Episode 1!
Welcome to the inaugural episode of Deliberating Dog Face Dudes, where hosts Benjamin Balderson, John Roeland, and allen marcus embark on a new journey of deep discussions and debates. In this episode, we introduce our new project and explain the meaning behind our name: 'Deliberating' signifies thoughtful consideration, 'Dog Face' represents the hardworking infantryman, and 'Dudes' simply refers to us as men.
We delve into the concept of debates and their importance in logically representing worldviews. Our goal is to explore traditional masculine perspectives on various topics, starting with our own worldviews and then expanding to include guests and broader discussions.
Tonight's discussion kicks off with a series of prompts designed to challenge our understanding of reality, morality, and the nature of good and evil. We explore whether reality is objective or subjective, and how our perceptions shape our understanding of the world. We also tackle the complex issue of morality, questioning whether it is an objective truth or a subjective experience.
Throughout the conversation, we touch on various philosophical and practical aspects, including the influence of governance, the role of taxes, and the balance between individual freedom and societal responsibility. We also discuss the impact of technology and the concept of natural law, drawing on insights from thinkers like Rudolf Steiner.
Join us as we navigate these intricate topics, challenge each other's viewpoints, and strive to find a balance in our understanding of the world. Don't forget to subscribe to our new channel, Deliberating Dog Face Dudes YouTube, to stay updated on our future episodes and discussions.
https://www.youtube.com/@DeliberatingDogfaceDudes
Welcome to the inaugural episode of Deliberating Dog Face Dudes, where hosts Benjamin Balderson, John Roeland, and allen marcus embark on a new journey of deep discussions and debates. In this episode, we introduce our new project and explain the meaning behind our name: 'Deliberating' signifies thoughtful consideration, 'Dog Face' represents the hardworking infantryman, and 'Dudes' simply refers to us as men.
We delve into the concept of debates and their importance in logically representing worldviews. Our goal is to explore traditional masculine perspectives on various topics, starting with our own worldviews and then expanding to include guests and broader discussions.
Tonight's discussion kicks off with a series of prompts designed to challenge our understanding of reality, morality, and the nature of good and evil. We explore whether reality is objective or subjective, and how our perceptions shape our understanding of the world. We also tackle the complex issue of morality, questioning whether it is an objective truth or a subjective experience.
Throughout the conversation, we touch on various philosophical and practical aspects, including the influence of governance, the role of taxes, and the balance between individual freedom and societal responsibility. We also discuss the impact of technology and the concept of natural law, drawing on insights from thinkers like Rudolf Steiner.
Join us as we navigate these intricate topics, challenge each other's viewpoints, and strive to find a balance in our understanding of the world. Don't forget to subscribe to our new channel, Deliberating Dog Face Dudes YouTube, to stay updated on our future episodes and discussions.
https://www.youtube.com/@DeliberatingDogfaceDudes
- Deliberating Dog Face Dudes: Our Journey Begins
- Debating Reality: Objective vs. Subjective Truths
- Exploring Morality: Is Good and Evil Objective?
- The Nature of Reality: Perspectives on Truth and Perception
- Taxes, Governance, and the Balance of Freedom
(00:00:04) Introduction to Deliberating Dog Face Dudes
(00:00:49) The Concept of Red Pill and Orthodox Christianity
(00:03:02) Natural Freedom League and Worldview Debates
(00:07:55) Is Reality Objective or Subjective?
(00:25:04) The Origin of Reality and Consciousness
(00:53:06) The Concept of Good and Evil
(01:39:15) Taxation: Theft or Necessity?
(01:54:41) Final Thoughts and Closing Remarks
- allen marcus
- Benjamin Balderson
- John Roeland
https://serve.podhome.fm/deliberatingdogfacedudes
https://serve.podhome.fm/episodepage/deliberatingdogfacedudes/1
[00:00:04]
Benjamin Balderson:
Alright. Hail. Welcome to deliberating dog face dudes. So, what we've got going on here and, John has got this, going to his channel for the moment, and I've got it going to we've got it going to my channel for the moment just to let people know that, we're we've got this other project that we've started at, Marcus, John, and I are gonna be the deliberating dog face dudes, which deliberating is obviously somebody that's thinking, spending a lot of time reading, thinking about things. Dogface is your infantryman that's in the trenches doing the work, and we're dudes.
New new shits come to light, man. So, what we've got going on is, I brought to these guys the idea that there's been a lot of red pill going on and also a lot of, moves toward orthodox Christianity. And a lot of these are represented in debates, and I like I do like that format because then you actually have to represent your worldview logically and make it hold up. If you have some nonsense going on, you're gonna find out real quick. So the 3 of us are gonna start debating. We're gonna enter the debate platforms and, doing so from a more traditional man type aspect.
Each of us has some variance in our own thoughts on that. We're gonna start out with, just discussing things with each other and kinda flesh out our world views, and that way everybody can get an understanding for that. And, then from there, we'll start moving into dealing with other people also and inviting other people on and, doing that. So tonight, we're gonna put out some prompts, and we're gonna have a discussion. We're gonna kind of pepper each other with questions during said discussion and try and get everybody a feel for where we stand at in our worldview, our, ideology, for relationships, politics, all those things that are real important to the way people are living and and what they wanna do with their lives.
So we're gonna play this for a while on, Odin's Alchemy and, natural universal spirit. Then we're gonna eventually cut that out, and, we'd appreciate it if you come over to deliberating dog face dudes, and please give us a a sub over there and a like. And let's get that channel going, and let's, try this new adventure. And with that, go ahead, John or Marcus.
[00:03:02] John Roeland:
Alright. I'll chime in. Yeah. So Natural Freedom League is where this is streaming to. The natural universal spirit is a newer project of mine, but this project kind of coincides with that because going from the natural law community, which is very strict on, objective morality and those types of ideas. And then talking to people like Ben and different people in in the the so called truth community. I definitely had to question the validity of that approach, and, I found in the natural law community a little bit of a lack of, vigorous debate and vigorous inspection of your thoughts and beliefs, and a little bit too rigid thinking and settling into that thought and kind of just pushing that as as the answer.
So I am definitely looking forward to kind of working through my own world view with this project. Really appreciate the work that Benjamin and Alan do on weaving spiders, which I think is a platform that really encourages different ideas and challenging ideas. And that's what I'm looking to do, expand my own understanding and also kind of come down to where I see things. And if anything can be implemented as a solution in this world, perhaps we can get closer to finding that through these discussions. So, yeah, I'm excited to be here, on the 3 d debates.
And, yeah, I'm looking forward to other people joining us in the near future, and looking forward to having this discussion today. So I'm gonna go ahead and pass it on to Alan.
[00:04:58] allen marcus:
Hello. I am Alan marcus.com. That's a real website, owner and operator of that. For those who don't know me, I'll introduce myself like I introduce myself to the jury. I never married. No children. No questions. Believe in jury notification. Can I go home now? Just kidding. I'm gonna stay a while and see where this goes. I think the idea was pitched to me as kind of a manosphere red pill thing. And if we're taking that idea from the matrix, take the blue pill or the red pill. If the red pill is to see the world how it is, I think these discussions are going to be based on how to live probably best in the real world, how to live beyond mere survival and mere existence, how to thrive in the world, understanding what the conditions are, what the natural how social dynamics actually function from people who have experience with them and not from people who read books and then post what they think is the best way to live online. But people who are actually living life and experiencing it and including all the mistakes they make, running into law, lawyers, the obstacles, the barriers. What are the barriers to living our best possible lives? How do we navigate around them? How do we plan for not hitting the wall and surviving, thriving, doing our best, and having some adventures. I think that's the essence of manhood. And if the dog faced soldiers are forced on adventures and wilderness survival, I think all of those topics are worthy of exploration.
So thank you for having me.
[00:06:45] Benjamin Balderson:
And, of course, Marcus and I are both members of Weaving Spiders. Jim, as we as he and Rachel announced last Saturday, have a new member coming, so, obviously, he cannot join us in this, new adventure. William McKnight is pragmatic as hell. I totally would love to have you come on and, talk some one of these, one of these times here, brother. That's a that is a smart dude that just has it together, 100%. But, with that, shall we get started then, gentlemen?
[00:07:23] John Roeland:
Yes, sir.
[00:07:28] Benjamin Balderson:
Alright. Alright.
[00:07:31] John Roeland:
So I'm gonna go ahead and just say the first prompt, Kinda wrote down just some ideas that were popping into my mind, and these obviously connect to my background, you know, kinda teaching natural law from, the the Mark Passio perspective, which, you know, I somewhat relate to, but also, you know, have some issues with. So the first question being, is reality objective or subjective? I'll go ahead and answer it first. I'm gonna say, for me, what I've truly come to understand is that reality is both. And this isn't a cop out, but there are objective aspects to reality, and then, of course, there are subjective aspects to reality.
But I'm gonna stick to the objective aspects, because I understand that you can't separate each person's individual experience from reality. However, if I look at a sun coming up in the morning, and you look up at a sun coming up in the morning, and we all confirm that there's something coming up in the morning that we call a sun, which appears to be a light in the sky. And we all verify this with one another. And even the blind person feels the heat on their face That it does point to logically that there is something objectively there that we are all experiencing even though each one of us is experiencing it from a subjective stand standpoint.
So, you know, I definitely think that, you know, my answer here is probably going to, implicate myself, for the future answers in that I do think that there's a bit of a bit too much of black and white, and to try to imagine that you can say, is reality objective or subjective, is sort of a, a fool's errand, I guess you could say. I feel like there is a paradox in this world. There is a duality to this world, and that kind of creates the mystery that we are constantly finding ourselves searching. Another point I wanted to make about the objective side of things is that and I don't wanna get too much into, like, current events, but the fact that there is obviously a hidden hand somewhere trying to shape our perception of the world and shifting it to, a different understanding of a reality or an altered or inverted perception of reality shows you that there is something objective that's going on. And for some reason, this hidden hand doesn't want us to, be connected to the objective reality.
As an example, I was thinking about when I was in the 4th grade. And I don't remember for sure if they built us up to this moment, but they carted in a television. And they put us all in front of this television. And they made us watch this rocket who had a teacher on it, which is the only reason I could think that they thought to show this to elementary school kids. It was so important because they had a school teacher on it. And they put these people in this rocket, and they set the rocket off, and it exploded. And to think now that that was a a false event. And to think that somebody somewhere or some group of people, some entity wanted us all to see that for some reason, Shows me that there is some objective reality going on that we are being distracted from or, that is somehow we're we're we're being, I'm I'm losing my my my vocabulary.
It's basically being inverted. Objective reality is being inverted. They're replacing it with a different reality for some reason. So that's my argument. I'm gonna pass it to Benjamin.
[00:12:12] Benjamin Balderson:
I I I definitely have to agree that, it it is both. I think there's a lot of people that for some reason today, the line on that is extraordinarily blurred and people can't understand that there's an event that happens, and that event is objective. And then your juxtaposition, your, feelings on it, you know, your, where you stand on it, that's gonna be subjective. So whether you whether you no matter how you feel about it, the the event is still the same. So there's definitely an objective reality. In my opinion, the we, as a unit, make that objective reality.
So it's almost I've always kinda thought of it like the old garbage can parties back in high school where, you know, everybody, is throwing in a drink. You know, you just get a garbage can and everybody comes and they throw in a drink. And, if you throw in some Jack Daniels and then you throw in some vodka, and eventually, this kind of becomes its own thing. And each of those things is definitely part of that thing, but it's its own thing altogether. And then our position in it, everybody's gonna have a little more or less, strength in that input.
And I've always thought of that like the guy who shows up with peppermint schnapps, and now no matter what else was in that trash can, it definitely tastes like peppermint schnapps. Like, that guy had some strong input. But, that's my opinion on on the way reality works, but there's definitely, at the end of it, objective facts that are going on that we're all experiencing, and then we're just deciding how we felt about it, how that affected us, things like that. The same the very same event can make you both happy and sad. You could think it was great today and think it was horrible in 2 weeks and, the so all of that is subjective.
And I think a lot of people have a a hard time. And I think, when you look in when you're looking at debates, you see a lot of people having a hard time separating themselves out of the subjective. In general, they also seem to have a hard time going into hypothetical situations and answering from that. So it's like they're so caught up in their own ego or their own world view that they can't even think outside of that. So that I think that is part of what's causing this, what seems to me rise in inability to see outside of their own subjective reality into a more objective.
You hear them. You'll you you as we go along and start talking to people, you're gonna hear a lot of people make some assertions really boldly, and it's because from their subjective reality, that is nothing but truth without even realizing unless that's something that all of us can agree is a thing or did happen, and then we can agree whether that was good or not. Like, in the original event, no. They've already gotten to whether it's good or bad, judged it, and incorporated into their worldview, and they're arguing from that point. They can't put themselves back at that first point, so I think that's gonna be interesting as things move forward.
[00:16:15] John Roeland:
And, Marcus.
[00:16:17] allen marcus:
So we're talking about reality. Is it objective? Is it subjective? Is it beyond that? I think in terms of frame and maintaining frame if we're talking about a masculine point of view, And the man usually sets the frame for the situation. You're thinking of the father who's getting the family ready together and says this is the expectation. We're going to grandma's house. We're gonna go see my mom and dad, this type of thing. You know, make sure you've you've used the bathroom, you've got clean underwear on, we're ready to go. It's a 4 hour trip. We're gonna get there in 4 hours. That's the frame. That's the setting. That's the expectation. So a lot of what we're talking about in terms of is it a simulation, man? Is is it materialism?
Is it based off of well, we've got skin. We've got bones. We've got a brain. The brain functions. Once death happens, that's it. It's over. Your body's decayed. Nothing else happens. I don't believe that. I think that there's a level of consciousness. There's something beyond that, something outside of ourselves, the mind body connection, this sort of thing. So when we're talking about is reality objective subjective, I would ask the question, how do we see reality? What frame are we viewing it from? And if we're viewing it from a perspective that is given to us through education, public school systems, through mainstream media, through Christian education, religion, school, any of these ideas, all of those things work to create a frame for the reality that they want to impose on everybody.
So when we're talking about subjective objective reality, that's where things are being shifted back and forth in terms of who is maintaining the frame and the control of the reality. You see that in terms of red and blue with politics with choosing one side or the other, but together, the politicians, the government of America makes the decisions and they pass down their frame of reference, reference, their way of seeing the world through the legislation, the laws, the taxation, the government programs, all of that stuff, even subsidizing corn so we have more corn in the world. These are real world decisions that are made that affect our objective reality.
Now subjectively, the way we experience the taste and flavor of corn and like or dislike of that isn't gonna give a hoot if we say we're not gonna vote for the candidate who wants to put more corn in fields. Let's plant more soybeans, this type of thing. So you could debate which, you know, food item is gonna be better or what tastes better. Those are all preference issues. Back to the main point though is objective or subjective our reality, again, it's beyond objective. It's beyond subjective. There's a little bit of both, and they're kind of fighting for determining what the frame of reality is gonna be. I guess that's my position.
[00:19:31] John Roeland:
Yeah. I wanted to add a couple of things. I saw someone in the comments say, Joshua Cromley said and this is a so an idea that I gleaned from madame Blavatsky, which I know I know people have issues with theosophy here. But, she kind of did this description of the creation of the world and that, you know, there's this initial source, which is, like, nothingness. Right? Emptiness. And that everything starts to emanate from that. And this is also an idea kind it is that comes across in Taoism that, like, you have the original thing that can't be named, and then you have the mother of myriad things. So it's true objectivity actually includes the whole thing. Like, everything involved in the universe, whatever we are in, is objectively true. Right? Like, even a lie becomes objective because it exists, and it does shape our reality, especially the more people believe in that. We've obviously experienced that.
We experience it all the time. Very recently, we've experienced it in 2020, 2 days ago. So, you know, it's like, if people believe this thing, even if it's false, it now becomes objectively an issue for all of us. And, you know, another thought I had had about objective and subjective, well, is a because some people try to say objective, like, can I see it? Can I feel it? Can I touch it? Is it an object? But then, what about a thought? You know, I can objectively have a thought. You can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't smell it, but that thought can have power in the long run. Another good comment was that we need to define reality.
