s like, how the hell are you going to reconcile that problem? And the answer is, well we reconcile it temperamentally, roughly speaking. So half the people are temperamentally wired up to say, “No, no, no! Let’s keep the damn boxes closed. Took a long time to pack everything in there and to get it into order.” And the liberals say, “Well wait a minute. You don’t know if you’ve got things in the right boxes to begin with. The things that you’re keeping in there were getting stale and old. And maybe we need some new ideas and new people to rejuvenate the situation.” That’s political discussion. And the political discussion has to proceed because there’s no way of solving that problem except by discussing it. Well, how does that relate to agreeableness? We also looked at political correctness. And so here’s an interesting thing. Purely from a scientific perspective. You might ask yourself, If you talk about political correctness, one of the things that the people who tend to be labeled as politically correct say is there’s no such thing as political correctness. It’s just a pejorative label that people who are opposed to those views impose on a set of beliefs to demonize it. Perfectly reasonable objection, and you never know, it might be true. But the thing is, psychometrically, you can solve that problem, and you solve it the same way that you solve the problem of what constitutes human personality. So this is the way we tried to solve it. You can think about it methodologically, because that’s how you should think about it. The first thing we did was collect a very large number of statements from press accounts that seemed to indicate what people generally referred to as political correctnes. So we had a small team of people combing media reports to come out with opinions or attitudes that looked like they were characteristic of the differentiation between politically correct people and people who aren’t politically correct. So we got about four hundred statements like that. And what you want to do is, you imagine that there’s a core set of beliefs and statements that people are defining in a particular way. And you’re trying to get a handle on what that is, and even if it exists. What you do is over-sample it. If you can find questions that might even tangentially be related to the phenomena in question, you include those. Because the statistics will take care of the excess. Okay, so then what you do is you take your four hundred items, roughly speaking, and you get people to register the degree to which they agree or disagree with them, get a thousand people to do that. And then you subject that to a factor analysis. And what the factor analysis does is tell how those questions clump. Now, they might not clump. So for example, you could do a factor analysis of a set of questions, and you could find that there are two hundred factors, let’s say you have four hundred items. There’s two hundred factors. And none of them… there’s no big set of questions that are clumping together. And you say, “Well, there’s no evidence here that there is a single, underlying phenomena that unifies those questions that you can reasonably characterize with a name.” Well that isn’t what we found. We found that there were two dimensions of political correctness. One of them looked like liberalism, except that the people who were politically correct, in addition to being liberal, were very high in trait agreeableness. And agreeableness has almost nothing to do with the classic liberal-conservative divide. It’s weakly related in that conservatives are more compassionate than liberals, Sorry, liberals are more compassionate than conservatives, the difference isn’t huge, and conservatives are more polite than liberals, and the difference isn’t huge. So those are the two aspects of agreeableness. If you put them together, they cancel each other out. And so on average, conservatives and liberals don’t differ in agreeableness. But political correctness did clump together into two categories, PC liberalism, we call it PC authoritarianism. The PC liberals were high in openness, high in verbal intelligence, and high in agreeableness. And the second group was PC authoritarians. And they were also high in agreeableness, but they were high in orderliness, and the correlation with that was negative in relationship to verbal intelligence. So we found that there were two categories of political correctness, that it does in fact exist, but that it’s a very unstable construct because factor one, which was PC liberalism, and factor two, which was PC authoritarianism, were only correlated at 0.1. And so what it indicates, and this is our prediction, roughly speaking, from the lab, is to the degree that there’s unity, so to speak, on the politically correct left, it’ll fragment into two groups. One will be the PC liberals, and the other will be the PC authoritarians, because although they’re united by their tendency to agreeableness, they’re not united by other temperamental traits, nor in their core beliefs. So the PC authoritarian types, for example, are very obsessed with language control. And it’s funny that it’s agreeableness. I’ve really been thinking about that. You know, again, this is a hypothesis in development, but I think what’s happening is that you know, your temperamental proclivity allows you to lay out a kind of radical simplification on the world. That’s part of the advantage of having a temperament. So if you’re a conscientious person, the world is a place to go out there and work. If you’re an open person, the world is a place to go out there to discover new ideas and do artistic things. If you’re an agreeable person, the world’s a place to go out there and establish intimate relationships. So they’re simplifying perspectives, and simplifying personalities. They’re the manner in which you’re adapted to a particular niche. I think what you see in agreeableness in relationship to political belief is a proclivity for people to divide the world into defenseless infants and predatory oppressors. And that that’s blasted forward onto the political landscape, and things are conceptualized along that temperamental variable. Anyways, that’s where we’re at with regards to the analysis of political belief. Well, we’ve got three minutes left, and I’m wondering if anyone has a particularly intelligent question or failing that, any question at all? Because I told you a lot of things that are, I would say contentious. But I also think they’re very much worth knowing. So I, yes? Did you say that high in agreeableness is the simplified perspective of the mother-infant dynamic? Yeah, that’s what it looks like to me, yeah. Projected onto the world, period. Yeah. So what would you say is the best way to go about, knowing that we have these simplified ways of looking at the world, what then? It’s really useful to investigate the viewpoints of people who have opposing views to yours. Because they’ll tell you things, not only will they tell you things you don’t know, they’ll also tell you how to see the world in ways that you don’t see it. And they’ll also have skills that you don’t have, that you could develop. So for example, if you’re an introverted person, it’s very useful to watch an extroverted person, because the extroverted person has ways of being in the social world that aren’t natural to you, that you can use to improve your toolkit. And if you’re disagreeable, one of the best things to do with disagreeable people, especially if that’s alienating them from other people, for example, because it can, you know, people treat you like you’re a selfish, arrogant son-of-a-bitch, and maybe that’s because you are. It’s like, okay, so what do you do about that? One of the most promising “treatments,” let’s say, is get the person to do something for someone else once a day. Just as a practice, and learn how to do it. Maybe you can wake the circuit up, you know, if you think that it’s lying dormant in you, which is probably right. You know, I think we have a very wide range of propensities within us. Some are switched on. Genetic propensity. Some are switched on. But I think that if you put yourself in the right situation or walk yourself through the right exercises, you can switch some of these other things on as well. But it takes work and dedication and discipline to do it. So actively confront the things which are not a part of our personality? Yes. Well, I would say, generally speaking, if you want to adapt yourself properly to life, you should find a niche in the environment that corresponds with your temperament. Right? You shouldn’t work at cross-purposes to your temperament, because it’s just too damn difficult. But having done that, then you should work on developing the skills and viewpoints that exist in the space opposite to your personality. Because that’s where you’re fundamentally underdeveloped. That way you can extend out your temperamental capability across a wider range, and to me that’s roughly equivalent as bringing a richer toolkit to each situation. You know, so if you’re hyper-extroverted, you should probably learn to shut up at parties now and then. And listen just to see what’s going on, to see if you can manage it. And if you’re introverted, well then you should learn how to speak in public, and to learn how to go to parties without hiding in the corner and saying nothing to anyone. And if you’re agreeable, then you need to learn how to be disagreeable, so people can’t push you around. And if you’re disagreeable, you need to learn how to be agreeable so that you’re not an evil son-of-a-bitch, you know? And the same thing applies even in the conscientious domain. If you’re too conscientious, you need to learn to relax and let go a little bit. And if you’re unconscientious, it’s time, like, get out and Google “calendar,” man, and start scheduling your day, right, and beat yourself on the back of the head with a stick until you’re disciplined enough so that you can actually stick to something for some length of time. And not living in absolute squalor, which is something that would characterize someone who is very disorderly, for example. Because they just don’t notice. It doesn’t bother them, disorder. It’s like, maybe they can see it, but it doesn’t have any emotional valence and so it doesn’t have any motivational significance. The other thing you might want to think about, too, if you’re choosing a partner, is try not to choose someone who’s too distant from you on the temperamental variables. Because you’re going to have a hard time bridging the gap. You know, it’s hard for an introverted person and an extroverted person to co-exist. And it’s really hard for an orderly person and a disorderly person to co-exist because they will drive each other nuts. Why don’t you pick up? Why are you so obsessed by it? That’s the basic argument. So it’s useful to know about your temperament so that you can negotiate the space with your partner as well, and I don’t think you should try to find someone who’s exactly the same as you, because then you don’t have the benefits of the alternative viewpoint. But you’ve gotta watch it because you may hit irreconcilable differences of various sorts. And I’ve seen that most particularly among couples who are high and low in openness, that’s a rough one. And also high and low in conscientiousness, that’s another rough one, because they just cannot see how the other person sees the world at all. Okay, I’ll see you on Tuesday.

