DEBATE: Is Trump a Fascist?

[0:00] Akon7 will be in Houston, Texas on Saturday, January 31st, 2026 and featuring some of your [0:07] favorite debaters that you can come out and meet and see debating live including David Wood, [0:13] Daniel Hakikachu, Inspiring Philosophy, Mike Jones and more. Check out the tickets right now [0:19] in the description box. You don't want to miss it. We're expecting it to sell out. Grab your tickets [0:24] now. Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not Trump is a fascist and we're starting [0:39] right now with Adam's opening statement. Thanks for being with us. Adam, the floor is all yours. [0:46] Yesterday, a man named Alex Preddy was executed in broad daylight. Federal agents dragged him [0:52] off of a woman they had shoved to the ground while he tried to shield her from pepper spray. [0:56] Alex was then pinned down by several officers as one began pistol whipping him and another [1:01] removed his legally owned gun from its holster. He was then shot multiple times in the back [1:06] and five more times as his body laid limp on the pavement. As this took place, [1:11] one of the officers was shot dead. The other was shot dead. The other was shot dead. The other [1:11] was shot dead. The other was shot dead. When if the agents began clapping in celebration, [1:13] when state authorities got a warrant to investigate signed by a judge, [1:17] federal officials still blocked them from the crime scene. Senior officials in the Trump [1:21] administration have already labeled Alex an assassin and a terrorist who is quote brandishing [1:26] a weapon. Meanwhile, the president has told us that only criminals carry guns on our streets [1:31] and the attorney general is offering to withdraw ice from the state if it meets a set of demands [1:36] such as turning over its voter rolls. In the midst of this and countless other violations, [1:41] of american norms civil rights and basic decency the word fascism has taken center stage it's the [1:47] word you'll hear thousands decry in unison as they march on the streets and it's the word i'll be [1:51] using today to describe the ascent of donald trump in american politics the obvious question then [1:57] becomes what does it even mean and the truth is scholars have argued that question for decades [2:02] but are still farther than ever from consensus for the purposes of this debate and my use of the [2:07] label more broadly i'll be drawing from two of the foremost scholars on the subject jason stanley [2:11] and robert paxton together their frameworks effectively lay out both the characteristics [2:16] of fascism and the mechanics of its growth in his aptly titled book how fascism works [2:22] jason stanley lays out his 10 pillars of fascism characteristics which when they emerge together [2:27] can be used to identify fascist movements these include the mythic past which is harkened back [2:32] to as a nation's true identity propaganda used to mask unpopular methods of [2:37] and goals with ideals that are widely accepted unreality calling into question and manufacturing [2:42] what is true victimhood assigned to traditionally dominant groups who see equality as a threat to [2:52] their position and law and order used as a framing to divide the nation into those who are lawful by [2:58] nature and those who are inherently lawless of course all of these pillars can exist in isolation [3:04] many even appear together often overlapping with other forms of authoritarianism [3:08] but fascism should enter the conversation when they emerge concurrently [3:12] and consistently as a pattern over time that pattern is precisely what is laid out in the work [3:17] of fascism's most prominent scholar robert paxton whose functional analysis of the term redefined [3:22] the entire field and in fact directly refutes the italian definition of the term i've heard [3:28] andrew use before in his essay titled the five stages of fascism he says the words of fascist [3:34] intellectuals even if we accept for the moment that they constitute fundamental philosophical [3:38] texts correspond only distantly with what fascists might think of them [3:42] and that is that fascism is a process of mobilizing passions rather than a formal doctrine [3:46] and that is that fascism is a process of mobilizing passions rather than a formal doctrine [3:48] early fascist programs are poor guides to later fascist policy [3:52] he goes on to argue that fascism isn't actually an ideology rather it's a dynamic political process [3:57] based more in mobilizing passions than a formal doctrine specifically he lays out the five stages [4:03] of its growth like a cancer metastasizing within the body politic stage one is simply the emergence [4:09] of proto-fascist sentiments a discrediting of liberal and democratic values in favor of [4:12] fascism of course this has been ubiquitous in modern democracies for decades now but in stage [4:16] two this sentiment takes root in national politics often by becoming a player in the scene through a [4:22] political party its success here is dependent on the presence of weakness or deadlock either [4:27] a humiliated state seen as the nation in decline or a polarized one where the right refuses to [4:33] accept the legitimacy of a growing left stage three is the acquisition of power a milestone [4:38] that many fascist movements are never able to reach [4:42] unfortunately paxton points out that this often happens through legitimate means [4:46] as fascists find common cause with conservatives while downplaying the excesses conservatives would [4:51] find threatening the fourth stage is the exercise of power though this is actually not unilateral [4:57] instead fascist leaders are often forced at least initially to govern in association with [5:02] the conservative elites they've joined creating a four-way power struggle between the leader [5:07] his party regular state functionaries like agency heads or judges and traditional elites [5:12] like churches, the army, and big businesses. [5:15] This all culminates with stage five, where fascism can go in one of two directions, radicalization [5:20] or entropy. [5:21] Either the leader or his party double down on the extreme goals they had temporarily [5:26] hidden, or the traditional elites win out and the state settles into a more default [5:30] authoritarianism. [5:31] While complex, these frameworks make a few things clear. [5:35] Fascism is a style of politics. [5:37] It's an orientation towards the use of power, relying on messaging just as much as it's [5:42] actual governance. [5:43] And importantly, it doesn't always win. [5:47] That's obviously a lot to remember, so for this debate, I've tried to distill it into [5:50] something more concise. [5:53] Fascism is a reactionary, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian movement characterized by appeal [5:57] to a mythical past, malicious delegitimization of institutions, and pursuit-slash-use of [6:02] power to suppress and vilify outgroups. [6:05] It arises as a response to perceived upheaval of sociocultural norms, national embarrassment, [6:11] and-slash-or elitism in society. [6:13] This is a diagnostic definition of what we can call the fascist minimum, the true core [6:18] of a concept that typically appears in many different forms. [6:22] But to be even more clear, I'll be making three affirmative claims today. [6:26] One, that Trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize and [6:31] consolidate power by engaging with our laws in bad faith. [6:35] Two, that he uses his position of power to vilify, intimidate, and oppress his opposition [6:40] or those he designates as members of an outgroup. [6:43] And three, that he builds, fuels, and justifies this movement with allusions to a once glorious, [6:50] now desecrated past, which can only be reattained through ultra-nationalism. [6:54] I'm eager for Andrew to challenge these three claims and invite him to do so. [6:58] But I am also curious about what his position is. [7:01] Does he believe Trump is not a fascist, or is he just unsure? [7:05] Because if it's the latter, I'm happy to convince him of my position. [7:08] But if it's the former, I also have a lot of questions for him, namely, that even if [7:12] his definition is not a fascist, he's not a fascist. [7:13] If his definition is more narrow than mine, how could he not at least classify Trump as [7:17] an authoritarian with fascistic tendencies? [7:20] The man who says, quote, I alone can fix it, who called for the termination of the US Constitution [7:25] and said, quote, he who saves his country violates no law. [7:29] The man who calls his opposition vermin and in speeches to our military calls them the [7:33] enemy from within, while saying that undocumented immigrants poison the blood of our country. [7:38] Of course, he cloaks this darkness in the veil of ultra-nationalism, making America [7:42] great again. [7:43] Saying the forgotten man and woman will be forgotten no longer. [7:47] And that, quote, the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States [7:51] of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to [7:56] each other. [7:58] Maybe Andrew will tell us not to believe our lying ears and eyes, or that Trump just says [8:02] a lot of shit. [8:03] Maybe he'll reference Article Two to excuse virtually anything done with presidential [8:07] powers, or downplay all the cases of lies, rights violations, and noncompliance as good-faith [8:13] mistakes, or novel legal theories. [8:16] But after watching a man get executed, and hearing the federal government lie to our [8:19] face about it, I'm frankly sick of hearing excuses and false equivalencies. [8:24] I'm sick of being told to call stage three cancer a benign tumor, just because the illness [8:29] isn't terminal yet. [8:30] So I hope this debate can serve as a detailed exploration of Trump's politics, and an interrogation [8:37] of both my three central claims and Andrew's claims to the contrary. [8:42] I'd like to hear from someone who seems to agree with my position here, Donald Trump, [8:46] who said just months ago, I did get elected for crime, but I didn't get elected for what [8:51] we're doing. [8:52] This is many, many steps above. [8:53] I want to thank Stephen Miller. [8:55] I'd love to have him come up and explain his true feelings, maybe not his truest feelings. [9:00] That might be going a little bit too far. [9:01] Thank you very much for that opening, Adam. [9:07] We're going to kick it over to Andrew for his opening as well. [9:09] But first, quick housekeeping, folks, if you didn't know, DebateCon 7 in Houston, Texas. [9:15] It's less than a week away. [9:16] It's Saturday, January 31st. [9:18] Grab your tickets now. [9:19] They're linked in the description box. [9:20] It's going to be huge. [9:21] We're expecting it to sell out. [9:23] With that, we're going to kick it over to Andrew for his opening as well. [9:25] Andrew, thanks for being with us. [9:26] The floor is all yours. [9:27] Andrew McCombs, CEO, DebateCon 7 in Houston, Texas [9:29] Damn it, Con. [9:30] You were the one. [9:31] I thought you were going to... [9:32] I thought it was going to be a... [9:33] I was hoping it was going to be a whole different thing, but it's just the normal tedious shit. [9:38] So it's fine. [9:41] This is exactly what the debate I prepared for, unfortunately, but I had hope. [9:44] I had hope, Con. [9:45] I had hope, Con. [9:46] As we engage in this debate on if Trump is or is not a fascist, there are a few things [9:51] I want to point out in the outset of the debate, a few tactics which are going to be going [9:55] on. [9:57] If I were my debate opponent, I would fallaciously argue that Trump isn't, quote, a full-blown [10:03] fascist, but he's just mostly a fascist, and I'm very certain this is where he's going [10:08] to go with this. [10:09] So I wanted to, in the outset, prepare a demonstration for why this sort of arguing makes no sense [10:14] and should ultimately be rejected. [10:15] By the way, it's existing. [10:16] It's a farce. [10:17] It's precisely what he did. [10:18] I will do this by talking about chimpanzees and bananas. [10:21] You see, a chimpanzee, by some accounts, shares 98% of the same DNA as a human being. [10:27] Does that make a chimp 98% human? [10:31] Do they seem 98% human to you, or do they seem like something entirely else? [10:37] Here I want to demonstrate this principle. [10:40] This is a banana. [10:42] It shares 60% of genes with human beings. [10:45] Does it seem like it's 60% of human genes? [10:47] I would say that's right. [10:47] If you think of the human gene of a chicken, it's basically the same gene as a banana. [10:47] It's basically the same gene. [10:47] a human being though? No, it doesn't. If I peel it like I just did and I eat it, am I engaging in [10:56] 60% cannibalism? No, I'm not. Of course not. It's ridiculous on its face, but it's likely my [11:05] opponent's going to try to tell you that Trump shares X amount of traits with fascists. Exactly [11:09] what he did. And so he's mostly a fascist. He's mostly a fascist, which is mind boggling to me, [11:16] but the standard fair argument of the idiot left. This needs to be rejected immediately for [11:22] the obvious reason, which is ideologies have overlap, but differ greatly in what they actually [11:26] are and why they are or are not the thing. My opponent defines fascism and I quote, [11:34] fascism is a reactionary, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian movement characterized by appeal [11:39] to a mythical past, malicious delegitimizing of institutions in pursuit of power to suppress [11:45] outgroups and vilify outgroups. It arises as a response to perceived upheaval of sociocultural [11:51] norms, national embarrassment, [11:53] or elitism in society. He bases these, this definition largely, he says on fascist scholars [11:59] like Robert Paxton, Jason Stanley. I think that they would reject this definition, honestly, [12:05] because they don't consider Trump to be a fascist. They don't consider him to be a fascist, [12:09] which is hilarious. Okay. Even Paxton post J6, right? When he said that he's fine with the label [12:17] now still doesn't consider Trump to actually be a fascist. Under his criteria of fascism, [12:23] which I'll grant, [12:24] for the sake of argument, Sanders would be a fascist. Bernie Sanders, the guy, [12:28] this guy likes, if we took out ultra-nationalist, he would fit every criteria con listed. [12:33] Sanders has an authoritarian movement. He wants to nationalize many industries away from the private [12:36] sector. He would need state power to do so in a way which would obviously be oppressive to private [12:41] interested parties and people. He appeals to and speaks positively of communist nation appeals to [12:45] their past policies and glories. He delegitimizes institutions maliciously like healthcare, police [12:50] forces, uh, ice, all sorts of things. [12:53] He wants to use state power, [12:54] to vilify the out group millionaires and billionaires, and he wants power to do so. [12:59] Now is Sanders a fascist? Of course not. This is an example of how nebulous this broad definition [13:05] can be used because it's just silly. Would this make him 60% fascist? No, it's ridiculous because [13:13] the core pillar isn't there anymore. It's not there anymore for Sanders than it is for Trump. [13:18] And that's this one pillar, ultra-nationalism. While I have a very different definition from Mr. [13:25] Cahn, I had to use a Star Trek reference of Cahn, right? On what fascism actually is. And the pillars [13:32] which hold it up. I would like to point out by his metric, Trump isn't a fascist and can't be because [13:37] he isn't an ultra-nationalist. And without that, the whole pillar and house of cards falls down. [13:42] Nationalism is a belief your country should come first before other nations. Ultra-nationalism is [13:47] the belief, uh, your nation comes before everything else. God, family, morals, job, interest. The state [13:55] has an ideology and it is an ideology, not just a core of traits. Trump is barely even a nationalist, [14:01] let alone an ultra-nationalist. MAGA, his base of supporters, isn't asked or required to put Trump [14:08] before God or family or other value systems they may hold. Not to mention he has some pretty [14:14] anti-nationalist policies like gold cards to buy citizenship for foreign nationals or 600,000 [14:20] imported Chinese students or hundreds of thousands of Indians brought in for cheap labor, uh, [14:25] over the course of the last decade. Uh, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, [14:25] it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it, it, it's, it's, it, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it, it's, it, it, [14:26] or any number of different anti-nationalist policies that I can point out. Tons of policies [14:31] which Trump puts forward, and I can argue that they're barely nationalistic at all, [14:34] but certainly isn't an ultra-nationalist. And without that pillar, can't be a fascist. Now, [14:39] I'm making a positive case here, to be fair, so's my opponent. I'm saying Trump is not a [14:44] fascist, he's saying he is. So I want to be charitable there. This is not a, I get to stay [14:49] on the fence and just pepper him about his definition. He gets to interrogate me. That's [14:54] fair. Right. [14:54] Yeah. [14:55] i'm happy on demand to provide my definition for fascism it's core's philosophy of the third [15:00] position if you would like i spent a lot of time my debate career arguing against the tenets of [15:05] the third position i.e fascism what it is its philosophy its originators like giovanni gentile [15:10] mussolini others the ideas of corporatism and the fasci what that represents and why it represents [15:15] that what's happening here in actuality is this the left and progressives like my opponent in [15:22] general they want to use morally infused language to demonize their opposition by comparing them to [15:28] nazis and fascists which they think are synonyms they want all of the horrors of fascism to be [15:34] laid at the feet of their political opposition even if the political opposition doesn't share [15:39] the ideology and if they don't share the ideology they just come up with new ways to define the [15:43] ideology so they can make them share it it's not that trump is a fascist you see it's that [15:48] the holocaust happened and mustache man has the same ideology as trump so he's like that [15:53] them and his allies in italy and the fascists did the same thing too this is what gives them the [16:00] perceived moral high ground in which to resist the evil fascists and that's all this has ever been [16:07] purely performative all lies which is going to totally fall apart when i put this to the question [16:12] watch and with that i'm happy to get into this now i have each definition for semantic certainty that [16:18] you could ever want if you want ultra nationalism you want definitions for anything in my position [16:23] i've got them on hand [16:24] we're ready to go i hope you got the same thing so that we can get we can skip the semantics and [16:29] get right to the meat of it right but uh yeah i i'm with that i'm ready to get right into this [16:37] you got it with that we'll jump into the open dialogue first folks if you didn't know if you [16:42] can't make it a debate con 7 this saturday in houston texas you can watch it live from home [16:47] it's a perk for our final word channel membership tier check out those memberships right now by [16:53] clicking the join button [16:55] and also if you haven't yet hit the like button whether you're watching here or elsewhere [17:00] we're going to kick it into the open dialogue and gentlemen do i understand you guys are cool with [17:04] debating each of your definitions in terms of does trump fit the definition of well each of [17:10] our positions my position would be that trump is not a fascist my opponent uh is saying that he is [17:16] a fascist and so we'll be debating from both of those angles i don't care if the [17:20] the front half of the debate is loaded against me or against you it doesn't really matter [17:25] i think it's fair to uh pepper me about what i think fascism is just like i'm about to pepper [17:30] you with what you think fascism is sure okay you either of you have a preference on whose [17:37] definition we use first well let's go with cons he's the one who's making the positive claim [17:43] um that he is the thing and then we can get into mine or we can even as we go you can ask [17:48] me if you'd like that's fine i'm curious andrew can can you just quickly share your [17:52] broad-based definition of fascism that you'd use as like a shorthand uh yeah so fascism is [17:58] ideology that proposes corporatist, palogenetic, and ultranationalist state. That's what fascism [18:04] is. Okay. I just want to start off by addressing a few of the things you said in your opening [18:08] statement. Yeah, hang on, hang on, hang on real quick, because I want to get some semantics out [18:12] of the way, if you don't mind, just to make sure that we got this right. Ultranationalism is [18:17] defined by you as what? I would say that ultranationalism frames greatness of nations [18:22] as a zero-sum game, where a nation's glory is derived from dominating other countries. [18:26] I have a quote here from those original fascists. I want to see if you will agree to this. [18:34] Ultranationalists, from their view, all within the state, nothing outside the state, [18:37] nothing against the state. Is this an ideological thing or a descriptive thing? Yeah, of course, [18:42] it's ideological. My definition of fascism isn't even ideological, so I would reject that off. [18:47] Okay, well, okay, how's it not ideological? Like I said, it's a sociopolitical phenomenon. That is [18:53] how Robert Paxton and Jason Stanley describe it. And just to quickly clarify there, it's not just [18:57] how they describe it. It's not just how they describe it. It's how they describe it. [18:57] Hold on. They both call Trump a fascist. Robert Paxton says he doesn't use the word fascist [19:03] because he finds it's basically colloquially lost all meaning. But after January 6th, [19:07] Robert Paxton did say that Trump now meets the characteristics of fascism, [19:11] and Jason Stanley has been saying the same for years. No, here's, well, first of all, [19:14] Stanley's a political hack. Paxton is serious. Of course you're going to say that. [19:17] No, no, so being on Paxton is serious. He's not a political hack. Like, that guy is an actual, [19:22] like, he has studied fascism. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. Stanley, yeah, he's a political [19:27] hack. He's a political hack. He's a political hack. He's a political hack. He's a political hack. [19:27] He's a leftist. Come on, man. Paxton, though, he's more politically neutral. But you're basically [19:32] operating off Paxton anyway, not really Stanley, at least by the definition that you're giving. [19:37] Paxton himself did not actually say this. You're making this up. Here's what actually happened. [19:41] Paxton has been saying for years that Trump does not fall under the criteria of being a fascist. [19:48] Post J6, he said he was fine with him being labeled that. He was very careful with his words, [19:52] though. He didn't actually say there's anything new here which makes Trump fall under [19:57] this label, only that he was fine now with the label. It had some utility use. [20:02] Did you not read his Newsweek article? I did. Well, not his Newsweek. It wasn't Newsweek. [20:06] He wrote a piece in Newsweek after January 6th where he said, I'm now calling Trump a fascist. [20:10] Well, hang on. Let me pull the article up here. Sure. One second. We'll make sure that we have [20:18] it correct. But yeah, that was my interpretation from it because of the very first line. Read the [20:23] very first two lines. It's all vibes and feelings, bro. Just read it. Read it out loud. Read the first [20:29] two lines of the article that you're referencing. Sure. Let me pull it up. Pull it up. I'm curious [20:42] why I pulled that up. Where are you deriving that you didn't call Trump a fascist? Well, [20:46] he was very cautious with his language in this article. So it's literally titled. Hold on. Let [20:51] me make sure. It doesn't matter what it's titled. It matters. I've hesitated to call Trump. I've [20:55] hesitated to call Donald Trump a fascist until now. Yeah, I resisted for a long time applying [21:00] the fascist label to Donald J. Trump. He did indeed display some telltale signs in 2016. I mean, [21:05] you want me to read the whole thing or? No, no, no. He goes on to say he's now. [21:08] Right in the first line, right? Uh-huh. I've hesitated to label Donald Trump a fascist. [21:14] Uh-huh. Even though he had telltale signs, right? Past tense. Yeah. What was the what was the [21:18] hesitated past tense? What's the new criteria, according to your definition, that Trump fell [21:23] under after J6? What is it? I believe he said the leveraging of political violence. I can find [21:29] specifically. Yeah. What about you, though? You have a specific definition here. Did you agree [21:34] with Paxton that before J6, Trump wasn't a fascist? I would. [21:39] I think that Trump was probably in stages two or three of fascism prior to January 6th. And I think [21:43] after that, we started arriving between stages three. And so he was at like at a certain [21:47] percentage. It's not percentage from banana. It's it's a cute analogy. But the biology of a fruit [21:54] is not analogous to a political Trump hasn't met any of the stages of fascism. What what stages, [22:00] according to the historic definition of fascism? What stages are you talking about? [22:04] The ones that I read in my opening statement. Yeah. Fascism was response to socialism. [22:09] That's what it's a response to his response. If it's a third position, it's a third position. [22:13] You're describing one iteration of fascism. No, that's the only iteration of it. Show me where [22:18] else, according to you. But name another fascist nation. This isn't even settled in academic [22:23] circles. Well, then I don't want to hear you say it is. I'm not. I'm giving you my definition, [22:28] which I think is based on scholars who are better. Your definition is you're being pedantic about. [22:32] I'm using the core arguments from the from the architects who made fascism. And I just what you're [22:39] saying, Robert Paxton said that's dumb. Here's what you're doing. You're saying I'm using the [22:44] interpretation of other people for the source material. I'm saying I read the fucking source [22:49] material. You clearly didn't, though. I clearly did. What do you want to know about about literally [22:54] claimed that Robert Paxton does not think Donald Trump's a fascist. He doesn't. There's no new [23:00] criteria. Literally, it's not about new criteria. It's about Trump's behavior changing such that he [23:04] said that he's now fine with the label. That's it. And I can also if you're talking about, OK, this is [23:10] what do you come to? Giovanni Gentile is the guy who describes what fascism is. And you think [23:14] Robert Paxton is valid here. He himself has said the words of fascist intellectuals, even if we [23:21] hang on. You're conflating a couple of things. OK, I agree that Paxton is a popular scholar [23:28] for fascism, namely because he basically is trying to give you guys a name, the trade argument and [23:33] leftists love him. Not that I see that his authority on you have to poison the well with that. Not that [23:41] his authority on fascism is correct because it has nothing to do ultimately with third position [23:46] ism. And I completely reject it based on the definition that I gave for fascism, which is three [23:51] core pillars. And you need to have all three of them there, starting with yours, though. Your [23:56] definition. How is Trump an ultra nationalist? I can give I actually have it written down right [24:01] here. So he hold on. There we go. He builds fuels and justifies his movement with allusions to once [24:07] glorious, now desecrated past, which can be reattained. Can I finish? [24:12] You'd hear the word an ultra nationalist in there. He builds fuels and justifies his movement [24:16] with allusions to a once glorious, now desecrated past, which can only be reattained through ultra [24:21] nationalism. He talks about the return of a golden age of the nation and an era of decline that went [24:27] out. Yeah, you're talking about what's called palogenetics here. That's you're talking about [24:32] Roger something. Yeah, you're talking. But that's what it is. It's palogenetic. So the thing is, [24:36] it's like palogenetic. You don't need to overlap. But that's what you're describing. [24:39] What you're describing there is not ultra national. I just want to be clear. [24:42] There's plenty of overlap between different. What does your dad have to do with ultra [24:46] nationalism, dude? Nothing you just said has anything to do with ultra national. I already [24:50] answered your question earlier. Bro, stop. Let me finish. It's tautological. Don't ask a question, [24:53] don't let me answer. It's tautological. Okay, what you're doing is you're saying [24:59] the way that Trump is ultra nationalistic is because he says things that can only be achieved [25:03] through ultra nationalism. That's not telling me how he's. I think you're misunderstanding my claim. [25:08] Well, then tell me how he's an ultra nationalist. So ultra nationalism is sort of an aesthetic where [25:12] it can be. [25:12] Communication strategy in this case where his governance frames [25:15] American greatness as a zero sum game. For America to be great, [25:19] it must maximally use its power in a might makes right framework. [25:22] That's just nationalism. [25:25] How would you distinguish? When does it become? [25:26] I already told you, but I'll tell you again. [25:28] When does it become ultra? Where's the line for you? [25:30] I'll tell you exactly where the line comes in. When it becomes that all loyalty is to the state, [25:34] that's ultra nationalism. When everything goes all within the state, nothing outside the state, [25:40] nothing against the state. The whole point of fascism [25:43] was to utilize ultra nationalism, loyalty to the state to introduce corporatism. [25:48] It couldn't work without ultra. Do you think? [25:49] Hang on, hang on, hang on. Because ultra nationalism itself, right, is not [25:56] corporatism is not even possible absent that. So threshold breaker is not. [26:01] So let me ask you the same question in reverse. [26:03] When does ultra nationalism becomes just regular nationalism? [26:06] I mean, it's obviously a blurry line. There's not going to be. [26:08] So you don't know. [26:09] We're like, oh, now all of a sudden it's no, you don't know about specific examples that would [26:12] illustrate where the line is. I don't know if you want me to give you a one sentence summary [26:16] of a topic that scholars have been debating for decades. [26:19] Well, hang on, hang on. You can't say to me, you can't say to me, [26:22] Andrew, where's the threshold breaker? And I give it to you. And I ask you the same question [26:25] in reverse. Where's your threshold breaker? Because you're the one who took issue with [26:28] the threshold. I didn't say anything about thresholds. You're the one who took issue with it. [26:31] You did. You said ultra. You asked specifically this question. [26:35] When does nationalism become ultra nationalism? I gave you the exact criteria. [26:38] Why did I ask that question? [26:39] I gave you the, because you haven't told me what ultra nationalism is. [26:42] No, because you said Trump, that's nationalism, not ultra nationalism. [26:45] Yeah, that's nationalism. Correct. [26:47] So what's the difference? Well, hold on. Hold on. [26:49] What's the difference between nationalism and ultra nationalism? [26:51] Maybe we're talking about different things here. Do you think ultra nationalism cannot [26:54] be a rhetorical strategy? It's just an ideology. [26:56] Yes. [26:57] So it can't be a rhetorical strategy. [26:59] Well, I mean, you can allude anything could be a rhetorical strategy. [27:02] Okay. So when I'm talking about fascism, I'm talking about number one, how it behaves and [27:05] number two, how it presents itself. Yeah. But that doesn't mean it is the thing. [27:09] And that is where ultra nationalism comes into it. [27:11] Just like the mythic past he describes. I don't believe there was actually a mythic past, Andrew. [27:16] So what's ultra nationalism? What is it? What is it? [27:18] I already told you. Yeah. It frames American greatness as a zero sum game [27:22] for America to be great and must maximally use its power in a might makes right framework. [27:26] And what's between that and nationalism? [27:29] It's not a zero sum game necessarily. So what's the difference? Is there a difference or not? [27:34] Zero sum game. [27:36] Is there a difference or not? [27:38] Yes. I think ultra nationalism takes nationalists into zero sum territory. [27:42] Which changes how it's going to behave on a world stage [27:44] and starts overlapping with imperialism as well. [27:47] No. Ultra nationalism from a fascistic point of view. [27:50] From your fascistic point of view. [27:51] From Giovanni Gentile, the orchestrator of fascism. [27:55] This is like asking a cult member how cults work and using his ideology to define [27:59] like the science of cults. Like it just doesn't make sense to take one iteration of fascism in [28:04] Italy and say, this is how we define all fascism now. Like why can't we have a diagnostic framework? [28:08] Ultra nationalism has to be distinct from nationalism somehow. When you say [28:15] the things that you just said can be attributed to nationalism, here's why. [28:20] And not ultra nationalism. Let's look at the distinctions here. [28:24] When you say you're a nationalist, you're putting your nation before other nations. [28:28] That is a zero sum game. [28:29] Not necessarily, no. [28:30] Most of the time. It's a zero sum game. The idea here is if it's good for me, [28:36] if there's two choices presented to me, [28:38] this one will be good for you and me, or this one over here will be much better for me than you, [28:47] then you take that one. That's usually nation first. [28:50] Ultra nationalism, the threshold delineator here, is that the state itself becomes a body, [28:57] and that's where the allegiance and loyalty must always lie, is to the state. [29:02] That's the ideology. [29:03] From the people's perspective, that's what actual ultra nationalism is. You're talking about just [29:08] nationalism, the idea of putting your nation above others. So what? [29:12] Putting your nation above others is different than saying that every instance of another [29:16] nation being great is somehow subtracting from the finite amount of greatness that exists, [29:20] and America must seize this greatness. If someone else is doing well, it must mean we've been ripped [29:25] off as a country. That is one step above just nationalism. [29:28] Let me ask you this. When you say it's fundamentally un-American, [29:31] which you say all the time, what does that mean? [29:32] When did I say it's fundamentally un-American? [29:34] When you say things are fundamentally un-American. This is an un-American thing. [29:38] I don't remember the exact debate, but you did say that that sounds un-American. [29:44] Oh, you're saying at some point in the past, okay. [29:46] Yeah, that's un-American. What does that mean when you say it's un-American? [29:50] It depends on the context in which I said it. I'm probably alluding to liberal, [29:53] democratic values of the Constitution. [29:54] So you're alluding to some previous time when you think things were more American? [29:57] No, I'm alluding to values. [30:00] Okay, so ideology. [30:03] Ideology can be kind of like a formalization of values, but they're not necessarily synonymous. [30:08] I think they are. [30:10] I don't know how you get to values without ideology. [30:12] Okay, you can just have them as like a, sort of like a, what do you call it? [30:16] Like the premise of what you believe. You can just have- [30:18] I have values. I have values. What's the framework for them? [30:22] Do you have to be ideological to have values? [30:24] Yeah, I think you do. [30:26] So people that don't have an ideological framework, they don't value anything? [30:29] They have no preferences or- [30:30] Yeah, usually they're called a moral anti-realist or nihilist. So yeah. [30:33] No, but they would still descriptively have values. They have preferences. [30:37] They choose to do certain things over others. [30:39] Well- [30:39] They value certain things. [30:40] Hang on. If they have preferences, then we're getting into ideological [30:44] territory and dogmatic territory, right? [30:45] Well, an ideology is going to be like internally consistent, usually, and codified or formalized. [30:49] So if you say, I have a preference for things I like, that's the highest value. Now we're in [30:53] dogmatic territory. [30:54] It's not really an ideology, though. [30:55] That is really an ideology. [30:57] Okay. I don't know if you want to disagree or disagree here. This is like, we're going in [31:01] circles on this. [31:01] But anyway, that aside, the distinction here is on ultra-nationalism versus nationalism. [31:06] Yeah. [31:07] The whole idea for ultra-nationalism, within all of the framework, [31:11] in World War II especially- [31:12] Yeah. I understand your- [31:13] Was not just with Germany. It's a thousand year millennia. It's going to be the third [31:18] Reich a thousand years into the future from Benito Mussolini. This is going to be futurism, [31:23] man. We're going to be Italians with cool cars, and we slash each other's faces with swords and [31:27] shit. We love this stuff. This is going to last for 2,000 years. That's what it's going to be. [31:36] It's an ideology, which is formatted around the loyalty and [31:41] integrity of the state being adhered to as the highest value of the citizen. That is ultra-nationalism. [31:46] That's how you're defining it. [31:47] Trump does not run. Trump does not run anything. Well, you can't give me a threshold breaker. You [31:52] just say, oh, I don't know. [31:53] Wait. Do you think that two things can't be distinct if there isn't a very solid line between [31:56] them? I think you're not making a case. You're not making a case, though, for how these are distinct. [32:01] The supposed issue you're trying to point out in my logic, I'm just trying to clarify if you'd hold [32:04] that standard in other situations. Do you think if there's a blurry delineation or a blurry distinction [32:09] between two concepts, that means- Yeah. [32:10] That means we ought to call them the same thing? [32:12] Not always, unless we have something which is conceptually a delineation, which is provable. [32:16] Do you accept that there can be ambiguity and delineations of concepts that are very closely [32:20] related? Yeah, of course. [32:21] That's all I'm saying. That's part of my argument, [32:23] but it has nothing to do with- Part of my argument as well. [32:24] It has nothing to do with this argument. What you're asking me to do is, in a vacuum, [32:30] tell you if there can be overlap or ambiguity between concepts or relations of ideology. [32:35] Or I guess not in a vacuum, in real life as well. [32:37] I concede that that is the case, right? [32:39] Yeah. But in this case, [32:41] I'm not conceding that. So do you agree with me that while I can concede that that [32:45] can be the case, that it can also be the case where there is something which is distinct [32:50] that can be pointed to? Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. [32:53] That is social sciences. Let me finish the question. [32:54] Let me finish the question. Yeah. [32:55] That there is delineations which can be made [32:59] between ideologies that can be easily pointed to, like Marxism, for instance. I can give you [33:04] a very easy delineation between Marxism and other forms of ideology. Stateless society could be one [33:09] of them. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [33:09] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [33:10] Right. Things that we could agree to as being distinct. Right. And what is the stateless [33:15] society mean and how we get into that in this case? You're not actually telling me [33:20] where it is that we how we get to the ultra national thing multiple times. [33:24] No, you didn't. You just said there's ambiguity. [33:26] I'm glad you brought up the Marxism example. So, yeah, you can probably give me easy [33:29] distinctions between Marxism and like capitalism. But giving me distinctions between different types [33:34] of Marxism becomes a lot more blurry. So it is true. There are many situations where delineations can [33:39] be pretty. [33:39] Binary and it doesn't have to be overcomplicated. [33:42] The last place where that would be true is the social sciences. [33:45] OK, tell me the biology. I just want to hear the distinction. [33:47] Then what's the distinction between ultra nationalism and I've told you, [33:50] making it a zero sum game multiple times? Like, I don't know. [33:52] Yeah, but how does that different than just regular nationalism? [33:56] Regular nationalism doesn't necessitate zero sum frameworks. [33:59] OK, give me an example of that. [34:01] Like regular nationalism. [34:02] A nationalistic policy that's not putting the nation first in a zero sum category. [34:07] Well, it's putting the nation first, but not in a zero sum way. [34:10] OK. [34:10] Give me an example. [34:11] This could be like doing protectionist policies. [34:13] How can you be putting the nation first unless that was a zero sum? [34:16] How does the nation come first if you're compromising on the nation coming first? [34:19] What are you asking? [34:21] How are you putting the nation first if you're willing to compromise on putting the nation first? [34:25] What do you mean willing to compromise on putting the nation first? [34:27] Well, if it's if it's the case, you agree with me, [34:30] nationalism is putting your nation first, right? [34:32] It's kind of a short definition, but OK. [34:36] Yes. So if that's the case, how do you put your nation first if you're willing at the [34:41] same time to not put your nation first? [34:46] If you're willing at the same time related to what I know, it's completely related. [34:50] How can you relate it? [34:52] How can you put your nation first? [34:53] Because you're saying that nationalism is nation first, but it's not zero sum. [34:58] I'm arguing that it has to be zero sum or can't be nation first. [35:01] That's the zero sum. [35:03] The nation comes first. [35:04] Zero sum, meaning that if the nation is doing well, [35:06] that means that other countries have to be doing worse in proportion to how much better the nation. [35:10] That's not. [35:10] Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. [35:12] Zero sum is. [35:12] Wait a second. [35:13] It's also zero sum to say your nation comes first. [35:17] That's a zero sum categorical statement, right? [35:19] It doesn't have to be zero sum. [35:22] Why then? [35:22] How can your nation you always first while other nations are also doing very well? [35:27] Does your nation always come first? [35:29] You understand that, like even people that believe in like multilateralism and like [35:32] like a cooperation internationally, they can also. [35:34] Does your nation always come first? [35:38] What are you even talking about in nationalism? [35:40] Are you always putting your nation first? [35:42] Yeah, broadly speaking. [35:43] Are you? [35:44] Uncompromising in putting your nation always first? [35:47] It depends on what we're talking about in the specific iteration of it, [35:50] because you're defining it as an ideology. [35:52] Then it's P and not P. [35:54] It's a philosophical contradiction. [35:55] The issue is you're trying to debate me on the ideology of ultra nationalism, [35:59] and then I'm defending the rhetorical strategy of ultra nationalism. [36:03] I don't know. [36:03] This is this is not a great pivot for you. [36:06] No, it's what I've been saying since the beginning of the debate, Andrew. [36:08] Yeah, but it's incoherent. [36:09] This is incoherent. [36:10] It's P and not P. [36:11] You're making it incoherent by going in circles and asking the same question. [36:13] It's P and not P. [36:13] It's P and not P. [36:14] Well, because what you just said is incoherent. [36:17] If it's P and not P. [36:18] So the idea here is, Andrew, nationalism means you always put the nation first. [36:25] Always, right? [36:27] Right? [36:28] Yeah. [36:28] But then the question is, what does putting the nation first mean? [36:30] Okay, hang on. [36:31] Hang on. [36:32] If you're always putting the nation first, then it's already zero sum because it's an [36:37] always statement. [36:38] Wait, what do you think zero sum means? [36:40] It means no compromise, no negotiation, no nothing, right? [36:43] No, no. [36:43] Isn't that zero sum? [36:44] Zero sum means there's like a finite amount in the pie and that if someone's getting more [36:48] of the pie, that necessarily means that someone else cannot get more of it, right? [36:51] So if America is doing better. [36:53] Yeah. [36:53] Hang on. [36:54] Hang on. [36:54] Let's back up. [36:56] You think that zero... [36:57] Let's just make sure that we got this right. [36:59] A zero sum game. [37:02] What are we referencing there? [37:04] I'm referencing a situation where one person doing better necessarily means that someone [37:08] else has to do worse. [37:10] Okay. [37:10] And so the nation, the United States, always, to put it first, needs to be the one that's going to win. [37:15] The one that's always doing best, right? [37:18] Because we're putting it first. [37:19] Yeah, but that doesn't mean zero sum. [37:20] Okay, then it's zero sum. [37:21] No, it's not. [37:22] You're making an always statement that we always, even at the expense of other nations, [37:25] must be doing best. [37:25] So you're saying it's not possible for the nation to be put first and for other countries [37:30] to also be doing very well, but just not in first place? [37:32] Hang on. [37:32] Hang on. [37:33] Here's the problem with this, right? [37:34] I can concede this point, but you still have to concede mine. [37:37] What's your point? [37:38] So the thing is, is like, sure, you can say that the United States can do well and you [37:43] can also do well. [37:44] Okay. [37:45] Yeah. [37:45] Yeah. [37:45] Yeah. [37:45] Yeah. [37:45] Yeah. [37:45] Yeah. [37:45] But when we're talking about the uncompromising positions that the United States is always [37:49] going to be first in this, right? [37:52] That's uncompromising. [37:53] In rhetoric. [37:54] No matter what, not just in rhetoric, in action. [37:57] In how I'm using it, it's uncompromising in rhetoric. [37:59] Oh, okay. [38:00] Now you're going to pivot again? [38:01] So not in action? [38:02] People can rewind the debate. [38:03] I've been saying that it's a rhetorical strategy since you asked me first about ultranationalism. [38:07] So if people think that's a pivot, they can just rewind like a few minutes back. [38:10] Andrew, it's pretty simple here. [38:11] So fascism is rhetorical. [38:13] Hold on. [38:13] Let me just quickly address that. [38:14] It's a mix of rhetorical strategies and behaviors. [38:17] I don't know how many times I have to repeat that, but again, ultranationalism, I'm referring [38:22] to here as a rhetorical strategy that is used as the justification for the authoritarianism [38:27] and the vilification. [38:28] It's the fuel for the machine. [38:29] Yeah. [38:30] But that doesn't get us any close to what ultranationalism actually is. [38:33] It doesn't get you any closer to it, but- [38:35] It doesn't get anybody any closer because it's tautological. [38:38] It's just like ultranationalism is the very thing that we're appealing to, to justify [38:43] this other thing. [38:44] And that's what ultranationalism is. [38:45] It's like, that's a tautology. [38:46] The thing is- [38:47] No, I explained what ultranationalism is- [38:48] No, you really didn't. [38:49] And I explained its functionality and fascist- [38:50] You said it's a zero sum- [38:51] You said it's a zero sum game. [38:54] When it comes to nationalism. [38:55] Yes. [38:56] It's an extreme form of nationalism. [38:57] Okay. [38:58] So are you saying that ultranationalists then can't make compromises with other nations? [39:01] Substantively they could, but they'll never admit it rhetorically. [39:04] Okay. [39:05] Wait a second. [39:06] So- [39:07] As I've been saying- [39:08] Benito Mussolini, the fascist, would never admit that they compromised with any other [39:12] nation? [39:14] Well, if it's an allied nation, he might, because it isn't going to be actually bolstering [39:17] his own- [39:18] What are you talking about? [39:19] If the compromise is not at the detriment of his own nationalist sentiment, then what [39:22] would be the issue with that? [39:24] Well, because in this case, I can actually give you examples of where fascists compromise [39:28] with other nations, which would have been them making a compromise even though they [39:32] were ultranationalists. [39:33] How long do you want to stay on the ultranationalism thing? [39:35] Well, I think that it's the core of your pillar. [39:39] It's no, I gave you my three affirmative claims and invited you to challenge each one. [39:42] Yeah, I know, but you also gave me a definition, didn't you? [39:44] Right. [39:45] You gave me a definition of the three affirmative claims for the purposes of this debate. [39:48] But I'm saying that ultranat- well, hang on, the three affirmative claims don't have anything [39:51] to do with fascism. [39:52] They have to do with authoritarianism. [39:53] They do. [39:54] Nope. [39:55] Okay. [39:56] Let's start with claim one. [39:57] Sure. [39:58] Do you want me to read all three or do you want me to just read all three? [39:59] Read all three. [40:00] Okay. [40:01] The first claim is, Trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize [40:04] and consolidate power by engaging with our laws in bad faith. [40:08] Sure. [40:09] I concede the point. [40:10] Two, he uses his position of power to vilify, intimidate, and oppress his opposition and [40:15] those he designates as his own. [40:15] I concede the point. [40:19] Three, he builds, fuels, and justifies this movement with allusions to a once glorious, [40:25] now desecrated past, which can only be reattained through ultranationalism. [40:30] I concede that point, too. [40:31] Cool. [40:32] Thanks for having us, James. [40:33] That's not me conceding to fascism. [40:35] Well, you're conceding that, by my definition, Trump is a fascist. [40:38] No, because your definition has a key word here, which is not in any of those three pillars. [40:45] Ultranationalist. [40:46] Ultranationalist. [40:47] Ultranationalist. [40:47] I just said that was at the end of the third pillar. [40:49] Here's the problem. [40:50] What was at the end of the third pillar? [40:51] No, no, no. [40:52] You said he appeals. [40:53] You're saying he appeals to some rhetorical ultranationalism or something. [40:57] That's not ultranationalism. [40:58] To you, it's not. [40:59] No, it's just not. [41:00] Okay. [41:01] Cool. [41:02] It's just objectively not ultranationalism. [41:05] Even if I concede all three of these points, it doesn't demonstrate Trump's a fascist. [41:10] Why not? [41:11] Because the metrics for ultranationalism are not in place. [41:14] None of them. [41:15] Because you're using a different definition of ultranationalism than I'm intending with [41:17] my definition. [41:19] What's the point of ultranationalism? [41:21] Is there a consensus on what ultranationalism means? [41:23] Yes. [41:24] Yes. [41:25] There's a consensus of ultranationalism versus nationalism. [41:26] Who's the consensus between? [41:27] That's one thing. [41:28] You and yourself? [41:30] Well, in this case, we would be looking ... No, we're looking at the architects of fascism, [41:33] what they considered it to be, which is Giovanni Gentile. [41:34] I already explained to you why appealing to the architects of this ideology, who are [41:39] always going to dress up their methods with ideological flourish, is not really relevant [41:44] in the descriptive analysis of whether or not someone is a fascist. [41:48] It's the most relevant. [41:49] It's the most relevant. [41:49] It's not. [41:50] They follow the actual ideology. [41:51] What you're trying to do is a name the trait, some vegan, a name the trait argument for [41:56] fascists. [41:57] It's like, no. [41:58] I don't know where veganism came from. [41:59] You're the one who brought up bananas earlier. [42:00] Fascism is ... Yeah, but that wasn't to demonstrate anything vegan related. [42:04] I know. [42:05] Anyway, the point is here is that fascists themselves told us what they considered ultranationalism [42:11] to be within the states. [42:13] Cult members tell us what their cult is all about. [42:16] Their ideology? [42:17] Yeah, of the cult, but then they're going to- [42:19] Yeah. [42:20] They're going to ignore that ideology for purposes of achieving power. [42:22] You're saying that you're going to tell Christians what they believe more than Christians are [42:26] going to tell you what they believe? [42:27] I'm not here to talk about religion, so no, I'm not telling Christians anything. [42:31] Do you consider Christianity an ideology? [42:33] It's a religion. [42:34] I mean, I guess it's an ideology. [42:35] Sure. [42:36] Yeah. [42:37] The thing is, why would you yield to them on their ideology then and what they believe? [42:40] Because religions, especially organized religions, are by definition going to be formalized doctrines [42:44] that you have to adhere to. [42:45] With dogmas, right? [42:46] Yeah, sure. [42:47] Don't you consider- [42:48] We're talking about socio-political phenomena. [42:49] Hang on. [42:50] Yeah. [42:51] Don't you consider these social-political advocates of this particular ideology to have [42:56] written dogma pertaining to the very ideology that they then instituted in their nation? [43:01] In Gentile's case and Fascist Italy's case, they brought on 22 sectors of new corporatism. [43:08] They had dogma that they actually acted on. [43:11] It wasn't in a vacuum. [43:13] They acted on the dogma, instituted the dogma. [43:15] Let me ask you a question about that. [43:17] Would they deviate from that ideological dogma? [43:20] If it meant expanding or consolidating their power, or would they say, no, no, no, I have [43:23] to stick to the dogma, like the Fascist leaders in those situations? [43:27] Well, I think in Italy, they would not have deviated. [43:31] In Franco's Spain, they may have deviated. [43:32] Sure. [43:34] All I'm trying to get at here is that what a Fascist says Fascism is, is probably going [43:38] to be dressed up in a certain way that is going to obfuscate or straight up omit certain [43:42] aspects of how Fascism actually functions. [43:44] Again, I'm using a diagnostic definition. [43:47] Why shouldn't I do the exact same thing? [43:48] I'm giving you a- [43:49] You can do whatever you want. [43:50] It's not only a diagnostic definition. [43:52] I'm giving you the most concise historical definition, so historical movement. [43:56] It's not just a capturing- [43:57] It's a very narrow definition. [43:58] It's not just capturing. [43:59] I gave you such a narrow definition. [44:01] It's unbelievable. [44:02] I'll give it to you again. [44:03] All right? [44:04] No, I know it's narrow. [44:05] Fascism is an ideology that proposes corporatist, polygenetic, ultranationalist state. [44:09] That's as narrow as it could possibly be. [44:11] I know. [44:12] Do you want each of these to ... I can expand on each of these. [44:14] I know your definition. [44:15] You talked about the merging of the head and the body and the state and whatever. [44:18] I know how you define it. [44:19] I just don't like that definition. [44:20] Oh, that's nice. [44:21] I'm glad you don't like it. [44:22] We can just ignore- [44:23] And you don't like mine. [44:24] It's what you've been talking about for the past- [44:25] We'll just ignore- [44:26] ... 49 minutes. [44:27] Yeah. [44:28] We'll just ignore all historic context for the thing you call the guy. [44:29] Just like you ignore all the scholars you don't like by calling them leftist hacks? [44:32] Wait, wait, wait. [44:34] The main one here, Paxton, right, I gave the olive branch. [44:38] I was like, look, this guy's work, I understand. [44:42] He is actually a scholar who's actually focusing on the issue. [44:47] He is giving you expounded beliefs. [44:50] He does utilize- [44:50] Yeah. [44:51] He does utilize some of the historic context, right? [44:52] And what's wrong with Jason Stanley? [44:53] He almost stays completely away from the ... Who cares? [44:58] He stays completely away from the historic ... He stays completely away, though, from [45:03] the historic ideas of corporatism, third positionism, and instead, he's trying to use a modern lens [45:10] in which to gift the two leftists or some shit. [45:12] That's not a gift. [45:13] I don't know why you're framing it like this. [45:14] He stays completely away from a lot of that, which is why so many people disagree with [45:17] Paxton. [45:18] Third position is- [45:19] And Paxton disagrees with many people. [45:20] By the way, we have modern- [45:21] Yeah. [45:22] ... third positionists right now- [45:23] Yeah. [45:24] ... who are advocating for their positions. [45:25] We've got Keith Woods. [45:26] Uh-huh. [45:27] We've got ... What was his name? [45:28] The other one who used to be a big ... I can't think of his name ... Culture Thug. [45:33] He ran a third positionist thing for a long time that gained a lot of steam. [45:40] There's lots of third positionists, actually, who we can appeal to, to tell us what the [45:45] third position is, right, and what it is that the foundational philosophy is. [45:50] Uh-huh. [45:51] Excellent. [45:52] Perfect. [45:53] Thank you. [45:54] Then, Paul, I'm'll either put this out onto the whole show or make it up and get back [45:56] to the agenda. [45:57] Sure. [45:58] No problem, NEWSCHANN. [45:59] All right. [46:00] Well, COVID is a сделать. [46:01] We're recording soon. [46:02] Yes, yeah. [46:03] Well, and it's all the rage right now. [46:04] Things were going wrong the last few days. [46:05] It all happened, but everything's been pushed back. [46:06] Folks are freaking out. [46:07] We enmanded the [46:15] Yeah. [46:15] Aquarius. [46:16] ASA. [46:17] Where is that guy? [46:19] Panjshan? [46:20] You're in the Hall of Fame? [46:21] definitions and they just deserve to have their historicity brought into play when it comes to [46:27] you defining them in a modern sense so that you can understand what this ideology actually is [46:33] and that you are completely bereft of that in your definition i just or even explaining yourself [46:40] here i don't want you to pivot from the jason stanley thing like why do you think that he is [46:44] like it's irrelevant and tangential no it's relevant because you are the one who impugned [46:48] his credibility okay now now he's great i'll just say he's great okay cool okay anything else [46:52] so okay great so anyway it's tangential it's irrelevant that was the pivot so back to this [46:58] okay that's kind of slimy we're talking about historic when we're talking about his well you're [47:03] the one who made the pivot when we're talking about historic when we're talking about historic [47:07] uh historic movements they have historic definitions feminism does christianity has [47:13] historic definitions all ideology communism has historical definitions [47:18] you [47:19] all of these things have historic definitions which are laid in to what they actually are [47:24] for some reason you want us to believe we should just ignore that for fascism i don't want anyone [47:29] to believe anything i'm defending my position if you think i'm wrong i don't know what i'm [47:33] supposed to do about that if you want to be pedantic about what ultra nationalism means [47:36] and ignore every single point i make that's your right to do i am curious when you conceded to my [47:41] three uh affirmative claims was that like a sarcastic like okay liberal whatever you say [47:45] no i'm pointing out that even if i cede all these claims but do you [47:49] cede them it wouldn't demonstrate that well let's go through them one at a time sure you want to start [47:53] number one trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize and [47:57] consolidate power by engaging with our laws in bad faith yeah i'll see that claim you actually [48:02] fully agree with me on that no i didn't say i fully agree with you i just said i'll see the [48:05] claim whether i agree with you or not is tangential to the debate well i'm curious do you agree with [48:09] i don't care what you're curious about tangential to the debate what seems pretty relevant i don't [48:13] care what you know it's not relevant if i agree or don't agree what's relevant affirmative claim [48:17] as to why trump is a fascist is not relevant to the debate no it's not relevant to the debate [48:20] oh wait wait wait okay that claim is relevant to the debate whether i agree with that claim is not [48:26] and you don't want to share with anyone if whether or not you agree with that why would that have [48:29] anything to do with this debate because then we could discuss substantively what you know you want [48:33] to get into policies next time i want to get into trump because if you read the description of the [48:38] debate is trump a fascist yeah what is fashion here's the thing i'm ceding every one of these [48:43] points hypothetically and still demonstrating he's not okay so you think that even if we use [48:48] the like the claim number one trump is an [48:50] authoritarianist political project seeks to centralize and consolidate power by engaging [48:53] with our laws and bad yeah that's not fascistic in conjunction with my other two claims it's not [48:58] fascistic i'm just we'll start with claim one that's not fascistic so claim two you have to be [49:01] all three together okay go to claim two this is like pointing at a brick and saying it's not a [49:05] house liberal you said the house has bricks okay i'm going to go through them one at a time and [49:08] tell you if they're fascistic or not and then we'll take the totality of them go ahead okay [49:13] trump is an authoritarianist political project seeks to centralize and consolidate power by [49:17] engaging with our laws in bad faith he uses this position of power to vilify intimidate [49:21] and oppress his opposition and those he designates as members of out groups and he builds fuels and [49:25] justifies this movement with allusions to a once glorious now desecrated past which can only be [49:30] reattained through ultra nationalism well wait a second can only be attained with ultra nationalism [49:37] reattained yeah reattained okay so trump is saying that he wants everybody to be the body of the [49:44] state no he's saying that we have to put america first to reach to re-achieve american glory that [49:49] just sounds like nationalism to me okay [49:52] sounds like ultra nationalism when you look at the actual extent to which he employs this propaganda [49:56] technique and when you combine it when you combine it when you combine it with the fact that it's not [50:01] in a vacuum this rhetoric is used to justify authoritarianism well if you were just saying [50:05] it and then even if the rhetoric is different question hang on even if the rhetoric is used [50:09] to justify authoritarianism that still is not fascism according to you i guess no no i mean [50:15] according to all of the historic according literally according to all of the history [50:21] you want to do this and not only that according to your own [50:24] death don't dude don't be a snarky little you took the debate suffer so back [50:28] to this i am bad back to this it's more funny than something i just like the thing is it's like trump [50:33] at all we are talking about if trump's a fascist what's the debate has done not yeah yeah i'm not [50:38] here i'm here to talk about if trump's a fashion i want to clarify with james the debate prompt is [50:42] not what is fascism is is trump a fascist yeah that's right so we're talking about if trump's [50:47] a fascist anything else yeah just to be sure do i understand right so if we were using andrew's [50:52] definition in that case [50:54] andrew you would say no trump's not a fascist definition i would also say trump's not a fascist [50:59] i wouldn't use his definition okay right you're just gonna use a made-up non-historical definition [51:05] using adam's definition where would you guys both land i would still say he's not a fascist because [51:09] of the ultra nationalism this is the this is the critique no no no no you're not actually using my [51:14] definition when you say that you're projecting your own definition of this like the subparts [51:18] of the overall definition into my definition so you keep saying my definition doesn't work because [51:24] you're projecting your own definition into my definition i've explained what ultra nationalism [51:26] actually means which is a rhetorical strategy yeah but it doesn't mean that justify power grabs [51:30] that's not what ultra nationalism is if you were to accept that ultra nationalism in this context [51:35] is a justification or a premise used for power grabs then would trump be a fascist ultra [51:41] nationalism is not defined by rhetoric it's defined by action action and by the way uh [51:47] gentile points this out where his whole philosophy was called peer act peer act was his entire [51:54] and fascist philosophy peer act it's an action not a rhetoric it's not a rhetoric okay i just want [52:02] to ask the question i just want to ask the question again if you were to accept the way i am using the [52:07] word ultra nationalist i don't accept it if you were to it's called a hypothetical would trump then [52:13] be a fascist i can't i listen hypotheticals hypotheticals have to map on to logic right [52:19] no i'm just asking if you ex if you were to accept the premise then would it follow that trump so [52:24] if it was the case that i decided to accept the premise is trump that you say trump is a fascist [52:30] would that make him one yes oh awesome so if you claimed trump is a fascist and i said yes he is [52:39] you're right again james thanks for having us i'm glad what have we established there figure [52:44] this out i don't really know what we established but you just conceded i guess at least are you [52:48] using my definition if i listen you're saying using my definition it was the case that you [52:54] accepted this would it be the case that you accepted it yes [52:58] if it were the case that i accepted it then it would indeed be the case that i accepted it [53:03] no because i don't accept it well no you could then say that you could then say that even if [53:07] i accepted your definition of ultra nationalism in this context your definition still would not [53:11] qualify to trump as a fascist because trump did xyz you asked me if it's the case that you accepted [53:17] this thing would it be the case that you accepted this thing no yes i said if it's the case that you [53:23] accept my definition of one part no accepted i can be even more clear [53:28] i said that's not what you said i can clarify what i said people can also rewind i said if you [53:32] were to accept the way i am using the term ultra nationalism if then yes yes if i were to so now [53:39] we're in high school if you were to accept what if i were to accept your framework for this in this [53:44] case for this specifically my definition of ultra nationalism in this context if you were to accept [53:49] that if i were then then zooming out with my overall definition and my affirmative claims [53:54] of fascism apply to trump i see so let me show you how stupid this is [53:59] please if you accepted that this lighter was fascist would this lighter be fascist [54:03] it's not analogous to what i said answer my question yes you accept yes yes okay oh great [54:11] he just admitted the lighter's fascist oh my god uh no yeah this is not analogous [54:16] because i'm saying that you're asking me bro i'm referring to a sub-component of my overall [54:22] definition which you are taking issue with and saying if you were to accept the definition of [54:26] that sub-component and then zoom out would my overall affirmative claims [54:30] then to justify calling trump a fascist yeah so what you're asking me is if it were the case [54:34] that you agreed with me trump was a fascist would you know no no yes you could say okay even if you [54:41] say that trump didn't actually do this authoritarian thing or he doesn't engage in bad faith [54:45] he's trying to pursue novel legal theories takes legal advice from his lawyers you could actually [54:48] dispute on that basis that even if i accept your definition trump does not fit this category no [54:53] me me saying to you even if it was the case that i accepted what you meant by ultra nationalism is [54:59] true and therefore agreed with your position would i be agreeing with your position yes of course [55:04] hypothetically that would be the case i'm asking what's actually happening my definition would [55:07] trump meet it i don't agree with your definition that trump meets the criteria for ultra nationalism [55:12] for the 15th time all you've done is ask me hypothetically if you did would he and the answer [55:17] is yes you know what i'm saying i don't know what you're pretending not to i don't because it makes [55:22] no sense i'm asking if you were to accept the premise which is how we define fascism then would [55:28] you accept the conclusion that trump meets that definition if yeah you're asking me the same [55:34] thing you're just saying if it's the case that you accepted this would you be accepting this [55:38] no but i'm not asking you to accept that trump's a fascist i'm asking you to accept my definition [55:42] of what fascism is i don't accept your definition of fascism for the last time for the 300th time [55:48] dude you know what you're saying you know what you say i don't know what you're saying yeah you do [55:53] i actually don't use small words pretend i'm really stupid okay do you understand [55:59] that when we are applying peop applying labels to people whether or not that label applies to the [56:04] person is not just a question of how you define the label but once you've established that [56:08] definition whether or not the person actually fits in line with the description of that label [56:12] so you could say i accept your definition adam but trump does not meet those affirmative claims [56:17] that you've made because trump actually for example legitimately thinks that he has the [56:21] right to do these things his lawyers tell him he has the right to do it he legitimately thinks that [56:25] james coleman letitia james are enemies of the state and therefore he's not engaging [56:29] in bad faith he's not punishing his opponents so i understand exactly what you're saying i just [56:33] need to understand that it's a complete tautology you're what you're asking me to do is grant this [56:39] so that we can move to something else okay i get that what you are what you're saying is can you [56:44] accept that my definition within its framework is coherent if you accept my definition as being [56:49] coherent i'm just saying if you accept my definition would trump meet it i don't know why [56:53] you're over complicated yeah if i accepted yes but it's tautological of course if i accept your [57:00] with the guy you're calling a fascist meet the definition that you've tailored to the guy [57:04] sure no but if i gave the same definition of fascism and said like is obama a fascist you [57:09] would say no by your own definition obama does not meet that criteria and i'm telling you that [57:13] here right now with ultra nationalism no but then you're using your definition of ultra now because [57:18] what's going on here is this okay do you understand that if i said fascism is the [57:24] belief that we should be moving towards a stateless society right and you're a communist [57:30] right right would you accept that as the definition of fascism i wouldn't but you're [57:35] saying if i did you wouldn't yeah and if i but if you did then you would be agreeing with me right [57:41] if you did not necessarily hang on no no if you accepted that as my definition give me the [57:46] definition again yeah that communism is a movement towards the stateless or fascism is a movement [57:51] towards a stateless society but then who'd you be applying that definition to just give me an [57:54] example let's just say in this case bernie sanders okay and then i could say andrew i accept your [57:59] definition hypothetically but even bernie sanders would accept your definition hypothetically but [58:01] by your ex by that accepting that definition bernie sanders is not moving towards a classless [58:05] society therefore he's not a fascist right okay i could take your premise and entertain it [58:09] temporarily and see if within that framework bernie sanders would or would not meet it and [58:14] you're not doing that with me so if i tailor if i tailor fascism is just men who have brown beards [58:21] they're all fascists that's my definition can you tell me how you don't meet the criteria of being a [58:26] fascist now uh i feel like my beard is more black but i get your point i would say sure you would say [58:31] sure so you're so yeah but that's not analogous to what i'm saying but hang on hang on so it does [58:35] apply my definition is coherent and does apply to you being a fascist because you have a black beard [58:40] right if that's how we're defining it right so what all you're saying there do you understand [58:44] how this is this becomes tautological a fascist is you because you are a fascist you have a black [58:49] beard therefore you're a fascist if you accept someone has a black beard and then you asked is [58:55] santa claus a fascist by that definition i would say no okay well then here let's just do it this [59:01] anybody who's from africa is a fascist by my definition that's what a fascist is do you agree [59:08] i don't agree but anybody who has ancestry from from africa do you accept that as my definition [59:15] of fascism i don't but if i was to internally just say okay let's accept it as a premise for [59:20] the sake of argument then who are you calling by that does does barack obama now fit the criteria [59:26] for fascism by anyone who's descended from africa uh by that definition every human being on earth [59:31] would okay but they have to have like i don't know 30 [59:35] percent dna or something okay i don't know obama's exact racial makeup i'd assume sure yeah yeah so [59:40] so then what have we established there though would you agree with me that that's what fascism was [59:47] what would you reject that definition i'd reject that definition what would you be rejecting mine [59:51] yeah and so you and you would reject that definition under the premise [59:55] that hey wait a second that's not what it is here's what it actually is which is what i'm [1:00:00] doing to you it's how long are we going to do this dude i like it as long as it takes [1:00:07] it takes love that love that let me let me ask you a question i want to see if you still hold [1:00:11] this same position i've seen you say that um trump complied with the supreme court to bring back [1:00:17] abrigo garcia yeah i'm not deviating from any of that i'll grant all this it doesn't show how trump's [1:00:21] a fascist no but you're granting it for the sake of argument i can just say that i'm wrong yeah sure [1:00:27] but you don't want to engage with the substance it's irrelevant to the topic it's tangential [1:00:31] you're trying to escape it's relevant to my definition of fascism okay great go ahead on what [1:00:38] you want to say here about i'm just trying to clarify a guy named garcia i i saw you do a debate [1:00:43] where someone said oh trump didn't comply with the supreme court to bring back garcia and he was like [1:00:47] well did garcia get brought back eventually checkmate liberal so i'm just asking if you still [1:00:51] stand by that because i don't want to put words in your mouth i'm genuinely asking if you still [1:00:54] stand by that or not what the does that do with fascism dude uh because one of the pillars [1:01:00] is authoritarianism and i think engaging with our judicial branch in bad faith and defying or not [1:01:03] complying with court orders is probably indicative of authoritarianism yeah but i can grant that it's [1:01:08] and it still doesn't get us to fascism that's the problem uh yeah not on its own that's right so [1:01:14] that's why i told you the argument because it's irrelevant it's tangential it's like irrelevant [1:01:19] it's like i told you andrew a house is made of bricks and foundation and it has a door and a [1:01:23] ceiling you're like is that brick a house still liberal i don't think so it's like if you were [1:01:27] to set the criteria for what makes a house and it has to meet these different qualifications [1:01:34] in conjunction then sure i could say that that meets the definition and we [1:01:39] agreed that that's what the pillars were for the house that that means the definition of a [1:01:43] house sure or that means what the ideology of the house is in this particular case not what's going [1:01:47] on what's going on here is that i continuously keep granting all of these various things to [1:01:54] allow you to tie them together and we still can't manage to get to fascism because of this whole [1:01:58] problem you have with ultra nationalism which is a key point and it's a problem you have with ultra [1:02:04] nationalism ultra nationalism is act not it's it's it's gotta be it has to be act it can't [1:02:10] just be rhetoric it has to be a performance no it's act it's ah it's pure it can be fascist [1:02:19] themselves describe it as pure act that's the whole philosophy is pure act it's literally [1:02:24] called pure act philosophy dude in what in the italian iteration of fascism no in all of it [1:02:30] okay so if we were to look at nazi germany is that ultra-nationalist uh yeah i think so i'm [1:02:37] not super familiar with german history why uh i think there was probably a lot more ideological [1:02:42] as well as rhetorical because they had complete subservience to the state there but there was an i [1:02:47] there was an ideology there of like moving moving the third reich that ideology was demonstrated [1:02:52] with propaganda and speeches which would justify the power grabs it's a pretty important functional [1:02:57] definition it's not that it's not that you can't utilize propaganda for a fascist state only that [1:03:02] you can have a fascist state absent propaganda and you can't have a fascist state with just [1:03:06] propaganda that's the problem i think propaganda is a key pillar of fascism it's one of the pillars [1:03:12] book okay wait a second let's see if we can get agreement here okay do you agree that we can have [1:03:17] a fascist state without propaganda uh i guess it's potentially possible by the definition i'm using [1:03:24] though no it's so it's possible and not possible or it's not by like a different definition because [1:03:29] as i opened with saying the definition of fascism is still disputed by scholars so i'm sure logically [1:03:34] so if someone could make that case i would probably not make well i'm asking you i'm not asking not [1:03:38] according to my definition so so you can't have a fascist state that that's not propaganda that [1:03:43] doesn't use propaganda no [1:03:45] so you couldn't have okay what about this do you agree with me then [1:03:51] that it is the case that fascism is antithetical to democracy uh substantively yes but in terms of [1:04:00] like appeal and representation probably not necessarily no so you can have you can have [1:04:05] democratic fascism you can have the um sort of like veneer of democracy being used to legitimize [1:04:12] the state the same way they'll use the veneer of law and order can you have democratic fascism we're [1:04:16] people depends on if you're asking me in substance or i mean you can have only one person on the [1:04:20] ballot and then people can vote but okay no i mean can you have can you have can you have a democracy [1:04:26] in which everybody votes and is still a fascist society uh yeah so you can have democratic [1:04:32] fascism that's in robert paxton's uh stages so you can have democratic fascism it would be an [1:04:36] earlier stage of fascism but yeah but that's totally antithetical to what fascism was [1:04:43] fascism take it up with robert paxton i'm taking up with you i'm not arguing with paxton [1:04:47] argument you so paxton when you're talking about democracy and fascism that's one of the [1:04:53] limiting characters of what it is that you're saying that i think you don't even really agree [1:04:57] with it fascism itself it has to be autocratic it has to be in some way autocratic because [1:05:06] the corporatism aspect of it the entirety of the body of the state the second representation of [1:05:11] the fasci the first representation of the fasci is the autocratic leader democracy can't [1:05:17] work in these instances because if they if you had a democracy you could not have corporatism [1:05:24] that was the whole problem one of the problems are solved is autocraticness binary yeah could [1:05:29] a system could a system trend towards autocracy but you'd have to wait till like every all hope [1:05:34] is lost to call it an autocracy it would just no an autocracy would just be a leadership of one [1:05:39] centralizing power with one or like a very few amount of people i'm asking like as that process [1:05:44] wouldn't that be a plutocracy if there was multiple people sure fair with one person what i'm asking [1:05:49] isn't there a process through which autocracy is achieved it doesn't just appear in existence [1:05:53] right uh well it can it can it can uh be achieved many different ways all i'm arguing is that states [1:06:00] can do autocratic things and not be 110 percent autocratic yeah but what i'm arguing to you is [1:06:06] that fascism is an ideology requires actually used to have an autocrat and you have to have [1:06:12] the autocrat or else the body of the state doesn't work correctly you can't actually have in fact i [1:06:17] used to clown on leftists on tick tock all the time they don't understand the third position [1:06:21] i would ask them this question do you believe that there can be democratic fascism they would [1:06:24] say no i'd ask why not because within the criteria you can have that yeah you're seeding you can be [1:06:29] democratic fashion as robert paxton says yeah yeah yeah but the thing is here is like it's so [1:06:33] antithetical to historic fascism i don't your perception of it to anybody's perception of it [1:06:40] it's ridiculous except a significant portion of fascism scholars which again i'm not not [1:06:45] saying not a significant portion there's some fascist scholars you may be able to point to but [1:06:51] point to consensus here by your own admissions don't do that so i'm not saying there's consensus [1:06:56] yeah robert paxton is considered the preeminent scholar of fashion when i'm thinking of the [1:07:00] fascist dystopia in my head yes am i thinking oh uh states which sometimes take autocratic measures [1:07:07] right and but everybody gets to vote right it's hell divers like it's it's hell divers is it hell [1:07:13] is it is it managed democracy right the idea here is when i'm looking at the fascist dystopia [1:07:20] am i thinking about [1:07:22] andrews what andrew's saying fascist is or are we thinking about what you're saying fascist is [1:07:27] because when i think of fascism we're thinking about autocracy we're thinking about the system [1:07:32] involved in autocracy we're thinking about corporate uh corporatizing we're thinking [1:07:36] about ultra nationalism everything's moving towards the production of the state [1:07:42] those are the things which may would meet the makeup i think of almost everybody who [1:07:47] we presented these different world views to don't you think almost everybody would be like [1:07:51] okay this guy andrew is making a good point here about what this fascism thing is [1:07:55] i don't know everybody it depends on who's watching but this is like saying that i can't [1:07:59] call it cancer in stage one or stage two or stage four or stage three or four even until the cancer [1:08:04] is terminal we can't call it cancer no we just have to agree on what cancer is before you can [1:08:09] we can get to the stages uh i highly doubt we're gonna agree on what what fascism is i [1:08:14] mean and again the purpose of the debate is not what is fascism it's is trump a fascist [1:08:17] right but if we can't agree on what fascism is how are we supposed to agree on if trump is that [1:08:22] saying that by your definition, Andrew, I don't think Trump's a fascist. So then we can discuss [1:08:25] if we accept my definition, is Trump a fascist or not? And then you can close the debate by saying, [1:08:29] guys, just remember, I don't accept his definition or we can just continue going. [1:08:33] And so we're not. Yeah, but I don't hear I literally. But here's the thing. I think that [1:08:37] most of this key in problem here is on ultra nationalism, honestly, the ultra nationalism [1:08:43] aspect and the ambiguity there. I feel like you're really banking on the ambiguity of not really [1:08:49] committing to what that is. Like when we if I give you an example, zero sum. Yeah, that's nice [1:08:55] that you say that, but doesn't tell us much. For instance, Nazi Germany's that's ultra nationalist. [1:08:59] Yeah. OK. Bonito Mussolini, ultra nationalist. Sure. Probably. OK. When we move over to Franco [1:09:05] Spain, ultra nationalist. I think there's actually some dispute as to whether Franco [1:09:09] was a fascist or tons of dispute, but not ultra nationalist. Was he an ultra? I'm not [1:09:14] super familiar with Franco. So if you're saying he is, then I'll just grant I don't really care. [1:09:17] OK. Most of the Axis power. [1:09:19] It was was an ultra nationalist. Yeah, sure. OK. So Japan is under an emperor. Right. And then [1:09:27] basically they have a whole different system of government. The Bonito Mussolini, who has a whole [1:09:31] different system of government than Hitler, who has a whole different system of government than [1:09:35] what became Franco is Spain. So the thing is, is like, what are the what's the denominator here [1:09:42] that makes it ultra nationalist? I would argue that what all four of those places had in common [1:09:47] was that the people there. [1:09:49] And the ideology would revolve around the people formulating some kind of allegiance to the state. And the state became the priority. All of those had that in common. What they didn't have in common, though, was that it was a zero sum game. Franco, for instance, he opened up trade to other nations. [1:10:09] What's that? Why? His economy was failing. So he did it in the service of the nation. Well, I mean, the justification there would be that. Sure. When I say zero sum, I'm saying that. [1:10:20] any other country doing well is like a blemish on the nation, right? [1:10:23] Because there's a finite amount of greatness. [1:10:25] If someone else is winning, that must mean we got ripped off [1:10:27] or we got screwed or we got embarrassed. [1:10:29] Yeah, but again, I think that you're just kind of alluding to nationalism itself. [1:10:36] Is it the case that a person can hold only nationalist policies? [1:10:41] That's it. [1:10:42] That's all that they ever do is nationalist policies. [1:10:44] But at the same time, they think that everybody else in the world [1:10:47] is screwing them over if they're doing better than them. [1:10:49] They could have ultra-nationalist policies in isolation [1:10:53] and not maybe be a fascist. [1:10:54] They could be something else if they're just ultra-nationalist. [1:10:57] Yeah, but when we're talking about a nationalist now, [1:11:01] can a nationalist hold a zero-sum position and not be an ultra-nationalist? [1:11:07] I think that's unclear. [1:11:08] I'd say probably not. [1:11:09] But like I said, the distinction here is blurry. [1:11:12] But don't you think that the distinction then of saying [1:11:15] the one thing all of these fascist nations that you would broadly consider [1:11:20] or at least ultra-nationalists, [1:11:21] or nationalist nations did have in common [1:11:22] was that the people themselves were instructed through both propaganda, [1:11:28] government policy, various things like this, [1:11:31] their allegiance needed to cope to the state first, [1:11:34] compromising all other values. [1:11:36] Is it your claim, and correct me if I'm wrong, [1:11:38] that fascist states are following their ideology in good faith [1:11:42] and the ideology is what matters and not the accumulation of power [1:11:45] and the suppression of outgroups? [1:11:46] I think both matter. [1:11:49] Okay, both matter. [1:11:49] Yeah, core tenet of fascism. [1:11:52] It's autocracy. [1:11:56] So an accumulation of power is necessary to the ideology. [1:12:00] So they're mutually exclusive. [1:12:02] You can't have one without the other because it's part of the ideology [1:12:05] that they incorporate as much power to themselves as possible [1:12:09] in order to institute corporatism. [1:12:12] That's the whole point. [1:12:13] Sure. [1:12:13] So like an analogy I would use here, [1:12:14] which I think might make my definition more intuitive, [1:12:17] is that what fascism is trying to achieve is power. [1:12:21] Like you said yourself, autocracy. [1:12:22] The way it achieves that, [1:12:24] it's going to have to appeal to some kind of justification with the public. [1:12:27] This is what Stanley calls the pillar of propaganda, [1:12:29] where they have to mask unpopular goals with very popular values [1:12:33] and dramatic imagery that appeals to the masses, [1:12:36] even if the underlying policy being justified by that imagery [1:12:39] is actually not popular. [1:12:41] So sort of zooming out, [1:12:42] I would say ultranationalism and the mythic past [1:12:44] is the rhetorical fuel and the pretext and the justification [1:12:47] that is then used to centralize power and consolidate power. [1:12:51] And then one, [1:12:52] once that power has been centralized and consolidated, [1:12:54] it is then used to undermine democratic institutions. [1:12:57] Yeah, I understand what you're saying. [1:13:00] And let me see if I can steel man it, [1:13:01] just so I can show you that I understand what you're saying. [1:13:03] Sure. [1:13:04] You're saying an accumulation of power is necessary. [1:13:07] This accumulation of power is then going to be using [1:13:09] ultranationalist propaganda in order to promote [1:13:12] what it is that it wants to do, right? [1:13:14] Whether it's to outgroups [1:13:15] or whatever its ultranationalistic policies are. [1:13:18] That's what you're saying, right? [1:13:19] And the initial power grab itself. [1:13:21] Yeah, but here's where the, [1:13:22] delineation comes in [1:13:24] and where we enter into the problematic zone [1:13:26] and why I think I have a way more coherent way [1:13:28] to look at this than you do. [1:13:30] People try to consolidate power all the time, right? [1:13:34] And we'll do things which appear to be ultranationalistic, [1:13:38] even though they're not ultranationalistic at all. [1:13:41] You can see this in monarchies, for instance. [1:13:43] You can see this in all sorts of different things [1:13:45] that have nothing to do with fascism at all. [1:13:47] I agree. [1:13:47] Because it's ideologically based. [1:13:49] So a monarchy can follow all of these steps [1:13:52] that you're following for fascism [1:13:54] and not be fascistic. [1:13:56] Do you understand? [1:13:57] Like, they wouldn't be fascists. [1:13:59] They would now be, [1:14:00] they would just be monarchs or autocrats [1:14:02] or something like this, but not fascistic. [1:14:04] And so the delineation point comes in. [1:14:07] What are we gathering the power for? [1:14:10] We're gathering the power for this ideological purpose. [1:14:15] That's what it's for. [1:14:16] No, we are gathering the power to entrench the power [1:14:19] and establish the power and remove roadblocks to that power. [1:14:21] It's not just power for the sake of power. [1:14:23] It's ideological and power-based, [1:14:26] but part of the ideology is power. [1:14:28] Like Trump, for instance, in your view, right? [1:14:30] I don't even think in your view he's an ideologue. [1:14:32] He's more of a demagogue. [1:14:33] Definitely not, no. [1:14:33] He's a demagogue. [1:14:35] He's like, I'd say like a fascist pragmatist, [1:14:37] if you want to call it that. [1:14:38] Well, I mean, he's just a demagogue from your view, right? [1:14:41] Like he just does what, let's, here, [1:14:42] if I pull up the definition of demagogue. [1:14:43] He's not ideological. [1:14:44] I mean, he has, actually, no. [1:14:45] Trump does have certain ideological tenets [1:14:47] that I think are his ultranationalism [1:14:50] of like any country doing well means we're getting ripped off. [1:14:53] Yes. [1:14:53] Yeah, hang on. [1:14:54] A demagogue. [1:14:55] They're laughing at us. [1:14:56] Yeah, a demagogue's a political leader [1:14:57] who gains power by appealing to emotions, [1:14:59] prejudices, and fears [1:15:00] rather than using rational argument. [1:15:02] That's where you would more or less put Trump, right? [1:15:05] Is it a demagogue? [1:15:05] I wouldn't say exclusively, [1:15:06] but that's a good description of him, yeah. [1:15:08] Yeah, okay. [1:15:08] So he's more of a demagogue. [1:15:10] Trump is not particularly ideological. [1:15:13] I agree. [1:15:13] Yeah, he never has been. [1:15:15] But he does have some ideologies, [1:15:16] and the ones that he does have [1:15:17] are not exactly like liberal democratic ideologies. [1:15:20] They're pretty authoritarian and fascistic. [1:15:20] I don't know, some of them are. [1:15:21] Like a lot of them are. [1:15:22] Like he definitely has, [1:15:23] it's an authoritarian ideology. [1:15:25] Like this whole like, [1:15:25] oh, you pay and you can have citizenship, right? [1:15:28] Things like this. [1:15:29] That's not ultra-nationalist, [1:15:30] and that's not ideologically based, right? [1:15:33] It's just nationalistic based, maybe. [1:15:35] In terms of policy, [1:15:36] it's not ultra-nationalist, [1:15:37] but he's not running around advertising [1:15:39] the gold card thing [1:15:40] as like how he's going to make America great again. [1:15:42] And actually, [1:15:43] he gets a lot of shit from his base on that [1:15:45] because his base has bought into [1:15:47] the propaganda of ultra-nationalism. [1:15:48] Yeah, well, how he says [1:15:49] that he's going to make America great again [1:15:51] is by he wants to go back to tariffs. [1:15:53] But the problem, [1:15:55] like in fascist ideology, [1:15:56] you have to understand [1:15:57] that this is why we're using this specific word, [1:16:01] and it's a very important word to use [1:16:03] because it summarizes it. [1:16:06] Let me pull it up [1:16:07] just to make sure that I got it here [1:16:08] so that I'm not saying anything. [1:16:10] I'm going to grab a water bottle real quick, [1:16:11] but I used to hear you. [1:16:12] No problem. [1:16:14] One second, let me get down to my definitions here. [1:16:16] If you haven't yet, [1:16:17] hit that like button [1:16:18] no matter where you're watching, folks. [1:16:20] And as you can see at the bottom right of your screen, [1:16:23] DebateCon7 in Houston, Texas, [1:16:25] this Saturday, January 31st. [1:16:27] Grab your tickets now. [1:16:28] We're expecting it to sell out. [1:16:33] Yeah, so fascism defined. [1:16:34] Yeah, so it's the palingenetic. [1:16:36] So the idea there, [1:16:38] when you can say there's a throwback, [1:16:41] so what? [1:16:43] Like every president does a throwback. [1:16:44] Basically all of them do a throwback. [1:16:45] I'm not saying anything about so what. [1:16:47] Yeah, yeah, hang on, hang on. [1:16:48] They all do a throwback. [1:16:50] Basically all of them will throw back [1:16:51] to like things were better, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. [1:16:53] Otherwise, what are they coming in to do? [1:16:54] Even with their progressive ideology, [1:16:56] they usually will say things like, [1:16:57] like, let's look at the policies [1:16:59] from 20 years ago of this nation [1:17:01] and how well they worked and blah, blah, blah. [1:17:02] Progressivism is usually talking about [1:17:03] creating like a new future, a better future, [1:17:05] and actually rectifying past injustices, right? [1:17:07] Agreed. [1:17:08] And here's where we went into the problem of palingenetic. [1:17:12] Palingenetic is doing the same thing. [1:17:13] What it's doing is it's making an appeal to the past [1:17:15] for progressive values going forward. [1:17:17] That's why the symbol is always a phoenix rising [1:17:19] out of the ashes. [1:17:20] That's what the whole point from fascist ideology is. [1:17:23] What they're doing is they're making an appeal [1:17:25] to the past for something new. [1:17:27] Why? [1:17:27] Why do you think it was called the Third Reich? [1:17:29] Not the First Reich, the Third Reich. [1:17:32] They're appealing to the past to bring something new [1:17:36] that's not that thing. [1:17:38] It's not actually what that thing is. [1:17:40] It's brand new. [1:17:41] We're talking about against substance. [1:17:42] And it's systemic. [1:17:43] It's system-wide, always system-wide. [1:17:46] And the thing is, is like, Trump's not trying to do that. [1:17:49] His callback to policies, [1:17:51] things like tariffs and shit like this, [1:17:53] that is not bringing in massive systemic change. [1:17:57] Not at a systemic scale. [1:17:58] That's insane. [1:18:00] And so where you go wrong here, [1:18:02] when you guys say, yeah, but here's the thing. [1:18:05] It's pure act. [1:18:06] It's defined by fascists as pure act, not rhetoric. [1:18:10] Act. [1:18:11] Okay, I'm not taking the pure fascist definition [1:18:13] of their own twisted ideology, [1:18:15] which they're obviously going to dress up by making it seem. [1:18:18] What do those fascists know about what they believe? [1:18:21] Compared to scholars of the term? [1:18:23] Oh, compared to the people who interpret their words? [1:18:26] Yeah, I mean, [1:18:27] academics who spend years of their life [1:18:30] reading primary sources. [1:18:33] Oh, do you mean the things I'm appealing to? [1:18:36] Yes, but then they look for common denominators [1:18:38] between different primary sources [1:18:39] and actually do a descriptive analysis. [1:18:41] No, you're zeroing in on one or two instances [1:18:44] and then taking it at face value. [1:18:46] No, I'm zooming in on all of the instances of fascism. [1:18:49] By your definition. [1:18:51] Oh, well, okay. [1:18:52] Which is obviously much more strict. [1:18:53] Give me a country which fits your definition. [1:18:55] Let's see if it fits with my definition of fascism [1:18:57] better or yours. [1:18:57] I believe. [1:18:58] I believe Jason Stanley said that Poland had a fascist phase, [1:19:01] but then the fascists actually ended up losing [1:19:02] to the liberal Democrats. [1:19:03] So there have been countries where fascism has started. [1:19:06] Okay, what about Poland? [1:19:07] But never actually won. [1:19:08] What about Poland do you think it was fascist? [1:19:11] I believe there was like an explicit move, [1:19:12] and you'd have to check the details on this, [1:19:14] towards centralization of government power [1:19:15] and also illiberal attitudes, right? [1:19:18] That's not fascist. [1:19:20] Not in isolation. [1:19:21] I mean, I don't want me to pull up Jason Stanley's. [1:19:23] Yeah, so then what made it actually fascist? [1:19:24] You'd have to read his article about it. [1:19:26] I don't know. [1:19:26] Well, you probably, you said, well, this is the thing. [1:19:28] Like, I keep on. [1:19:29] You asked me for an example. [1:19:30] I keep on bringing up actual fascist societies, [1:19:33] their actual fascist policies, [1:19:35] the actual fascist common denominators. [1:19:38] You keep on appealing to a scholar's interpretation. [1:19:41] Yes. [1:19:42] Yeah, that's terrible. [1:19:43] I want you to engage with what I'm saying. [1:19:45] I'm not going to pretend like I'm a scholar. [1:19:47] What do you mean I'm pretending to be a scholar? [1:19:48] I try to have humility. [1:19:49] We're just doing. [1:19:50] One of the most contested terms in social science. [1:19:52] We're just doing appeals to authority. [1:19:54] We're just doing appeals to authority. [1:19:55] To expertise. [1:19:57] No, it's an appeal to authority. [1:19:58] I don't accept this authority as being. [1:20:00] An authority who's beyond other authorities. [1:20:04] You don't have to accept it, Andrew. [1:20:05] I don't. [1:20:05] That's a fallacious form of argumentation. [1:20:08] It's called an appeal to authority fallacy. [1:20:10] I'm not saying because. [1:20:11] You need to be able to make these arguments [1:20:12] without specifically saying it's true because he says so. [1:20:16] Why? [1:20:16] You need to show me how it's true, period. [1:20:18] Because it's a fallacy. [1:20:19] It's fallacious. [1:20:21] Relying on academics in a field to define the field is fallacious? [1:20:24] No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. [1:20:26] If it's the case that you say this is true [1:20:29] because this academic says it's true, [1:20:31] that's fallacious. [1:20:33] That's an appeal to authority fallacy. [1:20:35] You need to tell me why it's true. [1:20:38] Why it's actually true. [1:20:40] Not it's true because he says so. [1:20:42] I never claimed a consensus definition of fascism. [1:20:45] So you're like strawmanning what I'm even saying. [1:20:47] So tell me why what you're saying is true. [1:20:48] I'm saying that by my definition, which is clear, [1:20:50] there's no amount of words I can say to you [1:20:52] to justify my definition in your eyes. [1:20:54] I'm just saying, what is the point now [1:20:56] in going in circles on our definitions? [1:20:58] Well, no, no, no, no, no. [1:20:59] I'm asking for you to give me like good, compelling, [1:21:02] justification based on- [1:21:04] I would do that if you want me to get to the substance [1:21:05] of how Trump behaves, [1:21:06] but you don't want to talk about it. [1:21:08] Go, go ahead. [1:21:09] Name anything. [1:21:10] I bet you I'll just cede the point [1:21:11] and we still won't get any closer to how he's a fascist. [1:21:13] There's no point in bringing it up [1:21:14] because you don't want to engage [1:21:15] with the actual actions of the Trump administration. [1:21:17] Well, we're not here to debate [1:21:19] the actual actions of the Trump administration. [1:21:21] We're here to debate Trump as a fascist. [1:21:21] It'd probably be relevant to defining what they are. [1:21:24] Trump doesn't exist in a vacuum. [1:21:26] Then use them. [1:21:27] Define how that is a much more rigorous understanding [1:21:31] of a historical, [1:21:33] historic movement, [1:21:34] which is what I'm bringing up over and over again. [1:21:36] All of the nations inside of this historic movement, [1:21:38] all of the examples which they share in unison, [1:21:41] you use an appeal to authority fallacy. [1:21:43] This is true because he says so. [1:21:44] How about you demonstrate the truth of what you're saying? [1:21:47] Demonstrate that it's true, [1:21:49] that that's what fascism is. [1:21:50] You want me to- [1:21:50] Show me how it's true. [1:21:51] You want me to demonstrate an objective definition [1:21:53] of the word fascism? [1:21:54] I want you to demonstrate to me [1:21:56] why we should believe that what you're saying [1:21:59] about fascism is true in comparison to mine. [1:22:01] You don't have to believe anything, Andrew. [1:22:03] Don't have to. [1:22:04] There's literally no point in me sitting here [1:22:06] for like the next hour and a half or two hours [1:22:08] and just saying, this is my definition. [1:22:10] This is why I think it's good. [1:22:11] Well, liberal, I don't think it's good for these reasons. [1:22:13] Well, those reasons are interesting, [1:22:14] but I still don't think they're sufficient [1:22:15] to negate my definition. [1:22:17] Yeah, so you don't- [1:22:18] So let me just make sure I got this right. [1:22:20] You don't believe that the historicity of fascism [1:22:24] should be incorporated into how we define fascism? [1:22:27] Of course it should, but not entirely on face value. [1:22:30] Okay, so which parts shouldn't we use? [1:22:33] The things that vary. [1:22:35] Like? [1:22:37] Ideology can actually vary significantly. [1:22:39] Some might be more pragmatic [1:22:40] and some might be more ideological. [1:22:42] Like, I don't think Trump is really an ideologue. [1:22:43] He might have a couple of really strong beliefs he has, [1:22:45] but he has no real coherent ideology. [1:22:48] Also, the way in which power is attained and maintained, [1:22:53] there can be different specific ways [1:22:55] that authoritarianism is consolidated [1:22:56] depending on how they engage with the courts. [1:22:58] Okay. [1:22:58] They might try to, for example, [1:23:00] with Hitler's Enabling Act, [1:23:02] he had it actually signed as legislation, [1:23:03] but he had it done under duress [1:23:05] where I believe like there were guards [1:23:06] standing in the hallways, right? [1:23:07] So it doesn't mean that every instance of fascism [1:23:09] has an Enabling Act. [1:23:10] So we've established then [1:23:12] that there has to be some unchanging pillars then. [1:23:14] Yes, I called that the fascist minimum [1:23:16] in my opening statement. [1:23:16] Okay, yeah. [1:23:17] So we have these unchanging pillars. [1:23:20] And if we compare your unchanging pillars [1:23:23] to my historic standard of all fascist nations [1:23:26] which have ever existed [1:23:27] that you could ever come up with, [1:23:30] and they all have mine in common, [1:23:33] but they don't have yours in common, [1:23:35] then why should we yield? [1:23:36] Why should we yield to you and not to me here? [1:23:39] Number one, I'm not asking anyone to yield to anyone, [1:23:41] but how do they not have in common what I'm saying? [1:23:44] Well, because in this case, [1:23:45] the ultranationalism, [1:23:47] which is practiced in fascist nations, [1:23:49] has nothing to do with the nationalism [1:23:52] which is practiced by Trump. [1:23:54] That's one example. [1:23:55] Practiced? [1:23:56] Yes, all of these people... [1:23:58] You keep inserting your own definition of ultranationalism [1:24:00] to like debunk my definition of fascism, [1:24:02] which just seems like not fair. [1:24:04] Well, wait a second. [1:24:05] I'm giving you a coherent, [1:24:07] counting of a historic movement. [1:24:10] And so, because I'm giving you a coherent, [1:24:13] understandable pillars, [1:24:15] which are unchanging [1:24:16] between all of the existing fascist nations, [1:24:20] what you're doing is you're saying, [1:24:23] I'm appealing to this guy. [1:24:27] That's it. [1:24:27] That's all you're doing. [1:24:28] He's not just a guy. [1:24:30] But you are appealing to him as an authority. [1:24:32] And his interpretation is right. [1:24:33] He's written some of the seminal works, [1:24:34] like the five stages of fascism, [1:24:35] what is fascism by Jason Stanley. [1:24:38] So you agree. [1:24:38] Highly respected works in the field. [1:24:40] So you agree that he's correct because he's an expert. [1:24:43] No, I prefer his definition because I think it's more useful. [1:24:46] And you don't like that definition. [1:24:48] Okay, so what makes it more useful than mine? [1:24:50] It's diagnostic. [1:24:51] Your definition basically says we can't call it fascist [1:24:53] until it's too late. [1:24:55] No, mine is diagnostic as well. [1:24:55] Until the military is in the streets, [1:24:57] we can't say it's fascism. [1:24:58] Mine is diagnostic as well. [1:24:59] Okay, under your definition, [1:25:01] what's the earliest phase we could call out something is fascist? [1:25:04] When it becomes... [1:25:05] I would start with the pelogenetic. [1:25:09] Okay, can you elaborate on that? [1:25:10] Yeah, so I would start with the idea. [1:25:14] Well, actually, you know what? [1:25:15] I wouldn't even start with pelogenetic. [1:25:16] I would start with the ideals of corporatism first. [1:25:18] I think that that's the most necessary