So, I'm just gonna go go to the good old Marion Webster's. The quality or state of being real. A real event, entity, or state of affairs. The totality of real things and events, something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily. And then, let's go ahead and look up real, which
[00:21:54] Benjamin Balderson:
And while while you're at it, I think more what needs to be exposed with this particular question is then what is your view of the world? Like, maybe give your how how is this reality created? What is the what is the driving force that made that happen? Why is this working this way? You answered it a little bit. Maybe just give a fuller, more complete version of what you see the driving force, how is reality operating?
[00:22:35] John Roeland:
So I will answer that, in a second. The definition of real is having objective independent existence. Independent of what? I don't know. Not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory. Occurring or existing in actuality of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities, Behaving or presented in a way that feels true, honest, and familiar, and without pretension or affectation. Okay. I'll stop there. I, so I'll say this, I I kind of, I and maybe this is wrong, but I broke down the word real into 2 words. Right? Re, which means again, and al, a l, which means, of.
Right? So of again. Right? And so the the connotation I kinda took from that is, like, the the nothingness, the source that exists at some point, the unity of everything starts generating again and again, and it is the of. Right? This is the of that it comes from. And so everything that is generated is of again. It's of again. It's being, you know, until, I guess, it can't anymore. So in terms of my perspective of what it is, reality is is, somewhat of a game, a game of hide and seek, where that source is all knowing, all powerful, has everything within it.
And so it decides to create everything that it can manifest, and all of the manifestations continue to go out. But in order to play the game, it has to each spark of manifestation has to forget that it's part of the original source. And the point of the game is for each of us to remember that we're part of that original source and ultimately return to that. And then I honestly think it's it starts again. That's my best perception of what reality is.
[00:25:05] Benjamin Balderson:
Where did the original material come from then? If there was, like, a did did you describe a nothing that became something for all practical purposes? Where did the original prima materia come from?
[00:25:22] John Roeland:
I think that's beyond our comprehension. I think that's where the ultimate mystery comes in. Like, what what is that spark? I would I guess, I'd say the best answer I found for that is, what's known as the Christ consciousness, which I would equate to love of everything, including the evil, like, understanding that we're all part of the same thing. So if, if that guy, you know, down the street, whatever, is able to commit a crime that in my mind I could never do, that I need to have some type of empathy for the fact that that could have been me. And I used to I I have this quote that, like, when George Bush was president, George w, I used to say, well, if you were if you were George Bush, like, you you think you would do something different. Like, you're like, but if you were actually him, you probably wouldn't.
You know, because I'm saying it from my perspective, like, you know, coming up in, you know, the Bay Area, middle class, lower middle class, that, oh, well, like, he's he's evil. He's doing this. He's doing that. But if I were actually him, I'd probably do the same thing. So it's like I have to take into account, like, his experiences, how he came up, and the fact that for him to break away from that system is a lot more difficult than for me to say I'm against that system. So, yeah, I mean, I guess, in terms of the the prima materia, I don't know. There has to be it has to already be existing in the original source in my mind. There has to be matter and some and spirit, but, but, yeah, I think that the spark is sort of what we would consider God.
So
[00:27:37] Benjamin Balderson:
I will go to give Marcus another moment to ponder. So myself, I'm a heathen. I'm an. So everything in reality, quantifiable and not quantifiable is the all. That is everything. And at some point in time, the all needed to progress in and of itself. So it's split into a duality of masculine and feminine. The masculine side became material and the feminine side is immaterial. So that's a the void or gununga gap as a heathen and then the all father. Well, at this point, what we have is, a negative and a positive that are balancing each other out into a neutral, and nothing's really happening. And so the all father split into 2 sides.
So then inside the micro verse of the all father, which the all father was the masculine side, but now the masculine side splits into a feminine and masculine objectively. Because anytime you have the entire something of an entirety of a group, you're gonna start noticing that that group isn't exactly the same the way it seemed originally. Once you've isolated out things, you start noticing saw small subtle characteristics inside those things. And so then that overall group in a micro verse will split into a masculine and feminine. So with this, we had Muspelheim, which is the land of fire. That's the feminine, the chaotic side. And then we had Niflheim, the land of ice, the masculine side, the stable frozen side.
Again, we don't have anything going on. These 2 are actually, because they're this polarized sides of a singular unit, they're pushing away from each other. This is where Gnunga gap comes in and pulls these 2 polarized sides together. And this where the destruction of those two forces meeting, the immovable object and the unstoppable force, that's where life happens. And so the prima materia is everything of the all father. The spark is the all mother. So it's the spark, the the action of the all mother creating that, movement, that destruction in the all father that created life. And so part of the reason that we have a real hard time quantifying so many things is because the all mother is not part while it's the driving force of our reality, what's giving it life and what's taking it away, it's also not something we can touch. It's not part of this reality because we live in the material world.
And so this is the reality we're experiencing, and all these things are all true at the same time. The now with that Merriam Webster's, definition, I believe what they were calling real then when they said independent means and again, it'd be a bunch of people in the chat immediately brought up thoughts are real. Absolutely. Thoughts are real, But it's not independent. So you can have a thought, and I can't verify it. Now I can now I can take this lighter, and I can hand it to Marcus. I can hand it to John. And it's, you know, we might call it different things, but it's, you know, full of fluid. It does this. It's it's a lighter, and that's independent of any of our thoughts.
So that's, I think, what that add on means that, that's what really makes it reality. And, while thoughts are real, the thing is is they don't have weight. So I think this is where a lot of people go wrong, and this is actually in the truth community a lot where they think everything derives from infinite possibility. And I don't see where that infinite possibility sure. But then the problem is is over here, we have the stability. The the the it can only be this. And so it's where those two things meet because you need the material for it. I can I there's a million possibilities for me to to buy a house, but once I go to hit the hit the supply house, I quickly realize that those infinite possibilities suddenly go well, at least mine do, because my wall is not that big?
But, you you you this is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. So, you know, you can tell me all about your 1,000 foot pounds of horse and all this, but then when it goes and actually hits the road and your 0 to 60 is only, is garbage is a 15, 22nd, 0 to 60. So this is kinda where those two things collide. But all of it, again, is real Whether it becomes substantive substantive or not is another thing.
[00:33:50] allen marcus:
So on a meta level, describing how we already knew each other, and now we exist on a new channel that didn't exist before. So there was intention, deliberation, creation, and now we're on a new channel, new format, new stream. So on a meta level, being able to have those thoughts of let's create something new and sort of what we can do. And if we're touching upon the great mystery and we begin by telling stories, which then turn into myth and legend, And we have this confusion in culture today where the word myth originally meant the story to convey the truth of the civilization, the story of humanity, the idea of a myth to explain something in a way to find the patterns that fit and the truth in the story that isn't a lie. So if we're talking in terms of today, we might say, let's bust some urban myths today. Let's let's bust some myths that are common misconceptions about the reality thing.
That's where we get the framing incorrect where now people have framed it as if we're going to bust, a falsehood. We're going to expose a truth and stories themselves are somehow without value or are not measurable. We got to the point where we were discussing, like, hard limits that we can measure, like, financial equity and something. How much is this gold? Can we barter and trade for it if we want to build a house or buy a new car or something? Well, we have to have some sort of exchange, and that's the system we've agreed upon. But in reality that we're facing, there are limits to having those resources.
So that's a real thing, and that's a measurable thing. Now if we're talking thoughts are things, I can maybe think about a chair and then go to Amazon and order a chair because I had the thought and the desire to obtain a chair. But then there's that hard limit we hit with having to face reality in the so called in the language of facing reality and saying, well, I have to exchange something for that. So that's something we're dealing with. The stories explain that. The myths are helping us to get around this great mystery. And the original question of what is reality, is it subjective, is it objective?
And I would ask, in what ways is it symbolic? In what ways do language, art, literature, grunts, stomach gurglings, sounds, and things, how we're communicating has a lot to do with how we frame things and how we view the world. So in debating, learning how to speak, finding the true definition of words that we're all agreed upon begins to paint a more accurate picture. And then once we kind of get that footing and understanding of our reality in terms of symbolic connections and links and what things mean to everyone objectively where we can say that this is not a subjective thing. This word has this meaning.
This measure of gold is the same as this measure of gold, and we have an equivalent exchange, then we can begin to work backwards and see what is consistent, and then what is consistent. Is it true? That would be the question to answer is how where do we come from the great mystery thing? There are a lot of great mysteries that can be debunked certainly because we can say certain authors wrote certain stories with the intention of creating world views and religions. We can look to, like, l Ron Hubbard, Scientology, these types of things.
Is there something beyond that? Can we can we say that Scientology is good in some ways, bad in some ways? Weigh it out and see what ultimately that's maybe a different debate, and I won't push that further.
[00:38:15] Benjamin Balderson:
So to bring that to and William McKnight's asking to bring that to, and what he asked just does that. Can subjective become objective and vice versa? And so that there's in today's reality, that's a real poignant question because from my perspective, we live in an emperor wears no clothes society where, so very often, people believe something. I, like, you take the, trans community where you, this is a a man even though it was born a woman, and they identify as this and and blah blah blah. And and so that's, perfect in that in those terms. So, this is something that they're trying to do. And, again, this is, in my opinion, an emperor wears no clothes thing where while we all might politely be agreeing on something and claiming something, we all know the difference.
And so we can all pretend one way, but there is a more objective reality that even if they're pretending they don't acknowledge that it exists, they they absolutely know that it does. Their their, worldview usually is very driven on emotion at best, and so you'll see a disconnect happen between as soon as you start putting logic to their things. So it's how they feel. Everything is how they feel, which, again, this is conflating subjective and objective, and so they can't seem to make a break between the 2. I think it's, at best, a mental illness.
At worst, a contrived, manipulation to virtue signal in some way to show that they are good people because they've been convinced of some type of an end, and so they're trying to bend reality to their will. And, as we're seeing, that doesn't really work. You know, so this also then gives the ideals that if you think that your reality is entirely different or you're able to make it different, well, then, make this baseball to the face not hurt. It just it isn't, turn it into a canary. Eventually, reality slaps you.
[00:41:03] John Roeland:
Yeah. I have a good example of that. I was listening to, Kill Tony, the comedy podcast. And, there was a trans trans woman on there, and they were asking them questions. And they were saying that they weren't gonna go through the whole process because in order to do so, you have to sit on something because the hole that they create is constantly trying to close. It's a wound, and your body is constantly trying to close it. So it right there, that's where objective reality hits you in the face. And based off what you're saying, Ben, it makes you wonder what I'm calling the hidden hand here, whoever is pushing these ideas and narratives onto the masses, do they believe that they can somehow change objective reality, or is their motivation something other than that? That it's possibly just to confuse us from understanding what reality is, what we are, what our purpose and meaning is, or if they think that they can actually create an alternative to objective reality, and in that way, kind of actually become gods themselves by creating this alternate reality in this realm that we're in. So
[00:42:53] Benjamin Balderson:
I mean, do you think though in order to do that, changing a perception is one thing, but changing the basic laws of physics. And I'm not stating that all laws of physics that we currently think we understand work the way they we think that they do. I'm not stating that in any way, shape, or form. But at some point in time, there is things that work a certain way, and there's just no getting around that. You could do something to make it not work that way, but then you've now influenced it. It still works that way. You've just done something to it. There there's objective. Again, that's where the objective comes in.
So, whether they can change your perception, can they actually change the laws of reality? Can they decide that human beings without wings fly like Superman? Can they, you know? Now we a lot of the people in the community talk about this, and I don't necessarily disagree that it can have a wiley coyote type type component to it where so many of us have believed that we can't that we can't. But, can you prove that? Can you break away and fly no matter how hard? I mean, there's been people I'm sure that, we would clinically call insane who fully believed they could fly. People on LSD, things like that. They've absolutely 100% with every bit of their being to the point where they jump off buildings that they absolutely know is gonna hurt them if they were to fall off and hit the ground, but they believe they can flock.
And as far as I know, that hasn't ever turned into somebody flying yet. So while we can wish, you know, it's the old wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up faster, right, type scenario there. I I I, again, fully believe that your will absolutely changes thing can change things, but it's inside confined set of rules. You can you can make some alterations. I think the matrix was probably very forthright with that when they were like, some rules can be broken, like, they don't really exist. There are only rules inside the minds of humans that have they've imposed on themselves similar to, like, the way they train an elephant where, you know, the the they start out with, something that it absolutely can't break when it's little. And by the time it gets to adult, it doesn't ever test that and check it out. So it always believes that it can't break it.
But, and some can be bent, but that it doesn't say there are no rules. Like, there there's absolutely ways that things happen. And whether they're gonna be able to change that, I think that they can fool you to think that they can, like a snake oil salesman does. But, in the end of it, the grand picture is something, the human mind can't even fathom. And the amount of change that they're affecting is like you pushing against the waterfall. Like, you know, sure. You're pushing some water up, but you you look around and everything else is coming down. So to to me, they aren't they they they're they're just skating uphill is all they're doing.
[00:46:55] allen marcus:
It reminds me of, like, you know, Criss Angel, mind freak, and you can see how he combines mentalism, his charisma with, you know, the makeup and the glamour magic. He's a beautiful looking man. You're looking into his eyes. You're getting hypnotized. Now you're believing and you're accepting that he's going to show you your card or he's going to put a nail through his chest or whatever he's gonna do, climb up or down the side of a building, these types of things. So when creating the frame to show you what you're gonna see, priming you to see it, and then repeating the language. These are the hypno hypnotic techniques of magicians and neurolinguistic programmers, these types of people, is it's sales technique. You can walk into a store, determine not to buy anything, and then a trained salesperson will remove all barriers for you to not buy the thing. And then you've taken out a second mortgage on your home to purchase something you didn't need because you were susceptible to it. Now there might have already been implanted previously an idea.
You could have had a real bad breakfast that morning. You could have drank too much coffee. All these starts types of things. I really wanted to mention specifically the food in our objective reality, the quality of the food, the drugs we do or do not take, prescription or otherwise, all these things do influence our perception of things, which might make things seem more subjective. If you're having a better day, things turn out better. If you wake up on the wrong side of the the bed, the rest of the day is probably gonna be the worst day you've ever had, and it's just gonna get worse and worse and worse from that point out. So there are things we can do to have control. People were talking about the matter of the hidden hand and who the controllers are.
That's a very good point. If we're talking about a masculine perspective of being in control of our own lives, of what we can be in control, that's where we need to test and discover what aspects of our life do we have the most control over, how do we influence those aspects of our own lives, not concerned about other people's lives, living our lives the best we can, doing the right actions that we discover by failing, having to apologize, continuing to live better, not making those same mistakes, and then displaying those techniques to other people, That's how these memes of good behaviors spread.
Now when we say memes and we go online and we go to TikTok, we discover even on YouTube or Instagram, these sort of reels where people are hypnotizing within 5 seconds. So you're watch the 30 second real spiel to see what they're gonna say if they're gonna sell your product, or are they going to do something wrong on purpose to create an emotional reaction? You know, the subjective feeling of I feel really angry about this thing because this guy was doing something wrong. He had a screw, and he used a hammer to to nail it in. It's not a nail. It's clearly a screw, and we don't see it spin. And now we're gonna comment to say, hey, doofus.
Use a flathead or a Phillips screwdriver. Don't hit it with a hammer. Well, now we've just engaged with someone else's frame. We've given them our time and our attention, taken that away from ourselves, and we've lost control of our situation given over to this tomfoolery. Now do we laugh about it and move on, or do we get really angry about it? So in terms of what we can control in our reality, those are our emotions and our reactions to things. And then sometimes just physically turning the phone off, walking away, going outside as a touching grass, grounding ourselves, spending time in nature, and we're back to what we can call reality.
We can engage with virtual realities at any time we want to. We're not saying that's a terrible thing or a good thing. It's just an option. Now if we're addicted to that option and we're getting stuck in virtual realities, we're getting stuck in propaganda, paranoia, perspectives from governments, corporations, colleges, whatever it may be, that we're getting further from reality and less in control of our own lives and what we're going to do with them.
[00:51:53] John Roeland:
Yeah. This I mean, I'm trying not to, like, take us too far off topic, but it it it's relating. In thinking about the theory of natural law and the idea that there is this hidden hand who are all occultists, and they are trying to, invert natural law and keep us from understanding natural law. But then the understanding of the occult is also supposed to be the solution. I just I find that to be a flaw in the theory because why then do all of these, men who are understanding of all of this occult information, why do they decide to use it in order to deceive us?