Ben Shapiro Criticizes Milo, Reddit, and Keyboard Warriors


(Off screen) hi! my question is… I feel like it might be a little bit more personal but um what do you think about the places on the internet like slash poll do you know about that at all? (Shapiro) not familiar, no! (Off screen) I’m talking more about the keyboard warriors who… I know have insulted you in different… (Shapiro) like the reddits in the 4chan? (off screen) yeah, like reddits in the 4chan because I feel like they kind of started almost like a political revolution online of getting rid of P.C. but i just wanted to see what you thought about it them? (Shapiro) I think they’re mostly losers who sit in their mother’s basement, smoke pot and masturbate (laughter) I think that my biggest problem would be with this group of people is that there is a… again I’ve spent my entire career fighting against political correctness right I’m the guy who goes to public high schools with under…. with… with poor kids and says to the poor kids the reason your parents are permanently poor is because they’re bad with money and made bad decisions don’t make those decisions and you’ll do better right that’s politically incorrect and that will get you shut down by the high school principal right which happen that’s political incorrectness it is not political incorrectness to shout cock at people right you’re not actually changing anything I’m sorry but shouting cock at people doesn’t make the world a better place it just means that you’re an asshole so the idea… so you know my big problem with this is that there’s a whole generation of young people who are falling into the trap of thinking that principled by saying stupid things and not just saying stupid things, like cuck is just a silly thing but people who are using the n-word in chat rooms because they think ‘oh I’m violating some sort of societal taboo and that makes me cool’ yeah well that’s not going to be so cool when it turns out your employer can search you and now you can’t get a job right it’s not going to be so cool when you fall into this trap of associating with all with all these folks and it turns out that’s on your Facebook page it’s all fun and games until you actually have to live in the real society where the left is willing to go after people now I don’t think the left should go after people for this sort of stuff because I would prefer to live in a society where we can all say whatever we want but I don’t think that you saying these things promotes that because I don’t think it’s important that we have a society where you say the n-word I think it is important that you have a society where you can point out that we’re not disproportionately sending black people to prison we’re sending black people to prison in precisely the proportions they’re committing crimes I think that’s more important than you shouting cock or the n-word right and this is this is my big this is my big problem with you know as you know I have this long-running debate now with my old bud Yiannopoulos it is my big problem with Milo and his entire movement is I think that Milo is not conservative I don’t think he knows anything about conservatism I don’t think he cares about the Constitution he says this openly I think that Milo cares about being a provocateur and I’m sorry I provocateur generation is only valuable in standing for things that are worthwhile it is not… being a provocateur just for the sake of being a provocateur is worthless provoke in the name of something real and decent and then I’ll stand with you provoke in the name of just being a provocateur because you’re violating taboos and you’re wasting my time thank you

Media Leftist Blames Democrats For Offensive Trump Tweet As Democrat Implosion Continues



earlier today Donald Trump put out tweets that I find I don't know how to describe it distasteful poorly made and I gotta be honest III really don't care Donald Trump tweets all the time some of them are funny memes you ever see that carpe dong dumb meme where it's at the Democratic debates and the lights shut off and then it starts playing that's playing Black Sabbath and then Donald Trump walks out with smoke it's hilarious so Donald Trump's Twitter account is silly nonsense but he puts out this tweet and I'm just like oh my god you couldn't just let the Democrats tear each other apart and now something fun I'm gonna say I'll get into the critique of that in a second but something funny yeah what the left in this country they can't just let Trump do something wrong right look you guys watch my channel you know I'm not a big fan of the guy I don't have Trump derangement syndrome I'll criticize them what I think you should be criticized and I don't care if I get ratioed on Twitter for it I'm gonna say what I think is important for the most part I don't care when Trump tweets stupid things I look but this this one was really bad he basically said to the the progressive Democratic Congress women he says you know originally came from countries whose governments are complete total catastrophe okay full stop it's one it's Ilhan Omar and the rest are from America so there's a lot wrong with this tweet and I'll criticize it but here's the thing you may have seen him tweet this here we have Karen attea global opinions that are for the Washington Post saying make no mistake Nancy Pelosi's dog whistling Snipes at AOC Ilhan Omar rich in Italian repress Li helped pave the way for this vicious racist I can't even finish read it couldn't you just let me rag on the president for once no I kid you not I'm sorry let me finish the tweet saying uh okay she's saying Nancy Pelosi dog whistling which means she's a white supremacist or something helped Donald Trump tweet racist things they owe my god there's just so much going on here uh you know it's this kind of thing that I've it finally makes me just say like laughs I see all this craziness in the world and all the politics is just it's all insane and then and then Karen comes in with this amazing tweet and I just can't help but laugh and just think everything's not gonna be alright but at least it's funny right yeah at least it's funny it's it's it's insane look at this she says see how quickly we have moved from two powerful white women Marine down and speaker Pelosi helping each other to attack women of color over a nice box of chocolates to the president telling them to leave the country what people need to see in this newly formed Maureen Dowd – speaker Pelosi Donald Trump axis of evil' tell me is that white supremacy relies on dismissing silencing and undermining women of color putting them in their place by any means that's she actually said she Vil okay let me further in the podcast sh e VI l ah this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen I was I kid you not you know they always they always say Tim why don't you make videos targeting the right and I'm like because for the most part they're just doing the Republicans always do it it's not shocking to me I don't feel like there's any real development the Republicans aren't moving far right they're not the pulse the polls and the graphs and the data it shows that the Republicans are kind of moving a little to the left if anything so Trump tweets this thing out and I and I and I criticized him for it and I get ratioed but it's like a ten to one ratio like a thousand people responding saying Tim you're wrong on this you're wrong Trump basically said go he didn't say go back to where you came from that's that's a hyperbolic take on it what he said was go back to your home countries try all these policies come back and show us how it's done he was basically saying you know if you've got all these good ideas why don't you go back to these you know so the countries you came from to try it out so technically you know technically they're right but there's this this subtlety here okay I think it was a horrible tweet I think you know look man the Democrats are tearing each other apart and all Donald Trump had to do is sit back and let it happen he could just sit and watched and what do we get check this out I think this is the right one Melanie is ánotá of Politico said every time Dems are on the brink of Civil War Trump throws them a lifeline we then have this one Trump does have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory sometimes the Dems were in fighting all week between the squad and House leadership and Trump goes in there to make some outrageous characterization about the squad that will serve to rally Dems together yes that was my criticism my look it's ridiculous when anyone says go back to country or leave America it is insane to me when the left says if trope gets elected I'm gonna move to Canada no you're not shut up you're gonna go with Starbucks and order a caramel frappe and