component. [1:25:21] You think China is like fascist? [1:25:23] They have that kind of state capitalism over there? [1:25:25] No, not at all. [1:25:25] So how are you defining corporatism then? [1:25:27] Because I guess these words kind of overlap. [1:25:29] Yeah, yeah, I understand that. [1:25:30] I wrote this down. [1:25:31] Corporatism defined. [1:25:33] Corporatism is the political ideology [1:25:34] and political system of interest, [1:25:36] representation, policymaking, [1:25:37] whereby corporate groups such as agricultural, [1:25:39] labor, military, business, scientific, [1:25:41] and guild associations come together [1:25:43] and negotiate contracts or policy, [1:25:44] collective bargaining on the basis of the common interest. [1:25:48] And now in fascist history, [1:25:50] corporatism specifically defined [1:25:52] is pointing out that now corporate unions, [1:25:57] what they were looking at, trade syndicates as unions, [1:26:00] those unions now have some sort of [1:26:02] collective bargaining power within the state. [1:26:05] And so like Mussolini, I think he made 22 of them. [1:26:08] He made 22 actual syndicates. [1:26:11] Which were designed as corporate entities, [1:26:13] which could serve as the body of the state [1:26:15] and serve the collective interest of those industries [1:26:18] for things like price fixing, goods distribution, [1:26:21] things like this. [1:26:22] China has nothing, like nothing even close to that, nothing. [1:26:26] Okay, I think this actually highlights [1:26:27] an interesting question I've been meaning to ask you. [1:26:30] When we're defining fascism, [1:26:31] do you think the risk is greater in the definition [1:26:33] being over-inclusive or being under-inclusive? [1:26:39] Depends on the context. [1:26:41] In terms of saying that this movement, this politician, [1:26:44] is fascist, should we be under-inclusive? [1:26:46] If we have to pick one of those, [1:26:47] because I think defining these things very, very neatly [1:26:49] and precisely as academics have been saying, [1:26:51] even academics that agree with you, is very difficult. [1:26:53] So I'm asking if we have to pick between a definition [1:26:56] that is over-inclusive and under-inclusive, [1:26:57] I would say the over-inclusive definition is better [1:27:00] because these things happening in our society [1:27:03] represent a threat to basic pillars of democracy and freedom. [1:27:06] And I'd rather nip them in the bud [1:27:08] than wait for them to get to their apex. [1:27:09] Well, but that's a double-edged sword. [1:27:11] So and Paxton, Paxton brings this up all the time. [1:27:14] Paxton brings this up all the time too, right? [1:27:14] That's why I think, I think it's more accurate. [1:27:16] And you'd probably even agree with me. [1:27:17] It's gotta be context specific [1:27:19] because you also run the risk of unfortunately calling, [1:27:23] you're gonna call guys like me a Nazi and a fascist. [1:27:27] I mean, I don't know what you believe. [1:27:28] I don't think you're a Nazi. [1:27:29] Now, hang on, maybe not you, right? [1:27:30] But your side, when Charlie Kirk died, [1:27:32] was calling him a Nazi, okay? [1:27:35] All over the place. [1:27:36] And a fascist, they call him that too. [1:27:37] I see him call ICE fascist. [1:27:39] I see him call this person- [1:27:40] Trump called Kamala and Biden a fascist. [1:27:41] Yeah, people- [1:27:42] I see him call, yeah, yeah. [1:27:43] So the thing is, is like, [1:27:44] if you make it, and this was Paxton's whole argument, [1:27:48] right, the reason he didn't wanna label people as a fascist, [1:27:51] it's so over-inclusive that then it becomes [1:27:55] the standard fare that everything is fascist, [1:27:58] even things which clearly aren't. [1:28:00] And in this case, I'm saying, [1:28:02] I think we can meet in the middle. [1:28:04] I think that it doesn't have to be so over-inclusive [1:28:07] as to be absurd, which I think your definition is, [1:28:09] or so under-inclusive that we can't point out [1:28:11] what the systems are, which is what my definition does. [1:28:14] So I think- [1:28:14] I think we can have a happy medium here. [1:28:16] The thing is, like you're saying it's over-inclusive, [1:28:19] but like authoritarianism isn't like something [1:28:21] that we can just shrug off as like, [1:28:22] yeah- [1:28:23] Authoritarianism isn't fascism. [1:28:24] Then bitch about authoritarianism [1:28:26] and stop bitching about fascism. [1:28:27] It's a pillar of the three pillars I gave you. [1:28:29] I don't know- [1:28:30] Yeah, but it's also a pillar of monarchy. [1:28:31] It's a pillar of autocracy. [1:28:32] And as I said in my opening statement, [1:28:34] there's a lot of overlap between fascism and other flavors [1:28:36] of authoritarianism. [1:28:37] Authoritarianism is a flavor [1:28:38] of basically every ideology I can think of, actually, [1:28:41] now that I'm thinking about it. [1:28:42] I can't even think of one. [1:28:43] So it's like- [1:28:44] Then it's talk about- [1:28:45] What would be like liberal democracy or authoritarianism? [1:28:49] Oh, well- [1:28:50] Like a system that is built off of negative rights. [1:28:52] How would that be authoritarian? [1:28:53] Comparative to the Articles of Confederation, right? [1:28:57] Wouldn't you consider the Constitution [1:28:59] to be highly oppressive? [1:29:01] It centralizes more power in the federal government. [1:29:03] Yeah, it's highly oppressive in comparison to- [1:29:07] Oppressive, I don't know. [1:29:08] I mean, depending- [1:29:08] Well, it's highly authoritarian in comparison [1:29:12] to the Articles of Confederation. [1:29:16] I guess, relative to- [1:29:16] Relative to it, sure. [1:29:17] Relative to it, right. [1:29:18] Well, but that's what we're talking about. [1:29:20] Everything we're talking about here within the confines [1:29:23] of your ideology is relative to- [1:29:24] Wait, and what you're bringing up has been [1:29:25] at the centerpiece of debate in American politics, [1:29:27] which is how much power should the federal government have. [1:29:30] So that is actually something very relevant [1:29:32] to call out and talk about. [1:29:33] And that's fine. [1:29:34] And I brought it up in my opening statement. [1:29:35] And talking about authoritarianism is fine. [1:29:37] When the feds are blocking off local police [1:29:39] for investigating a crime scene, [1:29:41] then I actually agree that it's pretty authoritarian. [1:29:43] You can talk about authoritarianism. [1:29:45] I'm nobody saying you couldn't, can't, or shouldn't. [1:29:46] Right? [1:29:47] I talked about it all the time. [1:29:48] Honest question. [1:29:49] Honest question. [1:29:50] Hang on, stop, bro. [1:29:50] I talked about it all the time during COVID-19. [1:29:53] The authoritarians who wanted us to wear our state masks. [1:29:57] Yes, they will own nothing and be free. [1:29:58] And get our nice little vaccine passports, right? [1:30:01] Okay, so sure. [1:30:02] You still have your vaccine passport? [1:30:03] Authoritarianism, right? [1:30:06] Sure, bitch about it. [1:30:08] You know, have fun with it. [1:30:09] But the problem is, is that that's not what you're doing. [1:30:12] You're using loaded moral language to call people [1:30:16] the most horrible things in history [1:30:18] so that they can then adopt [1:30:20] all of that fucking moral baggage. [1:30:22] And that's what you're fucking doing. [1:30:24] Do you think that when I call someone a fascist, [1:30:26] I'm calling for violence against them? [1:30:30] I don't understand. [1:30:31] You wouldn't stop Hitler? [1:30:33] Of course I would. [1:30:34] But I'm saying, let me clarify. [1:30:36] Hang on, that's really silly. [1:30:37] Do you think that me calling someone fascist [1:30:38] necessitates violence against them? [1:30:41] No, but I think it creates, hang on, hang on. [1:30:43] By itself, no. [1:30:44] Okay. [1:30:45] However, let me ask you this. [1:30:47] Do you believe that if I got up every single day, [1:30:49] and demonized LGBTQ communities, [1:30:52] that I would be creating stigma, [1:30:54] which would lead to violence against LGBTQ communities? [1:30:57] It depends on what you were saying, [1:30:58] but it's very possible, yeah. [1:31:00] Is it likely? [1:31:01] I guess, yeah. [1:31:02] Okay, so would it not then entail [1:31:04] that it's equally likely [1:31:05] that if you get up every single day [1:31:07] and stigmatize your opposition as being fascist, [1:31:09] that that would more likely lead to violence [1:31:11] against those people? [1:31:11] Yeah, but you're talking about, what did you- [1:31:13] Hang on, hang on. [1:31:14] I just want a yes or no there. [1:31:14] They're not analogous though. [1:31:16] Yeah, can you answer my question? [1:31:17] Why would I answer a question [1:31:18] I don't agree with the premise of? [1:31:20] The premise is if you create stigmatization [1:31:23] towards an out-group, [1:31:25] does that usually increase violence towards that out-group? [1:31:28] It really depends on what the stigma is. [1:31:31] Usually. [1:31:33] I don't know that I can say one way. [1:31:35] It definitely increases the likelihood of violence, [1:31:36] but if it's from 5% to 15%, [1:31:39] or from 5% to 90%, [1:31:40] that's a different question. [1:31:41] So it's just acceptable to increase it by 5%? [1:31:45] That's just acceptable? [1:31:46] Do you want us to sacrifice language [1:31:48] to compensate for the actions of other people [1:31:50] I have no control over? [1:31:51] I'm just pointing out to you [1:31:53] that if it's the case [1:31:54] that you don't want there to be a stigmatization [1:31:56] towards an out-group, right? [1:31:58] Because you think it's gonna necessitate violence. [1:32:01] I'm making the same argument backwards to you. [1:32:04] I think the reason you should be more precise [1:32:06] with what a fascist is, [1:32:07] if you wanna call them authoritarians and stuff like that, [1:32:10] fine, have that argument. [1:32:11] But that doesn't have the same loaded language, [1:32:14] which then adopts the Holocaust, right? [1:32:17] It doesn't adopt the Holocaust. [1:32:18] That's what calling people fascist does. [1:32:20] I just wanna test your consistency. [1:32:21] So do you think that Trump is significantly increasing [1:32:25] the threat of violence against people [1:32:26] like Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin [1:32:27] when he calls for their hanging [1:32:29] or when he calls Jack Smith a deranged animal [1:32:31] or when he says that Rob Reiner was killed [1:32:33] because he had TDS? [1:32:35] Do you realize, okay, here, I'll just answer this. [1:32:38] Let's say yes. [1:32:39] Okay, cool. [1:32:40] So then in turn, that would mean that your rhetoric [1:32:44] is increasing the likelihood of violence [1:32:45] back the other way, right? [1:32:47] My rhetoric is way less inflammatory [1:32:48] than anything I just gave you. [1:32:49] But, but, but it would be increasing [1:32:52] the threat of violence the other way, right? [1:32:54] From one to 2%, sure. [1:32:56] Okay, so it's just a threshold? [1:32:58] It's not okay to increase by 50%, but it's 3%? [1:33:01] The question is the degree. [1:33:02] What's the threshold that's okay? [1:33:04] Threshold that's okay for what? [1:33:05] To call someone a fascist? [1:33:06] No, yeah, no, to increase this [1:33:09] through stigmatization violence against an outlaw. [1:33:10] I'm not gonna necessarily be choosing my language [1:33:13] in accordance with like what other people are gonna do [1:33:15] because- And neither is Trump. [1:33:18] You're saying that there's a threshold- [1:33:19] You're saying that that increases the threat of violence. [1:33:21] You're saying there's- It's your argument. [1:33:22] No, you're saying there's a threshold [1:33:23] which is acceptable and a threshold that isn't. [1:33:25] Okay, what is it? [1:33:26] It's not about acceptable or unacceptable. [1:33:27] Okay, well then if that's- [1:33:28] It's a question of, do we have to refrain [1:33:30] from using certain language that we think is accurate [1:33:32] just to abstain? [1:33:33] Because for example, when Trump says those things- [1:33:35] Then stop bitching about what Trump says. [1:33:37] When Trump says those things, he knows he's lying. [1:33:40] That's the difference. [1:33:41] Oh, now you're a soothsayer [1:33:42] and you can tell when people are lying or not. [1:33:44] When Trump calls Jack Smith a deranged animal, [1:33:46] he knows he's lying. [1:33:47] I can prove it to you. [1:33:49] Okay, prove it. [1:33:50] Okay, so when we look [1:33:51] at the classified documents case, [1:33:53] which Jack Smith prosecuted him on, [1:33:55] we have a recording of Trump saying, [1:33:57] and I'm gonna quote here, [1:33:58] "'See, as president, I could have declassified it. [1:34:00] "'Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.'" [1:34:03] And then publicly, he said, [1:34:04] after he was indicted for the same thing, [1:34:06] "'And by the way, they become automatically declassified [1:34:09] "'when I took them.'" [1:34:10] Same thing with the election indictment from Jack Smith. [1:34:12] Yeah, so what? [1:34:13] What does that have to do with him thinking [1:34:15] he's a deranged animal? [1:34:16] Trump knows he broke the law [1:34:18] and he's being indicted for breaking the law. [1:34:20] That doesn't mean- [1:34:21] And he's saying that Jack Smith is a deranged animal. [1:34:21] That doesn't mean- He doesn't mean- [1:34:22] For indicting him. [1:34:23] That doesn't mean he doesn't think [1:34:24] he's a deranged animal. [1:34:26] For indicting him. Do you understand? [1:34:27] Hold on. Yes. [1:34:28] I just wanna be clear. [1:34:30] Your argument here is that Trump knows he committed a crime [1:34:33] and he knows Smith's prosecution of him is legitimate, [1:34:36] but then he just still thinks [1:34:37] that Smith is a deranged animal. [1:34:38] No, I'm granting that- [1:34:39] And it's not a rhetorical device [1:34:40] for you to raise the tension. I'm granting that even [1:34:41] if it's the case, I'm granting that even if it's the case, [1:34:44] that Trump knew this, I'm not even saying that this, [1:34:46] I'm not even saying it's true, I'm just granting it. [1:34:48] He did. Okay? [1:34:49] But Trump knows this, he allows it, all things equal, [1:34:52] right, that still doesn't mean he doesn't think [1:34:55] the guy's a deranged animal. [1:34:56] Lies require intent. [1:34:58] Let me ask you, let me give you another example. [1:34:59] No, no, no, let's stop. [1:35:01] Okay. [1:35:02] Do you agree lies require intent? [1:35:03] No, I think you're like really splitting your view here [1:35:05] in a way that makes more sense. [1:35:05] Do you agree that lies require intent? [1:35:08] Yeah, sure. [1:35:09] Okay, so then it is possible then [1:35:11] that Trump does think the guy's a deranged animal, right? [1:35:14] He says that in the context of saying [1:35:16] his prosecutions were illegitimate though. [1:35:17] But that doesn't mean he doesn't think [1:35:19] that his prosecutions are illegitimate. [1:35:21] No, he knows that he committed a crime. [1:35:23] Even if- [1:35:23] Even if he did, it doesn't mean he doesn't think [1:35:26] the prosecution's illegitimate. [1:35:28] This is the problem with your guys' philosophy. [1:35:30] It's terrible. [1:35:31] You think that what I'm saying is terrible [1:35:33] and you're not twisting yourself into a pretzel [1:35:34] to make excuses for Trump right now? [1:35:36] I'm not making excuse. [1:35:37] I'm looking at your logic chain. [1:35:39] The logic chain is it requires your intent. [1:35:42] You're missing very reasonable assumptions [1:35:44] that are demonstrated time and time and time again. [1:35:46] There you go. [1:35:47] Assumptions. [1:35:49] Inferences, I'd say, actually. [1:35:51] Okay, even better, inferences. [1:35:52] But based on a lot of evidence, [1:35:54] not just this. [1:35:55] But you can't demonstrate it's a lie [1:35:57] unless you can demonstrate the intent. [1:35:58] You can only make the inference. [1:35:59] And I'm just following your logical chain, [1:36:02] not making a claim to the true or false nature [1:36:06] of whether or not it is the case that Trump did A, B, or C. [1:36:08] It's irrelevant to the philosophy. [1:36:10] Sure, so I suppose it's hypothetically possible [1:36:13] that Trump knows he committed a crime [1:36:15] and it's against his political interest [1:36:18] for that crime to be prosecuted and publicized, [1:36:20] but he still thinks that the prosecution is illegitimate [1:36:23] and that Jack Smith is illegitimate. [1:36:24] He's a deranged animal. [1:36:26] Exactly. [1:36:27] I guess that is possible, Andrew, sure. [1:36:28] Yeah. [1:36:30] The reason I would dispute that, though, [1:36:31] is because this is not a one-off. [1:36:33] I don't care why you would dispute it. [1:36:34] I have evidence for it, right? [1:36:35] I'm just explaining. [1:36:36] I'm just explaining. [1:36:37] Do you think it makes sense [1:36:38] to make inferences based on, hold on. [1:36:40] You can say I have reasonable doubt that Trump is lying, [1:36:44] but you don't. I just wanna clarify. [1:36:45] You used a declarative statement. [1:36:47] I just wanna clarify. [1:36:49] Do you think when you have repeated instances of a pattern, [1:36:51] we can start making assumptions [1:36:52] about the underlying thought process [1:36:54] versus if there were just one instance of it? [1:36:56] I think we can only do that. [1:36:58] So, for example, when Trump admitted privately [1:37:00] after losing the election, [1:37:02] it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, [1:37:03] you still have to fight like hell. [1:37:05] When he told Mike Pence, you're too honest. [1:37:07] When he called Sidney Powell's election fraud claims- [1:37:09] No, this has nothing. [1:37:10] Hang on, hang on, hang on. [1:37:11] Let me just finish. [1:37:12] No, no, no, no, no. [1:37:13] Let me just finish. [1:37:13] I let you finish your- [1:37:14] Okay, I don't care about your Trump TDS [1:37:15] or something about fascism. [1:37:16] You don't have to care about it. [1:37:17] You don't have to care about it. [1:37:18] When Trump privately called Sidney Powell's election fraud- [1:37:18] Totally delineating from the debate. [1:37:20] Nope. [1:37:21] Trump privately called Sidney Powell's election fraud claims [1:37:24] crazy and linked them to Star Trek. [1:37:26] What does it have to do with fascism? [1:37:28] It has to do with the point we were just on. [1:37:30] Which is what? [1:37:31] After making clear multiple times [1:37:33] that he knew he lost the election, [1:37:35] Donald Trump posted- [1:37:36] What does it have to do with fascism? [1:37:39] Pro tip, if you want to know what I'm saying, [1:37:41] maybe let me finish saying it. [1:37:42] Can you actually advertise this to fascism? [1:37:45] When Trump acknowledges in private [1:37:46] that he lost the election and then says publicly, [1:37:49] a massive fraud of this type and magnitude [1:37:51] allows for the termination of all rules, [1:37:54] regulations, and laws- [1:37:54] Even those found in the Constitution, [1:37:57] that is him using something to justify [1:37:59] the termination of the Constitution, [1:38:01] which he has admitted multiple times [1:38:02] he knows is not true. [1:38:05] Does that make sense? [1:38:05] What does that have to do with fascism? [1:38:09] It's an example of authoritarianism, [1:38:11] which is one of the pillars of fascism. [1:38:13] That's not fascism. [1:38:14] Those are different words. [1:38:15] Authoritarianism doesn't mean fascism. [1:38:17] It's a pillar of fascism. [1:38:19] Brick doesn't mean house, but houses are made of bricks. [1:38:20] Okay, gotcha. Hang on. [1:38:22] So when we're talking about authoritarianism, [1:38:24] I can see it like, [1:38:25] I did, that Trump's doing authoritarian stuff [1:38:27] that you don't like, and that's not fascism. [1:38:29] You actually think he's an authoritarian? [1:38:30] What does that have to do with anything? [1:38:32] I'm just, why are you hiding your position on that? [1:38:34] Who cares, because it's irrelevant to the debate. [1:38:36] Does it mean you have to hide your position on it? [1:38:38] Bro, is it relevant to the debate? [1:38:41] I think it's very relevant to the debate, yes. [1:38:42] Explain how. [1:38:43] Because it would be an example [1:38:44] of Trump engaging in authoritarianism, [1:38:46] which is going to satisfy one of my three pillars. [1:38:48] Why would it matter if it's the case that I believed that? [1:38:52] I'm not saying it matters. [1:38:52] I'm just genuinely asking you to explain. [1:38:54] Great, so it has nothing to do with the debate. [1:38:55] Stay on topic. [1:38:56] It does have to do with the debate [1:38:58] in regards to satisfying the pillars of my definition [1:39:00] of fascism. It has nothing to do with my position [1:39:02] on if Trump is X or Y or Z. [1:39:04] Yeah, because your position can be whatever you want it to be. [1:39:05] Bananas and humans are the same. [1:39:07] That's all fine. [1:39:07] I'm talking about something which satisfies [1:39:10] one of my three pillars of fascism, right? [1:39:12] Well, I can cede that. [1:39:14] I can cede it. For the sake of argument or actually? [1:39:16] Yeah, I don't need to cede it actually. [1:39:18] What does that part have to do with the debate? [1:39:20] What? [1:39:22] You actually saying things with your chest [1:39:24] and not hiding from what you believe? [1:39:25] So nothing? [1:39:26] So it has nothing to do with it? [1:39:27] It has nothing to do with it, right? [1:39:28] If you want to be cowardly about it, [1:39:28] you don't have to talk about it. [1:39:29] So it has nothing? [1:39:30] That's fine. [1:39:31] It has nothing to do with it? [1:39:32] That's fine. [1:39:33] It's just red herrings? [1:39:34] You have nothing to do with anything. [1:39:35] It's the same as- [1:39:36] It's just red herrings. [1:39:37] It has as much to do with this [1:39:38] as your banana did, Andrew, sure. [1:39:39] Yeah, it's just red herrings, right? [1:39:41] Of course, yeah. [1:39:42] What does it have to do with the debate, [1:39:43] whether I believe it or not? [1:39:45] It has to do with satisfying my three pillars of fascism. [1:39:48] And I concede that we could even grant authoritarianism, [1:39:52] right, and it still doesn't satisfy [1:39:54] even your own definition of fascism. [1:39:55] No, it doesn't satisfy you inserting [1:39:57] your definition into my definition. [1:39:59] Well, we are still on ultranationalism, [1:40:03] and I give you tons of examples of what it is, [1:40:05] and you just say, well, it's ambiguous. [1:40:08] It's just a category, or you're saying ultranationalism [1:40:10] is like an ideology instead of behaviors. [1:40:11] I'm saying it's a marketing technique almost for politics. [1:40:15] No, it's pure act. [1:40:17] Ultranationalism is pure act. [1:40:18] By the way, it can be both, [1:40:20] but in the context of what I'm saying here, [1:40:22] I'm not using it as an ideology or a behavior. [1:40:25] I'm using it as a rhetorical technique [1:40:26] used to justify power grabs. [1:40:28] Can you name [1:40:28] an ultranationalist nation [1:40:30] that's ultranationalist on rhetoric alone? [1:40:32] On rhetoric alone? [1:40:35] China is probably an example. [1:40:36] They do a lot of trade with other countries as well. [1:40:38] They're not. [1:40:39] How would they? [1:40:40] They're not. [1:40:41] They don't do zero-sum. [1:40:42] They don't do zero-sum. [1:40:44] They're nationalists and ultranationalists. [1:40:45] Yeah, they're nationalists, not ultranationalists. [1:40:47] So, again, can you name an... [1:40:49] Oh, yeah, stop, stop. [1:40:50] I'm just clarifying your question. [1:40:51] Stop, stop, bro. [1:40:52] Can you name an ultranationalist nation [1:40:54] which is ultranationalist on rhetoric alone? [1:40:57] An ultranational... [1:40:58] The United States currently? [1:41:03] The United States is ultranationalist [1:41:05] on rhetoric alone. [1:41:06] The head of state, yeah. [1:41:08] But not actually. [1:41:10] He's nationalist, actually, not ultranationalist. [1:41:13] Yeah, so he's a nationalist, not an ultranationalist. [1:41:15] His governing style is nationalist, [1:41:17] and his propaganda and rhetoric is ultranationalist. [1:41:19] I feel like you definitely understand what I'm saying. [1:41:21] You can be like, oh, yeah, liberal, I caught you, but... [1:41:23] Yeah, so he's a nationalist, [1:41:25] not an ultranationalist, got it. [1:41:26] And you're saying... [1:41:27] He governs as a nationalist, [1:41:29] and politics is an ultranationalist. [1:41:30] What you're saying is that... [1:41:31] Is that hard to understand? [1:41:32] The United States is ultranationalist [1:41:34] on rhetoric alone. [1:41:37] The United States government uses ultranationalist rhetoric [1:41:41] to justify its power grabs, [1:41:42] and their actual governance is more akin to nationalism. [1:41:46] Does that make sense? [1:41:46] So then how it actually acts [1:41:48] is not in an ultranationalist way. [1:41:51] The United States currently, no. [1:41:52] Yeah, but so you... [1:41:54] I think there are aspects of it, [1:41:55] but I wouldn't say we fully... [1:41:56] So purely, purely, [1:41:58] the nation of the United States, in your view, [1:42:01] is an ultranationalist nation, [1:42:03] because politicians use rhetoric. [1:42:05] No, you asked if it was [1:42:06] an ultranationalist nation [1:42:07] in rhetoric alone. [1:42:08] And yes, in rhetoric alone, it is ultranationalist. [1:42:11] If it's Mexico ultranationalist? [1:42:13] I'm not familiar with Mexican politics. [1:42:15] I don't know. [1:42:16] Canada? [1:42:17] Also not super familiar. [1:42:19] I doubt Canada is. [1:42:20] Yeah, maybe not Canada. [1:42:22] They're like, what about the UK? [1:42:23] Are they ultranationalist on rhetoric alone? [1:42:27] Probably not. [1:42:28] They're like big fans of like multilateralism, [1:42:30] and NATO, and like internationalism, [1:42:32] which is... [1:42:33] I mean, so is the United States. [1:42:34] Internationalism is probably mutually exclusive. [1:42:36] I mean, the United States is pro all those things too. [1:42:39] Under Donald Trump? [1:42:40] Yeah, even under Donald Trump. [1:42:41] How? [1:42:43] What do you mean? [1:42:44] He's been like threatening NATO [1:42:45] and tariffing our allies since he came in. [1:42:47] How is that multilateralism? [1:42:48] Yeah, but he's not fucking... [1:42:49] He's worked within the confines of NATO before. [1:42:52] In fact, one of the things that Trump did [1:42:54] that was pretty good is he made- [1:42:55] Got them a fair share. [1:42:56] Yeah, he made them increase their contribution. [1:42:59] And the thing is, is like, that was a good thing. [1:43:01] Yeah, right? [1:43:02] And that was, by the way, that's unilateral. [1:43:04] You might think that that's ultranationalist on rhetoric, [1:43:06] but it was like, wasn't it that rhetoric [1:43:07] that actually made them do that? [1:43:09] I just, I don't honestly buy you think Trump [1:43:11] is like an internationalist in his foreign policy. [1:43:15] I think he's barely nationalist, barely. [1:43:17] But do you think he's an internationalist [1:43:19] and he's a big fan of like the UN and all these treaties [1:43:22] and all these deals, multilateralism globally, [1:43:24] Paris Climate Accord. [1:43:25] When you say internationalism or globalism, [1:43:28] what's the distinction? [1:43:30] I'd have to think about that some more. [1:43:31] I haven't used the word globalism here, [1:43:32] so there might be a lot of overlap there, [1:43:34] but it depends on the context you're using it in. [1:43:36] Okay, what about, so internationalist, meaning? [1:43:39] When I say internationalist, I'm talking about [1:43:41] the orientation in foreign policy towards cooperation [1:43:44] and creating collectives between different countries [1:43:46] to find common agreement and set some kind of standards [1:43:48] for trade international law [1:43:50] that are mutually beneficial to everyone. [1:43:52] Yeah, then I would say he's an internationalist, sure. [1:43:55] How? [1:43:57] Because his administration does just that. [1:43:59] Like if you have allies [1:44:01] and then we start antagonizing those allies, [1:44:03] isn't that moving away from internationalism? [1:44:05] But that, wait a second, those are two different claims. [1:44:08] So let's separate the claims. [1:44:10] Is Trump an internationalist? [1:44:12] What does internationalism mean? [1:44:13] It means that you're negotiating with other countries [1:44:15] for trade and things like this. [1:44:18] Then yes, he's definitely doing that. [1:44:20] Now, if the second claim is, [1:44:23] is it the case that he may be restricting [1:44:25] some of that internationalism, [1:44:27] then I can agree to both of those things, sure. [1:44:31] Are you talking about in rhetoric or in governance? [1:44:33] Governance. [1:44:34] Okay, well, just to clarify again, [1:44:36] I said he was ultra-nationalist in rhetoric. [1:44:38] In governance, he's nationalist, not ultra-nationalist. [1:44:41] Yeah. [1:44:42] He's a nationalist to which he has shifted away [1:44:44] from multilateralism. [1:44:45] Doesn't land us all the way in ultra-nationalism, [1:44:47] but it does land us in nationalism [1:44:49] when he is terrifying things like Canadian steel. [1:44:50] I agree. [1:44:51] I agree he's a nationalist, just barely a nationalist. [1:44:54] Who justifies his power with ultra-nationalist rhetoric. [1:44:57] That, not so sure about. [1:44:59] Like for instance, again, the gold card, [1:45:03] the Trump gold card, how's that ultra-nationalist? [1:45:06] It's not. [1:45:07] It's not? [1:45:08] He doesn't run around campaigning on it [1:45:09] because his supporters hate it. [1:45:10] They also hate the H-1B visas. [1:45:11] Yeah, maybe. [1:45:12] The thing is, is like- [1:45:13] That actually proves my point. [1:45:14] His rhetoric has created a movement [1:45:15] that hates the actual policy. [1:45:16] There was rhetoric that Trump utilized [1:45:19] saying that he was gonna say, [1:45:20] if you wanna come into the country, [1:45:22] it's gonna be a million and a half dollars. [1:45:24] He did campaign with that. [1:45:25] That is in fact true, he did. [1:45:28] That is pretty nationalist rhetoric. [1:45:29] That's saying I'm putting up a very high barrier [1:45:31] to let people in. [1:45:33] No, that's not nationalist rhetoric. [1:45:34] Nationalist rhetoric would be [1:45:36] the people who are here already, [1:45:39] they get the priority over everybody else, right? [1:45:42] That's our nation first. [1:45:44] That's what we're talking about here. [1:45:46] So, in this case, this other foreign national [1:45:51] being able to buy dual citizenry [1:45:53] would be the opposite of nationalism. [1:45:55] What is the purpose though of him saying, [1:45:57] we're gonna increase the fee to come to the United States? [1:45:59] He's appealing to his ultra-nationalist base [1:46:02] by saying we are not gonna let people come in [1:46:04] unless they pay us. [1:46:05] He's appealing to his nationalist base. [1:46:06] Ultra-nationalists would hate that. [1:46:09] I'm not necessarily, no. [1:46:10] Well, that's literally what you just got done saying. [1:46:13] You just got done saying, [1:46:13] his base hates this policy. [1:46:15] They're ultra-nationalists. [1:46:17] So, therefore, sir, ultra-nationalists [1:46:19] would hate that policy. [1:46:20] You just contradicted yourself again. [1:46:22] Say it again. [1:46:23] You just got done saying. [1:46:25] Yes. [1:46:26] His base hated the policy [1:46:27] because they're ultra-nationalists. [1:46:29] And then you just contradicted [1:46:31] that very same fucking statement five seconds later. [1:46:34] So, one, which is true. [1:46:35] It can't be P and not P. [1:46:37] Again, are you talking about rhetoric or governance here? [1:46:39] You keep like conflating the two to create confusion. [1:46:41] No, in this case, we already determined [1:46:43] this is a government. [1:46:44] It's a governance policy. [1:46:46] And governance has nothing to do [1:46:47] with any of my claims about ultra-nationalists. [1:46:48] And even on the rhetoric, [1:46:49] even on the rhetoric, it's contradictory. [1:46:51] Because even on the rhetoric, [1:46:52] if rhetorically his base is ultra-nationalist, [1:46:57] but they hate the policy, [1:46:58] he's promoting the policy, right? [1:47:00] Which he did. [1:47:01] Then how the fuck would that rhetorically? [1:47:03] Wait, are you talking about the gold card [1:47:06] or him charging like foreign students for it? [1:47:07] No, I'm talking about him saying [1:47:08] that he was going to charge people millions of dollars [1:47:12] to get citizenship in his first election cycle. [1:47:14] We've talked about this multiple times. [1:47:15] The gold card? [1:47:16] Is that what you're referring to? [1:47:17] Not just the gold card. [1:47:18] I'm talking about his first time running. [1:47:22] He made mention multiple times [1:47:24] about having foreign nationals pay millions of dollars [1:47:26] to become an American citizen. [1:47:28] To clarify, the first time that Trump ran for president, [1:47:30] I don't think that he was actually exhibiting [1:47:32] anything above like stage one or two fascism. [1:47:35] I think a better description there would be [1:47:36] probably like populist, a liberal populist. [1:47:39] So I think the rhetoric, if you juxtapose [1:47:40] between the 2016 campaign of Trump [1:47:42] and especially the 2024 campaign of Trump, [1:47:44] the whole theme is, I am your retribution. [1:47:47] We're going to bring back the golden age. [1:47:48] We're going to lock all these thugs and criminals up. [1:47:50] Those are very different illusions [1:47:51] and very different pieces of imagery. [1:47:53] That appears sophistry. [1:47:54] So what in the second term? [1:47:55] How is it sophistry? [1:47:56] What in the second term? [1:47:57] It's rhetoric. [1:47:58] Is the only thing in the second term [1:48:00] that gets him to this is just J6? [1:48:03] Is that it? [1:48:04] J6 was his first term. [1:48:06] No, but in his second term governing, [1:48:10] is it just J6 that now makes the delineation? [1:48:14] Delineation of what in his government? [1:48:15] Of now he's like a state [1:48:16] for fascist? [1:48:18] Yeah, it has to do with how he's using power. [1:48:21] OK, what is the delineation of how he's using power now [1:48:24] versus his first term? [1:48:26] He's indicting political opponents. [1:48:27] He's openly defying court orders [1:48:29] and saying he wants to defy court orders. [1:48:31] He is desecrating rule of law [1:48:33] by not prosecuting federal crimes [1:48:34] of people who are allies of his. [1:48:36] He is consistently lying to Congress, [1:48:39] violating Congress's laws. [1:48:40] Didn't he do all of that in his first term? [1:48:43] No, nothing near what he's doing now. [1:48:45] Well, well, wait a second. [1:48:47] We're back [1:48:47] to scale here. [1:48:49] There's no threshold delineation. [1:48:51] You're not saying all you're saying [1:48:52] is that they could just got to meet the requirement. [1:48:54] Which of those requirements didn't he meet in the first term? [1:48:58] Well, in order to be a stage four fascist, [1:49:00] what's the requirement? [1:49:02] He has to be governing in conjunction [1:49:04] with elites in his party [1:49:06] and trying to basically push the envelope [1:49:08] as much as possible in terms of fascism [1:49:10] without fully letting the mask slip, [1:49:12] because that's where Paxton says stage five, [1:49:14] either the elites can end up winning [1:49:16] and it becomes standard authoritarianism [1:49:17] or the fascist leader is going to win. [1:49:18] And is that is that what he's doing right now? [1:49:21] And you're I think we're currently in stage four. [1:49:23] OK, what in the first term, right? [1:49:27] What how did he not do that? [1:49:29] He was still from your view. [1:49:31] Well, like what you weren't you guys impeaching him and shit [1:49:33] because you were accusing him of doing the [1:49:35] actually Ukraine phone call for the Biden thing. [1:49:37] Sure. Yeah. [1:49:39] Again, I'm just giving you examples in a second term [1:49:41] that are way more flagrant [1:49:42] as a more consistent pattern over time. [1:49:44] So you can isolate things [1:49:45] and try to look at them in a vacuum. [1:49:46] But