Is it just for material wealth? And if natural law in the way that is considered similar to karma. Right? So I I kind of think natural law and the idea of, moral law is a bad word, is like not the best word to use because people equate the laws of physical nature, like the laws of animals, to what we're talking about. When in reality, when the natural law community is talking about natural law as the law of consequences, this is talking more about morality, and karma, and cause and effect. So, if this law actually exists, this moral law actually exists, that what you put out you're gonna get back. Why would the why would the people who understand this the most seem to be violating it the most?
It's kind of a it's kind of a conundrum, and I I'm not necessarily looking for an answer, but, I it's just
[00:53:48] Benjamin Balderson:
So first, I what I need to you to clarify is because you make an insinuation that there's a natural way that a natural order to things and that they are inviolate, you know, with that. Like Right. So Like, the ultimate law What what now now what we're having to break that down to as we back straight back steps, is there good and evil? So you've gotta convince me that there's a good and an evil before you can ever ask me whether there's they these this group of people is now doing the evil. First first, how is there even a good and evil? What's what exactly is making that determination? And and you're saying it's natural, but natural to what? Apparently, this is where objective and then subjective, you've definitely slipped into subjective because you have a decided, set of laws that you think are natural. But apparently, because they're able to do something else, they think that that's natural.
Obviously, a predator prey scenario, the prey thinks it's natural to stand around and eat grass, and the predator thinks that it's natural to eat that prey, but I bet you the prey doesn't really feel that great about that whole scenario. Like, I don't know about this. Shouldn't you just be eating grass like me? So now you've gotta convince me is is good and evil objective at all. That that's what you're saying is there's an objective good and evil. Yeah.
[00:55:32] John Roeland:
Yeah. I would say that when it comes to human morality, that we do have some sense within us, some natural sense that we have within us to not harm other beings. Now that has been very, altered. You know, we're in a position right now where that has been compromised very much. So it's easy to look at the world and go, yeah, like, these guys do evil all the time and they get away with it. And and I and again, I'm struggling with this. But I do believe that when it comes to human nature, human morality, there is something within us that's telling us that there is a right decision here. There is a, you aren't supposed to go around just killing everybody and stealing from everybody.
There is a balance that needs to be struck. And I would I would describe evil as being the opposite of that natural way of living in balance, not in not needing, you know, excess, you know, understanding that you don't really own anything. I would call it a state of stewardship. Right? We have dominion over the earth. We it doesn't mean we own it. It means we it means that we are here to care for it. We're here to live in balance with it, which similar to how some of the the creatures do that we observe. And that evil is the imbalance the other way, where, again, this hidden hand appears to be really working to deceive us.
And, again, if it's if it is just for a material gain, or do they think that they can usurp this law that exists? Because the premise is from the from the circles I come from, the premise is is that this law exists, these people know it exists, and that they are inverting it by getting us to violate it, which then allows them to manipulate us and control us and stay in power. But I guess the ultimate contradiction in that is that, like, again, if they understand that, then they understand that then they're gonna suffer some kind of great reset caused by nature or God or whatever you wanna call it.
And and and the circles that I have been in are somehow fighting to to stop that from happening.
[00:58:12] Benjamin Balderson:
But you understand we that still brings us back to so I understand that there's a general feeling that something could be right or wrong. Now let's take something very sensitive, like, age of consent for a girl. Today, most of us, myself included, would state that if you're over a given adult age, say, 21, you should in no way be associating with girls 14 to 18. If you're 18, you shouldn't be associating with girls 13. Like, I think most of us have the general if you went to high school together, that's acceptable age range, like a 4 4 to 5 year gap up until you hit your thirties and you're both realized adults for better or for worse.
And so you're you're both making the choices that you're gonna make. Now if you take that 200 years ago, you know, if she was 12, I'm not sure why she isn't married yet and punching out a kid. So and that dude, he's not gonna be 12. He's gonna be 20, 25. What age does did he it take him to own his own home, have enough income to provide for himself and her, and then presumably a child, because you get married most you know, that's next step most assume. So, you know, this is, no different than going into a business. There's presumed expenses that are gonna come up.
And are you, do you have the padding to take care of those expenses? And so we you've gotta show me where the the good and evil is in all of this. You know?
[01:00:34] John Roeland:
I would say in terms of that specific issue that it is you could call that ethics, and that comes more into the society that you're living in, that those things can change and understanding that. I think, personally You think you think you think
[01:00:56] Benjamin Balderson:
morals and ethics are are different. So morals are some ironclad thing that never ever in human history has there been any sentiment against, and ethics is something that, in which John and I are not trying to argue with each other. This is this was all preplanned. We're trying to poke holes at each other to practice this and fill this in. So this is I don't necessarily disagree with some of what John's saying, but I am gonna. But as each of us is speaking, we're supposed to peek poke at each other, and and this is the debate idea.
So are are are you making a contention that there at some point in time was some universal set of laws that humans were just born with and it's not something through because that's what I was getting at that through lived experience, eventually no different than, the rat experiment where they put a treat at a top of a ladder. And after, generation or 2 of rats having at it and having a good time with these treats on top of this ladder, they started making a it was either a bell or a buzzer. And then when that did, if a rat tried to grab the treat, all of a sudden it would electrify everything. And it only took one generation before generations that weren't born and had never been electrified. We're like, no. Don't go up that fucking ladder.
Don't do it. And so this is a a trained thing through experience. Had that stimuli never hit that particular group of rats or mice, they never would have thought that, But you can be sure because then the whole thing is is the whole cage electrified. So any other rat that tried to go up that ladder, the other rats attacked. That became a morality for them. Don't go up that fucking ladder you douche. So, this was a trained response. This wasn't innate response. I I clarify the difference because then that's the root of it because if anything that we believe isn't something that's through trained response, there's an actual some core reality that's that's unbreakable.
That's what we need to get at for there to be a true good and evil.
[01:03:28] John Roeland:
Yeah. So I would argue that what makes humans unique is whatever this thing is within us that tells us that something is right and something is wrong, and that we shouldn't harm others, we shouldn't kill others. And I may have made a mistake by trying to distinguish between ethics and morals. I looked up ethics. Ethics is a set of moral principles. Now going back to the idea of a moral law, which could go down to the first principle of do no harm, and then also coinciding with the right to self defense. Now, to me, there is something distinct and unique about humans, and this is what separates us from the other creatures that we know of on earth.
I do think that this morality potentially applies to other beings that may be higher than us, and maybe, I don't know, maybe it doesn't. But I do think it is unique to humans, and I think that with the question of, like, age of consent, it does depend on the community you're in, the time you're in. And I think, like I said, our our system of morality and and how we function has been so compromised at this point, that you have to take into account the fact that adolescence is basically a made up is a made up concept within the last 120 years that they decided, oh, we're gonna start sending 14 year olds to high school and, you know, basically call them adolescents.
When when my grandmother was 13, she started working. And again, if we look at nature, that is the age where people are now able to reproduce. So we have altered that. Now, whether or not that's a good thing or not, I mean, I think that it's in a lot of cases, you can say that it's become a negative thing, especially in the sense of just sexuality and being open about what sexuality is and the reality of sexuality and the reality that you can get pregnant and boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. Like, all of that stuff has been sort of, has been compromised, you know, in terms of our ability to just talk to people naturally about how how humans function and how we work. And I think that is part of the control system, and, like, what I've been calling the hidden hand.
I do think that there is a morality that exists, that we are somehow tapped into, and this is what has been called natural law. Again, my best definition is the law of human nature, and it's over time, people looking at this idea that there's something in us that is telling us we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't do that, and, that that has, you know, evolved to a certain point. Now if maybe it doesn't exist, but I think that, you can see positives and negatives of it, like, all the time. But, again, if it if it does exist, again, the presumption of the circles that I run-in, that this is the ultimate this is the ultimate occult knowledge, is the knowledge of natural law. That there is karma, basically. What you put out, you're gonna get back.
If the people who understand this, why would they violate it? So I'm sort of arguing against the natural law community in that sense, because in the idea of that, like, you know, that we have to, war against these people to, to, I don't know, dude. I'm kinda losing my train of thought.
[01:07:42] Benjamin Balderson:
That's alright. We'll take you out. I was already thinking you need to get out the hot seat for a minute anyways. Take me out the hot seat. I don't care. I definitely could pepper you a lot more, but you you definitely, you know, that's not the way it's supposed to work. It's supposed to flip flop, and you should probably start, doing some poking. I think, Marcus needs to jump in on his point of view from it. But for me, just in general, and I'll I'll flesh that out more later. But to me, there is no such thing as good and evil. That's, it's one thing. Anytime you have a polar opposite, hot cold, that's temperature.
Temperature is the reality. Hot and cold is your juxtaposition according to your understanding of reality. And so they're really the same thing. They're really temperature. And what you're describing in that descriptor is your juxtaposition inside of that thing. What you have to do is step away from it in order to go, oh, well, it's temperature. And if I was at a 1000 degrees, 500 would be cold, 1500 would be hot. If I was at 500, a 1000 would be hot, 0 would be cold. So what we're not there that's not really a reality. That's your juxtaposition, inside of that and and then making a determination on that. So for me, there is no such thing as good and evil. There's a set given experiences that is a general society that we've lived through, yeah, perspective.
And, the the that we've lived through and based on those and this is something that fluctuates and even in what John was saying in his response where he claimed to evolve. If it's an evolution of something, then there was no reality to start with. There was so just the fact that it's able to be changeable says that it wasn't in, you know, stone solid to begin with, that we've made that change and flowed with it. So for me, there is no good and evil, which isn't to say that there isn't a set of morals, what we call morals, or things that we've decided are beneficial for humans who live together.
[01:10:02] allen marcus:
So we started talking about the topic of reality asking a a very pointed question. Is it subjective or is objective? That's a very leading question that already has presuppositions of subjectivity and objectivity. Exploring that, going through kind of our world view, sharing some anecdotes, and then getting to a point where now we're facing this idea of their existing good and evil that's already sort of separating one group of people as being a good group of people and then the opposition being an evil. And maybe those people in the evil group think they're the good group and see the people who think that the good guys, the evil. So it it gets back to this idea of mythology, legends, stories, and how humans explain things to each other. And through using stories and emotional manipulation and charisma and the ability to speak in into reality a story to set a frame of reference, then we can else ultimately see, well, there's an evil figure in our story, and there's a hero in our story. So if we identify ourselves as some kind of a hero, naturally, when we go out into the world and we encounter obstacles and we say that this institution was my obstacle in life at this moment preventing me from doing this thing that I was attempting to do then maybe we see that as evil. If we encounter people who have, you know, psychopathic tendencies and they wanna kill animals and they're very angry and they have emotional disturbances and balances, we might label that person as an evil person. We might think that they're just maybe misunderstood.
I don't know. I'm not here to really argue, you know, the good or evil thing at this point. I'm still kind of working through that with a lot of a lot of programming to show me that there is evil. So having been born into this world in which the presupposition of my parents and their parents and their parents going back generation generation generation was that there was an ultimate evil, then showing your children that there's evil, I question and wonder if because we're shown a description of evil, then we accept that there is the concept of evil, and then we begin to see evil. This might go into an anecdote of how there's a, witch trials scenario or a satanic panic scenario where people just begin to begin to see shadows and those shadows are supernatural and they're evil and they're demons everywhere and there's this spiritual attack. So beginning to see the world with evil begins to put more evil into the world in some way. And that might be, well, am I arguing for a subjective reality to say, well, in our objective reality, objectively, there's evil, but I'm giving subjective anecdotes of my experiences with evil, which might have just been me working on my own inner demons projecting out into the world could be tricks or aspects of platonic forms in the mind and the only archetypes to better me as a man.
So ultimately, are they evil? Are they just obstacles for my growth to make me stronger? It really becomes a matter of perspective to ultimately say I will only ever fail because evil exists therefore I should not try leads to nihilism and the black pill which then prevents you from even playing the game denying yourself the participation in reality. So the focus of you know, evil obstacle, hidden hands, politicians who are setting tax codes that make it impossible for anybody to ever get ahead finance. That's sort of the framing of reality that is not natural in the world. That's a layer built upon a layer built upon a layer built upon a layer, and that's where we get into the idea of what simulation theory might be. My personal opinion about that is we feel in our heart and our mind and our experience that we're not living in reality and then we go outside and there's a stop sign and we're walking on a sidewalk, we're not driving in a car but we still stop and we look both ways because we've had experience of cars driving by or we stop at a red light but there's no one there. It's the middle of the night we're the only car on the road but we stop anyway because they're trained to do so. That's a warning sign for us having this learned experience.
We could go right through that stoplight and probably no one would notice. There probably be no immediate consequences. There wouldn't be a collision. We'd probably be fine, but tiptoeing because we have a fear of evil and bad things and boogeyman and anything terrible that could possibly happen prevents us from living our life adventurously and courageously. So because of that experience, I would push back and say, well, if there is evil, it's not it's not the ultimate obstacle that cannot be overcome. So when we're talking about evil, it's, you know, you know, how evil is it? Is it a $1,000,000 of evil, a $1,000,000,000 of evil, a $1,000,000,000,000 worth of evil? How are we measuring evil, and are we so limited in our thoughts to think that good is always going to be poor and impoverished and never have enough resources to face evil.
So when we examine our thoughts, our thinking, and our behavior and we see that, well, really maybe it's just our own thoughts that are creating evil that are controlling ourselves and preventing us from doing things. On this very stream here tonight, in our own minds, we're concerned about, well, is our message gonna get out to people? Is there freedom of speech? Is there freedom of reach? Is this going to be a meritocratic system where people are gonna give us a thumbs up, and then more people are gonna subscribe and share because we're doing good and we're doing the right thing or is there an algorithm that keeps us down? These are the types of thoughts that we have. Is YouTube evil? Is the company that owns YouTube, Google? They had a motto at some point, you know, do no evil or something to that effect.
They removed that line. Therefore, is that an admittance that now they're open to do evil and be a controlling entity that could suppress good? That's a interesting story that we are living through right now. If I could wind this up, let it spin out and see where it goes, see if it hits any targets. Does it encounter any obstacles or barriers? Is there any logic that I've just jumped over and avoided? Can you cut that argument up and put it back together again? Have I made any, dent in your in your question here? Are we on the right track? Are we making progress?
[01:17:56] Benjamin Balderson:
It it it seems like you and I, are on a very similar page with it. We're, trying to find some ultimate evil. Again, from the way I under from the way I'm looking at it, when, it's just like when I was talking about the microverse of the masculine. Anytime you isolate something out, you start noticing subtle differences. Now noticing that those differences is one thing. It's, I think, human nature to take a side on that as long as those differences are something you're experiencing. So are you able to and that's that's the that's the interesting thing about being a human is having the experience. And, again, that's subjective, but there's so much of it that, we put subjective in it and it's presupposed presupposed objective.
Even something like murder. While murder, nominally, all of us would say is bad. Definitely don't like it. It's not been a good time. Nobody likes it when their friends and family get murdered up. So don't do it to other people. It's just not a good time for anybody. But there are people who have thought murder's pretty alright. You know? There's time that that they've got lots of different scenarios that we would call murder that they didn't. So, apparently, they, like, you look at, Eric the red, the original Vinland saga. A couple times he was kicked out of villages because there were some killings, and they didn't even really get all, emotional about it or anything. They're like, there were some killings.
Didn't want that guy living there because he seemed to like doing killings, so we kicked him out the village, which, wasn't to say whether they thought the killings were justified or not justified. Whether they thought there was a good or evil, they just like, no. We don't really like that shit in our village. Get out of here. So that's even something like that. Now when we look at it, and, again, this is this would get into the whole, overpopulation thing, which I'm not trying to get into that, but just for a metaphor, which again, not to get too on the nose of it because I don't believe there's an overpopulation.
But you take, a deer population in a localized area. You go ahead and wipe out all the wolves, which we've done before. And, then you realize quickly that now that there's not predators doing some murdering on those deers, which they're undeniably getting murdered, all of a sudden you end up with an overpopulation of deer. You start getting sickly deer. They're definitely not living healthy lives. So now you got this giant populate unchecked population that are all living really bad lives. When the whole problem was is that we got rid of the murdering. And so we introduced the wolves back in and this world starts getting real weird when you start looking objectively and realize that they almost everything that we experience, we're putting a subjective flavor into it out the gate. We're saying, oh, well, murder is evil. Hurting even what John said, hurting other people is evil. Well, what about if I go over and, he's got, he he's got a big old cyst on his on the back of his neck or something. And I go over and I cut it open, which definitely hurts, sucks. And then I drain it. And then now all of a sudden his neck's better, and he's got he did quits getting headaches and things like that. Well, I definitely hurt him.