cry to your friends about how we're in a fascist country you will do nothing you are an armchair activist on Twitter and then and then other people saying if you don't like America why don't you leave and it's like no stop come on man if America is built on amending the Constitution it is a brilliant system the founding fathers were very very smart they had many flaws but they did a goddamn great job of crafting a living document that we can amend to make this place better and we have so know if the country's bad I'm gonna stick around to make sure it works and it's a funny thing really because you know I'm just I'm not saying it's everybody on the Left who's trying to go to can't of course not sound everyone the right saying leave the country of course not most people are saying yeah this one's just for the weirdos listen America is a country that becomes better over time okay so leaving it when Trump gets elected is the stupidest thing you could say because you're supposed to stick around to fight to make it better and telling people to leave it because they don't like it is the same thing so anyway what what Trump said let me pull up his tweet and let's go through it okay cuz I look I have no problem being critical of Trump I do it all the time it's really funny all my I might add too because people on YouTube like have no problem when I go into a tangent about what I don't like about him but people on Twitter weren't having it they were lying you're wrong on this one but they weren't they were they were nice okay and that's that's the thing too I think if you're the important thing to consider for anybody watching on YouTube is that when I say something that I don't like about Trump and I mean it and I have facts behind me the response I usually get from Trump supporters is like well I disagree with you but I but I understand your opinion because listen I'm I'm where liberals used to be back like during era like not that long ago and for the most part that's kind of the conversations I had with Republicans Iowa would let go to my friend's house like a Republican a suburb and the Republican and we would talk and I'd be like I completely we and we would get heated and and now and then we'd have pizza and stuff and like watch a movie that's how it used to be when I was growing up I remember going to my friend's house and their family was all pro-life and I've always been pro-choice and they were like oh you're wrong like you need to understand and we talked and I was like you know III really do feel like our opinions aren't that far apart we just have fallen slightly on this on these two different sides of the issues and I don't know what we can do and we ultimately like you know we we just say well you know I guess a greater disagree this is America and well we'll take our argument to the ballot box I I remember like the first time I truly understood in her like a pro-life person it was at my friend's house what his conversations could happen you I guess when you live in Chicago you know there are a lot of Republicans and and and and Democrats they live kind of close to each other because the suburbs are kind of Republican so it's interesting to me that when you still engage on this level of like being honest and trying to have a conversation then the worst thing I get like most the responses aren't really that they're not being me and they're not insulting me just maybe they're saying Tim you're wrong X Y & Z well I disagree so look at this sweet he says so interesting to see progressive Democrat congresswoman who originally came from countries who governments are a complete and total catastrophe the worst most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world if they even have a functioning government at all here's the thing there's only one progressive congresswoman who's come from a country like that and it's Ilhan Omar from I believe she's a refugee from Somalia the rest of the squad are all american-born he says now now loudly and viciously telling the people of the u.s. the greatest and most powerful nation on earth how our government is to be run why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came then come back and show us how show us how it is done these places need your help badly you can't leave fast enough I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements let me tell you the problems I had with this for one as I mentioned telling someone to leave for whatever is silly come on Ilhan Omar isn't as an American citizen she came here she's a refugee she has every right to be here but there's legal asylum for which she did it like I'm gonna say this man Trump says come here legally ice director home and I believe his name is grilled okasha Cortez boom fire when he said if they want to come they can come here legally well illa no Mart did come here legally we can talk about the Star Tribune claiming she may have married her brother that seems like a weird thing for a mainstream paper to claim but if that's the case it's a whole other issue she came here legally she's an American citizen and we should defend the legal immigration process that's another reason why I'm like nah not havin it man the argument we're having right now the like the sane rational argument is we need border security for the illegal immigrants and we want people to come here legally so then telling them that maybe they can go try to fix their own countries is like no no no no no no no no legal asylum man you get legal asylum we respect that process so I will disagree with Trump on this one the bigger issue is less about Trump being Trump okay look it's I don't care that Trump tweeted this in the sense that like Trump tweets things like us all the time the issue is that he is giving his he is he's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is that as I when she says that what she said penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory just let the Democrats look I don't like Trump but I don't have trumpet arrangements in here that's how I normally frame it my political position on Trump is like I think he's bad but he's not that bad okay he's not that bad all right you know I wouldn't vote for him um but that's like when you think about American politics you have Obama and Trump I don't think either of them are like you know Stalin or or you know World War two guy I can't say that one you know what I mean I think they're two people with slightly different opinions for the most part and we need to figure out which one we like better I think Trump has got an attitude problem I disagree with some of his policy and I disagree with some of his tweets so I'd prefer not to vote for a mobile for somebody else I vote in principle I don't vote to win period I would if at the end of the day I voted for myself it's voting on principle and that's how well I will always act so if I wanted Trump to win you know sure I'd vote for a Republican but I'm not going to all right so it's not what's gonna happen there they're still some Democrats I think are worth you know voting for even if it's me voting for Tulsi and she even drops out don't care I vote for who I think is right for the job the point is from where I am kind of in the middle Trump has a the moment let me go back from where I am kind of in the middle I'm look at the Democrats and I see Nancy Pelosi who is this wealthy elitist and I'm like I roll and then I see the fringe wacko loon far-left squad members and I'm like please these people are destroying the left make them stop and their and their infighting and I'm like okay maybe this is the Democrats immune system weeding out the wackos thank god the democrats are finally standing up to these people and pushing back because they are going to cost us elections in 2020 they're gonna cost us the house okay that's the big issue Trump's probably gonna win fine but at least the Democrats might get some sane moderates in the house right nope so here's the thing hopefully they can get rid of them and then Trump comes in with this tweet and the Nancy Pelosi jumps to their defense so I'm gonna end this video right now and say this none of it matters none of it matters because in the end what we get is the Washington Post opinion editor editor blaming Nancy Pelosi for Trump tweeting calling it the axis of evil now we're done it's look Trump can tweet this and Trump supporters don't care they don't their race yelling me on Twitter saying Tim you're wrong okay I get it you like Trump you agree with them I don't all right but I'll respect your opinion and I will do what I can to push back on what I think is wrong it doesn't matter though I live in purgatory apparently where there's no sane left to actually align with when I disagree with the president I can get ratioed by Trump supporters and then I turn to the left and say hey guy oh you're blaming Nancy Pelosi for this one welcome to politics in 2019 isn't it a hoot I love it stick around I got one more assignment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly you