if you look at it, it sounds like [1:49:47] he's just doing the same shit that he was doing [1:49:49] that you hated him for before. [1:49:50] No, he didn't do a lot of this shit in his first term. [1:49:52] What things? [1:49:53] He didn't defy the Supreme Court in his first term. [1:49:56] Yeah. OK. [1:49:58] Which which defiance are we talking about? [1:50:01] The Kilmer Regal Garcia return. [1:50:03] Oh, I tried to ask you about this earlier. [1:50:06] All right. Gotcha. OK. [1:50:08] So let me ask you this. [1:50:10] Would he have do you think he would have in his first term? [1:50:15] I think probably. [1:50:16] Because his administration was filled a lot more with like [1:50:18] sort of like establishment Republicans [1:50:20] and traditional civil servants. [1:50:21] I see. Now it's filled with crazy loyalty. [1:50:23] So he was always a fascist. [1:50:26] I mean, stage two fascism would still be fascism. Sure. [1:50:29] Yeah. So he was just always a fascist [1:50:30] and he was waiting for his movement. [1:50:32] Was always a fascist movement. [1:50:33] I see. I got it now. All right. [1:50:35] So backing up, let's just look at the totality here. [1:50:39] Yeah. The totality is that Trump's a nationalist, [1:50:41] not an ultra nationalist. OK. [1:50:43] And his governance, not his rhetoric. [1:50:45] Yeah. And the United States is currently [1:50:48] a rhetorically fascist nation. [1:50:52] Is that right? [1:50:53] Yeah. Uses fascist propaganda. [1:50:55] Fascist imagery to justify power. [1:50:57] I mean, you can boil it down to just rhetoric, [1:50:59] but rhetoric serves a very instrumental purpose in politics. [1:51:01] I'm sure you'd agree. [1:51:03] And you think you think that that is a more powerful way [1:51:07] to describe the historicity of a movement [1:51:11] which essentially led and contributed to the [1:51:15] the massive reconstruction of nations post-World War Two. [1:51:20] That that you're rhetorically a fascist. [1:51:23] Let me do you think that that has no loaded [1:51:25] moral baggage. [1:51:27] There's like no fascist or ultra nationalist. [1:51:29] Well, actually, both fascist probably has a lot more [1:51:33] about more nationalist does. Yeah. [1:51:34] But do you think in a very I've debated people who say it's based [1:51:37] that he's a fast. So let me ask you this. [1:51:38] Do you think that when a person is calling another person a fascist, [1:51:43] they ever mean you're a rhetorical fascist ever? [1:51:48] I'm not saying fascism overall is just rhetoric. [1:51:50] I'm saying ultra nationalism in my definition of fascism is rhetorical. [1:51:53] Yeah. But when you call Trump a fascist, you just mean you mean [1:51:57] that in the United States, if they say the United States is fascist, [1:52:01] do you think that they ever mean the United States is rhetorically fascist? [1:52:05] Ever is they anybody who says this? [1:52:08] It depends on who you're talking to. [1:52:10] I think that probably people like Jason Stanley would agree with what I'm saying. [1:52:13] But like the common person or the common person, [1:52:15] if you walk over the common person and you're like, [1:52:18] is the United States a fascist nation? [1:52:20] Do you think any of them are going to be like, it's just to be rhetorically? [1:52:24] Maybe we'll find a little piece of agreement here. [1:52:26] I think the vast majority of people that use the word [1:52:28] fascism have no idea what they're talking about. [1:52:30] Like, they don't even know what the different areas are. [1:52:32] I definitely agree with this [1:52:34] because I'm at least referencing a school of thought. [1:52:37] And most people don't even know that there are schools of thought in this [1:52:39] and they don't know what they are. [1:52:41] So yeah, but but I do. [1:52:43] And then the thing is, is like, what's confusing to me here is [1:52:47] you keep on saying that your definition has more use than mine. [1:52:52] Diagnostically. Yeah. [1:52:53] Yeah. And yet if you were to ask a common person which view of fascism [1:52:57] they're talking about when they're talking about fascism, [1:52:59] they're definitely going to defer to mine. [1:53:01] Nobody's going to be talking about rhetorical fascism, dude. [1:53:04] People on the right might defer to yours. [1:53:06] But I think if we both know, everybody's going to defer to mine, dude. [1:53:09] If we both laid out our definitions, I think you'd probably agree [1:53:11] that left wing people would agree with my definition. [1:53:13] No, I don't think so. [1:53:14] I think if I were to go over to any random Democrat, just a random one [1:53:18] who says, yeah, I voted for like Biden and any random Republican is like, [1:53:22] yeah, I voted for Trump. [1:53:23] And I was like, here's here's our different definitions. [1:53:26] This guy thinks we're in a rhetorical fascist nation. [1:53:29] And I what I believe the straw man me. [1:53:33] You do believe we're in a rhetorical fascist nation. [1:53:36] Rhetorically ultra nationalist and ultra nationalist rhetoric. [1:53:39] You said rhetorical fascist, too, right? [1:53:44] Don't you know? [1:53:45] That's not my overall argument. [1:53:46] OK, sorry. [1:53:47] Government is fascistic. [1:53:48] One of the pillars is rhetoric. Gotcha. OK. [1:53:51] He thinks we're in a rhetorical ultra nationalist state. [1:53:54] Right. In stage four, fascism. [1:53:57] Based on the fact that he thinks that there's too much authoritarianism [1:54:01] and he believes [1:54:01] that we're ultra nationalists rhetorically, that's what he believes. [1:54:05] Rhetorically, we're ultra nationalists, which I think is just pure equivocation. [1:54:09] A pretty uncharitable and weird way to frame what you're saying. [1:54:12] But I suppose you could say that. [1:54:13] But it is you think that we that Trump's a nationalist. [1:54:16] He just uses ultra nationalist rhetoric. [1:54:19] To be clear, I break it up into three categories for a reason. [1:54:22] One is the fuel and the pretext used for the power grab. [1:54:25] Two is the actual power grab and the consolidation of power. [1:54:29] And three is how that power is entrenched and used against. [1:54:32] Enemies. [1:54:33] Those are all very distinct categorically as well. [1:54:35] Yeah, but the problem is, is like some more government focus. [1:54:38] Yeah, but those pillars revolve around ultra nationalism. [1:54:41] And your belief is that not just ultra nationalism. [1:54:43] You've zeroed in on that. That's the pillar to a mythic past that. [1:54:46] But the pillar without ultra nationalism doesn't work. [1:54:50] Well, all the other things, the one things that doesn't work. [1:54:52] Yeah, but all those other things work in context with almost everything else. [1:54:57] Absent ultra nationalism. [1:54:59] Ultra nationalism is a big part of the context. [1:55:01] It's it's yeah, it's like. [1:55:02] 80% doing 80% of the lifting or something. [1:55:05] It's it's doing a lot of lifting at most. [1:55:07] You could say it's doing 33.333% of the lifting [1:55:10] because this is talking about the justification fascists use to obtain [1:55:13] and use power. [1:55:14] It's not talking about their tactics and using power [1:55:16] and how they actually obtain and consolidate power. [1:55:19] Those are different questions. [1:55:19] Wait, wait, wait a second. [1:55:21] I would say if I were talking to a person, [1:55:25] fascism is a historic movement [1:55:27] which utilizes these key categorizations in the fascist states, I can point out [1:55:33] here was the policies, the philosophy, the government type. [1:55:37] That's what you want to watch out for when it comes to fascism. [1:55:41] And then you give your definition and say the thing that qualifies mine [1:55:46] is that right now he's using rhetoric, which is ultra nationalist, [1:55:49] but he's just a nationalist. [1:55:51] You don't think that you don't say it, but but that is what you're saying, though. [1:55:56] I would say he uses appeals to a mythical past and ultra nationalism [1:56:00] to get to manufacture consent for the consolidation of governmental power. [1:56:03] Which he then weaponizes against his enemies and uses it to entrench the power. [1:56:07] Yeah, but I would just counter with, yeah, so do all politicians. [1:56:10] They're always talking about some politicians are authoritarian. [1:56:13] Yeah, they're all. Yeah, they're all. [1:56:15] I mean, yeah, kind of a lot of them. [1:56:17] A lot of them want to. [1:56:18] Well, every president has basically attempted to entrench [1:56:21] the executive branch a little bit more, almost all of them before we go into Q&A. [1:56:25] Sure. Which other politician has defied a court on purpose? [1:56:30] Well, this would be going back to the Jackson, maybe like, yeah, [1:56:34] this would be going back to. [1:56:35] Well, in that particular case, if I remember right, just off the top of my head, [1:56:39] they were trying to do he was trying to do some kind of movement with Indians. [1:56:43] And the court said, no, he went ahead and executed it anyway. [1:56:47] But all the way back to the very beginning, the founders were were contrary [1:56:52] to their own their own beliefs. [1:56:54] I mean, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion. [1:56:56] So and by the way, we can we can look at other things, too, like Kent State, [1:57:00] for instance, what happened at Kent State, various things like this. [1:57:05] And and we can we can say, OK, that's authoritarianism. [1:57:08] There have certainly been flashes of authoritarianism in American history. [1:57:10] We can also see that in wartime, but we've also said Japanese internment camps. [1:57:14] Yeah, but we can also say there's authoritarianism, [1:57:15] which has been pretty good that we appreciate. [1:57:18] You know what I mean? It's like for us. Yeah, sure. [1:57:20] Like, for instance, when we stopped segregation at schools [1:57:23] and the National Guard was deployed so that people so that the schools [1:57:27] that didn't want there to be desegregation had to desegregate. [1:57:31] That's good authoritarianism, right? [1:57:33] I don't know that I'd call that authoritarianism. [1:57:34] That's well, they federalized the state National Guard. [1:57:38] But a big part of my authoritarian pillar includes the words bad. [1:57:41] They federalized the National Guard against the will of the governor. [1:57:44] It was an expansion of power authoritarianism. [1:57:46] I'm including bad faith in that right. [1:57:49] What? That doesn't fucking mean anything. What does that mean? [1:57:51] Bad faith? Yeah. What does it mean? [1:57:53] Do you agree that someone can engage with? [1:57:54] Don't ask me a question. Answer mine. What is that? [1:57:56] I'm asking the audience then. [1:57:57] Does everyone agree that someone can engage with laws and institutions [1:58:01] that they don't like in good faith to reform them for the better and someone [1:58:04] could also engage with those same laws and institutions in bad faith [1:58:07] to delegitimize them and entrench their own personal power? [1:58:10] That doesn't tell us what bad faith means here. [1:58:12] Oh, intentionally lying. [1:58:15] That's all bad faith means. [1:58:16] In this context. Sure. [1:58:18] Do you want like the etymology of the word bad faith? [1:58:21] Kind of. [1:58:23] OK, we have like, what, one minute left. [1:58:24] I mean, I mean, the thing is, here is like the whole idea is that [1:58:30] that you have to engage in the laws in good faith. [1:58:32] But then we're just back to intention. [1:58:34] This is your intention. [1:58:35] Then you have demonstrated intent [1:58:37] from Donald Trump time and time and time again. [1:58:39] It's not a demonstration of intent. [1:58:40] You'd have to know the intent in order to at least make such strong inferences [1:58:45] as to have no doubt. [1:58:46] I think these are the obvious inferences. [1:58:47] I think you'd have to justify why you don't. [1:58:49] We're talking about the historic movements here. [1:58:51] Like, Andrew, hang on. [1:58:53] The burden is on you here. [1:58:54] Yeah. And I'm giving you the burden. [1:58:56] We're talking about authoritarianism, right? [1:59:00] I would say that it's definitely an authoritarian act. [1:59:03] And it was at the time and it was very controversial [1:59:06] and it was cited as being authoritarian. [1:59:08] That when there was desegregation, [1:59:10] that the governor was against the federalization of his National Guard. [1:59:15] Is this what LBJ sent them? [1:59:16] Yeah, this was. Yeah. And this was done anyway. [1:59:18] I would say autocracy might be a better word. [1:59:19] There was autocratic. [1:59:20] But authoritarianism, again, at least how I'm using it here implies intent. [1:59:23] And the burden there is on you, [1:59:25] because I have given you so many examples of Trump knowing he's breaking the law. [1:59:29] But then when he speaks about it publicly, he's basically using it to weaponize. [1:59:32] This isn't. But here we're talking. [1:59:34] Can you explain why that doesn't prove he's lying? [1:59:36] Because we're. [1:59:37] We're. [1:59:37] Doing right. [1:59:38] Well, you want me to prove a negative? [1:59:40] You're saying that just because Trump admits constantly behind the scenes [1:59:43] that he's a criminal. [1:59:44] But how can I prove how can I prove a negative, though? [1:59:47] I can. That's where if I can clarify what I'm asking you, [1:59:49] then you can critique it if you'd like. [1:59:50] I'm asking you if we have multiple instances of Trump saying in private, [1:59:54] basically, I know I'm breaking the law. [1:59:55] I want to break the law. [1:59:56] And then publicly, he says, anyone who accuses me of breaking the law [2:00:00] is an enemy of the state. [2:00:02] Why would we not assume that he's lying there for political? [2:00:04] Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. [2:00:06] I'm not saying you can't make. [2:00:07] These inferences. [2:00:09] Why is that the most reasonable inference, I guess? [2:00:11] Well, well, here's the thing, right? [2:00:13] When you have something which is contested, if I say Adam's a fucking liar, [2:00:18] right, I'm very I'm very cautious about saying that. [2:00:21] Yeah, because while I think that you might be saying things which are untrue, [2:00:26] right, that doesn't mean I think you believe that they're untrue. [2:00:30] In the example of Trump, Trump has been very consistent, especially post. [2:00:35] Trump knows they're untrue. [2:00:36] He's been very consistent, especially. [2:00:38] Post. [2:00:38] J six about things like he still thinks the election was stolen from. [2:00:42] No, he doesn't. [2:00:43] He just says that in public. [2:00:44] You know, the thing is, though, right, is like you have quotes of him admitting. [2:00:47] Get behind the scenes. Yeah. [2:00:49] To who? [2:00:50] Sidney, his his White House is a fucking recorded. [2:00:53] Is it fucking read? [2:00:54] He got an audio recording fucker. [2:00:56] We do for the classified documents case. [2:00:58] Actually, he says, see, as president, I could have declassified it. [2:01:00] Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret from Sidney Powell. [2:01:04] From Sidney Powell. [2:01:05] No, Sidney Powell was the January six case. [2:01:07] You're asking for a recording. [2:01:08] We actually do. [2:01:08] Have a recording. [2:01:09] Let's hear it. Classified documents. [2:01:10] Yeah, let's hear it. Awesome. [2:01:12] Pull it up. [2:01:13] Can I play that real quick, James, before you switch to the Q&A? [2:01:15] Yes. And then we go to the Q&A shortly. [2:01:22] You haven't yet, folks. [2:01:23] Hit that like button no matter where you're watching. [2:01:30] OK, fine. This part needs to be finished. [2:01:43] This was done by the military, given to me. [2:01:47] I think we can probably. [2:01:50] You even hear him saying we can show these documents, right? [2:01:53] Because he knows it's classified and keep listening. [2:01:56] Yeah, he wants to hear. [2:01:58] Yes. [2:01:58] President, I couldn't be less. [2:02:00] No, I can't. [2:02:01] Wait a second. [2:02:02] Stop. Yes, President. [2:02:03] I could actually find it. [2:02:04] Actually, you left out a key word there. [2:02:08] What was the key word you left out right now? [2:02:09] Before that, he said, right. [2:02:11] Yeah, well, we can show these, right? [2:02:13] That's not like a question on a declarative statement. [2:02:16] No, he's telling them. [2:02:18] I don't know. [2:02:18] The context of this doesn't seem so clear to me. [2:02:21] He was showing Department of Defense war plans against Iran [2:02:23] to a bunch of reporters at a dinner party. [2:02:25] That was the context. [2:02:26] This is also sounded like a question. [2:02:29] It's not a question. He is. [2:02:31] I don't know. [2:02:32] I didn't even claim it was a question. [2:02:33] That's not even his excuse for this. [2:02:34] So you're making excuse for him that he doesn't make himself. [2:02:36] That's fine. [2:02:37] He just I don't know. [2:02:38] It sounds sounds like he's saying, do you see what I mean by his defense of this? [2:02:42] Do you see why it wasn't actually I don't care about you. [2:02:43] Yes, I'm pointing out. [2:02:45] No, I'm telling you, you see that Trump devotion. [2:02:47] Do you see why it is that I would be like, well, wait a second. [2:02:52] When you make all of these inferences, right? [2:02:55] I'm going to infer this. [2:02:56] I'm going to say we're going to infer this. [2:02:58] What we have to do is accept your framework for these things. [2:03:01] First, before we can before we can dive into this inferencing being true. [2:03:04] That's one. [2:03:05] And the second is, you know, it's not a determination about intent itself. [2:03:10] And so that's why I'm always cautious about calling someone a liar. [2:03:13] Now, if you want to come back [2:03:14] and have a debate on these specific issues, you're happy to do that. [2:03:16] Cool. [2:03:17] In this particular case, though, right? [2:03:19] You'd never demonstrated how fucking Trump was [2:03:22] a fascist ever and still haven't. [2:03:25] I didn't demonstrate it according to your extremely narrow standard [2:03:28] that you were extremely stubborn about your own standard. [2:03:32] I explained my standard multiple times. [2:03:34] If you still don't understand it after a two hour debate, that's fine. [2:03:36] Yeah. [2:03:37] Do you realize, though, that you saying, I just have this standard? [2:03:40] We're back to the lighter thing. [2:03:42] This lighter is fascistic because you agree it's fascistic. [2:03:45] Okay. [2:03:45] This bottle caps, fascistic. [2:03:46] My chapstick, fascistic. [2:03:47] Everything is fascistic. [2:03:48] This cup of coffee is fascistic. [2:03:50] Just anything that I agree to is going to be fascistic. [2:03:53] James, don't tell me your microphone is fascistic, too. [2:03:55] We're not going to actually make a comparison between the worldviews. [2:03:58] We're not actually going to talk about the history of the thing. [2:04:00] We're just going to do pedantic questions. [2:04:02] I think this might be a good opportunity to jump into the Q&A. [2:04:06] We have a lot of questions, so we're going to move fast. [2:04:08] Thank you very much for your questions. [2:04:10] And folks, as mentioned to the bottom right of your screen, [2:04:13] you can see part of the lineup for DebateCon7. [2:04:16] Click that link in the description box. [2:04:18] Also pinned at the top of the chat. [2:04:19] It'll have debaters such as David Wood, apostate prophet [2:04:23] Daniel Hakikachu, Andrew's buddy, and Jake, Muslim metaphysician. [2:04:27] You don't want to miss it. [2:04:29] It's going to be amazing. [2:04:30] Go ahead, Adam. [2:04:32] Can I pee real quick? [2:04:33] I don't want to derail the Q&A. [2:04:34] I'll be back in like two minutes. [2:04:35] Go ahead. [2:04:35] Okay, thanks. [2:04:37] Woman, give me a cup of coffee, please. [2:04:39] It's going to be amazing. [2:04:41] But like I said, whether you're watching at Modern Day Debate [2:04:45] or maybe I think Adam might be streaming as well. [2:04:48] Or if you're watching at the Crucible, hit the like button. [2:04:54] Maybe you thought that Andrew or Adam was more persuasive tonight. [2:04:58] Whoever it was. [2:05:00] It was me. [2:05:01] If you want more people to see it, hit like. [2:05:04] As. [2:05:05] That will make it so that the algorithm pushes it out. [2:05:09] And, mysterious algorithm. [2:05:13] Other stuff. [2:05:15] Consider hitting that share button as well. [2:05:18] And that goes for all channels that you're watching at. [2:05:20] Let me check if Adam is streaming right now. [2:05:23] Adam, let's see here. [2:05:26] But we do appreciate your support. [2:05:27] So thank you very much for that. [2:05:28] And this has been a tremendous debate. [2:05:30] We let the dialogue, I let the dialogue go a little bit longer than usual [2:05:33] because the conversation was just fantastic. [2:05:36] But other housekeeping things. [2:05:39] We're going to go to the bottom right of your screen. [2:05:40] As I mentioned, that's DebateCon 7. [2:05:42] If you're not able to make it, you're like, listen, I'm in Australia, Antarctica, [2:05:47] whatever it is, I can't make it too far. [2:05:50] You can watch it live from home by becoming a channel member at the final word level. [2:05:56] Now, Andrew and I are going to have a quick debate while Adam is gone [2:06:00] on whether or not Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones is better. [2:06:04] Lord of the Rings is better. [2:06:06] I don't know. [2:06:07] I have to watch. [2:06:08] I have to rewatch it, though, because it's been like 10 years. [2:06:10] Since I watched it, I got one one argument and I'll always win this debate. [2:06:15] The ending of Game of Thrones. [2:06:17] Oh, yeah, that's true. [2:06:19] Yeah, I win. [2:06:20] I think it's and then, you know, Lord of the Rings had so many epic awards. [2:06:25] But so maybe I was Game of Thrones worth watching. [2:06:30] I was considering starting it. [2:06:31] What? The ending is horrible. [2:06:33] It's good. [2:06:34] It's not horrible. [2:06:36] It's just unexpected. [2:06:37] It doesn't really reason it doesn't ruin it. [2:06:40] This one from thanks for your question. [2:06:42] Diet Pepsi says betting here in the beginning that Andrew will quibble [2:06:47] on the gentile definition versus others that depend on Part C. [2:06:54] Well, I didn't quibble at all. [2:06:56] I was very specific about what I think. [2:06:59] I think that fascism is a historic movement. [2:07:02] I don't think that the criteria is adequately fit. [2:07:05] I think it's very nebulous. [2:07:06] I think that it was very nebulous. [2:07:08] The definitions of ultra nationalism, which were given by my opponent [2:07:10] and not by me, I feel like the quibbling was on the. [2:07:13] Oppositional side, not my own. [2:07:15] This one coming in from Jonathan Tessier says, Was Canada Emergency Act [2:07:19] on the peaceful convoy fascist? [2:07:21] Tell after the answers of both. [2:07:25] I'll let you guys answer and then I'll tell what this person wants me [2:07:28] to tell you guys. [2:07:29] But was stuff to marry with that act or Canada's emergency act [2:07:33] on the peaceful convoy fascist? [2:07:35] I'd have to know more about the act, but I don't think one act in isolation [2:07:38] can be fascism, which is going to be a conjunction of different behaviors [2:07:41] and ways of presenting yourself politically. [2:07:44] But. But. [2:07:44] There are fascist actions. [2:07:46] There could be fascistic actions. Sure. [2:07:48] That's what he's asking. [2:07:49] He said fascist, but sure. [2:07:50] I'm just not familiar with the case, so I need to know more about it. [2:07:52] I don't know. [2:07:53] OK, so I would say no, it's not it's not. [2:07:57] Well, I don't I don't. [2:07:58] Again, fascism is pure act, but it's it's a systemic thing. [2:08:02] It's not it's not equal to anything within within the idea of an action. [2:08:08] I don't I don't think that that's the case. [2:08:10] So I would say no. [2:08:12] I think that it was fucking some authoritarian ass shit. [2:08:15] Sure. You got it. [2:08:17] They said it was judged illegal and the appeal of Trudeau was rejected. [2:08:24] Greek archeology says I'm watching Smoky Man with my secular humanist husband, [2:08:28] Matt Heart Emoji Heart Emoji. [2:08:31] This one from Mr. [2:08:33] Black says Trump and all of them, both sides, all sorcerers, [2:08:39] all registered voters, both sides are Nazi. [2:08:46] Nothing. OK. Mason Miller says the left doesn't attack Trump [2:08:49] because he's a fascist. [2:08:51] They call him a fascist. [2:08:53] Right. So that they can attack him. [2:08:54] Correct. This is what I'm saying. [2:08:56] I think that what all that's happening here and I demonstrated it well, [2:09:00] he agrees that this is loaded language, specifically loaded language designed [2:09:05] to to vilify specifically, which, interestingly enough, [2:09:09] is in his own categorization of fascism. [2:09:12] But it's designed to vilify the opposition. [2:09:14] And it's designed to put a bunch of loaded moral baggage at their feet [2:09:17] so that you equate them with people who did the Holocaust. [2:09:19] Stuff like this. That's the whole point of it. [2:09:22] But when you you match it up with any historicity of what fascism is, [2:09:27] it fucking falls apart on its face. [2:09:29] We literally reduced it down to it's rhetorically ultra nationalist. [2:09:35] That's like, what the fuck are we even talking about? [2:09:38] You got it. [2:09:38] This one from Emperor Fat Ass Dog says, Do fascists lock up their political opponents? [2:09:45] If yes, why did the Biden admin target Trump for criminal charges? [2:09:50] When did Trump do that to Obama? [2:09:54] The Biden administration did not target Trump with criminal charges. [2:09:57] Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel, and Merrick Garland was so studious [2:10:01] and so focused on making sure there was no bias here that he even paused [2:10:05] the investigation during the 2022 midterms just to remove any even optics of bias being there. [2:10:11] And if you read the Jack Smith indictments, pretty clear Trump did the stuff. [2:10:14] And Trump has tried to put Letitia James and James Comey in jail [2:10:18] and threatened the Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with investigation. [2:10:21] To get him to lower fed rates. [2:10:22] And Obama never did that. [2:10:23] Biden never did that either. [2:10:24] Groovy Banana says, If you accepted that I'm right, would you agree that I'm right? [2:10:30] Yeah, exactly. [2:10:31] That was the that that was the cringest part of the whole debate. [2:10:34] The whole idea was like, if you accepted my definition and that it no, it was it was incoherent. [2:10:41] If if you accept that the thing is if it was the thing is the thing that it would be the thing. [2:10:47] It's like, yeah, sure. [2:10:47] Not even what I said. [2:10:49] It is totally what you said. [2:10:50] That if you accept. [2:10:51] Okay. [2:10:51] If you accept this, what you're going to get clipped, gone, you're going to get clipped. [2:10:55] Don't know about that, but okay. [2:10:56] This one from each clipped ancient waves. [2:10:59] Modern Graves says arguing about definitions to ignore the argument. [2:11:03] Slimy, sophist, coward, debooter, bullshit. [2:11:08] Oh, I see it. [2:11:10] Trump. Trump is this thing. [2:11:11] Okay. What is that thing? [2:11:13] Incoherent bullshit. [2:11:14] Oh, okay. [2:11:15] Let's not focus. [2:11:16] Let's just always grant that the thing is true. [2:11:19] For instance, I think that you're gay. [2:11:21] Chatter. [2:11:22] Therefore, it's true because I say it's true. [2:11:25] And my definition of gay is you. [2:11:27] Therefore, it's true. [2:11:29] Don't argue with me about what gay is. [2:11:31] That's ridiculous. [2:11:32] That's stupid. [2:11:32] Don't do that. [2:11:33] Just because you have sex with the opposite sex doesn't mean you're not actually gay. [2:11:37] Because I say so. [2:11:39] Mary, because words don't mean anything. [2:11:41] Words don't mean shit. [2:11:42] We just make them up as we go. [2:11:45] Well, all words are made up. [2:11:46] But Marilyn says you both have Stockholm syndrome. [2:11:49] Hierarchy is a sin. [2:11:52] I don't know what's going on. [2:11:53] FB. [2:11:53] Is a fascist. [2:11:54] The center for a center. [2:11:55] A center for what? [2:11:56] Living is the center of being alive, says fascists are indeed socialists. [2:12:04] When you tell a leftist that it's true, they'll usually deflect with some smug line like, oh, [2:12:11] so you think buffalo wings come from a buffalo not addressing the argument? [2:12:16] Well, actually, I mean, there is merit from a from a leftist view in saying that, hey, [2:12:23] just because, you know, [2:12:25] the Third Reich said National Socialist Party, so what? [2:12:29] The North Koreans have Republican right in the name, right? [2:12:32] There is merit in that argument for because words mean things right. [2:12:36] Then the definition matters a lot. [2:12:38] Then what we mean by it matters a bunch. [2:12:40] And unless unless we do it in this case in fascism. [2:12:43] But there's merit to that. [2:12:45] The problem here is like, yeah, historically it's rooted in socialism. [2:12:50] And the whole idea of nationalizing the industry was rooted in socialism. [2:12:55] And corporatism is rooted in so like there's no ifs, ands, or buts about that. [2:12:59] This one from Rachel Wilson says, if fascism were nothing but rhetoric, why the hell would we care if Trump is a fascist? [2:13:08] Exactly. [2:13:09] Obviously, you have a problem with what he's doing, not just what he's saying. [2:13:13] Which is why I said that fascism is a combination of both what he's saying and what he's doing. [2:13:17] They're very closely interlinked, which is what he says is used to justify what he does, which otherwise in a vacuum would not be popular. [2:13:24] But he's not doing any ultra nationalism. [2:13:25] He's not doing any ultra nationalism. [2:13:28] He's not doing any of this stuff, which is the pillar that one of the main pillars for fascism. [2:13:32] He's not doing any of that. [2:13:34] It's the rhetorical pillar, but you don't like hearing that. [2:13:36] I know it's it's all rhetorical. [2:13:37] We should care because he's he's a rhetorical fascist. [2:13:40] One third of it is rhetorical. [2:13:42] One third. [2:13:42] Thirty three percent. [2:13:44] Point three, three, three, three. [2:13:45] Repeating and finance. [2:13:46] Thirty three percent infinite rhetorical fascism. [2:13:48] Stupid, stupid emperor. [2:13:50] Fat ass dog says if Trump cured cancer, Adam would turn around and say, Oh, Trump put doctors out of work. [2:13:54] Oh, Trump put doctors out of work. [2:13:55] Oh, Trump put doctors out of work. [2:13:55] Oh, Trump put doctors out of work. [2:13:55] Oh, Trump put doctors out of work. [2:13:57] I actually give Trump credit for Operation Warp Speed, which is the one thing all of his supporters hate the most. [2:14:01] That's probably not true. [2:14:03] This one from Reliance says if Trump is a fascist and you can have a democratic fascism, then what's the problem? [2:14:10] Just vote out fascism. [2:14:12] The problem is that fascism uses democracy to rise to power. [2:14:15] And then once it has the power, it uses it to undermine democracy. [2:14:18] Like, for example, his drafted executive order to seize voting machines with the National Guard. [2:14:23] Ancient Waves Modern Grave says, quote, You're banking on ambiguity. [2:14:27] Unquote, while he's been arguing about definitions for the entire debate, then shifts the debate to, quote unquote, nationalism. [2:14:34] Hilarious. [2:14:36] Who? [2:14:37] I don't know. [2:14:38] Sounds like you. [2:14:39] I don't know. [2:14:40] I'll say it one more time. [2:14:41] They say you're banking on the quote, quote unquote, you're banking on ambiguity while he's been arguing about definitions for the entire debate, then shifts the debate to nationalism. [2:14:52] We weren't arguing about the definition of the thing. [2:14:55] We're arguing about the qualia of the thing. [2:14:58] One. [2:14:59] The quality of the thing. [2:15:00] And if it's actually the case that even fits that criteria, the thing is, is like this is all debates with with you stupid fucking leftists. [2:15:08] You just want us to grant that the shit you say is true. [2:15:11] Grant it all his whole his entire. [2:15:14] Do you realize, like his entire argument? [2:15:16] And he said this, I couldn't believe he said it because you're going to get clipped. [2:15:20] He literally said this. [2:15:23] He said, Yes, I'm appealing to this guy because he's an expert. [2:15:27] He said that. [2:15:28] That's what the appeal is because because because because because he says it. [2:15:32] So it's true. [2:15:33] Like that's it's completely fallacious on its face. [2:15:36] This is one of Robert Paxson's pillars, which is the undermining of undermining of intellectuals and academics, which is. [2:15:41] Yeah, right. [2:15:42] And that makes it true. [2:15:43] Why? [2:15:44] It does. [2:15:45] Just because bananas, Andrew, and because. [2:15:46] Yeah, because you what makes that statement true, though? [2:15:49] What makes rhetoric fascism, bananas and whatever else? [2:15:52] What makes that true of fascism, dude? [2:15:54] What makes it true? [2:15:56] I didn't get in claim. [2:15:57] It's true. Right. [2:15:57] So it's not true. [2:15:59] It's all fucking ambiguity again. [2:16:00] It's no social sciences are just complicated. [2:16:03] There's nuance there. [2:16:03] I know you want everything to be very, very black and white. [2:16:05] The real world does not work. [2:16:06] That's funny because I was the only one with a new position. [2:16:09] I was the only one with a nuanced position. [2:16:10] And by the way, it's sociology. [2:16:12] Most of the definitions for political movements and historical movements [2:16:15] have historic definitions associated with them. [2:16:19] They have historic iterations that are highly debated in terms of what is the lowest common denominator between them. [2:16:23] Yeah, but they have pillars between them, which are universally accepted to this one from Maryland, like ultra nationalism. [2:16:29] It says in the kingdom of God, you never have to be disloyal to one to prove your loyalty to another. [2:16:35] To require that of anyone is control and manipulation, which is the most basic form of witchcraft. [2:16:40] Did any of you understand that? [2:16:43] Say it again? [2:16:44] I have to. [2:16:46] They say in the kingdom of God, you never have to be disloyal to one to prove your loyalty to another. [2:16:53] To require that of anyone is control and manipulation, which is the most basic form of witchcraft. [2:16:59] Okay. [2:17:00] I think he's making the point. [2:17:01] Here about ultra nationalism. [2:17:03] The idea that it doesn't have to be like endless devotional loyalty to one thing, and you can't ever be loyal to another thing. [2:17:11] Maybe that's it. [2:17:12] That may be. [2:17:14] This one from Greek Archaeo. [2:17:16] Andrew Wilson. [2:17:17] Smart, smart, smart. [2:17:18] Hmm. [2:17:19] Emperor Fat Ass Dog says, if Adam of Trump is a fascist, why would he allow his daughter to marry a Jew? [2:17:27] Make that make sense. [2:17:29] I don't think fascism has to be anti-Semitic. [2:17:32] In fact, Trump actually justifies a lot of his authoritarianism with cracking down on anti-Semitism to violate people's free speech rights. [2:17:39] I mean, he is right about this is that fascism isn't rooted in anti-Semitism. [2:17:46] It's not rooted in racialism either. [2:17:48] Neither is rooted in either thing. [2:17:51] This one from, by the way, our guests are linked to the description box. [2:17:55] Check them out, including at the podcast. [2:17:57] If you're listening via the podcast, we put our guest links there as well. [2:18:01] This one from Azai Beltran says. [2:18:03] These. [2:18:04] Democrats think and respond like NPCs. [2:18:06] WTF. [2:18:08] I don't see who they're talking about. [2:18:10] Rachel Wilson says, how can Trump be fascist only in rhetoric, but also fascist in how he is using power? [2:18:17] You're like a little contradiction machine. [2:18:20] I don't see the contradiction between being a