You know? Again, this gets real, real weird because people have a hard time that with the difference between objective and it's subjective in it. And the thing is is no matter what scenario it is, if a guy came up to my house and was raping my or or raping my wife, bleep that later, John, then, nobody would think anything if I and this is even in the natural law. If I the the, you know, take no shit. So, you know, you don't let other people harm you. But then the reality of that is is is my response is definitely gonna harm him. Definitely. That's that's objective. That's a real thing. And so it then what we're saying is is what he was doing somehow overrid over or overrode the actual laws now that you've done something, this law that was inviolate, it doesn't exist anymore, and I can just start doing things that I wasn't allotted to do before. So now we've got this contingency.
Well, now now that first thing doesn't seem so solid anymore because now there's contingencies. Well, if it's a contingency, where do we place the contingency? And that in all life experiences is always a slippery slope because all of us would agree to the scenario I I described, or somebody's coming up to hurt your children and kidnap your children and do things. Absolutely. Take him out. What if he's taking your car? What if he's just gonna punch you in the nose? What if he's you know? Now we've got a sliding scale, which tells me that this is all subjective. If it was objective, there wouldn't be these if, ands, or buts. There cannot
[01:23:42] John Roeland:
be. Yeah. And I think that we, without asking the question, we got into the second prompt, which was is morality objective. And, and I wanted to say about in terms of evil, I wanted to touch on Rudolf Steiner, his ideas, and it's interesting what in the comments, Joshua Cromley wrote, 1 and 0 equals 0. Logic is binary. 1 and 0 equals 0, thus, will explain most things. Love transcends the duality of logic. In Steiner's perspective, there were 2 entities that represented evil. It was Lucifer and Aramon. Lucifer would be considered like a being of light, and Lucifer was pulling humanity, you know, into this idea of freedom and, and, individuality, and that Arman is this other side, which is more, earthbound.
Right? So Lucifer is like a light being. Aramon's more of a lower entity, and Araman's kind of pulling us down. And Araman is run by, technology and, you know, kind of like, kind of creating this alternative reality. And that these are 2 poles that we work with that are are within us. Right? They're like inner forces, as well as actual entities that exist in the spiritual realm. And that the balancing force was the Christ principle. And, I kinda find that as comparable to what Josh Cromley is saying, is that, so perhaps evil is real, but it's it's an it's a necessary thing for us to develop to where we need to go. Because in Steiner's view, he would he would talk about the war of all against all.
[01:25:47] Benjamin Balderson:
And he would say that this is coming. So what? So if something though is necessary, is it not good? Because if it's necessary, then it's something that's required for the continuation of life. So wouldn't that then make it a good thing?
[01:26:05] John Roeland:
Because life isn't that our isn't that our goal to keep going? I suppose you could look at it that way, but I I guess in the in the moment that you're experiencing it, you're gonna experience it as pain and suffering. So maybe so again, like, with Steiner, it was he's talking about these things and he's sort of clairvoyant and sort of predicting things that were to come, and he was pretty accurate about a lot of things. But he talked about the inevitability of Araman manifesting as a physical entity, that Lucifer had already manifested as a physical being in I forget when. He he manifested in in Asia somewhere prior to then Christ manifesting, and then Araman was still to come.
And a lot of what he described as Aramonic, tendencies is basically what we're experiencing now with technology controlling everything. And, that basically, the Christ principle is the balancing force of this. But he predicted that there would be this war of everyone against everyone, and it at least it feels like we're going that way. Again, I mean, I probably should turn my TV off more often, but, I mean, it definitely seems that that's what we're in right now, and what we are manifesting, and perhaps, you know, the mission that we're here to achieve has to go through that, but it is perceived as evil.
I mean, I I mean, I have a hard time not perceiving the deception, and the lengths that they go to deceive us as evil. But, again, if it's necessary, then, I guess, the question is how do you then navigate it. Right? And
[01:27:53] allen marcus:
Well, I I would make the point that the question of does evil exist has probably been written about more than any other topic. That's my presumption. So I don't think that we need to solve that issue tonight. I think maybe finding those core arguments and familiarizing ourselves with them is going to be important moving on if if we keep, running up against this obstacle of well, what what do we do about the problem evil? The problem of evil is a persistent problem that we keep having to to deal with in our own self arguments to figure out what is our worldview. I was gonna mention also this idea of governing, this idea of governance where in our society when, you know, families become tribes, become walled in cities where there's walls, and they're trying to protect things and keep nature out. So the the deer and the wolves and the wild beasts aren't running in at night and stealing the children and eating them up because what do they know? They just they're just hungry, and they're looking for delicious children to eat.
Building the walls then forcing people to live in close proximity is going to hasten and hurry up the effect of encountering other people. And when we encounter other people and we begin to live with them or against them, then people's preferences come to mind and, you know, don't tread on me and my bubble is so big and I need more space but hold on you're taking up too much space and now we start to fight over property and, you know, if you have siblings, you know, you grow up with brothers and sisters and maybe you share a bedroom and you got a top bunk and a bottom bunk and now you're fighting well am I on the top bunk, am I on the bottom bunk? This type of thing. We're learning to live within our limits, within our means, and having to work together to then increase the abundance and the comfort levels of everyone involved.
That was gone well for a while. I don't know at what point people decided that they could have an advantageous, you know, jumping forward in line getting ahead of others by nudging them and lying and cheating and stealing to to find a perceived advantage to then lead to governing, which then probably leads to taxation. So now you've got more time to sit around in your estate, your castle, your villa while other people do the hard work and you've got them convinced that you're sitting on a high mountain making the hard decisions so they don't have to.
And as a gift of thanks for this governorship and then maybe there's a military involved to add an additional level of protection to protect the border and the the civilization. So we can see the story developing into our modern day society where, you know, we have governance and then we have levels of governance down to our very day to day lives. And from there, encountering the obstacles to keep people in place seem to be there because at some point, if someone going and this was a very literal thing that may have happened or maybe didn't happen, subjective objective. If we have a killing of the king ritual and someone wants to overturn the order or have a revolution or take a political action to stir things up, to change the governance from the top down, deep state or otherwise, draining swamps, whatever. All these words and metaphors and ideas and headlines in newspapers continue to tell the human story of people having some form of leadership and then this lust for power leading to abuse taking more and more and more until those below them have said, well, you've taken everything we have. We have nothing to live off now.
What are we gonna do? Are we the 99%? Are we going to have to figure out how we can live more comfortably because we're not live it's not a matter of living comfortably. It's a matter of not having basic needs met. And there's that thing about weak times, hard times, strong men, that sort of thing that keeps getting repeated, repeated, repeated. Cycles, stories, beginning, middle, and beginning, middle, end, beginning, middle, end. Again, revolving, revolution, cycles, systems, child becomes teenager, becomes an adult, eventually becomes the adult, maybe becomes the king, dies, leaving behind a legacy for children and grandchildren, these types of things.
And as we find out our individual rights, our atomization, our I have to have my own car, my own apartment, my own Netflix account. No one can log in. It's my password. Don't share it. Forcing everyone to start from 0 and then have to build it up only to find out that that rug can be pulled out from you at any moment to take all of your accumulated wealth from a bank account. Like, who controls bank accounts? That's a that's a thing that we're having to talk about again. What is what is money? What is real money? What is not cryptocurrency or NFC? What is what what is real value? What is owning property? What is passing on trusts and things to children?
That's where we're at, and we're trying to figure out where it went wrong. And if we say, well, it's because evil exists, so things are always going to go wrong, then that seems to me a defeatist attitude to say, well, things are this way. They're only going to get worse, and then they're going to end because it's going to be mutually assured destruction. Everyone's gonna destroy each other, and then there needs to be a great reset. I'm not gonna argue for or against that. I'm saying today, I'm still alive. I'm still breathing. I still have plans and things I want to do. How do I find out what is real, how the world is actually functioning, and what moves what possible moves I have control of that I need to choose.
And then with the respect to the hard limits, time is a hard limit. We've got how many more minutes left in the debate. Clock's running down. Do I have a final point, or do I just duck away? I don't know. Do I get points? Are are we are we rewarding each other with points for for style and pizzazz?
[01:35:12] John Roeland:
I think we all get points.
[01:35:15] Benjamin Balderson:
You can certainly win the debate and be wrong.
[01:35:18] John Roeland:
So
[01:35:19] Benjamin Balderson:
style and the pizzazz definitely have some accounting. There there's no doubt. You know, you can hold the the correct position according to the world, you know, and and totally win the debate. It's a 100% possible. There's another one that's gonna, really be a lot of fun to come up. That's gonna come up as, taxation. Is it even theft? Because that, entire, you know, that's a real heavy trope that you see in, today's, you know, zeitgeist. You see everybody saying it. But, let's say I owned a even if we went back to medieval days or further than that. If you owned a substantial portion of land and there were some people work living on your land working it, You're the the overseer of the situation.
The original taxes was actually, you were supposed to get 10% of your, best seed, your best crop to the overseer. Now part of the reason for the mechanism of that with the best of it, you're like, why why, why would it be the best? Why would I wanna give up that portion? Is because at the, next spring, your seed stock was gonna come from the overseer. So what what, typically, Yarl and then, even on a lower position, just the landholder that you were living in his land, of course, he wants the best grains grown. And a lot of times, the lower level people, whether we wanna call it good, evil, or in between, there are some people that just make really bad choices. They don't seem to wanna make the choices that are gonna be beneficial for them.
And then for them to be incorporated into a society, now the society has to live with them bad choices. Like, especially in the United States society where we're a welfare state, we're gonna pay for all those people's bad choices. So, like, we all know people that have been in a situation where, let's say, I'm a young, 20 year old father, unmarried couple, you know, with a child or 2. They're living a lot of times, you know, trying to do the best. They both have a job. They're raising their kids. A lot of times, they're gonna be living in a a worse position than somebody on welfare who's got cable and they're getting, nicer foods than the other people.
So in reality, did the welfare people make the better choice? Well, you could stay that because when you weigh it out, they're living better. But the fact is is they're living off of the society without giving back to it, which then brings us back to that person never wanted to pay taxes or give into the society, but they're taken. So if you had somebody living on your land that was doing that, would you go to them and make them pay some taxes or get the fuck off my land? And, obviously, we can't just kick people out of the country. So when you say taxation is theft, are you also are you just being a child that's living in a system that you've always lived off of and then saying, no. I refuse to give back into it.
[01:38:56] allen marcus:
So I would just say that to to answer the question of what was my argument, what was the original question, the original question that I was asked is, you know, what is my world view in terms of what I think reality is questioning if it's subjective or objective. I, in a roundabout way, came to the conclusion through just thinking out loud and, making a lot of terrible blunders and embarrassments that the reality I'm facing today is that there is some form of governance that does have hard limits and there is a real economy and there are consequences for not being aware of the governance's rules, call them laws, statutes, guidelines, whatever they are.
When I'm not aware of them, I don't follow them. Someone finds out there is an enforcement of that, and that is a hard reality. Whether or not that's good or evil, it's a real reality, and it might feel very evil. It might not feel just. It might not feel like that law on paper on the books is in alignment with God's law or natural law. And then we have to say, well, who's enforcing them? And if the answer is just following orders, if the people that are the obstacles that are enforcing things that we don't believe in, we don't think are to the best of our society and they're just following the orders just to get by, then our argument needs to reach those people to show them the consequence of their actions in their own community so that we all come to a raised consciousness level to say that things are not working out. This agreement that we have of a civilization, of a society, you know, of a citizen in our state, in our community, in our local town, whatever it is, it's not working out. We need to make some changes immediately.
And if that gets to threat of violence because now we're forced to defend ourselves and our rights to exist, then that's where real world history has shown us that there are insurrections, revolutions, armed conflicts, this type of thing.
[01:41:43] John Roeland:
Yeah. I would just say on the tax question that, I mean, in the system that you're talking about, Ben, it's much more simplified, direct. You can see the benefit of where your taxes are going and coming back to you. But at the point we're at now, I just for me, personally, too much corruption, too much of, you know, not any benefit to me. I mean, I'm sure I benefit in in some ways from tax payer money, I guess. But in my personal opinion, I'm gonna try to find every every way I can to not pay them, and find every loophole I can to get around it, and to separate myself from the state as much as possible at this point. I don't wanna
[01:42:27] Benjamin Balderson:
vote. I don't want to So it's not that the question though isn't, is this current system corrupt and and a mobile or or or bad? The question then is, are is taxes is that theft? Is that something that's just a forced thing? So so you're adding a qualifier
[01:42:53] John Roeland:
of I would say if it's forced if it's forced, then it's theft. So if it's voluntary, if I if I am in a community and I wanna volunteer money into the pot to improve the community, and if if you wanna call that taxes, then then okay. But I don't think that that's necessarily considered taxes. That's more of a voluntary contribution as opposed to where we were raised. My dad used to say, there's only 2 things certain in life, death and taxes. And it didn't take till I was, like, you know, maybe 10 years ago that I realized how crazy it is that people would say that as an axiom, because it is basically equating the government with God.
And it's no. You don't have to pay taxes. I mean and again, depending on where you're at or how you decide to do that, you may have consequences because of that. But in terms of, of a moral position, I don't wanna pay any money to these people and what they're what they're spending their money on. So, but, yeah, your specific question, I would say tax I'm not asking you to justify
[01:44:04] Benjamin Balderson:
this government. It's it's taxes in and of itself. So when you're saying if I'm forcing it, basically, are you saying that let's say I have a a a village, and I am the mayor of the village. And the village has a firefighter fund that everybody wants to pay that everybody wants to pay into. According to about half the people in the chat and yourself, this is a a a viable good system. Now let's say half the people are shitheads, which we all know some. We've gotta be realistic. So let's say half the people decide, nah. Can't force me to pay into that fire fund. You know what? I don't ever recall there being a fire here. You know what?
Why are we even worried about it? Like, there hasn't been a fire here in 20 years. I think you're just trying to take money for for the fire fund because I don't have that extra money, and you're forcing me on it. This is against my will and my freedom. And then all of a sudden, the village burns down and or a fire starts, and you don't have the resources to fight the fire because half the village didn't pay into it because they you were violating their freedom. And and let's even take it further. What if you own the land and there's some people living on it? Well, are you violating them if they aren't gonna go pay you taxes or rent in order to upkeep the land. You're like, listen. I'm not asking you to pay me some giant monthly stipend, but, hey. We share the road together.
So why aren't you helping me throw into the roads? Which again isn't which is a completely separate issue than is this government corrupt, which a 100%. I don't know that there's even a debate to be had about that. This government is horrifyingly corrupt, and absolutely, a lot of the taxes are unapportioned taxes, which are constitutionally illegal. Unapportioned means taxes that haven't been earmarked ahead of time. So they're taking monies and not from us and not already having a place that those monies needs to go that has already been set up before those monies were asked for from the people. And so there's no wiggle room for them to go anywhere else. Just in this one very specific spot, that's an apportion tax.
Constitutionally, there was no unapportioned taxes. A 100%. I agree this government's corrupt, but are taxes in and of themselves corrupt? Or are you an idiot not to ask the leeches in society to give their fair share? Because this is where we end up here. Because I guarantee half a society, even if taxes were reasonable and being used in a way that most of us wanted, there would certainly be a large percentage that's like, nah. I like getting the milk for free.
[01:47:07] John Roeland:
Yeah. I guess I guess the answer would be it depends then. I I mean, it depends on the specific system you're talking about. But, yeah, I mean, I guess you can't make a blanket statement then that taxes are are, is theft. The definition, again, Merriam Webster, so take that with a grain of salt. But a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. So, I mean, why they use the word imposed? I mean, I guess, again, that's assuming that you recognize the authority and, acknowledge their authority, and you're okay with them imposing, these taxes on you.
But, yeah. I don't know. That's a that'd be a good question. I mean, again, I it would have to depend. And I would say, like, in this where we're at right now, taxation does seem to be theft.