Democrats PANIC After Poll Shows Ocasio-Cortez Is So Detested She Can Cost Them The Election



a new internal poll has been circulating and it's really bad news for Democrats the poll looks at swing voters and how they view the Democratic Party according to the poll it would seem alexandria Ocasio cortez is one of the most visible individuals of the democratic party and this preventive this group of individuals really really doesn't like socialism which is one thing I've been saying for a long time so of course it's evidence towards my own bias confirmation bias but we'll read anyway listen I'm a moderate leftist write to them to the Ocasio Cortez's and others I don't exist I must be a right winger because there's no center it's really it's really funny isn't it like we know centrists exists right so why is it that I can't be one I don't know I've praised left-wing policy while criticizing the left that's typically what I do and because of that they say it must be right-wing it makes literally no sense I am the voter they need to get if they want to win in 2020 and they have done nothing now Tosi Gabbard has done a lot I really like Tulsi but they're not gonna give her the nomination and we all know it the same is true for Andrew yang I wouldn't vote for Gravelle because I think he's kind of being silly and I don't agree with him for the most part and I wouldn't vote for Marianne Williamson just because while I think she's hokey and wholesome I wouldn't vote for her so what's gonna end up happening me I'm probably gonna vote independent or not vote at all I actually think I probably vote like independent or something I might just you know write-in Tulsi if she doesn't get the nomination um maybe I don't know vote for myself because I'm it's better than not voting and at least I know what I believe in right here's the point I always made with my videos if they weren't so busy trying to excise people like me they might realize what they need to win but I will say this before we threw the poll one of the big bets the Democrats are making is that by getting by waking up progressive voters they will solve the problem of losing moderates but let me just stress as I have many times when you lose a moderate the Republicans probably will pick them up but so if you gain one on the left and lose one on the right and the right game on the left congratulations the Republicans are up one and you're at zero but let's read this before we get started head over to Tim cast comm slash done it if you'd like to support my work there are multiple ways to donate PayPal crypto and a physical address but of course share this video because you too doesn't suggest my content the same way they used to they've D ranked everybody so if you think this video is important I rely on you to get the word out from Axios exclusive poll aoc defining them in swing states they write top Democrats are circulating a poll showing that one of the houses most progressive members Ocasio Cortes has become a definitional face for the party with a crucial group of swing voters horrible horrible bad news I might add horrible why it matters these Democrats are sounding the alarm that swing voters know and dislike socialism warning it could cost them the house and the presidency the poll is making the rounds of some of the most influential Democrats in America quote if all voters hear about his AOC it could put the House Majority at risk set a top Democrat who is involved in twenty twenty congressional races she is getting all the news and defining everyone's everyone else's racist think about what just happened let me say this Oh Casa Cortez starts mouthing off about concentration camps she refuses to back down she calls CBP a rogue agency and then a doob literally shows up and a nice facility with weapons and you know how that went I certainly hope you do Ocasio Cortez is a bloviating blowhard loud mouthed narcissist who has no idea what she's talking about and this is coming from someone who praised her when she first won the primary and that's not an exaggeration you can look on this channel and go back and see my half in our video where I'm like woo she did it she won yes I praised her and now we get to see her character as time goes on she is a bad person she refuses to accept when she's wrong she pushes a nonsense she accuses Pelosi of singling a woman of color which we know what that means and then denies I know it's not about racism oh please dude you're card-carrying member of the Democratic socialists of America who have protested for open borders holding signs saying no borders and abolish profits what do you think that means to middle America means the Democrats have lost it let's read on the poll taken in May before speaker Pelosi's latest run-in with AOC and a three other liberal house freshmen known as the Squad included a thousand three likely general election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education hey that includes me oh no I'm sorry I'm not white yes and I mean this seriously it's IIIi don't know likely actually how it works but I know that because according to like the census because I'm part Korean I'm literally just Korean like they don't count white in that regard so I'm just Korean but let's read on they say these are white non college voters who embrace Donald Trump in 2016 but are needed by Democrats in swing House districts the group that took the pole shared the results with Axios on the condition that not be named because the group has to work with all members of the party with all parts of the party the findings Ocasio Cortes was recognized by 74 percent of voters in the poll 22 percent had a favorable view oh my god swing voters do not like her rep Ilyn Omar of Minnesota another member of the squad was recognized by 53 percent of voters 9 percent not a typo they right had a favorable view oh lord help us the Democrats have lit themselves on fire and I'll tell you you know the easiest example the easiest bit of proof is how they throw me under the bus I am by no means a far left progressive I am just your run-of-the-mill social liberal the typical moderate working-class uneducated fulcrum the southside of Chicago who is looking for a real solution and doesn't quite know what these great ivory tower elites have in store but I would I would like to find something that makes sense so I don't like the wealthy privileged elites I want something for the working-class and what do we get we get wacky nonsense identitarian ISM and socialism sorry that's not what me and my friends and family want so you've lost us this poll is really funny because it's like a reflection of who I am and where I come from although I'll say this my friends and family are in Chicago not a swing district now here's the crazy part socialism was viewed favorably by 18 percent of the voters and unfavorably by 69 percent capitalism was 56 percent favorable 32 percent unfavorable I think that kind of describes where I'm like a mixed economy person but I kind of lean a little bit more towards this the the co-operative side I don't like saying socialist because socialist is a is a legit like a hard form of economy I say cooperative versus competitive because it's like it's it's nuanced right but cooperative means you lean a little bit more towards socialism and away from free-market capitalism but I'm like a centrist you know so I'm not I think you gotta have a right balance right in the middle because free markets run amok caused damage you get massive you know technologies like Google Facebook Twitter etc but without a free market you get no food and no phones and stagnation and death so there's got to be a good balance where we have government regulation that can restrict the worst impulses of the free market while making sure we can still maintain healthy competition and that bad industry's die because that's what you need you need an evolution in the marketplace but let's read on socialism is toxic do these voters at the top Democrat between the lines Democrats are performing better with these voters and in 2016 although still not as well in 2018 so party leaders will continue to try to define themselves around more mainstream members sorry AOC takes the cake to the other side three members of the squad are they say Omar Rasheeda Talib and IANA Presley of Massachusetts defended their approach while appearing in Philadelphia yesterday on a panel at the annual Netroots nation conference I was once invited to that I think I was a speaker I never I didn't go though 8ps joanna summers reports we never need to ask for