fascist, both in rhetoric and then how you act on that rhetoric. [2:18:25] But okay. [2:18:26] This one from White Chat says. [2:18:27] Khan, with all respect. [2:18:29] Never mind. [2:18:30] That's weird. [2:18:31] Emperor Fat Ass Dog says. [2:18:32] Why do you have a problem with Democrats being persecuted? [2:18:34] When they literally did the same thing to Trump and his coalition? [2:18:39] Because Trump's own chief of staff has admitted on record that the prosecutions of Letitia James and James Comey were vindictive and they were retribution. [2:18:47] They don't even deny this. [2:18:48] Whereas when you look at the actual prosecutions of Donald Trump under Mayor Garland and Jack Smith, there was a lot of care given to separating political constraints and political interests from the actual procedure of the law being carried out. [2:18:58] But none of that's fascism. [2:19:00] Ancient Waves. [2:19:02] Modern Graves says. [2:19:03] Anything bad said about Trump. [2:19:04] Equals TDS. [2:19:05] But we must microscopically define fascism and be surgically precise. [2:19:06] Otherwise, you're wrong. [2:19:07] Double standard NPCs. [2:19:08] This one from Alejandro Vallejo says. [2:19:09] I'm lost on that one, too. [2:19:10] Yellow Kimi, too. [2:19:11] Says. [2:19:12] I'll give Wilson a hint. [2:19:13] Lefties don't care if he, quote, technically is or isn't fascist. [2:19:14] We care that he is a POS that's making the world worse. [2:19:19] That's fair. [2:19:20] Emperor. [2:19:21] I get it. [2:19:22] But I care about Trump. [2:19:23] I don't care. [2:19:24] I don't care. [2:19:25] I don't care. [2:19:26] I don't care. [2:19:27] I don't care. [2:19:28] I don't care. [2:19:29] I don't care. [2:19:30] I don't care. [2:19:31] I don't care. [2:19:32] I don't care. [2:19:33] I don't care. [2:19:34] I don't care. [2:19:35] I don't care. [2:19:37] I don't care. [2:19:38] Now he's saying that one thing will surely make the world worse. [2:19:39] That's fair. [2:19:40] And I get it, but I care about whether or not you're using morally loaded and morally [2:19:42] charged language to try to put the entire history of horrible things done by an ideology [2:19:48] on people who don't practice the ideology. [2:19:50] I think that that's fucking reprehensible. [2:19:53] So that's what I think. [2:19:57] Emperor Sox says. [2:19:58] I bet Adam wishes he could suck on Andrew Cigarette. [2:20:00] What the. [2:20:01] The Greek archaeology says, what? [2:20:03] Beyond good, unambiguous. [2:20:05] They turned to you. [2:20:06] MP says, for Adam, how weak should America get before you are comfortable with living here and not getting mentally hurt? [2:20:15] I want a strong America where people have health care and good public transportation and a strong rule of law and liberal democratic values as well as progressive economic policy. [2:20:22] Very strong. The strongest. [2:20:25] Superconfeer3000 says, autocracy is system-based, however... [2:20:28] I mean, I know that sounds a lot like America First. [2:20:31] True. [2:20:32] What are you, some kind of nationalist? [2:20:35] I'm a patriot, Andrew. [2:20:36] Are you a nationalist? [2:20:37] I don't think I'm a nationalist, no. [2:20:40] But you're not sure? [2:20:41] I think we should have probably a lot more cooperation with other countries in the UN. [2:20:44] I think we should rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. [2:20:46] We should be entering trade deals to change labor standards. [2:20:47] None of that contradicts nationalism. [2:20:49] The ultra-nationalist rhetoric I wouldn't use. [2:20:52] I wouldn't use nationalist rhetoric or nationalist policy. [2:20:55] You wouldn't use any nationalist policy? [2:20:58] I mean, what are you defining as nationalist policy? [2:21:00] I don't know. I want a strong America. [2:21:02] Well, sure, you can overlap pretty much anything with national policy. [2:21:05] What does a strong America look like? [2:21:08] People having good wages. [2:21:10] And pro-social behavior. [2:21:12] Communities that are strong and connected. [2:21:13] Let me ask you this. [2:21:13] Would you prioritize the welfare, if you were president, of your own people inside your nation [2:21:21] over that of other peoples in other nations? [2:21:24] Of course. [2:21:26] Okay, well, I mean, that just sounds like nationalism to me. [2:21:29] Cool. [2:21:30] This one from MP, parentheses, Jackst556, says, [2:21:33] Sir Adam, how weak should America get before you are comfortable with living here and not getting mentally hurt? [2:21:39] I think I just answered that one. [2:21:40] Oh, I'm sorry. [2:21:41] I'm retarded. [2:21:42] Okay, super. [2:21:43] This is an ever-fat-ass dog, says, [2:21:45] James, you've been watching Jesse Lee Peterson lately, always. [2:21:48] Giovanni, JD, says, [2:21:50] Federalizing the State National Guard is only authoritarian if Khan doesn't like it. [2:21:55] That. [2:21:56] If they're doing it in bad faith. [2:21:59] Whatever the fuck that means. [2:22:00] Which the judge, Karen Emmerget, said that, right? [2:22:03] Because he tried to bring in the California and Texas Guard after she put a TRO on the Portland Guard. [2:22:07] No, no, no. [2:22:07] We were talking about what happened under LBJ. [2:22:11] Right, I'm talking about Trump's. [2:22:12] Yeah, I know, but that's not what he was referencing. [2:22:16] Okay. [2:22:16] Because what we were talking about was when this happened. [2:22:20] I think it was LBJ. [2:22:21] But when this happened during desegregation, the whole idea behind that was like, is that authoritarian? [2:22:28] And you're like, nah, because it wasn't in bad faith. [2:22:31] It's like, all right. [2:22:31] I said it was autocratic in structure, probably, because it's centralizing power to the federal government. [2:22:35] But that's not authoritarian because it's not done in bad faith? [2:22:40] Yeah, exactly. [2:22:41] Okay. [2:22:41] Can I read this one? [2:22:42] This is autocracy. [2:22:43] Autocracy is system-based. [2:22:45] However, authoritarianism relates to controlling society, among other things. [2:22:49] Yes, desegregation was authoritarian. [2:22:54] Yeah, I don't know how it couldn't be. [2:22:56] Like, I don't know how it can be that you can, when I say some forms of authoritarianism can be good. [2:23:04] And then I point out, like, Lincoln fighting the Civil War or something like this and imposing his authority on the South. [2:23:11] And it was like, that wasn't in bad faith. [2:23:13] So to clarify, I think the disconnect here might be that I don't think. [2:23:17] That any instance of the state using its power, even if it's increasing the scale of that power, is going to be inherently authoritarian. [2:23:22] Authoritarianism specifically refers to basically the weaponization of law, of the Constitution, to centralize and consolidate power with the leader. [2:23:31] Yeah, so authoritarianism can be good, then. [2:23:35] What's an example of where it would be good? [2:23:36] Lincoln. [2:23:37] Lincoln going through and burning the whole South down in order to stop slavery. [2:23:40] But did he do that to make himself more powerful or, like, reform an institution? [2:23:43] He did it 100% to make sure that the federal government had jurisdiction. [2:23:47] Over states' rights. [2:23:49] That's a different question. [2:23:51] Yes, to make the office of the United States more powerful. [2:23:55] Yes, it was like his whole stated reason for doing it was to make sure that the United States stayed whole and they became more powerful. [2:24:07] Well, hold on, though. [2:24:07] He actually has an interest there that is in the best interest of the country. [2:24:10] He's not doing it in a selfish way to make himself more powerful. [2:24:14] Yeah, it was to make the United States more powerful. [2:24:16] They were terrified of losing the South because they would lose. [2:24:18] They would lose power. [2:24:19] Yeah, the United States being more powerful. [2:24:23] Yes, they would lose power. [2:24:25] So that's good authoritarianism, right? [2:24:28] I guess if you define authoritarianism as just the exertion of state power, then fine, yeah. [2:24:33] No, I didn't just define. [2:24:34] I'm using your definition here. [2:24:35] Or the expansion of state power? [2:24:37] Yeah, yeah. [2:24:38] The purpose is to gather more authority to your office for the purpose of power itself. [2:24:44] You want more power. [2:24:45] But if you engage with the laws and constitution in good faith to increase the scope and power of the government, [2:24:50] that's very different than trying to undermine those same institutions to accumulate power with yourself. [2:24:55] You could have both sides doing that, though, is the problem. [2:24:58] You could. [2:24:58] And you did during the Civil War. [2:25:00] Both sides thought their interpretation was correct. [2:25:02] The one thought that they had the Tenth Amendment. [2:25:04] The other side thought, nope, you're full of it, right? [2:25:07] Like, both sides are doing this. [2:25:08] I would say the Confederates were probably a little bit more in terms of suppressing, you know, black people and stuff, [2:25:11] which not to say that the North wasn't suppressing women and other minorities, but I think relatively speaking, one was more authoritarian. [2:25:18] Yeah, like when Lincoln said that he would never free. [2:25:20] A single slave, if he thought it would have brought an end to the war and kept the Union whole. [2:25:24] Sure, because he didn't give a shit over racial justice warriors back then. [2:25:27] But, OK, yeah, they didn't care. [2:25:29] This one from do appreciate it. [2:25:31] Jack City says, How does Trump say, say and do one thing, but Adam is able to hear and understand something completely different? [2:25:39] Can Adam use that skill anywhere else? [2:25:42] I would ask the same question to people who have somehow deluded themselves into thinking that everything that Trump says is he's just testing a novel legal theory when he tries to overturn election results. [2:25:51] He's. [2:25:51] He's just listening to the advice of his lawyers when he starts defying courts. [2:25:54] He's he just genuinely thinks that these people who are prosecuting him for crimes he apparently committed are actually deranged, dangerous animals who are enemies of the state and must be put down in the streets like dogs. [2:26:06] I happen to think probably not the best intentions behind that, but I understand something like twenty five to 30 percent of the country disagrees with me on that. [2:26:12] That's fine. [2:26:14] This one from do appreciate it. [2:26:15] Pause in eternity, says. [2:26:16] But Andrew, he's, quote, doing, unquote, the rhetoric he's not doing. [2:26:23] No. [2:26:23] Not he's not doing any of these pillars of rhetoric. [2:26:26] The idea that Trump is doing ultra nationalism is categorically false by my opponent's own admission that Trump he's he's that's why he equivocates. [2:26:35] Right. [2:26:35] He says, no, no, no. [2:26:36] Trump's a nationalist. [2:26:38] He's using ultra ultra nationalistic rhetoric, right? [2:26:42] That's not him enacting ultra nationalistic policy. [2:26:45] And he knows it. [2:26:46] So it's like one of the pillars that holds this whole shit up immediately falls because it makes no sense on its face. [2:26:52] None. [2:26:53] It's just like. [2:26:53] It's it's rhetorical. [2:26:54] It's no action at all. [2:26:56] It's like, no, he's not doing that. [2:26:57] He's not being an ultra nationalist, totally fucking made up. [2:27:01] So one of the key things any regime needs to be able to establish its power is legitimacy. [2:27:05] And oftentimes legitimacy is going to be established by alluding to in the case of fascism, mythical past ultra nationalism, propaganda and communication techniques are perhaps one of the most important parts of how these movements rise. [2:27:16] And that is how he's doesn't show you how Trump's enacting ultra nationalist policy because he's not. [2:27:20] And those are my claim. [2:27:21] Yeah, exactly. [2:27:22] Because because he. [2:27:23] When this guy says the super chatter says, hey, man, you can't actually show us or he is he's showing you the ultra these showing you the policies. [2:27:31] No, he's fucking not. [2:27:33] He's instead saying, well, it's just it's rhetorical. [2:27:36] It's it's there is no policy for ultra nationalism, but he's rhetorically. [2:27:40] No, I said it can be a policy and an ideology as well. [2:27:42] But in the can be. [2:27:43] But is it under Trump? [2:27:44] No. [2:27:46] Yes, true. [2:27:47] No. [2:27:48] This one from do appreciate it. [2:27:50] Alejandro Vallejo says Wilson. [2:27:53] If someone commits. [2:27:54] A horrible act that we call genocide and after we argue and then agree that it, quote, it technically wasn't a genocide, does that make what they did any less bad? [2:28:05] Well done, Adam. [2:28:06] How is that? [2:28:07] Well done. [2:28:08] No, the answer would be no. [2:28:10] But the thing is, is like if you're going to have a debate on whether or not something is a genocide, right, then you better stick to the confines of if it is that thing using morally loaded language post that right is irrelevant, erroneous and has nothing to do with purview. [2:28:26] The debate you're entering into. [2:28:28] You can't be like, well, he thinks this is a genocide. [2:28:31] He doesn't. [2:28:32] They both give their qualifiers. [2:28:33] They both give their historic accounts. [2:28:35] This case, I had one. [2:28:35] He had none. [2:28:37] And you go through all of this. [2:28:38] Right. [2:28:39] And it's never actually established. [2:28:41] But I'm supposed to what? [2:28:42] Just like grant that it is because you really want me to. [2:28:44] Yeah, fuck that. [2:28:45] Fuck that. [2:28:47] You did. [2:28:47] You got it. [2:28:49] Thank you. [2:28:49] No, no, no. [2:28:49] I granted for the sake of argument, even if true X. [2:28:53] But I went on to give a much more coherent and historical argument. [2:28:54] But I went on to give a much more coherent and historical argument. [2:28:55] But I went on to give a much more coherent and historical argument. [2:28:55] But I went on to give a much more coherent and historically based definition [2:28:58] of what fast fascism is and showed exactly how it actually operates. [2:29:03] I went through all of this like none of the shit you said is completely incoherent. [2:29:07] Didn't even make sense. [2:29:09] It's rhetorically fascist. [2:29:10] Does it is nationalist, not an ultra nationalists. [2:29:13] Just fucking nonsense. [2:29:14] It just reduces to nonsense. [2:29:17] Okay. [2:29:17] This one from Matt says, Adam, you're so focused on the schematics of the word [2:29:24] that you never showed. [2:29:25] Why? [2:29:26] Trump's. [2:29:26] Actions were fascist. [2:29:28] Give more examples next time. [2:29:31] I would have loved to. [2:29:32] But Andrew kept granting all of those things for the sake of argument. [2:29:35] And I didn't get to delve into all of them. [2:29:36] I did get to talk about him engaging in bad faith. [2:29:39] I did mention the Supreme Court decision. [2:29:40] There were also a lot of other cases I wish I could have brought up here. [2:29:43] But yes, you could have. [2:29:44] Look, you could have brought all of them up. [2:29:46] I would have granted those two because it still wouldn't have fucking made him a fascist. [2:29:50] See, so the questions for Andrew then there. [2:29:53] Now, the questions for you, if you can make the affirmative claim that this [2:29:57] guy is a fascist and why and why that historic standard would make more sense than mine, why [2:30:01] your definition is more coherent, why it is that all of these things actually work together [2:30:05] to demonstrate that Trump is the thing right now, the best you could come up with is he's [2:30:10] a rhetorical ultra-national is just silly. [2:30:13] My definition allows us to nip fascism in the bud. [2:30:15] And Andrew's definition wants us to wait till the fascists win to call it fascism. [2:30:19] No, his. [2:30:20] Your definition does. [2:30:21] And I'll use the same up speak because all of you destiny clones do this. [2:30:25] What? [2:30:26] Your definition. [2:30:26] What you what you what you people do when you're utilizing your up speak like this. [2:30:31] You're not really making points. [2:30:32] You just want to sound smart. [2:30:33] But here's what's actually going on. [2:30:35] What's actually going on is that he just wants to use morally loaded language. [2:30:39] He's not trying to nip anything in the bud. [2:30:40] It makes absolutely no sense. [2:30:42] It's never made any sense. [2:30:43] And it's never will. [2:30:44] There. [2:30:46] There you go. [2:30:47] Academic up speak. [2:30:48] Ancient Waves. [2:30:49] Modern Graces. [2:30:50] Andrew is a coward. [2:30:51] Trump is fascist. [2:30:52] And it's perfectly fine to admit I voted for it. [2:30:55] You slimy sophist. [2:30:57] This one from Chalk Body Outline says, if Trump is fascist, why are blue haired liberals [2:31:06] allowed to gang stalk ICE? [2:31:08] Because we're in the fourth stage, which is that's the fifth stage is when we start locking [2:31:13] them all up. [2:31:14] Well, someone was shot about ten times on the floor yesterday. [2:31:16] They didn't have blue hair, though, so maybe that doesn't apply to this question. [2:31:19] This one from Edgar. [2:31:20] Oh, Trump did it. [2:31:22] Trump did it. [2:31:23] Says, Andrew, you can call into Matt's show the line. [2:31:29] This one from David Emanuel says. [2:31:32] Hey. [2:31:33] Andrew. [2:31:34] OK. [2:31:35] Oh, I think this I thought it was for real at first. [2:31:37] They say Andrew sucks. [2:31:38] Boo. [2:31:39] Andrew. [2:31:40] Boo. [2:31:41] And right wing Nuck says for Adam, if you had to pick a society to live in, you have [2:31:46] to commit to one. [2:31:47] Is it Rhodesia or Zimbabwe? [2:31:52] I don't know enough about either of those to really make a educated guess on where I'd [2:31:56] rather be. [2:31:58] This one from X says, Khan, I'm trying to understand your argument is your argument [2:32:03] quote. [2:32:04] Someone bumps into you. [2:32:05] In a bar tells you to meet him outside to fight him and you go and he tells you, dude, [2:32:11] I didn't mean literally fight. [2:32:14] No. [2:32:16] This one from human is a rhetorical fight. [2:32:21] Hope Bloom Music says, Adam, make more money reading people's minds, talking to the dead [2:32:26] and revealing people's deepest motivations. [2:32:28] OK, I don't know if that's serious. [2:32:32] This one from Jack City says, Oops, I meant that to Andrew, not Adam. [2:32:37] Oh, sorry about that. [2:32:38] All right. [2:32:39] Let's go back to this one. [2:32:40] Jack City says, OK, so this is for you, Andrew. [2:32:42] They say, how does Trump say and do one thing, but Adam is able to hear and understand something [2:32:46] different? [2:32:47] Can Adam use that skill anywhere else? [2:32:49] Yeah, you can. [2:32:51] The thing is here, though, is that you have to understand that the use of this specifically [2:32:57] is the demonization of opposition in order to put the sins of an ideology which the United [2:33:04] States battled against. [2:33:05] By the way, I battled against third positionists for years. [2:33:08] I understand the ideology inside. [2:33:09] Now it's how I know exactly that Trump is not one. [2:33:12] OK. [2:33:13] In fact, my opponent grants that he has no ideology. [2:33:16] Ultimately, he's not really an ideologue. [2:33:18] He's more of a demagogue from the leftist perspective. [2:33:22] They're literally just trying to put this morally, you know, reprehensible language [2:33:26] on him because then that justifies resisting. [2:33:29] You got to resist the Nazi. [2:33:33] You got to resist the fascist. [2:33:34] I just want to be clear. [2:33:36] I think people should fight like hell or they're not going to have a country anymore, but they [2:33:39] should do so. [2:33:39] Peacefully and patriotically. [2:33:40] John Smith says, Khan, do you think breaking down centralized government power like Trump [2:33:46] is doing is an example of fascism? [2:33:49] How often is he lost at SCOTUS? [2:33:52] Garcia was overturned. [2:33:56] Garcia was overturned and then Trump dragged his feet for two months. [2:33:59] First, he said the Supreme Court actually ruled in our favor. [2:34:02] Then after that, he said we couldn't even bring back Garcia if we wanted. [2:34:06] Then a week later, he did an interview saying, I could bring Garcia back if I wanted to, [2:34:09] but I don't want to bring him back. [2:34:10] And they brought him back. [2:34:11] I think it was in May or June, maybe, on trumped up indictments, which the judge currently [2:34:17] is evaluating whether those were vindictive charges just to punish him. [2:34:22] This one from Joe C. says, Adam, so are you saying that Billy Graham had a better handle [2:34:26] on Jesus' teachings than Jesus himself? [2:34:29] You know, because Billy was a scholar on Jesus' teaching? [2:34:32] This is where, I don't know if it's because I'm a Zoomer, I don't even know who Billy [2:34:35] Graham is. [2:34:36] Maybe that's like a- [2:34:37] Well, he's a mega pastor. [2:34:38] Okay. [2:34:40] So he's asking, is Billy Graham going to be a pastor? [2:34:42] Is Billy Graham going to be the authority on Jesus? [2:34:45] Or do you, would you think that Christians would like look at what Jesus said as being [2:34:49] the authority on Jesus? [2:34:50] For people that believe in Christianity or like observers of Christianity? [2:34:54] Because I would obviously go to people who study theology over like a pastor in terms [2:34:59] of understanding what Christianity is. [2:35:00] Pastors do study theology. [2:35:01] Okay. [2:35:03] Yeah. [2:35:04] Pastors do study theology. [2:35:05] But the thing is- [2:35:06] People who study the theology separate from being with- [2:35:07] But how would a person, how would a person dispute what a pastor says? [2:35:13] What do you mean? [2:35:14] Like if a pastor said, Jesus believed that you should like slap women in the face. [2:35:19] What would the refutation, the average person who's a Christian would, what would they use [2:35:24] to tell the pastor they were incorrect? [2:35:25] That Jesus didn't want that? [2:35:26] Their interpretation of the Bible? [2:35:28] So the source material? [2:35:29] Their interpretation of it? [2:35:31] The source material though? [2:35:32] Yes. [2:35:33] Their interpretation. [2:35:34] Yeah. [2:35:35] So they would, so you would recommend that if they wanted to make these refutations, [2:35:38] they should go to the source material, not appeal to another, like another pastor, right? [2:35:44] They could, they could appeal to an academic who has extrapolated common themes [2:35:48] from the source material to paint a broad picture of what this actually is. [2:35:50] But I would want them to go to multiple sources. [2:35:52] Okay. [2:35:53] Including the, the, the, the original source itself. [2:35:56] Sure. [2:35:57] Yeah. [2:35:59] This from CTC Firebird says, people who keep claiming fascist, Nazi, racist, et cetera, [2:36:07] should look at themselves in the mirror. [2:36:10] I just did. [2:36:11] I had to go pee and I saw myself in the mirror, so. [2:36:13] Jack City says, Andrew doesn't speak English. [2:36:15] He speaks Trump. [2:36:19] This one from Super Flores Brothers says, if Trump is a fascist, why doesn't he have [2:36:23] a silly little mustache? [2:36:25] Checkmate leftist. [2:36:26] Damn. [2:36:27] I actually concede, my bad. [2:36:28] Or scars on his face. [2:36:29] True. [2:36:30] That was a big thing with fascists. [2:36:32] They like to cut each other's face with sabers. [2:36:33] Wow. [2:36:35] That was part of, that was part of the whole ultra nationalism thing. [2:36:39] You gotta be, you gotta be a part of the club, you know? [2:36:42] Right. [2:36:43] This one from, write that down. [2:36:46] Cat Man says, question for Adam. [2:36:48] Would you not look to Marx to define Marxism? [2:36:51] Why not do the same with fascism? [2:36:53] I actually think that Robert Paxton addresses this in his essay where he says that fascism [2:36:56] should not really be considered an ism in the same way that Marxism and liberalism are, [2:37:00] specifically because fascists are not great authorities on what their actual motivations [2:37:05] are. [2:37:06] They're always going to dress up their motivations in morally righteous and propagandized language. [2:37:10] And it's important to sort of zoom out. [2:37:12] I would say if you're looking at like Marxist states- [2:37:13] Yeah, so will everybody in every ideology. [2:37:15] Right. [2:37:16] If you're looking at like totalitarian left states, in that situation, I would say, don't [2:37:20] really go so much to Marx, go to the instances of like Stalin and Lenin, all these people, [2:37:24] and look for the commonalities there. [2:37:25] Can you name a single ideology where people aren't doing that? [2:37:28] Aren't doing what? [2:37:30] Aren't dressing up the language and consistencies and things like this that you just cited? [2:37:34] I don't understand what you're asking me right now. [2:37:37] When you just responded to the Super Chatter, you told the Super Chatter that it's not an [2:37:42] ism. [2:37:43] Can you explain again why it shouldn't be looked at as an ism? [2:37:47] Well, you know, if you look at Marx and says that fascism, their stated goals often [2:37:49] don't align with how they actually end up governing and how they actually conceive of [2:37:52] their power and their role as government. [2:37:54] Can you name any ideology that that's not the case of? [2:37:59] Probably like democratic liberalism, things that focus on negative rights, because in [2:38:03] violating those, it's going to be pretty clear when that takes place, whereas the entire [2:38:06] purpose of fascism is to mask the ugly truth with socially acceptable and popular language. [2:38:11] It's the whole point of the propaganda. [2:38:12] That's every ism I can think of, including liberalism. [2:38:15] Not necessarily. [2:38:16] There's not a single one that's not a prey to that very same thing happening. [2:38:21] Liberalism doesn't necessitate propaganda. [2:38:22] I don't think Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were propagandizing the way that Donald Trump [2:38:26] is. [2:38:27] Yes, it does. [2:38:28] What do you tell you? [2:38:29] Liberal, of course, liberalism is part of propaganda. [2:38:30] We use propaganda all over the world. [2:38:33] Liberal nations use propaganda all over the world. [2:38:36] Well, if you're talking about us invading other countries and settling in them- [2:38:39] No, I'm talking about exporting value structures, democracy. [2:38:45] Democracy is the greatest structure on earth. [2:38:46] That's propaganda. [2:38:47] But the whole point of liberalism is that the powers that be have to be falsifiable, [2:38:51] right? [2:38:52] If you win an election, you can lose the next one. [2:38:53] There is a structure built into that which allows for power not to consolidate and freeze [2:38:57] up somewhere. [2:38:58] That has no bearing at all on whether or not people can utilize- [2:38:59] Whereas in fascism, the concentration of power is one of the central goals, and it needs [2:39:03] to be concealed with appeals to propagandistic language. [2:39:06] It doesn't need to be concealed. [2:39:08] That's silly. [2:39:09] Well, they stop concealing it once they win, so- [2:39:11] No, it doesn't even need to be concealed in its outset. [2:39:14] A lot of times, actually, fascists were demonstrating that. [2:39:16] Yeah. [2:39:17] They were demonstrating that they wanted power specifically to fix a bunch of issues. [2:39:20] They're not concealing nothing. [2:39:21] Yeah, but they weren't demonstrating their most extreme policies until they actually [2:39:24] were in a position to actually implement them. [2:39:26] Yes, they were. [2:39:27] They always water it down a little bit. [2:39:28] They water it down a little bit- [2:39:29] No, not really. [2:39:30] ... to get their foot in the door. [2:39:31] Which of Mussolini's policies do you think was the most watered down? [2:39:35] I'm not familiar with Mussolini's policy. [2:39:36] Of course, you're not familiar with any of the source material. [2:39:39] Yeah, I've spent the last few days reading a few books and papers on this. [2:39:42] I guess they're just fake or something. [2:39:43] I don't know. [2:39:44] Or they're liberal propaganda. [2:39:45] None of the source material from the actual architects of the world. [2:39:47] The architects of the fascists themselves, though, that watered it down. [2:39:48] People who are qualified enough to interpret the source material because I'm not an- [2:39:51] Yeah, complete appeal to authority. [2:39:52] This guy says so- [2:39:53] I'm not an academic. [2:39:54] I'm not an academic. [2:39:55] What makes what they're saying true, though? [2:39:56] What makes it true from your view? [2:39:57] I'm not saying it's objectively true. [2:39:58] Yeah, but what makes it true from your view? [2:40:01] Just that they say it? [2:40:02] The definition they lay out to me is more useful functionally because a definition of [2:40:06] fascism that is too narrow. [2:40:07] This is why I asked you over versus under inclusive. [2:40:09] I would rather have a definition that is possibly over inclusive than one that is under inclusive [2:40:13] because if you call fascism out too late, you've already lost. [2:40:17] But you can't say-. [2:40:17] You can't say that you would just have a definition that actually fits the thing. [2:40:21] It has to be over inclusive or it's like you could just actually have it fit what it is. [2:40:28] This from Matt says, have you guys watched Breaking Bad? [2:40:31] Do you like it? [2:40:33] I have and I do. [2:40:34] I love it. [2:40:36] Top three shows for sure. [2:40:37] It's a great show. [2:40:38] Best show of all time. [2:40:39] I think it was voted one of the best shows ever in the history of TV. [2:40:44] I have a hot take that Ozark is better, but Breaking Bad is super good too. [2:40:48] Ozark's not better than Breaking Bad. [2:40:50] Ozark is amazing. [2:40:51] It's not better than Breaking Bad. [2:40:51] We'll do a second debate on that. [2:40:53] This one from Sean McDonald says, wasn't enough humor. [2:40:57] Making arguments form authority isn't an argument. [2:41:00] Adam has pushed me into the no camp. [2:41:03] Thanks. [2:41:05] You're welcome. [2:41:07] This one from Mario says, Adam, does Trump know he's a fascist? [2:41:13] Does this mean does Trump think he's a fascist? [2:41:17] I don't know. [2:41:18] I think he probably conceives himself as an authoritarian. [2:41:20] Come on, dude. [2:41:21] You just said earlier he doesn't have ideology. [2:41:24] You're not sure if he conceives himself as a fascist. [2:41:27] I said he conceives himself as an authoritarian. [2:41:29] Yeah. [2:41:31] That's not the question you were asked. [2:41:32] You were asked if he conceives himself as a fascist. [2:41:33] Right. [2:41:34] Then I gave the actual answer. [2:41:35] Do you? [2:41:36] Probably not. [2:41:37] Do you honestly? [2:41:38] Yeah. [2:41:39] No. [2:41:40] Probably not. [2:41:41] No. [2:41:42] No. [2:41:43] Just say no. [2:41:44] You don't think Trump believes he's a fascist. [2:41:45] Come on. [2:41:46] Okay, Andrew. [2:41:47] No. [2:41:48] There you go. [2:41:49] It's just like, why do I have to pull these fucking things out of you? [2:41:50] I just got to pull them out like I'm pulling out a rotten tooth. [2:41:52] This one from Fresh. [2:41:53] This one just came in from Alejandro Vallejo. [2:41:54] Says. [2:41:56] Wilson says, quote, using morally charged words to attack your opposition is disgusting, [2:42:01] but proceeds to use an extremely vague and inappropriate definition of authoritarianism [2:42:06] to attack opposing viewpoints. [2:42:09] Which one? [2:42:10] Which? [2:42:11] Which definition did I use? [2:42:12] Which was nebulous or vague? [2:42:13] Oh, authoritarianism. [2:42:14] They say. [2:42:15] Which? [2:42:16] Which? [2:42:17] Yeah. [2:42:18] Which? [2:42:19] Which definition did I use? [2:42:21] Which was nebulous or vague? [2:42:22] Okay. [2:42:23] Zach Galpry says, mustache man outlined everything he wanted to do before he got power [2:42:28] in the book he wrote in prison. [2:42:30] Yeah. [2:42:35] He did. [2:42:36] He wrote a book. [2:42:37] What was it? [2:42:38] My journey or whatever. [2:42:39] Mein Kampf. [2:42:40] So the thing is, is like, and it's not just him. [2:42:42] You see this in fascist Italy too. [2:42:44] And it's like this idea that you have to hide your power level is fucking ridiculous. [2:42:50] This is ridiculous. [2:42:51] You can correct me if I'm wrong. [2:42:52] Did Hitler like openly advocate from the beginning of his political career for the Enabling Act? [2:42:58] I'm not sure. [2:42:59] Okay. [2:43:00] And I'm genuinely asking. [2:43:01] I'm not trying to make a point there. [2:43:02] I'm just saying that Hitler, even though the authoritarian power grabs were kind of [2:43:04] safe for once he had made alliances in the military and had kind of the coverage to do [2:43:08] that. [2:43:09] Well, I don't think in the beginning that Hitler was looking for war with Europe. [2:43:14] I don't think that that was the stated goal. [2:43:16] He wanted the reconciliation of Germany. [2:43:19] But I don't think that he wanted to have an expansive, massive war. [2:43:23] He stated early on, especially with England, he didn't want one. [2:43:26] So I think that if there was things which were done during his war powers, he might [2:43:32] have, he may not indeed have meant for those, but he himself may not have known that, hey, [2:43:38] these are things that I'm going to be going for if there's, if I'm imbued with war powers, [2:43:43] right? [2:43:45] Sure. [2:43:46] This one, do appreciate it. [2:43:48] Sean McDonald says, making arguments from authority isn't an argument. [2:43:52] Adam has pushed me. [2:43:53] Oh, sorry about that. [2:43:54] I thought it loaded. [2:43:58] This one from, okay, they're just not loading. [2:44:00] Giovanni JD says, Khan making a massive philosophical error. [2:44:04] Definition. [2:44:05] Definitions are not prescriptions. [2:44:07] They are used to identify and refer to an actual thing. [2:44:10] Yeah. [2:44:12] And definitions are essentially referring to constructs and there's never going to be [2:44:16] full consensus in what those constructs are. [2:44:17] There's going to be more consensus in the hard sciences, I think. [2:44:20] But when it comes to social sciences, the definitions are one of the most highly debated [2:44:23] topics in the entire field. [2:44:24] So I'm not going to pretend like I'm an academic here. [2:44:26] Well, well, hang on, hang on though. [2:44:29] Do you agree that in order for a definition to be useful, it needs to be pointing at something, [2:44:34] right? [2:44:35] Which is generally descriptively true experiential or the question, hang on, hang on experientially. [2:44:44] The question is with what level of specificity is it pointing? [2:44:47] Is it pointing in a general direction? [2:44:48] And like, if so, how granular is it getting in identifying the thing it's defined? [2:44:52] I don't think it needs to be granular or a hyper specific, but I do, but I do think that [2:44:58] definitions generally rely on pillars and literally that like the deaf and the ends, [2:45:03] right? [2:45:04] They, they rely on pillars. [2:45:05] Yeah. [2:45:06] They really make the case of what it is that they're defining. [2:45:09] And I think in this particular case, when you have in sociology, especially when we're [2:45:13] talking about historical political movements, that that's going to rely heavily on historic [2:45:19] accuracy and historic definitions, especially if the architects themselves. [2:45:25] This one from Josie 2432 says, Khan, if I said that I was going to unalive the whole [2:45:34] chat, does that make me the most prolific serial killer? [2:45:37] Rhetorically? [2:45:39] Do you think rhetorical serial killing is a thing? [2:45:41] Why not? [2:45:43] Why can't it be serial killing is almost always an action. [2:45:48] It's pure act. [2:45:51] Serial killing. [2:45:52] Yeah. [2:45:53] Yeah. [2:45:54] I know. [2:45:55] It's like, it's almost like there's almost like not everything is the same thing. [2:45:57] It's like, it's like different