[01:48:14] allen marcus:
But, again, maybe that's not your question. I hear I hear what you're saying. Well, you know, I I think that at this point, we started the the conversation beginning of the show, setting up a show to talk about masculine issues. And when it gets down to, you know, brass tacks, wherever meets the road, you know, fists are, a coffin and people are fighting. It's it's usually over resources and money. And it just say even in even in marriages, you hear so many people talk about, well, what why did the fall apart? Because the man didn't make enough money to satisfy his wife, this type of thing. So talking about money, taxes, job, work, that's that's a very masculine thing. And to be upset, even as a point of anger and rage that a reality today is a financial system that is printed out of thin air. We are living in an age of air. It's not an age of earth anymore. It's sort of this etheric sort of thing where there's there's value, but it's determined by central source printing more and more value inflating the reserve of this supply of value and pushing back against it with Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies or other systems. You know, we're not getting into an economics discussion. We're talking about the realities of limits faced today in terms of access to capital, wealth, just having cash in hand to go to a taco stand. You know, that seems to be where we're really getting this frustration with, you know, being a man, being a provider expected to have access to jobs, and then seeing the real of the workplace. I won't get into HR departments and women in the workplace and that whole debacle that many men experience and are disillusioned by. So if men are going their own way, they're withdrawing from participating in the economy, not starting businesses, not buying homes or cars, or starting families or these things because their financial limit is hard pressed to resources to have wiggle room to do these things, then that is a reality. That is a point of further exploration and explanation that needs to happen and questions of, you know, morals and ethics in regards to equal distribution and we talk about the welfare state or the nanny state. I mean, is it fair or unfair that the best option seems to be not to work, to collect food stamps, to let the government house you, and then stay at home and play video games on the Internet and compete in the World of Warcraft because that's where you can get real achievements and recognition for your skills and abilities. That's that's the transhumanist simulation, separation from reality thing. And that's probably by design to pull people out of pushing back and saying that, no. We need to stay grounded in the real world with real world governance at local levels, knowing our sheriff and these types of things to then build a local economy or a a a side and, like, build a real economy in the locality that you're in.
How do we do that? What's preventing us from doing that? These types of things. Those are the real solutions. If we're going to have to talk about solutions. And then we can argue if they work or not, after having tried them, that sort of thing. So within the fellowship of men gathering together to say, well, we need to work together to better everybody. I think that's where a new age of, renaissance can come about where we realize that it worked in the past. It has to get back to craftsmen, local businesses, apprenticeship, real skills, real world stuff, blood, sweat, and tears, and will probably be okay. But to blame government as evil, to not begin things, to not start projects because they're doomed to fail just means you're going to continue to, you know, sit in the shark tank waiting, waiting, waiting, and then bleeding, and then just ready to be gobbled up.
That's a defeatist attitude. That's not what we're that's not what I'm about. My position is not a defeatist or, black killed, nihilist, doom doom guy. That's not my position. I'd like to argue that there are options. We can continue to try them. And right now, it is difficult, but we have Internet. We are streaming, and we are having this conversation. So there is work to be done, and let's do it. Let's keep working on
[01:53:37] John Roeland:
it. Yeah. I I definitely appreciate the conversation here tonight. You know? I mean, I'm I'm still learning and still finding, you know, honing in on my world view. I do agree with you guys in general. I was kinda sticking hard to the to the, objective perspective, just because I have been in that thought pattern for a while. And, but I I definitely understand the idea of we need some struggles and some things that we would consider evil to grow. So I do understand the balance in that, and I do think that that's a key word is is balance between all of it, where it just when it seems imbalanced, you know, it it really feels like we're going in the wrong direction, and it feels like evil. But maybe that's just the lesson to teach us to push back the other way and try to find that balancing point.
And then yeah. I mean, I think I would say, like, with taxes, like, the one thing I would say is, like, my local community, I I see tax money going towards good projects, and I appreciate that. But when it's tied into what the federal government is doing and the military is doing and all of that, it's just it's hard to not you kinda can't, separate the 2, I guess. So, I mean, if there were a way for me to contribute locally and not contribute to wars, I would I would do that a 100%. You know? So, I guess my focus now is to, again, be able to function as self sufficiently as possible, which I'm not anywhere near being at that point, but also understanding the the legal the difference between legal and lawful, and finding ways to, navigate the the system that we're in and the corruption that we're in and to, separate myself from that.
I know the one guy in the comments was talking about, what's his name, Joe Williams, Brandon Joe Williams, who has a website, which is kinda gets into all this stuff. Like, basically, like, the system does allow you for to, you know, get out of debt, get get money back. And, again, these may who knows? I haven't looked deep enough into them, but that's kind of where my mind is at personally on on a personal level. But I do enjoy these conversations and, working through all of these different topics, especially with you 2 gentlemen. So I appreciate you. And everybody in the chat too. I saw a lot of good comments in the chat.
[01:56:27] Benjamin Balderson:
Oh, this has been an absolutely beautiful, discussion, and you can easily see where even this is kinda honing in on our our our more on our own personal world views and also our experiences. Like, I fully believe that, the taxation thing comes down to a have and have not, which is just a, you know, a tale as old as time where the people that have, you know, the people that have not complained about the people that have and people, you know, vice versa. If I had people living on my property, and let's say I owned a 1,000 a 1000 acres and I had 10 people and it was no big deal for me to let them live down there, but then they're also now sharing my land, sharing my space, doing things that that upkeep is gonna start costing me. And if they aren't gonna put into it, And then further, if they are gonna be beneficial to the land, why the fuck should I even have them around?
So now all of a sudden, you know, the it's the have, have not. Like, this is mine, and you're gonna come here and you and use it and partake from it. I expect you to also give to it. And that's just a basic give and take scenario. Give to it. And that's just a basic give and take scenario. So, are those people who don't want taxes, which again, that's not to discuss this government. This government is absolutely corrupt and absolutely just asinine. But when it comes down to it, then, you know, to go the exact opposite way and say taxes are just illegal and that, they're immoral, then to me, then we're gonna have a country with 99% of people that don't pay anything because why would you if nobody's gonna force you to? Because, for me, then it just comes down to, oh, I like this, so I'll pay to it, and I don't like that. Well, hell, I don't like any of it at this point then. I'm not paying a damn penny to any of it. And so nothing's gonna actually get done. But, there's so many more refined subjects that this is all leading into that we're gonna further delve into and explore our world views. We really appreciate everybody for coming.
I appreciate John and Marcus for the conversation. This was just absolutely beautiful, and, we're just gonna get deeper and more varied as it goes.
[01:58:51] allen marcus:
And we love all you guys. Thanks. Let's remind him to subscribe to the new channel so we can go live from that new channel.
[01:59:01] Benjamin Balderson:
Exactly. Please, subscribe to deliberating dog face dudes. That way, once we get, enough subscribers, we can just start going live there. We will be cutting it from John and my channels and just switching over to this, hopefully, fairly quickly. And, again, we're gonna start bringing in other people after we kinda get our world views fleshed out and get an understanding for everybody. Please come over and sub and sub. Also, please go check out the, John's channel. Please come over. Check out my channel, and, Weave Inspire's Welcome on Saturday nights where, Marcus and I are, and John is absolutely always welcome.
He can come in anytime he wants. We are more of in a culture, and things like that than this kind of thing. But, we thought this would be very important to the reality that we're living in now. So we appreciate you guys walking this walk with us.
[02:00:06] John Roeland:
Alright, you guys. Thanks a lot. I'm gonna end the stream. You guys have a good night.
Alright. Hail. Welcome to deliberating dog face dudes. So, what we've got going on here and, John has got this, going to his channel for the moment, and I've got it going to we've got it going to my channel for the moment just to let people know that, we're we've got this other project that we've started at, Marcus, John, and I are gonna be the deliberating dog face dudes, which deliberating is obviously somebody that's thinking, spending a lot of time reading, thinking about things. Dogface is your infantryman that's in the trenches doing the work, and we're dudes.
New new shits come to light, man. So, what we've got going on is, I brought to these guys the idea that there's been a lot of red pill going on and also a lot of, moves toward orthodox Christianity. And a lot of these are represented in debates, and I like I do like that format because then you actually have to represent your worldview logically and make it hold up. If you have some nonsense going on, you're gonna find out real quick. So the 3 of us are gonna start debating. We're gonna enter the debate platforms and, doing so from a more traditional man type aspect.
Each of us has some variance in our own thoughts on that. We're gonna start out with, just discussing things with each other and kinda flesh out our world views, and that way everybody can get an understanding for that. And, then from there, we'll start moving into dealing with other people also and inviting other people on and, doing that. So tonight, we're gonna put out some prompts, and we're gonna have a discussion. We're gonna kind of pepper each other with questions during said discussion and try and get everybody a feel for where we stand at in our worldview, our, ideology, for relationships, politics, all those things that are real important to the way people are living and and what they wanna do with their lives.
So we're gonna play this for a while on, Odin's Alchemy and, natural universal spirit. Then we're gonna eventually cut that out, and, we'd appreciate it if you come over to deliberating dog face dudes, and please give us a a sub over there and a like. And let's get that channel going, and let's, try this new adventure. And with that, go ahead, John or Marcus.
[00:03:02] John Roeland:
Alright. I'll chime in. Yeah. So Natural Freedom League is where this is streaming to. The natural universal spirit is a newer project of mine, but this project kind of coincides with that because going from the natural law community, which is very strict on, objective morality and those types of ideas. And then talking to people like Ben and different people in in the the so called truth community. I definitely had to question the validity of that approach, and, I found in the natural law community a little bit of a lack of, vigorous debate and vigorous inspection of your thoughts and beliefs, and a little bit too rigid thinking and settling into that thought and kind of just pushing that as as the answer.
So I am definitely looking forward to kind of working through my own world view with this project. Really appreciate the work that Benjamin and Alan do on weaving spiders, which I think is a platform that really encourages different ideas and challenging ideas. And that's what I'm looking to do, expand my own understanding and also kind of come down to where I see things. And if anything can be implemented as a solution in this world, perhaps we can get closer to finding that through these discussions. So, yeah, I'm excited to be here, on the 3 d debates.
And, yeah, I'm looking forward to other people joining us in the near future, and looking forward to having this discussion today. So I'm gonna go ahead and pass it on to Alan.
[00:04:58] allen marcus:
Hello. I am Alan marcus.com. That's a real website, owner and operator of that. For those who don't know me, I'll introduce myself like I introduce myself to the jury. I never married. No children. No questions. Believe in jury notification. Can I go home now? Just kidding. I'm gonna stay a while and see where this goes. I think the idea was pitched to me as kind of a manosphere red pill thing. And if we're taking that idea from the matrix, take the blue pill or the red pill. If the red pill is to see the world how it is, I think these discussions are going to be based on how to live probably best in the real world, how to live beyond mere survival and mere existence, how to thrive in the world, understanding what the conditions are, what the natural how social dynamics actually function from people who have experience with them and not from people who read books and then post what they think is the best way to live online. But people who are actually living life and experiencing it and including all the mistakes they make, running into law, lawyers, the obstacles, the barriers. What are the barriers to living our best possible lives? How do we navigate around them? How do we plan for not hitting the wall and surviving, thriving, doing our best, and having some adventures. I think that's the essence of manhood. And if the dog faced soldiers are forced on adventures and wilderness survival, I think all of those topics are worthy of exploration.
So thank you for having me.
[00:06:45] Benjamin Balderson:
And, of course, Marcus and I are both members of Weaving Spiders. Jim, as we as he and Rachel announced last Saturday, have a new member coming, so, obviously, he cannot join us in this, new adventure. William McKnight is pragmatic as hell. I totally would love to have you come on and, talk some one of these, one of these times here, brother. That's a that is a smart dude that just has it together, 100%. But, with that, shall we get started then, gentlemen?
[00:07:23] John Roeland:
Yes, sir.
[00:07:28] Benjamin Balderson:
Alright. Alright.
[00:07:31] John Roeland:
So I'm gonna go ahead and just say the first prompt, Kinda wrote down just some ideas that were popping into my mind, and these obviously connect to my background, you know, kinda teaching natural law from, the the Mark Passio perspective, which, you know, I somewhat relate to, but also, you know, have some issues with. So the first question being, is reality objective or subjective? I'll go ahead and answer it first. I'm gonna say, for me, what I've truly come to understand is that reality is both. And this isn't a cop out, but there are objective aspects to reality, and then, of course, there are subjective aspects to reality.
But I'm gonna stick to the objective aspects, because I understand that you can't separate each person's individual experience from reality. However, if I look at a sun coming up in the morning, and you look up at a sun coming up in the morning, and we all confirm that there's something coming up in the morning that we call a sun, which appears to be a light in the sky. And we all verify this with one another. And even the blind person feels the heat on their face That it does point to logically that there is something objectively there that we are all experiencing even though each one of us is experiencing it from a subjective stand standpoint.
So, you know, I definitely think that, you know, my answer here is probably going to, implicate myself, for the future answers in that I do think that there's a bit of a bit too much of black and white, and to try to imagine that you can say, is reality objective or subjective, is sort of a, a fool's errand, I guess you could say. I feel like there is a paradox in this world. There is a duality to this world, and that kind of creates the mystery that we are constantly finding ourselves searching. Another point I wanted to make about the objective side of things is that and I don't wanna get too much into, like, current events, but the fact that there is obviously a hidden hand somewhere trying to shape our perception of the world and shifting it to, a different understanding of a reality or an altered or inverted perception of reality shows you that there is something objective that's going on. And for some reason, this hidden hand doesn't want us to, be connected to the objective reality.
As an example, I was thinking about when I was in the 4th grade. And I don't remember for sure if they built us up to this moment, but they carted in a television. And they put us all in front of this television. And they made us watch this rocket who had a teacher on it, which is the only reason I could think that they thought to show this to elementary school kids. It was so important because they had a school teacher on it. And they put these people in this rocket, and they set the rocket off, and it exploded. And to think now that that was a a false event. And to think that somebody somewhere or some group of people, some entity wanted us all to see that for some reason, Shows me that there is some objective reality going on that we are being distracted from or, that is somehow we're we're we're being, I'm I'm losing my my my vocabulary.
It's basically being inverted. Objective reality is being inverted. They're replacing it with a different reality for some reason. So that's my argument. I'm gonna pass it to Benjamin.
[00:12:12] Benjamin Balderson:
I I I definitely have to agree that, it it is both. I think there's a lot of people that for some reason today, the line on that is extraordinarily blurred and people can't understand that there's an event that happens, and that event is objective. And then your juxtaposition, your, feelings on it, you know, your, where you stand on it, that's gonna be subjective. So whether you whether you no matter how you feel about it, the the event is still the same. So there's definitely an objective reality. In my opinion, the we, as a unit, make that objective reality.
So it's almost I've always kinda thought of it like the old garbage can parties back in high school where, you know, everybody, is throwing in a drink. You know, you just get a garbage can and everybody comes and they throw in a drink. And, if you throw in some Jack Daniels and then you throw in some vodka, and eventually, this kind of becomes its own thing. And each of those things is definitely part of that thing, but it's its own thing altogether. And then our position in it, everybody's gonna have a little more or less, strength in that input.
And I've always thought of that like the guy who shows up with peppermint schnapps, and now no matter what else was in that trash can, it definitely tastes like peppermint schnapps. Like, that guy had some strong input. But, that's my opinion on on the way reality works, but there's definitely, at the end of it, objective facts that are going on that we're all experiencing, and then we're just deciding how we felt about it, how that affected us, things like that. The same the very same event can make you both happy and sad. You could think it was great today and think it was horrible in 2 weeks and, the so all of that is subjective.
And I think a lot of people have a a hard time. And I think, when you look in when you're looking at debates, you see a lot of people having a hard time separating themselves out of the subjective. In general, they also seem to have a hard time going into hypothetical situations and answering from that. So it's like they're so caught up in their own ego or their own world view that they can't even think outside of that. So that I think that is part of what's causing this, what seems to me rise in inability to see outside of their own subjective reality into a more objective.
You hear them. You'll you you as we go along and start talking to people, you're gonna hear a lot of people make some assertions really boldly, and it's because from their subjective reality, that is nothing but truth without even realizing unless that's something that all of us can agree is a thing or did happen, and then we can agree whether that was good or not. Like, in the original event, no. They've already gotten to whether it's good or bad, judged it, and incorporated into their worldview, and they're arguing from that point. They can't put themselves back at that first point, so I think that's gonna be interesting as things move forward.
[00:16:15] John Roeland:
And, Marcus.