permission or wait for an invitation invitation to lead Omar said adding later that there's a constant struggle often times with people who have pop who have power about sharing that power listen there's this weird mentality these people have its really annoying they don't care for facts they don't care about what what actually works they don't care about what's what will solve problems they're just overly emotional and I'm not talking no I here that here comes I said it now they're gonna go Oh Tim's a bigot he's blaming them for being women that's what they do when Nancy Pelosi singles them out they say it's because we're men of color because that's their attack factor Nancy Pelosi his wife when I say they're acting on emotion they're gonna say he just said he that's that's a dog whistle – Bing – you know – being a misogynist no seriously when you refuse to fund the border wall and then I'm talking out the wall the border crisis like the humanitarian aid and then complain there's a crisis it's like dude listen check this out from Real Clear Politics a couple days ago Oh Casa Cortez says this is a manufactured crisis because the cruelty is manufactured oh dear lord help me Ocasio Cortez is despicable completely despicable the Democrats were mocking the idea of a crisis at the border mocking it laughing refusing to fund it and now here we are and they're gonna be a listen I'm gonna tell you something from a policy perspective when I say I would like money in humanitarian aid from the government that is a social program where I want the government to fund humanitarian aid a I swear to left wing position you silly Democrats oh my god ask like listen I I am opposed to private detention centers and I speak out against them and I would like the government to fund aid to help this solve this problem is that is what what universe are we in these people have lost it and that's why look men they can mock me all day and night they can ridicule me they can push me aside marginalize me my friends and a button-up and the space and politics that I am in but I tell you this my friends and family who grew up in support of the LGBT community who defended progressive rights who are now shrugging saying what is going on we are the people you need to vote for you and you are losing us and you don't care you mock you belittle you smear and I'll tell you what happens Brandon Straker I think I'm pronouncing his name right walkaway happens people just say enough and they walk away I look I am I am NOT on board the Democrats at this point and I flat it's a tall probably you're voting independent Oh might just vote for Tulsi no matter what so I don't want to say necessarily that I'm leaving right but the Democrats have gone nuts plain simple look at the tweets they put out it is a nightmare an absolute nightmare and here it's gonna happen I got another segment coming up for you Donald Trump tweeted some stupid nonsense oh and and you know and people on Twitter I'm mad at me it's like I don't I don't care man you know they're like they expect me to like you guys know I don't like Trump so I rag down his tweet and a bun I got ratioed hard and I don't care and some people were like why are you posting all this left I'm gonna say I'm gonna save this for the next segment but but the next I meant isn't necessarily about Trump tweeting stupid things and the thing is look Trump I think Trump's tweets a lot of stupid things it's how he's goated the left into blaming the Democrats for Trump's tweets what is going on I will see you in a few moments the next segment you

Democrats Are Literally Campaigning In Mexico, Ok Well, Two Of Them Are



but Democrats are literally campaigning in Mexico I'm not exaggerating now I don't want to say okay maybe maybe the Democrats is a bit hyperbolic a couple Democrats literally a couple have campaigned in Mexico and I have no idea why but all of the Democrats are at least campaigning for non-us citizens and it's really confusing it's very confusing I am by no means a staunch nationalist in fact I've told people I'm a determinist globalist or I don't know the right way to frame it is I believe globalism is inevitable due to cyber war the nature of cyber war the vulnerabilities of cyber cybernetic infrastructure and trade and communications I believe it's in it's it is an inevitability however I don't believe we're at a point now we're going to snap our fingers and have this global utopia so it's probably important we maintain a balance in immigration and protect the borders of the United States so I'm a centrist for the most part here's the thing though Democrats as it stands today are campaigning for illegal immigrants to not be deported are campaigning for health care for illegal immigrants and are rejecting a citizenship question on the census I just don't get it I don't know if you're following the story on the citizenship question Trump wants the census to ask if you are a citizen and why not don't you think it would be important for us to figure out who is or isn't a citizen kind of makes sense right like if you're not paying taxes or you're working under the table or your employer's breaking the law citizenship is not some like controversial thing at least it wasn't for the most part of my life I got a Social Security card a birth certificate right if I want to get a job I check off I'm a citizen why can't we do it for census I've never heard a good answer from Democrats take a look at voter ID laws I've never heard heard a good answer as to why they oppose voter ID it literally makes no sense I need an ID to do basically everything III go to a restaurant I want to get a beer they ask for my ID voting is way more important than that I I kid you not I went I shaved I went to the movies they asked for my ID to see an r-rated movie I'm like dude what I'm not seven man I'm 33 it happens maybe because I'm part agent I look younger than I really am the thing is Democrats tend to oppose voter ID laws they say it's racist that's not an argument like I'm from the hood I'm from the south side of Chicago everybody had an ID in the internet like you're not making a good argument for me it's confusing so this makes me say well I don't understand what you're doing now Trump wants the census to ask you people are a citizen there's some really interesting in I guess whether or not Trump succeeds in getting this because it's been it's been blocked by the Supreme Court whether or not the census actually asks this question I think Trump has has done something that's a net positive for Trump and for nationalism what this has to mean all of this it's like I don't think Democrats actually have any idea what they're doing or why they're doing it they're trying to pander I have no idea if none of it makes sense they oppose Trump for the sake of opposing Trump look at this cory booker actually helped illegal immigrants return to the US after they were deported under the migrant action protocols bado O'Rourke literally campaigned in Mexico look at this it's a photo of him in Mexico to meet some asylum seekers okay why though they can't vote for you well here's something interesting it all comes back to the citizenship question Trump is now saying he wants he's considering using an executive order to get the citizenship question on the 2020 census I've talked to a lot of people and they say Tim it's because illegal immigrants vote well I'm sure some do sometimes but I'm not convinced insignificant staunch Trump supporters will say it's in the millions Trump has said it's in the millions I don't believe that's true I do believe illegal immigrants vote and we have seen some information from reputable sources claiming that on the voter rolls there have been even tens of thousands of undocumented or illegal immigrants in which case it's possible they voted in one circumstance a woman had a driver's license and she voted when she wasn't allowed to because she was a legal resident and she actually got in trouble that's kind of screwed up right if like it was some woman who had a green card she voted and she's facing prison time come on now some old lady who made a mistake let's just let's just say don't do it again prison time to me that's it that's but I do not believe Trump wants the citizenship question on the census to affect voting some you know one person said to me it's so that he knows how many illegal immigrants are in the country and may or may not be voting I'm like no you're making the jump here the first and only thing it will do is allow the government to know how many illegal immigrants we have but people on the Left say immigrants in general will avoid answering the census because they're scared of you know repercussions from the government I do not believe that it's true of legal immigrants I believe anybody is who is