characteristics. [2:45:59] It's like, it's like when the, the, the early fascist set whose whole philosophy was pure [2:46:04] act, literally that's his whole philosophy, his philosophical outlook of pure act actually [2:46:10] meant. [2:46:11] Pure act. [2:46:13] That's crazy. [2:46:14] Kind of like in this case with the chat that that would be now you can't be like a rhetorical [2:46:20] fascist, right? [2:46:22] You're either a fascist or you're not. [2:46:23] The difference is that even you agree with me that ultra nationalism can be a rhetorical [2:46:26] and propagandistic strategy. [2:46:28] I'm not aware of anything called rhetorical serial killing. [2:46:30] Maybe there's something like that. [2:46:31] What I agreed with is that it's true that ultra nationalists use propaganda, but I was [2:46:37] saying that you could have an ultra nationalist state absent propaganda. [2:46:40] Sure. [2:46:41] I agree with that. [2:46:42] And then agreed. [2:46:43] Exactly. [2:46:44] No, you can have an ultra national estate in terms of policy. [2:46:46] I'm referring to propaganda and messaging used to justify power graph. [2:46:48] Yeah. [2:46:49] So it's not, it's not a necessary condition and you, you haven't met any necessary depends [2:46:53] on what iteration of the word you're using. [2:46:55] It can be an ideology. [2:46:56] It can be the correct one. [2:46:57] It is an ideology, fascism and communism, and all of these are ideologies. [2:47:02] It's it's listen, it's stupid that these people try to convince you, you, the audience [2:47:08] that fascism is not a historic ideology. [2:47:10] Yeah. [2:47:11] It's an ideology that has real pillars that hold it up because it does. [2:47:16] They're just like, Nope, this is my definition. [2:47:18] He's a rhetorical author, national rhetorical ultra-nationalists and fucking ridiculous. [2:47:23] It's ridiculous. [2:47:24] This one from pause in eternity says the fact that the word fascism is debated so hotly [2:47:32] around Trump is proof. [2:47:34] The word is clearly weaponized. [2:47:35] It's damaging enough to be arguing it at all. [2:47:39] Yeah. [2:47:40] So if you actually watch my content, I almost 99.9% of the time just called Trump an authoritarian. [2:47:45] And specifically because there's so much baggage associated with the word fascism that [2:47:49] it's almost never worth getting down to the nitty gritty when you can just use the word [2:47:52] like right-wing authoritarianism, like fascistic authoritarianism. [2:47:55] And I'll give you credit for that, right? [2:47:58] But I did see you, I mean, I have watched some videos where you get, you dive into why [2:48:02] you think Trump is a fascist, right? [2:48:04] And I'm not even saying that all of this is unreasoned. [2:48:06] I'm not saying that they're just saying it's bad reasoning and it doesn't comport with [2:48:11] descriptive reality of what we're actually trying to get out here. [2:48:14] And so ultimately when we're talking about this, when we're talking about fascism, right? [2:48:21] The contextualization is so important and why this debate is so important is because [2:48:26] I want the fucking left to stop calling everything fascist that they don't like. [2:48:32] Because what it does is if there really was a march towards fascism, like an actual one, [2:48:37] it's going to be completely delegitimized by the fact that these fuckers don't even [2:48:40] know what it is. [2:48:41] No. [2:48:42] So I've talked about this as well on my channel, especially during live. [2:48:44] Is that people that have been calling like Barack Obama a fascist and Joe Biden a fat, [2:48:48] like people that have been using this word for anyone they don't like, they have now [2:48:51] put people in the position where they can never use that word without half the country [2:48:55] going, well, you're exaggerating as always. [2:48:56] It's like the, the boy who cried wolf or whatever. [2:48:59] So I think in terms of colloquial, I think colloquially speaking, it's, it's like a almost [2:49:04] useless because no two people are going to agree fully on what it means, but it's the [2:49:07] same thing with Nazi. [2:49:08] This is a big, big problem. [2:49:09] Like that should be reserved for actual Nazis. [2:49:13] True. [2:49:14] They should. [2:49:15] I agree. [2:49:16] Because if it's not the meaning of the thing is completely displaced. [2:49:21] And like, you know, that used to be a really effective thing for you guys or it will actually [2:49:26] for everybody. [2:49:27] If they said, this guy's a Nazi, I used to hold a lot of weight. [2:49:31] Now it fucking doesn't. [2:49:32] Okay. [2:49:33] Now it doesn't hold any, they just call everybody a fucking Nazi. [2:49:37] This one from Jax said, answer my question distinctly young man, how weak do you want [2:49:45] your own country to be before you're comfortable? [2:49:48] It's no longer fascist. [2:49:49] I don't know what he wants me to say. [2:49:52] The weakest ever the weakest of all time. [2:49:55] This one from Lord loss 120 says definitions are descriptors, meaning they describe something. [2:50:01] If they over encompass and are overly broad. [2:50:05] They're not describing that thing. [2:50:06] And the same could be said if they under encompass and don't include everything that ought to [2:50:11] be included, and again, I'm not claiming I've solved the debate that has existed in academia [2:50:16] for decades and have been achieved. [2:50:17] Wow. [2:50:18] case now. I'm just saying that I think that my definition is probably more useful in practical [2:50:21] terms to identify when fascists are rising up into power. And my fundamental disagreement at [2:50:27] its crux is that they're identifying things which are associated with other things that aren't [2:50:34] fascism much more than they're identifying anything which is a pillar to fascism, chiefly [2:50:39] things like corporatism, things like the ultranationalism, which would be a required [2:50:44] pillar, things like this that you actually probably should be on the lookout for. They [2:50:50] don't do that. Instead, they use the nebulous nature of authoritarianism, which for him, [2:50:56] in order to avoid calling things authoritarian, he has to add bad faith, which is terrible. [2:51:01] By the way, that in and of itself is terrible rhetoric, but it's terrible for a definition [2:51:05] too. Bad faith meaning what? Oh, I think they're lying. It's like, okay, now we're going to [2:51:10] attribute intent here with whether or not the person's policy is good or bad. [2:51:15] Because of how they meant it, it's like, nah, man, that's not how it works. And not only that, [2:51:19] the thing that's really silly about it is I didn't give something which is under-encompassing. [2:51:24] I gave a much more encompassing definition and a historically based accurate view for the [2:51:31] philosophy of fascism. It's much more encompassing than his, much, much more. [2:51:36] I think the bottom line is that when Andrew uses the word fascist and when I use the word fascist, [2:51:40] we are referring to different constructs underlying that word. [2:51:42] Yeah, mine is referencing fascism. His is referencing some [2:51:45] bullshit. That's circular, but okay. [2:51:47] This one from, let me just double check. I think that's, oh, thanks for your last minute super [2:51:53] chat. Appreciate that, X. It says, Adam, by your definition of fascism, you have to qualify every [2:52:00] single person a fascist in order not to, quote unquote, under-qualify them and to be safe. [2:52:08] Can you elaborate in pre-labeling people, quote, to stop fascists before they gain governmental [2:52:15] control? [2:52:16] So, number one, I'm not advocating for labeling anything. Like, I very rarely call Trump a [2:52:21] fascist. I think he is one, but I don't think it's a hill that I want to die on in terms of [2:52:25] just debating over and over again, what does this mean? I think authoritarianism colloquially is [2:52:29] going to get across a lot of these same tenets, especially if you say like right-wing authoritarianism [2:52:33] or ultra-national authoritarianism. But in terms of being under-over-encompassing, I think the [2:52:37] issue here also is that people assume that fascism is like some kind of static end state. And I'm [2:52:42] describing fascism as more of a process that oftentimes does not have to win, right? The stage [2:52:47] by Robert Paxton exists in almost every democracy. [2:52:49] Yeah, but this doesn't actually answer to what he's saying. He's saying if you truly believe that you [2:52:54] should have an over-encompassing definition, if you really wanted to be consistent with that, then [2:53:00] why not start everybody out as a fascist until proven otherwise? [2:53:03] Well, I don't think my definition is over-encompassing. I'm saying that if we're trying to get very [2:53:07] granular on like where exactly is the line, I would rather be over-encompassing than under-encompassing. [2:53:11] Yeah, but how is mine super granular or more hyper-specific than your own? It's not. [2:53:17] It encompasses a much broader avenue for the actual ideology. [2:53:21] It necessitates ideology such that someone could literally copy every single thing in terms of [2:53:26] behavior, but if they don't necessarily believe it ideologically, you probably wouldn't want to [2:53:29] call them a fascist, right? Even if all the harms they're inflicting on society are the same. [2:53:33] No, if they are moving for those tenets of corporatism and things like this, [2:53:40] right? And then just said, oh, I'm not a fascist. Yeah, I'd be like, nah, man, you're a fascist. [2:53:45] But then those are all encompassing- I thought you said it's [2:53:47] ideology. It is ideology. [2:53:49] What if they're genuinely- that's not their ideology. They just happen to be doing that [2:53:53] stuff for other reasons that are unconnected. How could you do corporatism absent ideology? [2:53:56] Just accidentally? I'm saying what if fascism [2:53:59] isn't their ideology for doing corporatism? What if someone checks all the boxes behaviorally that [2:54:05] you would consider fascist, but their underlying ideology is not this Giovanni Gentile definition [2:54:10] that you like using in terms of why they're doing it? Oh, well then there would be some [2:54:14] sort of authoritarianism that we would attribute to that. That's not fascism. [2:54:17] Would you at least say- [2:54:17] Fascistic authoritarian in that situation? But I'm not sure. I don't think because it's [2:54:22] so rooted in a philosophy, I actually don't think you could get to it without ideology, [2:54:27] actual fact. I don't even think it's possible. Okay. We disagree. I think it's more of an [2:54:31] emergent social phenomenon. I don't believe either in this great man theory that what one guy believes [2:54:35] is going to dictate everything. These things spring up organically through changing variables within [2:54:39] countries and the political sensibilities and also grievances of the population. [2:54:43] Which ones? Which countries did they organically spring up in? They were all ideologies, [2:54:47] which were designed to counter other ideologies. There's nothing fucking organic about them at all. [2:54:51] Hold on. Did they not have to actually build a base organically in the populace? [2:54:54] That has nothing to do with whether or not these things popped up organically. They were [2:54:58] based on ideology. Communism's based on ideology. Who cares if it had an organically growing base? [2:55:03] It's not that it pops up in a binary way, but it's growth and it's instituting itself into [2:55:08] the wheels of government is going to happen through actually expanding the base that's [2:55:12] going to be standing behind it. That's just pure sophistry. You just got done saying, [2:55:16] hey, wait a second, man. I think, man, I think this is going to happen. I think this is going to happen. [2:55:17] I think this is going to happen. I think this is going to happen. I think this is going to happen. [2:55:17] I think this is going to happen. I think that these things can just organically pop up. [2:55:20] And I'm like, no, they really don't. All of these cases were ideological responses to other [2:55:26] ideologies. And you're like, oh, no, but not the base, though. That was organic. [2:55:29] Hold on. Even ideological responses can pop up organically in response to variables, right? So [2:55:34] reactionary ideology is typically going to pop up after periods of intense social liberalization, [2:55:39] or opening up of society, or changing of social cultural norms. That's all I'm saying. [2:55:43] Yeah, these things were not organic, though. Do you agree with that? [2:55:46] What do you think I mean by that? [2:55:47] What do you think I mean by organic? [2:55:48] Like they somehow like something akin to spontaneous, maybe? [2:55:54] No, I'm saying that they arise as a natural result of the circumstances within which they exist. [2:56:00] Like there are certain circumstances within which fascism probably wouldn't work. I think [2:56:05] Paxton talks about how fascism in the UK was not able to succeed because the conservatives already [2:56:11] had such a strong majority that the appeal of fascism was not as strong as it would be if the [2:56:17] left had power. [2:56:18] Ideologically. [2:56:18] In terms of sentiment, which under undergirds the movement, I mean. [2:56:22] No, it was just ideologically didn't take root. [2:56:24] I guess the reason I take issue with the word ideology is ideology to me feels like a very [2:56:28] formalized set of doctrine. Maybe you just mean ideology is like how people kind of feel about [2:56:34] stuff. [2:56:34] No, it's a very, in this case, it's a very consistent formal doctrine. Fascism is a very [2:56:41] consistent formal doctrine that's based on a philosophy called idealism. [2:56:45] Yeah, I don't agree with that. [2:56:47] But how do you? Oh, yeah, you don't. [2:56:49] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [2:56:50] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [2:56:51] That's a yeah. No, I'm [2:57:00] not familiar with Idealism. Yeah, so how the do you even know? Like how do you even know that? How [2:57:04] do you even know that these tenets? [2:57:08] This is a Category error. I don't think fascism is an ideology. In the first place? That's not a [2:57:10] category error. Regardless, yeah, that's not what that word is. That's not what category error you're [2:57:14] saying. It's in the category of ideological doctrine. I'm saying it's in the category of [2:57:20] sociopolitical movements. Wait a second. Do you believe that fascism is an ideology also, at least? [2:57:21] Probably. Yeah. Then how can I be making from you on that as well, David? [2:57:22] a category error because you're trying to project how you define fascism onto me which has been the [2:57:27] theme of like the last three hours but but that wouldn't be a category error in terms of how i [2:57:33] define it it would be right no it's still in the category because you say it's both it's both [2:57:38] categories okay but no it wouldn't be a category i'm discussing it it's not but okay this one [2:57:46] but it still is even in the context you're discussing it it has to be it's both still [2:57:50] even in your context right not in the context i've been discussed i didn't talk about ideology [2:57:55] at all in this debate i opened my statement by saying it's not an ideology it's not a doctrine [2:58:00] yeah but how i believe that it is so i can't i can't be making a category error there can be [2:58:04] ideology that naturally leads to fascism forming but that doesn't mean that it has to be the only [2:58:09] way for fascism to pop up that's the issue i'm taking with this yeah but that wouldn't be a [2:58:13] category error is my point and so not only that right not to not to harp on this like a pedant [2:58:18] but it is actually important and the other thing to point out [2:58:21] here is that yeah these are ideologically driven you don't even understand the ideology behind [2:58:26] them so like how the fuck would you even know that idealism the idea of uh of ultra nationalism [2:58:32] what they meant by the state how giovanni gentile and how mussolini engaged with these what the [2:58:37] third position is like you don't know any of that shit you literally are just appealing to some [2:58:40] academic who says here's what i think it is an academic who i'm gonna guess knows more about [2:58:45] all those things than you but that's probably also an appeal to authority i'm guessing and [2:58:48] academics just don't matter they're just liberal propaganda or whatever so that's fine [2:58:51] this one from matt says andrew do you believe nick fuentes is a fascist uh no lord law says bad [2:58:59] descriptors need mean bad definitions darth grumpy dad says the reason this commie is afraid of trump [2:59:09] being fascist is because fascists throw commies out of helicopters it is true someone should tell [2:59:16] the commies that i'm a commie because they think i'm like a neo-liberal capitalist show or whatever [2:59:20] so that's fascist generally speaking yeah they they tend to kill off communists that is true [2:59:25] there is no [2:59:26] ifs ands or buts about that they they tend to do that because um it's it's it is reactionary [2:59:33] towards communism ultimately there is a it is reactionary ultimately uh i would i would say [2:59:38] and so um yeah they they do tend to kill communists there's no doubt about that [2:59:43] bk finest says adam is rhetorical nationalism nationalism and abstract meaning subjective [2:59:51] parentheses is all about my feelings or concrete meaning objective [2:59:57] namely points historic movements absent my feelings or can you say i hate trump i can say both so first [3:00:07] of all i do hate trump but then secondarily i would say that when i speak about rhetorical [3:00:10] ultranationalism what i'm getting at is the illusion again regimes build legitimacy a lot [3:00:16] of times by using specific rhetoric to justify or manufacture consent for the actions they are [3:00:22] taking ultranationalism can be a very lucrative way to do that because people love their country [3:00:27] if you can take a look at it and say i hate trump i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate [3:00:28] him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him i hate him [3:00:28] advantage of that and take it to an extreme you can start justifying a lot of extreme actions [3:00:32] because listen this is what we have to do for for our nation yeah but again i just consider all that [3:00:38] sophistry i think that what he's getting at there he's just saying i think that every ideology does [3:00:44] this they all make appeals uh to various things which they want to institute and utilize propaganda [3:00:50] for the things that they want to institute and it's like the thing here about ultranationalism [3:00:55] and he says rhetorical ultranationalism it doesn't really give us any specific [3:00:59] specifics about ultranational he says a zero-sum game but then concedes there could be [3:01:02] ultranationalism without a zero-sum game i was like i don't know how we even get to any of these [3:01:08] specifics because ultranationalism historically has nothing to do with it it has to do with the [3:01:14] body of the state being the the loyalty embargo meaning you and your population you owe your [3:01:20] loyalty first and foremost to the state and the state takes precedent over all other priorities [3:01:26] that's ultranationalism not i put it in the book i put it in the book i put it in the book i put it [3:01:29] my nation first that's not ultranational is america first an ultranationalist slogan to you nope [3:01:34] okay then i can demonstrate it i'll demonstrate it just ask him but sure hang on i'll demonstrate it [3:01:38] very quickly nationalism is putting your nation above other nations that would be america first [3:01:45] the same thing that you just claimed you wanted to do when i asked you would you put your people [3:01:50] group in your country before other countries your answer yes so how could that be ultra-nationalists [3:01:56] it couldn't because you're not an ultra-nationalist i was just asking because it sounded [3:01:59] like right before that you said that ultra nationalism is when you want to put your country [3:02:02] above but maybe i misheard you no very specifically and i've given this definition like 80 times [3:02:07] right so if you clip it out of context and make you look stupid but here's what i what i actually [3:02:11] said okay here's what i actually said what i actually said was uh nationalism is you putting [3:02:18] your country before other countries ultra nationalism is that there's no priority from [3:02:25] the people's perspective or governments or corporations which transcends the interest [3:02:29] of the state that is ultra nationalism this one from do appreciate it michael taylor says the biden [3:02:37] admin threatened social media companies to punish american citizens for wrong think on behalf of the [3:02:44] state quite possibly the most fascist thing you can do and the left defended it because quote it's [3:02:49] okay when we do it uh this is just not true the biden administration made requests to social media [3:02:55] companies about hey can you take down this ivermectin disinformation or something and in [3:02:59] many cases the companies said no and there was no legal repercussion there [3:03:02] juxtapose that with trump who is actually threatening these companies he has um what's [3:03:07] his uh press secretary's name i'm carolyn levitt she's calling cbs saying upload this interview [3:03:12] unedited or we're going to sue your ass off and where trump is forcing companies basically to [3:03:17] settle lawsuits with him to get merger approvals that seems a lot more fascistic to me than the [3:03:21] biden had been making requests this one from joe c says khan you missed the logical point if all a [3:03:33] it doesn't mean all b is a all fascists may be authoritarian but the reverse not so much right [3:03:42] authoritarianism is not fascism i agree techno hippie says which do you mean by fascism one [3:03:50] a doctrine two a power structure three a behavioral tool kit or four a psychological disposition [3:03:59] a behavioral toolkit used to establish a power structure yeah and so i think that it's a doctrine [3:04:06] of power structure at a systemic level and that the ideology that that it is in fact an ideology [3:04:15] i've i haven't seen any instances of any spontaneity for this ideology it's a reasoned [3:04:20] ideology which relies on a philosophy of idealism and it's very important that you note that my [3:04:27] opponent said that trump from his view has no ideals he's not an idealist at all i did give a [3:04:33] couple examples of ideals that he has but i said broadly speaking broadly speaking he's not he's not [3:04:37] an idealist and understand that i'm not going to equivocate here and try to say that idealism the [3:04:42] philosophy is the same as me asking if trump is an idealist we're asking about the commons there [3:04:48] versus a philosophical standard but what i am pointing out to you is that idealism itself [3:04:55] is a reasoned out philosophical position which is then uh that's what's juxtasupposed into the [3:05:02] ideals of fascism itself and this is the the big the big issue that i have [3:05:08] um and my opponent just he just doesn't know anything about fascism he the whole thing is [3:05:13] just an appeal to some guy it's just an appeal to some guy but he's white guys on the street [3:05:18] he's a widely regarded guy though so it's not an appeal to authority fallacy it's not [3:05:24] this one from straight shot says to andrew are all fascists anti-christian in all cases no okay [3:05:33] and then like uh musa mussolini uh was not uh anti-christian the [3:05:39] kind of thing that uh musa musa must have been he was a fan of the catholic church [3:05:44] so that's why he was a fan of the catholic church and interestingly enough was one of [3:05:47] the first nations to implement miscegenation because he wasn't a racialist he believed that [3:05:51] race was purely a social construct he thought that it was more feelings based than it was [3:05:57] based around the idea that's where you get the idea of cultural nationalism by the way cultural [3:06:01] nationalism comes from this idea of shared culture rather than shared racial values so the third [3:06:06] position is very interesting that way and it did reconcile a lot of the incoherencies on the right [3:06:09] challenging it you know like me this one from chalk body outline says he thinks liberalism [3:06:15] doesn't need propaganda and that's why he appeals to liberal propaganda disguised as an expert [3:06:21] damn got me dk finest says adam you think robert paxton is your god don't answer the question [3:06:31] it's rhetorical this from matt this is uh they say andrew can you elaborate thoughts on nick [3:06:40] fuentes namely why he's not a fascist uh because he doesn't believe he's not a corporatist [3:06:46] um and he doesn't he doesn't believe in the framework of idealism he believes in the framework [3:06:53] of catholic hierarchy and so what what fuentes is doing you might say he's he's he's a theocrat i [3:06:59] think that he might even accept that or if he you know uh some some form of theocracy perhaps [3:07:05] though i'm not even sure he advocates for that uh but the reason he doesn't fall into the category [3:07:10] for fascism is because he's not a fascist [3:07:11] is because there's no corporatism there's no idealism he's not making the uh that genetic [3:07:17] appeal that i that i spoke about before right i can't remember the word off the top of my head [3:07:21] sorry about that palogenetic yeah he's not making a palogenetic appeal he would he just literal [3:07:26] throwback right no it's not it's not taking that necessarily informing something new um and i'm not [3:07:33] sure that i would even consider him to be an ultra nationalist in the sense that he wants all loyalty [3:07:39] to go through the state i would [3:07:41] say instead that he's more of what i would consider an ethno-nationalist i think he falls [3:07:45] better under the criteria of ethno-nationalism uh than he would fascism you got it thank you very [3:07:53] much for this one from rachel wilson says democrat president woodrow wilson used the phrase america [3:08:01] first in 1915 for his campaign slogan was he also a fascist i don't know much about woodrow wilson [3:08:08] but i'm going to say probably not i'd have to read more about him was that fascist rhetoric [3:08:14] himself no okay you got it let's see i think we're caught up this one from [3:08:19] strange mentality paper youtube says andrew how many times do you have to be told by your [3:08:28] opponents that your tactics attitude and behavior are making a mockery of the debate discipline [3:08:33] before you start to consider it's true well i mean in this particular case i don't i don't think we [3:08:40] were particularly unpleasant to each other i had fun yeah did you did you feel like i was [3:08:45] unpleasant to you [3:08:46] you did [3:08:47] a snarky fuck but that's fair enough it was all in good fun for me at least so yeah but i mean [3:08:52] i mean wait a second exactly wait a second though uh you called me a name too just so you know i [3:08:57] don't remember what it was but just probably yeah but i'm i'm like i'm not upset he's spaghetti [3:09:02] about that i don't i don't feel like this was a particularly unpleasant exchange or that there [3:09:06] was uh tactics here which were untoward or anything like that i feel like i was completely good faith [3:09:11] and explained that i had i also had uh a burden of proof in an affirmative position took an [3:09:18] affirmative position i didn't just pepper you but you know so i don't i don't know what the [3:09:22] fuck they're talking i i think it's just like nobody's ever going to be fucking good enough [3:09:25] for whatever the standards are that these fucking people have so fuck them [3:09:28] that's what i think fuck them this was you leftist fuck you leftist chatter not you [3:09:37] i'm not even a leftist i don't take it personally the chatter this was a fantastic debate i i wanted [3:09:42] to go longer for the [3:09:43] open dialogue because it's so good i was like i can't i don't want to meddle i just want this is [3:09:47] so good folks check out our guest links in the description box you've listened this long [3:09:51] there's something valuable from reading or listening to their position straight from them [3:09:57] so check them even if you don't agree with them check them out but want to say thank you adam [3:10:02] and andrew this is a fantastic debate thank you for having us can we get a closing statement now [3:10:07] james yeah that works for me i'll keep mine super brief under two minutes if you do if you want to [3:10:12] do that adam it's up to you [3:10:13] though i'm probably gonna have like 30 seconds i don't really prepare one but god okay well you [3:10:17] get the last word because you had the first open sure that's usually a fair way to go so i'm just [3:10:21] going to point out that there was a ton of contradictions here that i pointed out p and [3:10:25] not p at the same time uh there was a really bizarre exchange which happened towards the [3:10:31] early middle part of the debate um so maybe that's a contradiction early middle i don't think so [3:10:37] though but uh where my opponent was was trying to get me bizarrely enough to [3:10:43] read that if his definition was true would his definition be true or is it the case that if i [3:10:49] conceded that this would mean this ideology is so that it would be so made no sense to me we got [3:10:54] caught up there for a little bit uh but ultimately here's the issue that we have the issue is is that [3:11:00] my opponent like many progressives i was actually surprised he took the debate most progressives [3:11:06] don't for exactly this reason they make an appeal to modern scholars without understanding any of [3:11:12] the source material or anything that they're trying to do and they're not trying to do anything that [3:11:14] they're referencing at all they just don't even understand any of it none of it and so they just [3:11:19] make this general appeal broad appeal to a single authority and then say well because this guy's [3:11:24] widely regarded as an authority he should be trusted when you ask him but what makes what [3:11:28] he's saying true what what are we going to reinforce that with that makes you think that [3:11:33] this is true they have nothing because they don't actually understand what the source material for [3:11:39] this is and that's really important i actually took the time for years to learn this because [3:11:44] i've been doing this for a long time i would say that this is the only thing that i can really [3:11:47] take away from this is that the third position ism is a thing that i as a christian you know [3:11:52] christian populist or christian nationalist however you want to frame it pushed back against [3:11:56] as a potential threat to my ideology which i want to see instituted in these fine united states [3:12:03] um so i'll just say that what i did was try to encompass a holistic approach explain to you the [3:12:09] historic standard for this why it exists why it is that trump can't fall under these things and the best my opponent could really come up with a [3:12:14] up with was this bizarre notion that there's a rhetorical standard which which he's using which [3:12:20] he would slip between the rhetorical standard and then towards actualization of the thing so [3:12:25] anytime in other words trump didn't fit in act in action the standard of what he considered fascism [3:12:33] to be he would move over to he rhetorically fits it though which uh which on its face is silly [3:12:41] and the reason it's it's silly is because uh fascism itself and the philosophy of pure act [3:12:47] and idealism is talking about how this ideology acts in the world and how it is that fascists [3:12:54] engage in action in the world the idea that you're you're a rhetorical uh rhetorical [3:13:00] ultra-nationalist right is fucking silly it's just saying well he he uses what's perceived to [3:13:07] him as ultra-nationalist propaganda while being a nationalist in action [3:13:12] that's a way for him i think to try to morally load what fascism means onto his opposition [3:13:18] to vilify and demonize him though perhaps he specifically does not credit where credits do [3:13:24] uh at least not often he does have to admit that i mean the left overwhelmingly does this there [3:13:30] could they they call ice agents walking down the road fucking fascist it's crazy and that's [3:13:35] utilizing the morally loaded aspect of this so i think it's super important uh and i think the [3:13:41] debate is important [3:13:42] why because we have an entire political swath of political enemies who are trying to label all of [3:13:48] us as this thing and they don't even fucking understand what it is so adam however sure a lot [3:13:56] of this debate kind of felt like andrew was trying to shoehorn me into a position by projecting his [3:14:01] interpretation of my definition onto my definition rather than trying to understand what i actually [3:14:06] meant by my definition um rhetoric i think is critical in establishing legitimacy for governments [3:14:14] i do think that the legitimacy of the state is one of the most important parts of fascism is [3:14:19] justifying its abuses of power and justifying its centralization of power and as i said that is where [3:14:24] propaganda and rhetoric are extremely important because the act of a government does not exist in [3:14:28] a vacuum the government has to actually package and market that act to the people and ideally they [3:14:33] want to try to get support from the people or at least compliance if not support i do think that [3:14:37] broadly speaking it's important to look at fascism at least as i consider it as a behavioral pattern [3:14:44] and when we see that history rhymes we should probably pay attention and i think that defining [3:14:49] fascism as a static state uh which is what i would call probably final stage fascism [3:14:54] is a little bit reductive to me a little bit uh binary in black and white but with that being said [3:15:00] i think we did both agree that the word is a little bit overused or has been overused up until [3:15:05] now i probably would not have called anyone a fascist up until donald trump but a lot of people [3:15:09] threw that word around and now it's become a situation where when i call donald trump a fascist [3:15:13] people think [3:15:14] i'm part of that crowd that calls everyone a fascist when in reality i actually use the word [3:15:18] very very precisely at least as far as i'm concerned and very very restrictively not many [3:15:23] other people i call a fascist with that being said i had fun uh thanks again for hosting us james [3:15:28] and i hope that the audience even if they think i'm like a commie leftist or something [3:15:32] had a good time watching us because i did you can do this again [3:15:35] next time whatever it is you want to talk about policies whatever i don't care for sure [3:15:39] it was fantastic indeed i'm going to let our guests go folks but they're linked to the description box [3:15:44] including if you're listening via the podcast i'll be back in just a moment so stick around [3:15:49] take care james oh there it is thank you for your patience that was amazing seriously that [3:16:17] was such a great debate i am like just i expected it it would go well but that was just fantastic [3:16:25] it was an amazing back and forth it was a great q a thank you for all your questions folks you [3:16:31] helped make this great with your great questions all of those were great questions we do a lot of [3:16:36] fun and i appreciate that there are some weird ones but they were great now i want to say thank [3:16:41] you for being members exotic spider john m1518 thank you guys for watching big stuff coming up [3:16:48] tomorrow jf returns he's going to debate counterpoints on whether or not the u.s should [3:16:56] drop israel like a bad habit in particular should the u.s stop supporting israel that is tomorrow [3:17:05] night that's