[00:16:17] allen marcus:
So we're talking about reality. Is it objective? Is it subjective? Is it beyond that? I think in terms of frame and maintaining frame if we're talking about a masculine point of view, And the man usually sets the frame for the situation. You're thinking of the father who's getting the family ready together and says this is the expectation. We're going to grandma's house. We're gonna go see my mom and dad, this type of thing. You know, make sure you've you've used the bathroom, you've got clean underwear on, we're ready to go. It's a 4 hour trip. We're gonna get there in 4 hours. That's the frame. That's the setting. That's the expectation. So a lot of what we're talking about in terms of is it a simulation, man? Is is it materialism?
Is it based off of well, we've got skin. We've got bones. We've got a brain. The brain functions. Once death happens, that's it. It's over. Your body's decayed. Nothing else happens. I don't believe that. I think that there's a level of consciousness. There's something beyond that, something outside of ourselves, the mind body connection, this sort of thing. So when we're talking about is reality objective subjective, I would ask the question, how do we see reality? What frame are we viewing it from? And if we're viewing it from a perspective that is given to us through education, public school systems, through mainstream media, through Christian education, religion, school, any of these ideas, all of those things work to create a frame for the reality that they want to impose on everybody.
So when we're talking about subjective objective reality, that's where things are being shifted back and forth in terms of who is maintaining the frame and the control of the reality. You see that in terms of red and blue with politics with choosing one side or the other, but together, the politicians, the government of America makes the decisions and they pass down their frame of reference, reference, their way of seeing the world through the legislation, the laws, the taxation, the government programs, all of that stuff, even subsidizing corn so we have more corn in the world. These are real world decisions that are made that affect our objective reality.
Now subjectively, the way we experience the taste and flavor of corn and like or dislike of that isn't gonna give a hoot if we say we're not gonna vote for the candidate who wants to put more corn in fields. Let's plant more soybeans, this type of thing. So you could debate which, you know, food item is gonna be better or what tastes better. Those are all preference issues. Back to the main point though is objective or subjective our reality, again, it's beyond objective. It's beyond subjective. There's a little bit of both, and they're kind of fighting for determining what the frame of reality is gonna be. I guess that's my position.
[00:19:31] John Roeland:
Yeah. I wanted to add a couple of things. I saw someone in the comments say, Joshua Cromley said and this is a so an idea that I gleaned from madame Blavatsky, which I know I know people have issues with theosophy here. But, she kind of did this description of the creation of the world and that, you know, there's this initial source, which is, like, nothingness. Right? Emptiness. And that everything starts to emanate from that. And this is also an idea kind it is that comes across in Taoism that, like, you have the original thing that can't be named, and then you have the mother of myriad things. So it's true objectivity actually includes the whole thing. Like, everything involved in the universe, whatever we are in, is objectively true. Right? Like, even a lie becomes objective because it exists, and it does shape our reality, especially the more people believe in that. We've obviously experienced that.
We experience it all the time. Very recently, we've experienced it in 2020, 2 days ago. So, you know, it's like, if people believe this thing, even if it's false, it now becomes objectively an issue for all of us. And, you know, another thought I had had about objective and subjective, well, is a because some people try to say objective, like, can I see it? Can I feel it? Can I touch it? Is it an object? But then, what about a thought? You know, I can objectively have a thought. You can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't smell it, but that thought can have power in the long run. Another good comment was that we need to define reality.
So, I'm just gonna go go to the good old Marion Webster's. The quality or state of being real. A real event, entity, or state of affairs. The totality of real things and events, something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily. And then, let's go ahead and look up real, which
[00:21:54] Benjamin Balderson:
And while while you're at it, I think more what needs to be exposed with this particular question is then what is your view of the world? Like, maybe give your how how is this reality created? What is the what is the driving force that made that happen? Why is this working this way? You answered it a little bit. Maybe just give a fuller, more complete version of what you see the driving force, how is reality operating?
[00:22:35] John Roeland:
So I will answer that, in a second. The definition of real is having objective independent existence. Independent of what? I don't know. Not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory. Occurring or existing in actuality of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities, Behaving or presented in a way that feels true, honest, and familiar, and without pretension or affectation. Okay. I'll stop there. I, so I'll say this, I I kind of, I and maybe this is wrong, but I broke down the word real into 2 words. Right? Re, which means again, and al, a l, which means, of.
Right? So of again. Right? And so the the connotation I kinda took from that is, like, the the nothingness, the source that exists at some point, the unity of everything starts generating again and again, and it is the of. Right? This is the of that it comes from. And so everything that is generated is of again. It's of again. It's being, you know, until, I guess, it can't anymore. So in terms of my perspective of what it is, reality is is, somewhat of a game, a game of hide and seek, where that source is all knowing, all powerful, has everything within it.
And so it decides to create everything that it can manifest, and all of the manifestations continue to go out. But in order to play the game, it has to each spark of manifestation has to forget that it's part of the original source. And the point of the game is for each of us to remember that we're part of that original source and ultimately return to that. And then I honestly think it's it starts again. That's my best perception of what reality is.
[00:25:05] Benjamin Balderson:
Where did the original material come from then? If there was, like, a did did you describe a nothing that became something for all practical purposes? Where did the original prima materia come from?
[00:25:22] John Roeland:
I think that's beyond our comprehension. I think that's where the ultimate mystery comes in. Like, what what is that spark? I would I guess, I'd say the best answer I found for that is, what's known as the Christ consciousness, which I would equate to love of everything, including the evil, like, understanding that we're all part of the same thing. So if, if that guy, you know, down the street, whatever, is able to commit a crime that in my mind I could never do, that I need to have some type of empathy for the fact that that could have been me. And I used to I I have this quote that, like, when George Bush was president, George w, I used to say, well, if you were if you were George Bush, like, you you think you would do something different. Like, you're like, but if you were actually him, you probably wouldn't.
You know, because I'm saying it from my perspective, like, you know, coming up in, you know, the Bay Area, middle class, lower middle class, that, oh, well, like, he's he's evil. He's doing this. He's doing that. But if I were actually him, I'd probably do the same thing. So it's like I have to take into account, like, his experiences, how he came up, and the fact that for him to break away from that system is a lot more difficult than for me to say I'm against that system. So, yeah, I mean, I guess, in terms of the the prima materia, I don't know. There has to be it has to already be existing in the original source in my mind. There has to be matter and some and spirit, but, but, yeah, I think that the spark is sort of what we would consider God.
So
[00:27:37] Benjamin Balderson:
I will go to give Marcus another moment to ponder. So myself, I'm a heathen. I'm an. So everything in reality, quantifiable and not quantifiable is the all. That is everything. And at some point in time, the all needed to progress in and of itself. So it's split into a duality of masculine and feminine. The masculine side became material and the feminine side is immaterial. So that's a the void or gununga gap as a heathen and then the all father. Well, at this point, what we have is, a negative and a positive that are balancing each other out into a neutral, and nothing's really happening. And so the all father split into 2 sides.
So then inside the micro verse of the all father, which the all father was the masculine side, but now the masculine side splits into a feminine and masculine objectively. Because anytime you have the entire something of an entirety of a group, you're gonna start noticing that that group isn't exactly the same the way it seemed originally. Once you've isolated out things, you start noticing saw small subtle characteristics inside those things. And so then that overall group in a micro verse will split into a masculine and feminine. So with this, we had Muspelheim, which is the land of fire. That's the feminine, the chaotic side. And then we had Niflheim, the land of ice, the masculine side, the stable frozen side.
Again, we don't have anything going on. These 2 are actually, because they're this polarized sides of a singular unit, they're pushing away from each other. This is where Gnunga gap comes in and pulls these 2 polarized sides together. And this where the destruction of those two forces meeting, the immovable object and the unstoppable force, that's where life happens. And so the prima materia is everything of the all father. The spark is the all mother. So it's the spark, the the action of the all mother creating that, movement, that destruction in the all father that created life. And so part of the reason that we have a real hard time quantifying so many things is because the all mother is not part while it's the driving force of our reality, what's giving it life and what's taking it away, it's also not something we can touch. It's not part of this reality because we live in the material world.
And so this is the reality we're experiencing, and all these things are all true at the same time. The now with that Merriam Webster's, definition, I believe what they were calling real then when they said independent means and again, it'd be a bunch of people in the chat immediately brought up thoughts are real. Absolutely. Thoughts are real, But it's not independent. So you can have a thought, and I can't verify it. Now I can now I can take this lighter, and I can hand it to Marcus. I can hand it to John. And it's, you know, we might call it different things, but it's, you know, full of fluid. It does this. It's it's a lighter, and that's independent of any of our thoughts.
So that's, I think, what that add on means that, that's what really makes it reality. And, while thoughts are real, the thing is is they don't have weight. So I think this is where a lot of people go wrong, and this is actually in the truth community a lot where they think everything derives from infinite possibility. And I don't see where that infinite possibility sure. But then the problem is is over here, we have the stability. The the the it can only be this. And so it's where those two things meet because you need the material for it. I can I there's a million possibilities for me to to buy a house, but once I go to hit the hit the supply house, I quickly realize that those infinite possibilities suddenly go well, at least mine do, because my wall is not that big?
But, you you you this is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. So, you know, you can tell me all about your 1,000 foot pounds of horse and all this, but then when it goes and actually hits the road and your 0 to 60 is only, is garbage is a 15, 22nd, 0 to 60. So this is kinda where those two things collide. But all of it, again, is real Whether it becomes substantive substantive or not is another thing.
[00:33:50] allen marcus:
So on a meta level, describing how we already knew each other, and now we exist on a new channel that didn't exist before. So there was intention, deliberation, creation, and now we're on a new channel, new format, new stream. So on a meta level, being able to have those thoughts of let's create something new and sort of what we can do. And if we're touching upon the great mystery and we begin by telling stories, which then turn into myth and legend, And we have this confusion in culture today where the word myth originally meant the story to convey the truth of the civilization, the story of humanity, the idea of a myth to explain something in a way to find the patterns that fit and the truth in the story that isn't a lie. So if we're talking in terms of today, we might say, let's bust some urban myths today. Let's let's bust some myths that are common misconceptions about the reality thing.
That's where we get the framing incorrect where now people have framed it as if we're going to bust, a falsehood. We're going to expose a truth and stories themselves are somehow without value or are not measurable. We got to the point where we were discussing, like, hard limits that we can measure, like, financial equity and something. How much is this gold? Can we barter and trade for it if we want to build a house or buy a new car or something? Well, we have to have some sort of exchange, and that's the system we've agreed upon. But in reality that we're facing, there are limits to having those resources.
So that's a real thing, and that's a measurable thing. Now if we're talking thoughts are things, I can maybe think about a chair and then go to Amazon and order a chair because I had the thought and the desire to obtain a chair. But then there's that hard limit we hit with having to face reality in the so called in the language of facing reality and saying, well, I have to exchange something for that. So that's something we're dealing with. The stories explain that. The myths are helping us to get around this great mystery. And the original question of what is reality, is it subjective, is it objective?
And I would ask, in what ways is it symbolic? In what ways do language, art, literature, grunts, stomach gurglings, sounds, and things, how we're communicating has a lot to do with how we frame things and how we view the world. So in debating, learning how to speak, finding the true definition of words that we're all agreed upon begins to paint a more accurate picture. And then once we kind of get that footing and understanding of our reality in terms of symbolic connections and links and what things mean to everyone objectively where we can say that this is not a subjective thing. This word has this meaning.
This measure of gold is the same as this measure of gold, and we have an equivalent exchange, then we can begin to work backwards and see what is consistent, and then what is consistent. Is it true? That would be the question to answer is how where do we come from the great mystery thing? There are a lot of great mysteries that can be debunked certainly because we can say certain authors wrote certain stories with the intention of creating world views and religions. We can look to, like, l Ron Hubbard, Scientology, these types of things.
Is there something beyond that? Can we can we say that Scientology is good in some ways, bad in some ways? Weigh it out and see what ultimately that's maybe a different debate, and I won't push that further.
[00:38:15] Benjamin Balderson:
So to bring that to and William McKnight's asking to bring that to, and what he asked just does that. Can subjective become objective and vice versa? And so that there's in today's reality, that's a real poignant question because from my perspective, we live in an emperor wears no clothes society where, so very often, people believe something. I, like, you take the, trans community where you, this is a a man even though it was born a woman, and they identify as this and and blah blah blah. And and so that's, perfect in that in those terms. So, this is something that they're trying to do. And, again, this is, in my opinion, an emperor wears no clothes thing where while we all might politely be agreeing on something and claiming something, we all know the difference.
And so we can all pretend one way, but there is a more objective reality that even if they're pretending they don't acknowledge that it exists, they they absolutely know that it does. Their their, worldview usually is very driven on emotion at best, and so you'll see a disconnect happen between as soon as you start putting logic to their things. So it's how they feel. Everything is how they feel, which, again, this is conflating subjective and objective, and so they can't seem to make a break between the 2. I think it's, at best, a mental illness.
At worst, a contrived, manipulation to virtue signal in some way to show that they are good people because they've been convinced of some type of an end, and so they're trying to bend reality to their will. And, as we're seeing, that doesn't really work. You know, so this also then gives the ideals that if you think that your reality is entirely different or you're able to make it different, well, then, make this baseball to the face not hurt. It just it isn't, turn it into a canary. Eventually, reality slaps you.
[00:41:03] John Roeland:
Yeah. I have a good example of that. I was listening to, Kill Tony, the comedy podcast. And, there was a trans trans woman on there, and they were asking them questions. And they were saying that they weren't gonna go through the whole process because in order to do so, you have to sit on something because the hole that they create is constantly trying to close. It's a wound, and your body is constantly trying to close it. So it right there, that's where objective reality hits you in the face. And based off what you're saying, Ben, it makes you wonder what I'm calling the hidden hand here, whoever is pushing these ideas and narratives onto the masses, do they believe that they can somehow change objective reality, or is their motivation something other than that? That it's possibly just to confuse us from understanding what reality is, what we are, what our purpose and meaning is, or if they think that they can actually create an alternative to objective reality, and in that way, kind of actually become gods themselves by creating this alternate reality in this realm that we're in. So
[00:42:53] Benjamin Balderson:
I mean, do you think though in order to do that, changing a perception is one thing, but changing the basic laws of physics. And I'm not stating that all laws of physics that we currently think we understand work the way they we think that they do. I'm not stating that in any way, shape, or form. But at some point in time, there is things that work a certain way, and there's just no getting around that. You could do something to make it not work that way, but then you've now influenced it. It still works that way. You've just done something to it. There there's objective. Again, that's where the objective comes in.
So, whether they can change your perception, can they actually change the laws of reality? Can they decide that human beings without wings fly like Superman? Can they, you know? Now we a lot of the people in the community talk about this, and I don't necessarily disagree that it can have a wiley coyote type type component to it where so many of us have believed that we can't that we can't. But, can you prove that? Can you break away and fly no matter how hard? I mean, there's been people I'm sure that, we would clinically call insane who fully believed they could fly. People on LSD, things like that. They've absolutely 100% with every bit of their being to the point where they jump off buildings that they absolutely know is gonna hurt them if they were to fall off and hit the ground, but they believe they can flock.
And as far as I know, that hasn't ever turned into somebody flying yet. So while we can wish, you know, it's the old wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up faster, right, type scenario there. I I I, again, fully believe that your will absolutely changes thing can change things, but it's inside confined set of rules. You can you can make some alterations. I think the matrix was probably very forthright with that when they were like, some rules can be broken, like, they don't really exist. There are only rules inside the minds of humans that have they've imposed on themselves similar to, like, the way they train an elephant where, you know, the the they start out with, something that it absolutely can't break when it's little. And by the time it gets to adult, it doesn't ever test that and check it out. So it always believes that it can't break it.
But, and some can be bent, but that it doesn't say there are no rules. Like, there there's absolutely ways that things happen. And whether they're gonna be able to change that, I think that they can fool you to think that they can, like a snake oil salesman does. But, in the end of it, the grand picture is something, the human mind can't even fathom. And the amount of change that they're affecting is like you pushing against the waterfall. Like, you know, sure. You're pushing some water up, but you you look around and everything else is coming down. So to to me, they aren't they they they're they're just skating uphill is all they're doing.
[00:46:55] allen marcus:
It reminds me of, like, you know, Criss Angel, mind freak, and you can see how he combines mentalism, his charisma with, you know, the makeup and the glamour magic. He's a beautiful looking man. You're looking into his eyes. You're getting hypnotized. Now you're believing and you're accepting that he's going to show you your card or he's going to put a nail through his chest or whatever he's gonna do, climb up or down the side of a building, these types of things. So when creating the frame to show you what you're gonna see, priming you to see it, and then repeating the language. These are the hypno hypnotic techniques of magicians and neurolinguistic programmers, these types of people, is it's sales technique. You can walk into a store, determine not to buy anything, and then a trained salesperson will remove all barriers for you to not buy the thing. And then you've taken out a second mortgage on your home to purchase something you didn't need because you were susceptible to it. Now there might have already been implanted previously an idea.