here legally with a visa or green card has no problem saying I am NOT a citizen I've been to foreign countries I have visas for foreign countries I have a ten year visa to a South American country I was there and someone said hey you know are you citizen to Brazil I'd say no I I'm here at ten yeah I got 10-year visa it's good for six months at a time I can come back you know six months out of the year I wouldn't care the people I know who have a permanent residency in foreign countries they also don't care I don't think that's legitimate I think people who are legal immigrants would have no problem saying like here's here's Who I am here's where I live here's what I do and no I'm not you know a citizen what it will do however is change the structure of the districts in Congress and this to me is very very interesting and how it'll play into the hands of Trump so let's read this Fox News says President Trump said Friday is considering using an executive order to place a citizenship question on the 2020 census as the administration faces an afternoon deadline to say whether it will proceed with its push we're thinking about doing that it's one of the ways we have it's one of the ways we have four or five ways to do it Trump told reporters when asked if he was considering an executive order we can do the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision from the Supreme Court basically what's happening is he has to say now whether or not the question will be in the census but he's being obstructed by the courts by doing this they can put the question on the census before the court ruling it's all legally murky we'll see if he gets away with it if it's legal well I shouldn't think it's away with it we'll see if it's legally upheld but this may buy time for the census to include the quest Trump said think about it 15 to 20 billion dollars on a census and you're not allowed to ask if someone's a citizen adding that Attorney General William bar is working on the issue the court ruled last week that the reasoning provided by the administration that it would help them enforce the Voting Rights Act was insufficient it sent the case back to the lower courts for further consideration in what was seen as a significant blow to the administration after the rebuke Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said his department would print the census without the question seemingly indicating the administration had dropped the controversial issue but Trump later said their reports that they dropped the issue were fake and on Thursday said the question was so important and that the Justice and Commerce Department's were working very hard on this on Wednesday a high-ranking DOJ lawyer told a federal judge that the administration has not abandoned efforts to put the question on the census saying that there may be a legally available path open to the administration the DOJ the DOJ faces a 2 p.m. deadline to respond to a judge's order to decide whether the administration will try again to get the question on the census so I'm filming this after 2 p.m. we'll see what happens but Trump has said they're going to do it now here's what's interesting the push for a citizenship question has been fiercely opposed by Democrats who say that immigrants may not want to respond and be counted in the census this was this would result in official population numbers that are lower than they truly are which in turn could yield less federal funding and fewer congressional seats in districts with high immigrant populations those districts tend to favor Democrats an executive order could also facing the can push back and could fail in the Supreme Court one source told Axios that it may allow the administration to shift the blame for the ultimate failure of the push on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts but Trump on Friday said he had a lot of respect for Roberts I have a lot of respect for Justice Roberts he didn't like it but he did say come back so we'll see what happens this is really interesting the Democrats can flight illegal immigrant with immigrants I do not believe illegal immigrants are entitled to the full benefits of citizenship of what citizens receive I do believe illegal immigrants are entitled to rights under the Constitution and some immediate benefits to protect life it's a complicated problem but when it comes to government programs that are above and beyond immediate needs like hierarchy of needs like access to food and other things like this should we be providing certain resources to illegal immigrants the answer is well I would say no but it's hard to know for sure what and when the Democrats say they want to provide health care to illegal immigrants unfortunately as much as I would like to I don't think we can I do think we have an obligation to prevent loss of life which means if there's an illegal immigrant and we have emergency services available I believe we are morally obligated to say they're save their lives it is a conflict in the conundrum because then illegal immigrants are putting a strain on our already strained health care system so what happens is that if they can actually track illegal immigrants or they can exclude them saying they're not citizens therefore the district will be of a certain size it means the shape of districts in Congress will be dramatically different it will provide Republicans and nationalists with strong resources towards 4/1 deporting illegal immigrants I don't know if they'll use a census to actually deport people but I will say illegal immigrants will be much less likely to in to fill out a census form if they're asked if they're citizens they already probably do a void filling and out of a fear of government intervention and deportation but this to me is very interesting and telling it's hard to know how to appropriate federal funds immigrants are entitled to many of the same funds as citizens if they're permanent residents illegal immigrants not so much and this I think is where the Democrats come in to conflate the two they say Oh immigrants won't do it I disagree that makes no sense if you're illegal if you're a legal resident why would you be afraid of filling out a form maybe they will be maybe they're scared of Trump maybe they think Trump will take away their green card permanent residents it's hard to know for sure what I will say however the citizenship question is going to play a massive role in empowering Republicans in the future if it makes its way through I don't know what you know exactly will happen but I will say with one final thing it really really does feel Democrats are not campaigning for American citizens we can see that their vow it vowing to decriminalize illegal immigration they're campaigning some of them are campaigning in Mexico they want to provide health care to non-citizens it does not sound like they have the interest of American citizens at heart and the whole thing confuses me if only American citizens can vote isn't this country for Americans and not for people outside the country you can immigrate here you can you get you can become a citizen over time and then you will be entitled to those same privileges and and and and otherwise and I certainly believe legal immigration is the correct path forward and I welcome all the people anywhere in the world to come here legally okay and what that means is when you apply there are some criteria where you won't be allowed to come but I believe everyone has the opportunity to come here legally so that we can have a robust and healthy and diverse society great things illegal immigration however bypasses our laws it violates you know the rules and the social contract of our nation and they reap benefits to which they didn't pay into to put it simply if today we all put in $1 towards a pizza party a week from now someone shows up and says oh I'll put in $1 – we say we've been putting in $1 every day for a week and you're gonna show up now without putting in the same amount of money and get our pizza it's not so much as it they aren't paying taxes it's that they haven't paid into the system thus far it's complicated I gotta say it does feel a lot like Democrats don't really care what Americans have to say I'm gonna defer to the opinion published in The New York Times where one writer said Americans feel like they're strangers in their own country I'm not surprised Trump won and I think it went again ah look I'll leave it there I don't really have like a closing thought but it is what it is let me know what you think about the citizenship question shouldn't this country be for citizens whatever stick around I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you shortly you

Democrats Used Obama Migrant Photo To Smear Trump, Deleted tweet, Used ANOTHER Obama Photo, whoops!