going to be juicy to say the least i'm going to say that i'm going to say that i'm [3:17:07] also coming up this week another upcoming debate on wednesday pro-life versus pro-choice this is [3:17:14] about the first time in a year that we've hosted this topic we don't do it often but taylor fogarty [3:17:20] returns to take on arch nemesis first amender that is going to be or all the nicknames you [3:17:28] guys have for him we uh but it's going to be a lively one we're excited about that and we might [3:17:35] we might have one on tuesday [3:17:37] and this is i'm trying to set it up it depends on who we can find on whether or not uh mr pretty [3:17:44] was murdered that's of course referring to yesterday uh you guys heard of a man in minneapolis [3:17:50] he was shot and the debate will be whether or not that shooting of him was justified or an accident [3:17:57] or purposeful uh that is maybe going to be on tuesday potentially with alexander madero and [3:18:06] uh then against a [3:18:08] left-leaning opponent which is yet to be named i emailed a particular someone today a very popular [3:18:15] left-leaning debater and we'll see if he gets back to me he hasn't gotten back to me in like a year [3:18:21] and won all the invites i send but this one i'm like he might go for this one user thanks for uh [3:18:28] feedback says it was a bit of a struggle to watch initially i think the q a made it better [3:18:32] and said if we get another debater like that can we get the sides to agree on the definition of [3:18:38] the title [3:18:39] i i get what you mean the only challenge is that before the debate i can tell you in the messages [3:18:45] with the debaters uh it was kind of like the way i and it was a little bit hard to understand but [3:18:51] the way i interpreted it was that they were like hey well let's mull over the question of whether [3:18:56] or not trump is a fascist given each of our respective definitions and then there'd also [3:19:00] be discussion on the definitions and like pushback so i get what you mean though but yes thank you [3:19:09] for your support and thanks for your super chat alexander medeiros okay sorry it's medeiros not [3:19:15] medeiros sorry about that alexander thank you for your super chat so that might be on tuesday in fact [3:19:20] i think it's like a fairly high probability i think i can find even if this particular left-leaning [3:19:25] debater whose name rhymes with i don't know estony even if he can't make it on tuesday i think i can [3:19:33] find another left-leaning debater that would be willing to debate alexander user oh yes we got that [3:19:39] for you exactly thanks for your kind words hit that like if you haven't yet we do appreciate [3:19:43] that support and other upcoming debates so we've got a lot uh this this uh next month we want to [3:19:52] work on getting new faces so fearless truth he's a christian apologist we're hoping to book him [3:20:00] on the sixth i'm still waiting to hear back that would be potentially against planet peterson [3:20:05] that's totally potentially i haven't uh talked to planet peterson at all [3:20:10] about that then potentially andrew wilson returning to debate uh there are two people i've got to run [3:20:17] by andrew uh in terms of hey andrew you want to debate these guys because they've reached out to [3:20:22] me wanting to debate you whether or not andrew goes for it i don't know he's got a lot of debate [3:20:28] requests so uh those uh potential topics i can't remember what the one was uh with danny [3:20:34] um but danny and brandon oh yeah one of them would be like a denomination topic [3:20:40] one of them would be uh whether or not the church should accept lgbtq so those might happen like i [3:20:49] said that's totally pie in the sky i haven't reached out to anybody about those yet but they [3:20:55] are things that we're like kind of looking looking ahead that's some of the juicy inside stuff [3:20:59] danitos dukes thanks for being with us as justin mike so i see you there in chat said tuesday for [3:21:07] the ice shooting debate and wednesday for pro choice pro-life at what time do you think the [3:21:11] time please that's correct you've got it right for the days and the night the time would be 9 p.m [3:21:15] eastern tonight we started an hour early because adam uh khan has to wake up super early so by the [3:21:21] way we appreciate adam being a good sport uh as i think it's pretty late where he is and uh but he [3:21:27] said he'd be willing to stay long so we appreciate that thanks for being a channel member neo debates [3:21:33] and exotic spider and let's see here dragon first one one and css [3:21:42] element as well as john 15 18 thanks for being channel members if you haven't yet consider [3:21:49] joining our channel membership tiers the reason is this saturday so it's only six days away debate [3:22:00] con 7 it's going to be huge you guys we expect it to sell out and it is controversial so you [3:22:07] probably saw the tweet i put out today there was a muslim extremist who did threaten the event [3:22:14] uh i'll talk about that in just a second [3:22:16] thanks for your super chat mason miller 791 7991 thank you for your super chat i'm sorry the guests [3:22:23] have already been dismissed we've already let them go so i can't read it to them for the q a [3:22:29] you might be behind in the stream but in terms okay sorry for leaving you on a cliffhanger there [3:22:34] um uh back to the tweet that i put out this morning so basically david wood is a very popular [3:22:43] christian apologist and he has been threatened by uh [3:22:49] muslim who there was an audio recording where he had said something to the effect of it was you [3:22:54] could say intimated or implied but it was very obviously he was saying that he was planning to [3:23:01] have david wood shot so we take it obviously every conference we've got a lot of experience [3:23:07] we take every conference very seriously for the security we have armed security we notify local [3:23:13] authorities to invite them to come to the event as well as our hired security that we hire uh [3:23:19] usually that's like the first time we've had a conference and we've had a lot of experience [3:23:20] with the helpful you when you hire your own security they're more willing to say like they [3:23:24] can send a police officer over uh just for free to help as well rather than relying purely on the [3:23:31] police so we do have multiple strategies and we do uh i can't go into the details of the security [3:23:37] because we want to keep it private because it's just not smart for us to let the you know completely [3:23:43] let it out there in case an evildoer wanted to have that advantage we want to have somewhat uh [3:23:49] an element of surprise and we want to have an element of surprise and we want to have an element [3:23:50] of surprise so we do we can tell you a couple things that we do we do have arm security so it's [3:23:58] like they are armed like they are packing heat and then we also use a metal detector metal detector [3:24:03] wands at the door and that's just so we can be sure that we want the arm security to be armed [3:24:11] and we don't want someone who shouldn't be armed there uh we have considered uh whether or not we [3:24:20] would have long story short we would have a metal detector and we would have a metal detector and [3:24:22] uh another detail would be that thanks for subscribing big one gn6qj we appreciate that [3:24:31] support and we also ha that's funny it's jadeen you're a good joke is we also have uniform security [3:24:41] and then ununiform security because that's as you probably know if someone was wanting to go in and [3:24:47] uh do wrong they would probably target people in uniform first because they're thinking to take out [3:24:53] those people who could stop them and so we do you could say employ both uniformed security that's [3:25:03] armed and ununiformed and also though uh bob is my right hand man he's got 20 years of military [3:25:12] experience because i don't to be honest i don't have experience about this uh i know the basics [3:25:16] just from what bob has told me in the different conferences we've done together and he's been [3:25:20] with me since the very start and so we've got a great relationship i trust bob wholeheartedly [3:25:24] he's very competent he's a great guy and but yeah long story short someone did threaten david [3:25:32] and now i just saw a stream from david wood tonight i just saw it was like a headline that [3:25:36] said something about a price they were putting on his head because i think that some we'll see but [3:25:41] the point is i will read you the tweet in fact i'll even show you the tweet uh and that way you [3:25:47] know what i'm talking about though so i also have here my little soundboard is i do enjoy prank [3:25:55] phone calls [3:25:56] so i'll give you an example is brian brian o'brien my apologies oh it's a little bit slow just bear [3:26:06] with me now we might have that debate on tuesday like i'm or was it tuesday it's tuesday alexander [3:26:12] medeiros i hope you're feeling better i know that you said you were going through strep minute timmy [3:26:17] i say they're in the i see you there in the live chat thanks for being with us and thank you for [3:26:22] being here user are you for as well as linux audio 100 [3:26:28] good to see you nadir ahmed good to see you long time debater on the show nadir just had a debate [3:26:35] on friday i don't know if you guys saw that and then let's see i'm gonna read the tweet i'll even [3:26:41] pull it up here and i've got to tell you i'll read it first as i try to pull it up we at modern [3:26:52] debate are firmly it says quote we have been made aware of public threats made by a muslim [3:26:57] extremist toward debate con 7 we will not be intimidated and the conference will continue [3:27:01] as usual we will have armed security on site at all times and they will not hesitate to swiftly [3:27:07] handle any potential threats and that's the way it's always been we're not going to let anybody [3:27:14] intimidate us or try to scare us out of having a conference we're going to do it we're going to [3:27:18] have armed security and nothing is going to stop us we're going to be like a locomotive [3:27:24] barreling down the rail tracks of free speech we are determined no matter how many hurdles come up [3:27:32] modern day debate is hosting our conference come hell or high water and that's going to be saturday [3:27:37] january 31st in houston texas and that's with god's blessing we're excited about it it is going [3:27:43] to be a fantastic debate so it's jadeen says price on his head why so uh i think it was about two [3:27:49] weeks ago or so david wood his wife so he's like he always uh his youtube channel is focused on [3:28:02] anti-bullying and uh you know he's kind of the one who likes he's kind of the one who's very [3:28:08] into modern day debates and many muslims don't like him and oftentimes it's satire as well [3:28:16] someone doxxed his wife they doxxed his address and his wife's cell number while he was out of [3:28:24] town and then she started getting these threats over text messages from random numbers and then [3:28:31] david is like-minded with modern day debate the research i can tell you from my background in [3:28:37] that you are supposed to push back that's actually empirically the best response you can give and [3:28:47] david wood basically started eating the quran because that's like a way of desecrating the [3:28:52] quran so david said hey muslims if you're going to do this this is what i'm going to do and so [3:28:57] he started doing that on his live streams and that uh fired up people more and that's how we got to [3:29:05] this uh what's the word i'm looking for circumstance in which someone had threatened [3:29:10] david's life now i will show you the tweet uh but want to say though we are absolutely determined [3:29:17] we're excited for this conference it's going to be a huge debate conference is david wood versus [3:29:24] muslim metaphysician it's also going to be mike jones versus hassan shibley and it's also going [3:29:31] to be apostate prophet versus muslim metaphysician and then daniel hakika [3:29:37] chu versus atheist danny phil talk now i'm going to just load up the old window capture and then [3:29:45] i'll show you the tweet is we are excited though i've got to tell you okay where is this there it [3:29:57] is okay so there you can see uh that was the exact wording of the tweet and then what i'm going to do [3:30:05] though is i want to tell you about our memberships for the channel so even if you're like i can't [3:30:13] make it james you can watch the entire conference live from the link in the description below [3:30:17] so if you're in antarctica if you were in australia you're like james i just can't [3:30:22] make it come on man don't worry the entire conference will be live streamed for our final [3:30:32] word channel members so if you sign up at the final word channel membership tier you can watch [3:30:38] the entire conference from home and if you haven't yet check out those memberships right now click [3:30:44] the join button if you sign up right now that'll guarantee that you'd be able to watch it on the [3:30:50] live stream right now as that's only a week away and your membership lasts a month and i've got to [3:30:54] tell you though we are excited for a lot of stuff coming up including that juicy debate tomorrow and [3:31:01] whether or not america should continue to support israel and then let me see uh other stuff we i [3:31:09] don't mention this enough we have a discord so the discord has 15 000 members shane and hannah [3:31:17] have made this discord awesome i'm putting that in the live chat right now so if you want to click on [3:31:22] the modern day debate discord is a juggernaut thanks to shane and hannah i'm i honestly i'm [3:31:28] a boomer so i don't know how to do discord but i do plan on coming in there at some point and [3:31:32] i'm sorry that but uh yeah i'm a boomer and this one let's see i'm looking at other things that i [3:31:42] wanted to share with you so i will show you over here let me just jump in here uh i'm gonna move [3:31:54] this up and then i'll share other stuff so as you can see okay here we go here we go thanks [3:32:16] for your patience so at the bottom right of your screen that's debatecon7 those are some of the [3:32:22] guests that will be at debatecon7 but not all of them and then also uh so grab your tickets [3:32:28] they're linked in the description box then we have our members only channel playlist so i will show [3:32:36] this to you right now i'm going to put this in the old chat is we do have a lot of debates [3:32:40] and we're going to have a lot of debates and we're going to have a lot of debates and we're going to [3:32:40] have a lot of debates that are members only now one reason why they're members only is because [3:32:46] some of them are what's the word i'm looking for there's inappropriate where youtube or kind of [3:32:53] like and would youtube like would we get in trouble and like i think that we wouldn't but [3:33:00] at the same time i don't know and the reason is because some of these as you can see at the bottom [3:33:07] right of your screen some of these uh debaters are controversial so for example uh nick fuente [3:33:16] as stephen molyneux milo yiannopoulos and we're at two out of three for today's membership goal so [3:33:27] consider joining your joining the modern day debate channel memberships and then let me just [3:33:33] my page is crashing i can't see the live chat give me a second i'll catch up [3:33:38] i wanted to share the playlist but my youtube tab is i don't know why it does this um i can't [3:33:47] figure that out but for some reason whenever it's only one of my favorite things to do is watch my [3:33:50] when i'm streaming that my tabs will crash and what juiciest and wildest debates here's that [3:33:58] playlist ah i'm insane with anger two seconds i'm gonna reopen youtube but let me know where you [3:34:07] are watching from i'm in las vegas right now i'm not seeing any of the storms that have hit this [3:34:14] weekend maybe you have i don't know okay so check out our modern day debate members only playlist [3:34:23] is that i put in the live chat right now and then we're at two out of three so consider [3:34:37] joining as a channel member right now as we have debate con seven coming up in one week six days [3:34:45] actually so less than a week here's another one if you have twitch and if you have amazon prime [3:34:52] you have a free membership that you can use to subscribe it's like your gift [3:35:00] membership you can subscribe to modern day debates twitch which i just put in the live chat [3:35:05] and that helps support modern day debate because amazon prime gives you your free twitch [3:35:12] subscription that you can decide on which channel to use that free subscription on and so if you [3:35:21] have a twitch and you have amazon prime and you have not used your free membership well now is [3:35:26] your opportunity you can do that for modern day debate we appreciate that and then our [3:35:33] next guest is gregory stevens gregory stevens gregory stevens gregory stevens gregory stevens gregory stevens [3:35:40] now i'm putting our facebook page this is our new facebook page with just clips we are going to get [3:35:47] that active again check that out that's in the live chat as well but tell me like i said where [3:35:54] you're from ivan ivani am i saying it right ivani zundel thanks for coming by i see you there [3:36:01] just uh my xo thank you for coming by and then [3:36:08] linux audio 100 says you can slow go to discord use search servers for modern day debate and that [3:36:15] gets server as well oh thank you for letting me know that and then shun shun z2 5682 thank you [3:36:25] for coming by says what topic are they debating which one which debate which day um oh tomorrow [3:36:31] is that's okay tomorrow is on whether or not the u.s should continue supporting israel jf will be [3:36:38] arguing no counterpoints will be [3:36:40] arguing yes and then cat man g6u thanks for coming by i see you there as well as hope bloom music [3:36:52] thanks for being with us thanks for hitting that like button we're at 684 so that means if we just [3:36:57] hit 16 more likes that'll be 700 amazing which by the way if you become a channel member which [3:37:09] we can totally get to three channel memberships this stream that's the goal for this stream [3:37:16] is you can use these custom modern day debate emojis such as the ones i'm putting in live chat [3:37:23] right now that say amazing and soy boy now danny doe dukes good to see you i see you there in the [3:37:32] old live chat momenthium i see you too thanks for being by as well as dell bridge big one gn6qj [3:37:42] matthew culbertson good to see you here brother i just saw you now i'm behind on the live chat [3:37:48] thanks for coming by and he says yes it's true we don't negotiate with terrorists we are going to [3:37:57] have this conference we've got our security hired and we will be uh like i said we've already [3:38:04] contacted the police so uh last time we were in houston the police are actually very supportive [3:38:10] the local police we actually had two officers that came to the event and so um we do appreciate that [3:38:18] that was awesome of them and [3:38:20] dell bridge good to see you let's see here more ron please thanks you thanks for coming by joseph [3:38:28] mullins good to see you there in the live chat and then let me just catch up minute timmy thanks [3:38:41] for coming by says is it worth watching i missed it yes this debate is absolutely worth watching [3:38:45] and i'm like i'm very serious about that because normally i might say that like half-heartedly [3:38:51] because i'm always going to say yes you know that but i'll give you reasons tonight so i'm not just [3:38:58] going to say yes and you're like oh he's good [3:39:00] and i'm like oh he's good and i'm like oh he's not good [3:39:02] so he's really good i'm just going to say yes [3:39:04] so you know i'm like i'm just saying i'm just you know i'm a little bit more of a [3:39:04] good person i mean i mean i'm very good person so you're right i'm very good person [3:39:05] uh and i mean i was very surprised that adam and andrew very quick on their feet very uh quick-witted [3:39:06] very quick-witted just very rhetorically smooth and so yeah it was a fantastic debate tonight [3:39:11] i have to be honest i thought adam was going to be good because adam's been on jubilee multiple [3:39:16] times so you know if jubilee has you back it means they're like hey yeah like you're good like we'll [3:39:20] have you back and he's been on jubilee with like jank uger and i can't remember i think ben shapiro [3:39:27] and so that's why i invited him as i was like yeah that's a good sign and i can tell you uh adam i [3:39:35] thought he was going to be good i thought it was a fantastic debate he did he was very quick on his [3:39:39] feet so it made for a fun debate for andrew is it's hard to find good opponents on either side [3:39:45] but let me just catch up here corneal ra cornell rasu 9789 thank you for coming by [3:39:55] and matthew culbertson says it's cold in texas how cold are we talking i hope you're all right [3:40:01] there and good old lufkin northern freedom says smash the like button i couldn't agree more [3:40:08] do smash the like button and thank you for your support i appreciate that northern freedom now [3:40:14] we're at are we at 700 likes yet let me refresh the page we're so close i can taste it we're at [3:40:20] 693 so we're seven likes away and if we hit [3:40:26] that big seven uh 700 exactly 484 told me he will delete his only fans and live a new life so help [3:40:37] exactly to give like to to do away with that old life and help us get to 700 likes i made that up [3:40:46] catman g6 uh but do hit like says is is this your full-time job now james or do you have another job [3:40:52] it is full time i do [3:40:56] teach as like a hobby so the the program i got my phd at will sometimes say james we got a remote [3:41:02] class do you want to teach it it's a master's level class and it's done remotely purely remotely [3:41:09] which is for me it's awesome because i move often and i do plan on settling this year i'm going to [3:41:15] finally settle down and the plan is to finally settle down in phoenix but before i do that i've [3:41:20] got one short little stint i want to go and live in los angeles a bit uh partly because you know how [3:41:27] welly is filmed out there is we want to do some i want to do some types of work out there and sean [3:41:32] is going to sean from uncensored america which that is another channel that's exploding right now [3:41:37] uh sean has taught me so much to improve modern day debate and so he's actually going to help me [3:41:44] as he's moving out there shortly as well and then but i plan on settling down probably in phoenix [3:41:49] matthew culbertson says 21 degrees that is cold that's way colder than here because it does get a [3:41:57] little chilly it's only gets down to like 40 so it's not bad uh in las vegas but 21 is cold if [3:42:04] there's any sort of breeze that is just frigid and um more ron please says both adam and andrew [3:42:14] did good tonight yeah it was a fantastic debate tom kalishi good to see you there brother i see [3:42:20] ya i am glad that you are with us tom and let me tell you why i have to get this let me just [3:42:27] make the screen big [3:42:29] here i'm such a boomer give me a sec here oh come on i've got my little sound board i wanted to play [3:42:36] with my new toy thanks to tom al's fun center in pineville yes now i love these prank jokes [3:42:46] these prank phone calls that they use sound boards like this so i just can't get enough of them yeah [3:42:54] it's just it's the best i'm just as much of a coward as you could possibly think is that's brian [3:43:01] o'brien from train [3:43:02] radio that's one sound board but my favorite always is fred herbert where's she in custody [3:43:11] and exotic status says radio that's right that's from the sound it's uh that's from uh brian o'brien [3:43:18] as well and thank you tom kalishi am i saying it right is it pronounced tom kalish is thank [3:43:24] you for sending that sound board but yes let's see now uh i was like i want to make sure i didn't miss anybody [3:43:37] chat uh but yeah thank you guys for your support we're so close to 700 help exactly do you know to [3:43:45] oh wow we got to 700 and wow thank you 703 neo debate says thank you guys for that support [3:43:54] now i'm going to share let me just share a couple of other things here [3:43:59] i don't know what that even said that was not a good soundboard quote but uh that members only [3:44:07] playlist you can see there at the bottom right as i mentioned debatecon 7 will be available via [3:44:12] pay-per-view as you can see at the bottom right of your screen and that's if you become a final word [3:44:19] channel member and that helps us put on these events so the way that these events usually go [3:44:24] is and i'm not doing this out of pity like it it works out but it just shows you how it is kind of [3:44:30] razor thin is i'm always super frugal when setting up these conferences so like you know we do holiday [3:44:36] and you know it's like [3:44:37] it's fine come on give me cut me some slack okay is we do holiday in and uh the reason is [3:44:44] the events themselves we usually lose a little bit of money and like sometimes uh like you know [3:44:50] nothing crazy but we usually end up losing money even when we have the revenue from ticket sales [3:44:56] because people buy their tickets and they watch it in person that's actually our biggest revenue [3:45:02] stream but ad revenue and when people sign up for channel memberships to watch it live at home [3:45:08] that's [3:45:09] actually a huge form of revenue that guts us so we're no longer losing money on the event and so [3:45:16] it actually comes out a bit ahead so that's why i had mentioned that uh so that's a way to support [3:45:25] the channel as channel memberships as we do appreciate that that and you also get the perks [3:45:29] such as those emojis you can use all the time in the live chat you can call your friends in chat [3:45:35] a soy boy uh with those custom emojis as well as now tomorrow's debatecon 7 will be available to you [3:45:40] tomorrow's debate i told you about that should the us cut off israel and then also our socials so [3:45:47] we do have an instagram an axe a facebook and a discord matthew culbertson says 702 that's right [3:45:56] thank you i appreciate thank you so much for those likes it does i do appreciate that more [3:46:01] than you know now lately i've been watching the it crowd have you guys ever seen that it's from [3:46:06] england dope 1258 thank you for your kind words i appreciate that [3:46:12] and i've been his undul says good evening gentlemen ladies thank you and we are excited [3:46:22] though we are striving to be a fully neutral debate platform how are we neutral one we want [3:46:29] to have fair moderation where each side gets fair and equal time as well as because a lot [3:46:35] of people lately on twitter i've seen some folks who are like modern day debates not neutral like [3:46:41] james is a christian and it's true like we haven't like i've never tried to hide that [3:46:47] it's been like open if people asked i would tell them and they're like oh like i'll give [3:46:54] you example i don't want to say who but like a couple people on twitter [3:47:00] of a particular religion they're like modern day debate is biased because james is a christian [3:47:07] so you know that's like well wait a minute like and so they'll say our guys shouldn't go debate [3:47:13] on that channel you know our guys from our religion and i'm like well wait a minute so then [3:47:20] then christians shouldn't go and debate on your channels either because your guys's uh channel [3:47:25] owners or moderators are muslim i just said it's muslim and uh but to be fair a lot of muslims are [3:47:33] actually super pro modern day debate so i want to be fair like there are a ton of modern day debate [3:47:37] uh fans that are muslim so we appreciate them like a ton it's just that there's like a small [3:47:42] percentage and just like there are some like there's a small percentage of christians even [3:47:46] and atheists in fact there's a sizable percentage of atheists [3:47:50] but still a minority who are you know critics of modern day debate but the other thing is that in [3:47:58] addition to equal time and moderation modern day debate is different than let's say these uh muslim [3:48:03] channels are like the debate should be over here on like you know central dawa's channel like the [3:48:08] you know muslim apologetics channel is the difference is well but modern day debate only [3:48:13] has debates like we never at the end of the debate even during these like post debate chats i never [3:48:22] had those debates but now they're like a whole lot more like like oh wow adam or andrew like did so [3:48:28] bad like we just want people to make up their own minds the purpose of modern day debate is not to [3:48:34] try to sway people in either direction is that's why we host literally only debates and i get a [3:48:41] ton of emails where they're like oh so-and-so is publishing a book and they want to come on for an [3:48:45] interview and i'm like first i'm a little bit annoyed to be honest because i'm like do you even [3:48:49] watch us because we live it's like only debates it even says that in like our channel banner [3:48:53] But so we have a lot of people that are like, yeah, can we come on for an interview? [3:48:57] And I'm like, no, I actually just don't even respond because I figure I'm like, they don't even check. [3:49:02] It's not they don't even like know about our channel other than the name and the subscriber count or something. [3:49:08] And so that's one thing is it's purely debates here. [3:49:12] Like it's fully neutral, as neutral as it can be. [3:49:16] But yes, Alex, oh, did you do goo? [3:49:21] Did I say that right? [3:49:22] Thank you for being here. [3:49:23] I see you there in the old live chat. [3:49:25] Now we are at 707 likes. [3:49:28] I appreciate that more than, you know, I'm going to I should take a walk. [3:49:31] I want to stay longer, but my back gets really tight if I sit for too long. [3:49:35] So I should start walking and I'm tempted to eat. [3:49:38] I found some discounted Halloween candy just yesterday while cleaning out my closet. [3:49:45] Hallelujah. [3:49:46] It's amazing. [3:49:48] So whenever there's a holiday, it's really special for me because I always, [3:49:53] I always try to buy discounted candy the day after or maybe several days after that holiday. [3:50:01] So I go to the grocery store or Walmart. [3:50:04] I'm trying to remember. [3:50:04] I think I got this from Kroger in East Texas where Matthew is. [3:50:09] It's called Kroger. [3:50:10] But here in Las Vegas, it's owned by Kroger, but it's called what is it? [3:50:15] I think it's Smith's here or fries. [3:50:20] I can't remember. [3:50:20] I think it's Smith's. [3:50:22] And I, you know, I find this 50 or 70. [3:50:27] 25% off candy. [3:50:29] Obviously, I buy the chocolate. [3:50:31] And so I'm kind of tempted to have a little snacky here tonight. [3:50:37] I told you I don't like the word snack. [3:50:41] Snacky is acceptable, but snack, we don't do that. [3:50:45] So that's why when I, you know, snacky as a noun is okay. [3:50:49] You say, I'm going to have a little snacky here. [3:50:51] But as a verb, I don't say, oh, I snack during the day. [3:50:56] I say I grate. [3:50:57] Snack during the day is because I told you I don't like the word snack as a verb. [3:51:02] Now, Minute Timmy says modern day should do some debates on modern, on some modern topics. [3:51:11] Yeah, you know, I'm open to that. [3:51:13] I'm not. [3:51:13] It's not that I personally have anything against debates on like AI. [3:51:17] It's just that, you know, it's tough to like, we can try new topics, but I got to tell you, it's like, they just don't usually do that well. [3:51:30] And so. [3:51:32] I don't know if it was like someone really popular on that topic, then I would, you know, but otherwise, we probably wouldn't do that. [3:51:45] So, but yes, but thank you guys for hanging out here. [3:51:49] You guys make this fun. [3:51:52] I'm going to try it. [3:51:53] Let me just quick check if there are any other little things here. [3:51:56] And oh, yeah. [3:51:56] Okay. [3:51:56] See, this is one thing. [3:51:58] So I mentioned that it's actually coming up really fast. [3:52:01] Let me look at the calendar here. [3:52:02] I think it's like 10 days away. [3:52:04] Is. [3:52:05] I'm moving Lord willing to, to Los Angeles. [3:52:08] So it's going to be the 25th or three. [3:52:11] So five. [3:52:12] Okay. [3:52:12] It's like 12 days. [3:52:18] Yeah. [3:52:19] I'm moving to Los Angeles and part of it, as you can see the bottom right of your screen where, you know, see where it says, want to participate in our upcoming group dialogues on Christianity. [3:52:30] Sign up below. [3:52:31] That's why a big part of it is we do. [3:52:35] If you do want to be part of these conversations. [3:52:37] That are in person. [3:52:39] So these are going to be a lot like Jubilees middle ground, where it'll be like a group of four guys, group of four guys that are atheists group before that are Christian. [3:52:47] And then it's going to be like a group dialogue on why they think Christianity is true or false. [3:52:52] And that's something that I want to film in Los Angeles. [3:52:56] So if you were in Los Angeles or Phoenix, because I'll eventually end up in Phoenix, there's in the live, in the description box right now, there is a list. [3:53:09] Yeah. [3:53:09] Where it says, it says, want to participate application to participate in our upcoming group dialogues in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. [3:53:17] So if you'd like to be a part of them, check out that link. [3:53:21] It's quite buried in the description. [3:53:24] So it's like kind of toward the end ish. [3:53:28] And let's see. [3:53:30] Oh yeah. [3:53:30] Two Facebook pages. [3:53:31] I'll put the link for our Facebook page. [3:53:33] If you didn't know about that in the old live chat and this is our new clips page, I think I might've already put it in there. [3:53:41] And pinned it. [3:53:42] Let me see there. [3:53:46] Now it's in there. [3:53:47] And that's if you enjoy clips and you'd like to see them, but also I would encourage you to check out our social media links, which are in the description box there toward the top of the description box, check out those links because this is important. [3:54:06] If you are like, Hey, I want to know when debate con might near be near my city is there's a higher chance of you hearing about it before the event takes place. [3:54:16] If you're. [3:54:17] Following us on our socials because we, we always put it out on our socials, like Instagram X and Facebook, especially, and then a discord, we should put it in there more. [3:54:26] I just realized that we, I don't know if we do. [3:54:29] I think they, they probably, the moderators probably share about that and they probably without me even asking. [3:54:34] So, um, which is why they're amazing, but that way you get notifications on when, and then there's also, we have an email list as well. [3:54:46] Yeah. [3:54:46] Our insiders email list that's in the description box. [3:54:49] That's at the bottom of our socials. [3:54:52] If you want an update on upcoming events, you can sign up for our email list and that also, we actually will provide promo codes for debate con if you want a discount on tickets too. [3:55:01] So thank you guys for your support. [3:55:03] You guys make this fun, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. [3:55:08] We're excited about the future. [3:55:10] A lot of big stuff coming up here at modern day debate, because we believe YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel, and we're going to give it to them. [3:55:18] So thanks for your support. [3:55:19] We'll see you. [3:55:19] The next one, which is like I said, tomorrow night. [3:55:23] I hope you have a great night. [3:55:27] Oh, [3:55:27] amazing.