You could have had a real bad breakfast that morning. You could have drank too much coffee. All these starts types of things. I really wanted to mention specifically the food in our objective reality, the quality of the food, the drugs we do or do not take, prescription or otherwise, all these things do influence our perception of things, which might make things seem more subjective. If you're having a better day, things turn out better. If you wake up on the wrong side of the the bed, the rest of the day is probably gonna be the worst day you've ever had, and it's just gonna get worse and worse and worse from that point out. So there are things we can do to have control. People were talking about the matter of the hidden hand and who the controllers are.
That's a very good point. If we're talking about a masculine perspective of being in control of our own lives, of what we can be in control, that's where we need to test and discover what aspects of our life do we have the most control over, how do we influence those aspects of our own lives, not concerned about other people's lives, living our lives the best we can, doing the right actions that we discover by failing, having to apologize, continuing to live better, not making those same mistakes, and then displaying those techniques to other people, That's how these memes of good behaviors spread.
Now when we say memes and we go online and we go to TikTok, we discover even on YouTube or Instagram, these sort of reels where people are hypnotizing within 5 seconds. So you're watch the 30 second real spiel to see what they're gonna say if they're gonna sell your product, or are they going to do something wrong on purpose to create an emotional reaction? You know, the subjective feeling of I feel really angry about this thing because this guy was doing something wrong. He had a screw, and he used a hammer to to nail it in. It's not a nail. It's clearly a screw, and we don't see it spin. And now we're gonna comment to say, hey, doofus.
Use a flathead or a Phillips screwdriver. Don't hit it with a hammer. Well, now we've just engaged with someone else's frame. We've given them our time and our attention, taken that away from ourselves, and we've lost control of our situation given over to this tomfoolery. Now do we laugh about it and move on, or do we get really angry about it? So in terms of what we can control in our reality, those are our emotions and our reactions to things. And then sometimes just physically turning the phone off, walking away, going outside as a touching grass, grounding ourselves, spending time in nature, and we're back to what we can call reality.
We can engage with virtual realities at any time we want to. We're not saying that's a terrible thing or a good thing. It's just an option. Now if we're addicted to that option and we're getting stuck in virtual realities, we're getting stuck in propaganda, paranoia, perspectives from governments, corporations, colleges, whatever it may be, that we're getting further from reality and less in control of our own lives and what we're going to do with them.
[00:51:53] John Roeland:
Yeah. This I mean, I'm trying not to, like, take us too far off topic, but it it it's relating. In thinking about the theory of natural law and the idea that there is this hidden hand who are all occultists, and they are trying to, invert natural law and keep us from understanding natural law. But then the understanding of the occult is also supposed to be the solution. I just I find that to be a flaw in the theory because why then do all of these, men who are understanding of all of this occult information, why do they decide to use it in order to deceive us?
Is it just for material wealth? And if natural law in the way that is considered similar to karma. Right? So I I kind of think natural law and the idea of, moral law is a bad word, is like not the best word to use because people equate the laws of physical nature, like the laws of animals, to what we're talking about. When in reality, when the natural law community is talking about natural law as the law of consequences, this is talking more about morality, and karma, and cause and effect. So, if this law actually exists, this moral law actually exists, that what you put out you're gonna get back. Why would the why would the people who understand this the most seem to be violating it the most?
It's kind of a it's kind of a conundrum, and I I'm not necessarily looking for an answer, but, I it's just
[00:53:48] Benjamin Balderson:
So first, I what I need to you to clarify is because you make an insinuation that there's a natural way that a natural order to things and that they are inviolate, you know, with that. Like Right. So Like, the ultimate law What what now now what we're having to break that down to as we back straight back steps, is there good and evil? So you've gotta convince me that there's a good and an evil before you can ever ask me whether there's they these this group of people is now doing the evil. First first, how is there even a good and evil? What's what exactly is making that determination? And and you're saying it's natural, but natural to what? Apparently, this is where objective and then subjective, you've definitely slipped into subjective because you have a decided, set of laws that you think are natural. But apparently, because they're able to do something else, they think that that's natural.
Obviously, a predator prey scenario, the prey thinks it's natural to stand around and eat grass, and the predator thinks that it's natural to eat that prey, but I bet you the prey doesn't really feel that great about that whole scenario. Like, I don't know about this. Shouldn't you just be eating grass like me? So now you've gotta convince me is is good and evil objective at all. That that's what you're saying is there's an objective good and evil. Yeah.
[00:55:32] John Roeland:
Yeah. I would say that when it comes to human morality, that we do have some sense within us, some natural sense that we have within us to not harm other beings. Now that has been very, altered. You know, we're in a position right now where that has been compromised very much. So it's easy to look at the world and go, yeah, like, these guys do evil all the time and they get away with it. And and I and again, I'm struggling with this. But I do believe that when it comes to human nature, human morality, there is something within us that's telling us that there is a right decision here. There is a, you aren't supposed to go around just killing everybody and stealing from everybody.
There is a balance that needs to be struck. And I would I would describe evil as being the opposite of that natural way of living in balance, not in not needing, you know, excess, you know, understanding that you don't really own anything. I would call it a state of stewardship. Right? We have dominion over the earth. We it doesn't mean we own it. It means we it means that we are here to care for it. We're here to live in balance with it, which similar to how some of the the creatures do that we observe. And that evil is the imbalance the other way, where, again, this hidden hand appears to be really working to deceive us.
And, again, if it's if it is just for a material gain, or do they think that they can usurp this law that exists? Because the premise is from the from the circles I come from, the premise is is that this law exists, these people know it exists, and that they are inverting it by getting us to violate it, which then allows them to manipulate us and control us and stay in power. But I guess the ultimate contradiction in that is that, like, again, if they understand that, then they understand that then they're gonna suffer some kind of great reset caused by nature or God or whatever you wanna call it.
And and and the circles that I have been in are somehow fighting to to stop that from happening.
[00:58:12] Benjamin Balderson:
But you understand we that still brings us back to so I understand that there's a general feeling that something could be right or wrong. Now let's take something very sensitive, like, age of consent for a girl. Today, most of us, myself included, would state that if you're over a given adult age, say, 21, you should in no way be associating with girls 14 to 18. If you're 18, you shouldn't be associating with girls 13. Like, I think most of us have the general if you went to high school together, that's acceptable age range, like a 4 4 to 5 year gap up until you hit your thirties and you're both realized adults for better or for worse.
And so you're you're both making the choices that you're gonna make. Now if you take that 200 years ago, you know, if she was 12, I'm not sure why she isn't married yet and punching out a kid. So and that dude, he's not gonna be 12. He's gonna be 20, 25. What age does did he it take him to own his own home, have enough income to provide for himself and her, and then presumably a child, because you get married most you know, that's next step most assume. So, you know, this is, no different than going into a business. There's presumed expenses that are gonna come up.
And are you, do you have the padding to take care of those expenses? And so we you've gotta show me where the the good and evil is in all of this. You know?
[01:00:34] John Roeland:
I would say in terms of that specific issue that it is you could call that ethics, and that comes more into the society that you're living in, that those things can change and understanding that. I think, personally You think you think you think
[01:00:56] Benjamin Balderson:
morals and ethics are are different. So morals are some ironclad thing that never ever in human history has there been any sentiment against, and ethics is something that, in which John and I are not trying to argue with each other. This is this was all preplanned. We're trying to poke holes at each other to practice this and fill this in. So this is I don't necessarily disagree with some of what John's saying, but I am gonna. But as each of us is speaking, we're supposed to peek poke at each other, and and this is the debate idea.
So are are are you making a contention that there at some point in time was some universal set of laws that humans were just born with and it's not something through because that's what I was getting at that through lived experience, eventually no different than, the rat experiment where they put a treat at a top of a ladder. And after, generation or 2 of rats having at it and having a good time with these treats on top of this ladder, they started making a it was either a bell or a buzzer. And then when that did, if a rat tried to grab the treat, all of a sudden it would electrify everything. And it only took one generation before generations that weren't born and had never been electrified. We're like, no. Don't go up that fucking ladder.
Don't do it. And so this is a a trained thing through experience. Had that stimuli never hit that particular group of rats or mice, they never would have thought that, But you can be sure because then the whole thing is is the whole cage electrified. So any other rat that tried to go up that ladder, the other rats attacked. That became a morality for them. Don't go up that fucking ladder you douche. So, this was a trained response. This wasn't innate response. I I clarify the difference because then that's the root of it because if anything that we believe isn't something that's through trained response, there's an actual some core reality that's that's unbreakable.
That's what we need to get at for there to be a true good and evil.
[01:03:28] John Roeland:
Yeah. So I would argue that what makes humans unique is whatever this thing is within us that tells us that something is right and something is wrong, and that we shouldn't harm others, we shouldn't kill others. And I may have made a mistake by trying to distinguish between ethics and morals. I looked up ethics. Ethics is a set of moral principles. Now going back to the idea of a moral law, which could go down to the first principle of do no harm, and then also coinciding with the right to self defense. Now, to me, there is something distinct and unique about humans, and this is what separates us from the other creatures that we know of on earth.
I do think that this morality potentially applies to other beings that may be higher than us, and maybe, I don't know, maybe it doesn't. But I do think it is unique to humans, and I think that with the question of, like, age of consent, it does depend on the community you're in, the time you're in. And I think, like I said, our our system of morality and and how we function has been so compromised at this point, that you have to take into account the fact that adolescence is basically a made up is a made up concept within the last 120 years that they decided, oh, we're gonna start sending 14 year olds to high school and, you know, basically call them adolescents.
When when my grandmother was 13, she started working. And again, if we look at nature, that is the age where people are now able to reproduce. So we have altered that. Now, whether or not that's a good thing or not, I mean, I think that it's in a lot of cases, you can say that it's become a negative thing, especially in the sense of just sexuality and being open about what sexuality is and the reality of sexuality and the reality that you can get pregnant and boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. Like, all of that stuff has been sort of, has been compromised, you know, in terms of our ability to just talk to people naturally about how how humans function and how we work. And I think that is part of the control system, and, like, what I've been calling the hidden hand.
I do think that there is a morality that exists, that we are somehow tapped into, and this is what has been called natural law. Again, my best definition is the law of human nature, and it's over time, people looking at this idea that there's something in us that is telling us we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't do that, and, that that has, you know, evolved to a certain point. Now if maybe it doesn't exist, but I think that, you can see positives and negatives of it, like, all the time. But, again, if it if it does exist, again, the presumption of the circles that I run-in, that this is the ultimate this is the ultimate occult knowledge, is the knowledge of natural law. That there is karma, basically. What you put out, you're gonna get back.
If the people who understand this, why would they violate it? So I'm sort of arguing against the natural law community in that sense, because in the idea of that, like, you know, that we have to, war against these people to, to, I don't know, dude. I'm kinda losing my train of thought.
[01:07:42] Benjamin Balderson:
That's alright. We'll take you out. I was already thinking you need to get out the hot seat for a minute anyways. Take me out the hot seat. I don't care. I definitely could pepper you a lot more, but you you definitely, you know, that's not the way it's supposed to work. It's supposed to flip flop, and you should probably start, doing some poking. I think, Marcus needs to jump in on his point of view from it. But for me, just in general, and I'll I'll flesh that out more later. But to me, there is no such thing as good and evil. That's, it's one thing. Anytime you have a polar opposite, hot cold, that's temperature.
Temperature is the reality. Hot and cold is your juxtaposition according to your understanding of reality. And so they're really the same thing. They're really temperature. And what you're describing in that descriptor is your juxtaposition inside of that thing. What you have to do is step away from it in order to go, oh, well, it's temperature. And if I was at a 1000 degrees, 500 would be cold, 1500 would be hot. If I was at 500, a 1000 would be hot, 0 would be cold. So what we're not there that's not really a reality. That's your juxtaposition, inside of that and and then making a determination on that. So for me, there is no such thing as good and evil. There's a set given experiences that is a general society that we've lived through, yeah, perspective.
And, the the that we've lived through and based on those and this is something that fluctuates and even in what John was saying in his response where he claimed to evolve. If it's an evolution of something, then there was no reality to start with. There was so just the fact that it's able to be changeable says that it wasn't in, you know, stone solid to begin with, that we've made that change and flowed with it. So for me, there is no good and evil, which isn't to say that there isn't a set of morals, what we call morals, or things that we've decided are beneficial for humans who live together.
[01:10:02] allen marcus:
So we started talking about the topic of reality asking a a very pointed question. Is it subjective or is objective? That's a very leading question that already has presuppositions of subjectivity and objectivity. Exploring that, going through kind of our world view, sharing some anecdotes, and then getting to a point where now we're facing this idea of their existing good and evil that's already sort of separating one group of people as being a good group of people and then the opposition being an evil. And maybe those people in the evil group think they're the good group and see the people who think that the good guys, the evil. So it it gets back to this idea of mythology, legends, stories, and how humans explain things to each other. And through using stories and emotional manipulation and charisma and the ability to speak in into reality a story to set a frame of reference, then we can else ultimately see, well, there's an evil figure in our story, and there's a hero in our story. So if we identify ourselves as some kind of a hero, naturally, when we go out into the world and we encounter obstacles and we say that this institution was my obstacle in life at this moment preventing me from doing this thing that I was attempting to do then maybe we see that as evil. If we encounter people who have, you know, psychopathic tendencies and they wanna kill animals and they're very angry and they have emotional disturbances and balances, we might label that person as an evil person. We might think that they're just maybe misunderstood.
I don't know. I'm not here to really argue, you know, the good or evil thing at this point. I'm still kind of working through that with a lot of a lot of programming to show me that there is evil. So having been born into this world in which the presupposition of my parents and their parents and their parents going back generation generation generation was that there was an ultimate evil, then showing your children that there's evil, I question and wonder if because we're shown a description of evil, then we accept that there is the concept of evil, and then we begin to see evil. This might go into an anecdote of how there's a, witch trials scenario or a satanic panic scenario where people just begin to begin to see shadows and those shadows are supernatural and they're evil and they're demons everywhere and there's this spiritual attack. So beginning to see the world with evil begins to put more evil into the world in some way. And that might be, well, am I arguing for a subjective reality to say, well, in our objective reality, objectively, there's evil, but I'm giving subjective anecdotes of my experiences with evil, which might have just been me working on my own inner demons projecting out into the world could be tricks or aspects of platonic forms in the mind and the only archetypes to better me as a man.
So ultimately, are they evil? Are they just obstacles for my growth to make me stronger? It really becomes a matter of perspective to ultimately say I will only ever fail because evil exists therefore I should not try leads to nihilism and the black pill which then prevents you from even playing the game denying yourself the participation in reality. So the focus of you know, evil obstacle, hidden hands, politicians who are setting tax codes that make it impossible for anybody to ever get ahead finance. That's sort of the framing of reality that is not natural in the world. That's a layer built upon a layer built upon a layer built upon a layer, and that's where we get into the idea of what simulation theory might be. My personal opinion about that is we feel in our heart and our mind and our experience that we're not living in reality and then we go outside and there's a stop sign and we're walking on a sidewalk, we're not driving in a car but we still stop and we look both ways because we've had experience of cars driving by or we stop at a red light but there's no one there. It's the middle of the night we're the only car on the road but we stop anyway because they're trained to do so. That's a warning sign for us having this learned experience.
We could go right through that stoplight and probably no one would notice. There probably be no immediate consequences. There wouldn't be a collision. We'd probably be fine, but tiptoeing because we have a fear of evil and bad things and boogeyman and anything terrible that could possibly happen prevents us from living our life adventurously and courageously. So because of that experience, I would push back and say, well, if there is evil, it's not it's not the ultimate obstacle that cannot be overcome. So when we're talking about evil, it's, you know, you know, how evil is it? Is it a $1,000,000 of evil, a $1,000,000,000 of evil, a $1,000,000,000,000 worth of evil? How are we measuring evil, and are we so limited in our thoughts to think that good is always going to be poor and impoverished and never have enough resources to face evil.