this may come as a shock to many of you but Barack Obama actually deported three million people around I think that's the number they called him the DePorter in chief and Barack Obama actually operated detention centers where children had to sleep on mats under mylar blankets now I'm being facetious most of you probably know this because you pay attention to politics but it's really bad when the Democrats are trying to smear Trump and they accidentally put out a photo from the Obama administration now that's bad but it's actually worse because then they put out another photo from the Obama administration because for some reason today Barack Obama is far right now I know why this is okay I have a general idea of how Barack Obama went from being a socialist to far-right and I think it has to do with the media just going insane and chasing this psychotic narrative there was a graph that I showed a while ago a researcher dug through a database called LexisNexis and we can see that around the beginning of 2010 which is you know in starting with in Barack Obama's tenure you see a massive spike a hockey stick on the graph for all of these identitarian terms it's not so much that people actually believe in this weird identitarian ism it's just that the media continually chases a fringe narrative to attract viewers as they decay and fall apart what they accuse us on YouTube of doing they actually do themselves tenfold and thus you end up with this from The Daily Caller House Democrats use photo from Obama administration to promote investigation into inhuman treatment at the border now look I'm fine with that if you want to show this photo and say we should definitely investigate this I'll say spot on investigate sure we need accountability for the federal government here's the thing though they deleted the image wait wait wait wait wait hold on I thought you were upset about inhuman treatment and you were specifically referring to what Obama did cuz I'll agree with you we should investigate that no they're mad at Trump they want to excuse Obama the best part is that according to the story they actually put out another bad photo but let's read Daily Caller writes House Democrats tweeted a photo for President Barack Obama's administration to promote their investigation into inhuman treatment inhumane treatment at the border before deleting the tweet Thursday the Committee on Oversight and Reform announced a hearing advisory set for Wednesday titled kids in cages in inhumane treatment at the border over twitter the hearing will be examining this alleged inhumane treatment after members of the committee witness to the grotesque treatment of children the announcement was meant to be for the inhumane treatment allegedly occurring under President Donald Trump the tweet included a photo that there was just one problem the picture included in the tweet of children in cages was from the Obama administration according to President Donald Trump's twenty20 presidential campaign the photo was quickly deleted so check this out civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee hearing kids in cages inhumane treatment at the border and that was yesterday and so we have Trump war room House Democrats are promoting their civil rights hearing on kids in cages and inhumane treatment with a photo from 2014 when Joe Biden was vice president oh but but wait here's the best part the House Democrats are wrong are were wrong to tweet this photo they tweeted another one as I mentioned but it's even better because they know look at this story from the Daily Caller as well immigrant activists storm Biden headquarters demand he apologized for deportations something really weird is happening on the left period immigration activists still well aware that Biden played a huge role in the detention of children and mass deportations and they're calling him out for it yet the Democrats are blaming Trump for what Obama did this is what really bothers me when trying to talk politics I am to the left of where Obama was in fact I think Bama Obama screwed up the public public health care and all that stuff I think we should have gone full public option a lot of people wanted universal health care but I usually fall into look I don't know what they would they disagreed on I don't know if Obama couldn't do it I don't know why you couldn't do it it's it's tied to the economy it's difficult I think more could have been done and there should have been more leadership but the point is on a lot of issues I was to the left of Obama didn't like him I didn't especially on foreign policy I thought the dude's a lunatic you blowing up kids and calling them enemy combatants you know I'm sorry the people he blew up Betty called enemy combatants were military age males right but I have no I have no I will I will give no respect for Obama in that regard he was charismatic for sure but how do we get to a point now where Trump is being blamed for what Obama started now don't get me wrong we've had an ongoing crisis on the border and the border facilities aren't getting better but again it's it's this weird thing that we see among activists where they really believe the president is like the Supreme Chancellor and it's kind of disconcerting the president can't do that much okay so so most of you might know later today I will be at the White House social media summit I don't necessarily know why it's gonna be an interesting conversation but the president can't do anything about this look there are laws in place there look it is true that Facebook Twitter YouTube etc they are private companies I think the conversation needs to be had on our lawmakers need to move forward with some kind of assessment of how these companies are kind of taking it both ways acting as publishers and platforms while getting you know immunities not granted to any other company so I think it's an important conversation but what can the president really do okay I'm not saying he's powerless the the president is by all you know measurements one of the most powerful people on the planet if not but that's in terms of executive authority meaning when it comes to you know saying it's wrong to blow something up there's a lot of power behind that Trump has executive authority in that he can tell he can tell within the confines of existing law law enforcement what to do that's basically it if you want he can't even declare war without an act of Congress like Congress declares we're not even the president can do that although we've seen it and that's one of the big problems I have with the executive branch but the point is it's I feel like everything we're seeing these this was a huge mistake they screwed up bad okay by posting these Obama photos but I think the reason they blame Trump for everything is just so they can win 20/20 and for me as like a sane rational kind of centrist center-left individual I'm looking for a real reason debate I want you to like I like Tulsi Gabbard okay she recently put out this tweet talking about know war no private prisons no war on drugs free speech online and I'm like I really like Tulsi him look I'll say it I'm gonna get the White House today but I have disparaged Trump based on his behavior the way he mocked body-slamming a reporter and he did that thing with you know he mocked the reporter who had that disability whatever your opinion is I find him to be like I would prefer a president who was more collected and charismatic Trump can be strong in all those things it's fun I just a lot of people like him because he's willing to be crass and crude and say no and give you the finger that's not the person that I feel should be representing my country now there are the other issues that Trump has done in reference to foreign policy that I've been extremely critical of one of the first things that happened and again check the source honest oh it's been a long time it's been years a commando raid in Yemen shortly after Trump was inaugurated resulting in the death of an eight year old American girl weapons dealer Saudi Arabia missile strikes in Syria and these are things I often go to because you can tell why I think tulsi gabbard is important anti-war but I will say for all the bad things I can say about Trump's personality in my opinion the Iran pull back excellent excellent decision please thank you thank you sparing human lives it's not worth it it was the right move and war is bad and what he didn't North Korea deserves credit but anyway I don't wanna go on a tangent about this the point is Obama did a bunch of really bad things including this and I feel like is it is a disingenuous bad faith effort to try and get Trump to lose reelection instead of actually solving these problems I look at what Trump has done in foreign policy and I say I don't like it okay I don't like it the Newt the later things they run North Korea I do like it one of the Democrats have to offer because I'm looking for someone like a Tulsi Gabbard but of course they won't give it to her you know she will never get anywhere near you know what she needs in fact it actually breaks my heart Andrew yang I like him too I like Tulsi a little bit more for a lot of reasons it's at this minute back and forth admittedly my opinion has changed at first I was like yang is I think we get better now I'm kind of like no Telsey but the issue it like yang actually blew Tulsi out of the water in terms of donations and so I Tulsi is very presidential she's you know a major in the National Guard man I really really hope she she can advance forward and I would I would I would be shocked if she actually won the primary but that would be like a really powerful moment I think so and I want to stress too as much as a lot of people don't agree with her on issues like gun rights and reparations and other things and I'm not necessarily there with her either I don't agree with the minimum wage proposal of $15 nationally with her but she covers so many really important issues and and and the core issue being anti-war here's the main point I'm trying to bring up with this what we have here is an attempt to smear Trump for for what Obama did and when you actually have principled common-sense politicians like yang and Gabbard they're there get there they get their mics cut they put a fake pimple on Tulsa's face or something like I can't even believe that's true but TMZ reported it and so did Boing Boing that like I kid you not it was reported and you can see the video there's a fake pimple on her face that's what they do to the real principal common sense Democrats that try speaking up and saying hey let's do something here a real a real opportunity it's like they want Trump to win this gap this huge mistake look at this Trump worm says here in red is the portion of the 2014 photo used by the House Democrats did an AP fact check photo wrongly used to hit Trump policies this gaffe is good for Trump the far left push they do on stage it's like they want Trump to win it's mind-blowing to me even the New York Times op-ed was saying they've learned nothing from 2016 and then we have this so so let me finish read the story they say after deleting the tweet the Oversight Committee put up a second tweet with a different photo this one was also from the Obama administration according to the Republican House Oversight Committee and the AP the tweet was also deleted the hill also did this when they put a photo of children in cages from the Obama administration for an article about Trump's detention centers they keep doing it and you know what how hard is it to fact check why is the daily call was able to be like yep that's a photo from Obama why is it that the Trump war room was able to say that's a photo from Obama but the Democrats couldn't do this the hill couldn't do this and so here's the other point I would bring up Joe Biden was vice president while Obama did a whole bunch of really screwed up things and I think the the track record of the Obama administration for what it is is substantially worse than where Trump is right now so let's let's make one thing clear Trump is only a couple years into his first he's got we'll see if he gets re-election it's looking that way Obama throughout his entire term was using the kill list the disposition matrix okay he was deporting mass deportations he had kids in cages where were these people to stand up next to me when I was calling this out along with many other anti-war activists and that's what bothers me but I will say this just because you weren't there then doesn't mean I'm mad that you're coming up now I get it okay I agree foreign policy from America style has always been bad Trump kind of did some good things recently what do they do they slam them for saying no war with Iran it's it's mind-blowing to me Trump's pulls back and where they do we all his hit pieces saying Trump pulled back a strike he ordered can't make up his mind is that presidential and I'm like yes yes it is okay if you find out you're making a bad decision and you have a crisis of morality and you said we can't do this we can't kill these people I will stand up and I will applause you saying it was it was wrong you did you the strike but I respect you for canceling him the people who didn't call it Obama when he was president it was wrong if you did not call him out then but it's right of you to call out the bad behavior today unfortunately many of these people excused everything Obama did and today are slamming Trump for being anti-war or for at least having one like you know Iran was one moment okay I'm gonna say it we don't we don't trade lives we don't there there is no making up for the attacks we've seen in Yemen for the loss of life in Yemen for the missile strikes in Syria there is nothing you can do that will make it reaches zero right I don't know if I was watching I don't even seen Jessica Jones but I was watching season one recently I think kill Graham is an amazing Marvel villain if you're not familiar he's like a sociopathic guy who can command people to do whatever they whatever he wants he's killed a bunch of people in the show right and so trying to win over the main character he says how many people do I have to save to get back to zero and she's shocked like you can't there is nothing you can do and so that's that's that's the important point Obama's entire an entire tenure his is eight years is marred by foreign policy failures by extra extrajudicial assassinations so far Trump has done some things that have actually kind of been a positive with North Korea and with Iran those are things in India and I'll give him credit for it he's done bad things so it's still a negative but I feel like if Trump remains on a path where he avoids were with Iran I'm gonna have to agree with Genki ogre of The Young Turks plain and simple Jenks said if if Trump keeps us out of war with Iran he will have been a better president than george w bush people got mad because for some reason they want to romanticize what bush was no Bush was awful he was the predecessor to what Obama started doing right it's all bad but if Trump can walk back his policies he will be better than george w bush and that's jenk euchre's opinion and i'm gonna agree with him so anyway you know look it's weird to me that we're sitting in a position where immigrant activists here storm Biden headquarters demand he apologized for deportations the activists know they know Obama did this but for some reason they keep trying to claim Trump's at fault for what Biden and Obama did and I kid you not there was like an interview world where Biden said the Russian interference wouldn't wouldn't have happened on my or Barack's watch it's like do what you were that's literally what happened it's just politics is a disgusting game and if you're somebody who actually wants a solution to the problems facing our world this is not how you go about it and that's true for Trump okay that's true for everybody there's gonna be a White House social media summit I firmly believe nothing will get done but but there is a chance there's a chance that a high-level conversation can be had I'm extremely grateful and it's with great respect and honor that I accept this invitation invitation I'm not trying to be you know a jerk or or condescending or disrespectful in any way I just think when it comes to politicking nothing ever happens we see all these people in the federal government commit crimes how often are they actually indicted it just feels like it's all a stupid game you know there's been a lot of hit pieces coming out about the social media summit and I'll get into this later but seriously they're saying it's it's politicking it's Trump rallying a bunch of approach on personalities well that's technically true I am certainly no approach on personality so I can I I do have respect for them inviting me they've also invited bill ottoman the CEO of minds who I do not believe oh my god I'm not gonna put words in his mouth but I'm pretty sure he's not approached off individual it's more about liberties for expression and things like that so it's not one-sided but I do think a bit of this is about Trump recognizing he needs that social media power for reelection and I don't think you know any of these people though I also have the power to actually change anything I feel like all we really see is an influence war and that means lying cheating and stealing and I don't know if there's anything they'd be done to stop it so anyway instead of making this video three hours long I'm trying to get all of my work done really really quickly because the summit is today and I have to be done before like 1:00 p.m. so I'll leave it there thanks for hangin out stick around the next video will be at 1 p.m. and I will see you all there you