So when we examine our thoughts, our thinking, and our behavior and we see that, well, really maybe it's just our own thoughts that are creating evil that are controlling ourselves and preventing us from doing things. On this very stream here tonight, in our own minds, we're concerned about, well, is our message gonna get out to people? Is there freedom of speech? Is there freedom of reach? Is this going to be a meritocratic system where people are gonna give us a thumbs up, and then more people are gonna subscribe and share because we're doing good and we're doing the right thing or is there an algorithm that keeps us down? These are the types of thoughts that we have. Is YouTube evil? Is the company that owns YouTube, Google? They had a motto at some point, you know, do no evil or something to that effect.
They removed that line. Therefore, is that an admittance that now they're open to do evil and be a controlling entity that could suppress good? That's a interesting story that we are living through right now. If I could wind this up, let it spin out and see where it goes, see if it hits any targets. Does it encounter any obstacles or barriers? Is there any logic that I've just jumped over and avoided? Can you cut that argument up and put it back together again? Have I made any, dent in your in your question here? Are we on the right track? Are we making progress?
[01:17:56] Benjamin Balderson:
It it it seems like you and I, are on a very similar page with it. We're, trying to find some ultimate evil. Again, from the way I under from the way I'm looking at it, when, it's just like when I was talking about the microverse of the masculine. Anytime you isolate something out, you start noticing subtle differences. Now noticing that those differences is one thing. It's, I think, human nature to take a side on that as long as those differences are something you're experiencing. So are you able to and that's that's the that's the interesting thing about being a human is having the experience. And, again, that's subjective, but there's so much of it that, we put subjective in it and it's presupposed presupposed objective.
Even something like murder. While murder, nominally, all of us would say is bad. Definitely don't like it. It's not been a good time. Nobody likes it when their friends and family get murdered up. So don't do it to other people. It's just not a good time for anybody. But there are people who have thought murder's pretty alright. You know? There's time that that they've got lots of different scenarios that we would call murder that they didn't. So, apparently, they, like, you look at, Eric the red, the original Vinland saga. A couple times he was kicked out of villages because there were some killings, and they didn't even really get all, emotional about it or anything. They're like, there were some killings.
Didn't want that guy living there because he seemed to like doing killings, so we kicked him out the village, which, wasn't to say whether they thought the killings were justified or not justified. Whether they thought there was a good or evil, they just like, no. We don't really like that shit in our village. Get out of here. So that's even something like that. Now when we look at it, and, again, this is this would get into the whole, overpopulation thing, which I'm not trying to get into that, but just for a metaphor, which again, not to get too on the nose of it because I don't believe there's an overpopulation.
But you take, a deer population in a localized area. You go ahead and wipe out all the wolves, which we've done before. And, then you realize quickly that now that there's not predators doing some murdering on those deers, which they're undeniably getting murdered, all of a sudden you end up with an overpopulation of deer. You start getting sickly deer. They're definitely not living healthy lives. So now you got this giant populate unchecked population that are all living really bad lives. When the whole problem was is that we got rid of the murdering. And so we introduced the wolves back in and this world starts getting real weird when you start looking objectively and realize that they almost everything that we experience, we're putting a subjective flavor into it out the gate. We're saying, oh, well, murder is evil. Hurting even what John said, hurting other people is evil. Well, what about if I go over and, he's got, he he's got a big old cyst on his on the back of his neck or something. And I go over and I cut it open, which definitely hurts, sucks. And then I drain it. And then now all of a sudden his neck's better, and he's got he did quits getting headaches and things like that. Well, I definitely hurt him.
You know? Again, this gets real, real weird because people have a hard time that with the difference between objective and it's subjective in it. And the thing is is no matter what scenario it is, if a guy came up to my house and was raping my or or raping my wife, bleep that later, John, then, nobody would think anything if I and this is even in the natural law. If I the the, you know, take no shit. So, you know, you don't let other people harm you. But then the reality of that is is is my response is definitely gonna harm him. Definitely. That's that's objective. That's a real thing. And so it then what we're saying is is what he was doing somehow overrid over or overrode the actual laws now that you've done something, this law that was inviolate, it doesn't exist anymore, and I can just start doing things that I wasn't allotted to do before. So now we've got this contingency.
Well, now now that first thing doesn't seem so solid anymore because now there's contingencies. Well, if it's a contingency, where do we place the contingency? And that in all life experiences is always a slippery slope because all of us would agree to the scenario I I described, or somebody's coming up to hurt your children and kidnap your children and do things. Absolutely. Take him out. What if he's taking your car? What if he's just gonna punch you in the nose? What if he's you know? Now we've got a sliding scale, which tells me that this is all subjective. If it was objective, there wouldn't be these if, ands, or buts. There cannot
[01:23:42] John Roeland:
be. Yeah. And I think that we, without asking the question, we got into the second prompt, which was is morality objective. And, and I wanted to say about in terms of evil, I wanted to touch on Rudolf Steiner, his ideas, and it's interesting what in the comments, Joshua Cromley wrote, 1 and 0 equals 0. Logic is binary. 1 and 0 equals 0, thus, will explain most things. Love transcends the duality of logic. In Steiner's perspective, there were 2 entities that represented evil. It was Lucifer and Aramon. Lucifer would be considered like a being of light, and Lucifer was pulling humanity, you know, into this idea of freedom and, and, individuality, and that Arman is this other side, which is more, earthbound.
Right? So Lucifer is like a light being. Aramon's more of a lower entity, and Araman's kind of pulling us down. And Araman is run by, technology and, you know, kind of like, kind of creating this alternative reality. And that these are 2 poles that we work with that are are within us. Right? They're like inner forces, as well as actual entities that exist in the spiritual realm. And that the balancing force was the Christ principle. And, I kinda find that as comparable to what Josh Cromley is saying, is that, so perhaps evil is real, but it's it's an it's a necessary thing for us to develop to where we need to go. Because in Steiner's view, he would he would talk about the war of all against all.
[01:25:47] Benjamin Balderson:
And he would say that this is coming. So what? So if something though is necessary, is it not good? Because if it's necessary, then it's something that's required for the continuation of life. So wouldn't that then make it a good thing?
[01:26:05] John Roeland:
Because life isn't that our isn't that our goal to keep going? I suppose you could look at it that way, but I I guess in the in the moment that you're experiencing it, you're gonna experience it as pain and suffering. So maybe so again, like, with Steiner, it was he's talking about these things and he's sort of clairvoyant and sort of predicting things that were to come, and he was pretty accurate about a lot of things. But he talked about the inevitability of Araman manifesting as a physical entity, that Lucifer had already manifested as a physical being in I forget when. He he manifested in in Asia somewhere prior to then Christ manifesting, and then Araman was still to come.
And a lot of what he described as Aramonic, tendencies is basically what we're experiencing now with technology controlling everything. And, that basically, the Christ principle is the balancing force of this. But he predicted that there would be this war of everyone against everyone, and it at least it feels like we're going that way. Again, I mean, I probably should turn my TV off more often, but, I mean, it definitely seems that that's what we're in right now, and what we are manifesting, and perhaps, you know, the mission that we're here to achieve has to go through that, but it is perceived as evil.
I mean, I I mean, I have a hard time not perceiving the deception, and the lengths that they go to deceive us as evil. But, again, if it's necessary, then, I guess, the question is how do you then navigate it. Right? And
[01:27:53] allen marcus:
Well, I I would make the point that the question of does evil exist has probably been written about more than any other topic. That's my presumption. So I don't think that we need to solve that issue tonight. I think maybe finding those core arguments and familiarizing ourselves with them is going to be important moving on if if we keep, running up against this obstacle of well, what what do we do about the problem evil? The problem of evil is a persistent problem that we keep having to to deal with in our own self arguments to figure out what is our worldview. I was gonna mention also this idea of governing, this idea of governance where in our society when, you know, families become tribes, become walled in cities where there's walls, and they're trying to protect things and keep nature out. So the the deer and the wolves and the wild beasts aren't running in at night and stealing the children and eating them up because what do they know? They just they're just hungry, and they're looking for delicious children to eat.
Building the walls then forcing people to live in close proximity is going to hasten and hurry up the effect of encountering other people. And when we encounter other people and we begin to live with them or against them, then people's preferences come to mind and, you know, don't tread on me and my bubble is so big and I need more space but hold on you're taking up too much space and now we start to fight over property and, you know, if you have siblings, you know, you grow up with brothers and sisters and maybe you share a bedroom and you got a top bunk and a bottom bunk and now you're fighting well am I on the top bunk, am I on the bottom bunk? This type of thing. We're learning to live within our limits, within our means, and having to work together to then increase the abundance and the comfort levels of everyone involved.
That was gone well for a while. I don't know at what point people decided that they could have an advantageous, you know, jumping forward in line getting ahead of others by nudging them and lying and cheating and stealing to to find a perceived advantage to then lead to governing, which then probably leads to taxation. So now you've got more time to sit around in your estate, your castle, your villa while other people do the hard work and you've got them convinced that you're sitting on a high mountain making the hard decisions so they don't have to.
And as a gift of thanks for this governorship and then maybe there's a military involved to add an additional level of protection to protect the border and the the civilization. So we can see the story developing into our modern day society where, you know, we have governance and then we have levels of governance down to our very day to day lives. And from there, encountering the obstacles to keep people in place seem to be there because at some point, if someone going and this was a very literal thing that may have happened or maybe didn't happen, subjective objective. If we have a killing of the king ritual and someone wants to overturn the order or have a revolution or take a political action to stir things up, to change the governance from the top down, deep state or otherwise, draining swamps, whatever. All these words and metaphors and ideas and headlines in newspapers continue to tell the human story of people having some form of leadership and then this lust for power leading to abuse taking more and more and more until those below them have said, well, you've taken everything we have. We have nothing to live off now.
What are we gonna do? Are we the 99%? Are we going to have to figure out how we can live more comfortably because we're not live it's not a matter of living comfortably. It's a matter of not having basic needs met. And there's that thing about weak times, hard times, strong men, that sort of thing that keeps getting repeated, repeated, repeated. Cycles, stories, beginning, middle, and beginning, middle, end, beginning, middle, end. Again, revolving, revolution, cycles, systems, child becomes teenager, becomes an adult, eventually becomes the adult, maybe becomes the king, dies, leaving behind a legacy for children and grandchildren, these types of things.
And as we find out our individual rights, our atomization, our I have to have my own car, my own apartment, my own Netflix account. No one can log in. It's my password. Don't share it. Forcing everyone to start from 0 and then have to build it up only to find out that that rug can be pulled out from you at any moment to take all of your accumulated wealth from a bank account. Like, who controls bank accounts? That's a that's a thing that we're having to talk about again. What is what is money? What is real money? What is not cryptocurrency or NFC? What is what what is real value? What is owning property? What is passing on trusts and things to children?
That's where we're at, and we're trying to figure out where it went wrong. And if we say, well, it's because evil exists, so things are always going to go wrong, then that seems to me a defeatist attitude to say, well, things are this way. They're only going to get worse, and then they're going to end because it's going to be mutually assured destruction. Everyone's gonna destroy each other, and then there needs to be a great reset. I'm not gonna argue for or against that. I'm saying today, I'm still alive. I'm still breathing. I still have plans and things I want to do. How do I find out what is real, how the world is actually functioning, and what moves what possible moves I have control of that I need to choose.
And then with the respect to the hard limits, time is a hard limit. We've got how many more minutes left in the debate. Clock's running down. Do I have a final point, or do I just duck away? I don't know. Do I get points? Are are we are we rewarding each other with points for for style and pizzazz?
[01:35:12] John Roeland:
I think we all get points.
[01:35:15] Benjamin Balderson:
You can certainly win the debate and be wrong.
[01:35:18] John Roeland:
So
[01:35:19] Benjamin Balderson:
style and the pizzazz definitely have some accounting. There there's no doubt. You know, you can hold the the correct position according to the world, you know, and and totally win the debate. It's a 100% possible. There's another one that's gonna, really be a lot of fun to come up. That's gonna come up as, taxation. Is it even theft? Because that, entire, you know, that's a real heavy trope that you see in, today's, you know, zeitgeist. You see everybody saying it. But, let's say I owned a even if we went back to medieval days or further than that. If you owned a substantial portion of land and there were some people work living on your land working it, You're the the overseer of the situation.
The original taxes was actually, you were supposed to get 10% of your, best seed, your best crop to the overseer. Now part of the reason for the mechanism of that with the best of it, you're like, why why, why would it be the best? Why would I wanna give up that portion? Is because at the, next spring, your seed stock was gonna come from the overseer. So what what, typically, Yarl and then, even on a lower position, just the landholder that you were living in his land, of course, he wants the best grains grown. And a lot of times, the lower level people, whether we wanna call it good, evil, or in between, there are some people that just make really bad choices. They don't seem to wanna make the choices that are gonna be beneficial for them.
And then for them to be incorporated into a society, now the society has to live with them bad choices. Like, especially in the United States society where we're a welfare state, we're gonna pay for all those people's bad choices. So, like, we all know people that have been in a situation where, let's say, I'm a young, 20 year old father, unmarried couple, you know, with a child or 2. They're living a lot of times, you know, trying to do the best. They both have a job. They're raising their kids. A lot of times, they're gonna be living in a a worse position than somebody on welfare who's got cable and they're getting, nicer foods than the other people.
So in reality, did the welfare people make the better choice? Well, you could stay that because when you weigh it out, they're living better. But the fact is is they're living off of the society without giving back to it, which then brings us back to that person never wanted to pay taxes or give into the society, but they're taken. So if you had somebody living on your land that was doing that, would you go to them and make them pay some taxes or get the fuck off my land? And, obviously, we can't just kick people out of the country. So when you say taxation is theft, are you also are you just being a child that's living in a system that you've always lived off of and then saying, no. I refuse to give back into it.
[01:38:56] allen marcus:
So I would just say that to to answer the question of what was my argument, what was the original question, the original question that I was asked is, you know, what is my world view in terms of what I think reality is questioning if it's subjective or objective. I, in a roundabout way, came to the conclusion through just thinking out loud and, making a lot of terrible blunders and embarrassments that the reality I'm facing today is that there is some form of governance that does have hard limits and there is a real economy and there are consequences for not being aware of the governance's rules, call them laws, statutes, guidelines, whatever they are.
When I'm not aware of them, I don't follow them. Someone finds out there is an enforcement of that, and that is a hard reality. Whether or not that's good or evil, it's a real reality, and it might feel very evil. It might not feel just. It might not feel like that law on paper on the books is in alignment with God's law or natural law. And then we have to say, well, who's enforcing them? And if the answer is just following orders, if the people that are the obstacles that are enforcing things that we don't believe in, we don't think are to the best of our society and they're just following the orders just to get by, then our argument needs to reach those people to show them the consequence of their actions in their own community so that we all come to a raised consciousness level to say that things are not working out. This agreement that we have of a civilization, of a society, you know, of a citizen in our state, in our community, in our local town, whatever it is, it's not working out. We need to make some changes immediately.
And if that gets to threat of violence because now we're forced to defend ourselves and our rights to exist, then that's where real world history has shown us that there are insurrections, revolutions, armed conflicts, this type of thing.
[01:41:43] John Roeland:
Yeah. I would just say on the tax question that, I mean, in the system that you're talking about, Ben, it's much more simplified, direct. You can see the benefit of where your taxes are going and coming back to you. But at the point we're at now, I just for me, personally, too much corruption, too much of, you know, not any benefit to me. I mean, I'm sure I benefit in in some ways from tax payer money, I guess. But in my personal opinion, I'm gonna try to find every every way I can to not pay them, and find every loophole I can to get around it, and to separate myself from the state as much as possible at this point. I don't wanna
[01:42:27] Benjamin Balderson:
vote. I don't want to So it's not that the question though isn't, is this current system corrupt and and a mobile or or or bad? The question then is, are is taxes is that theft? Is that something that's just a forced thing? So so you're adding a qualifier
[01:42:53] John Roeland:
of I would say if it's forced if it's forced, then it's theft. So if it's voluntary, if I if I am in a community and I wanna volunteer money into the pot to improve the community, and if if you wanna call that taxes, then then okay. But I don't think that that's necessarily considered taxes. That's more of a voluntary contribution as opposed to where we were raised. My dad used to say, there's only 2 things certain in life, death and taxes. And it didn't take till I was, like, you know, maybe 10 years ago that I realized how crazy it is that people would say that as an axiom, because it is basically equating the government with God.
And it's no. You don't have to pay taxes. I mean and again, depending on where you're at or how you decide to do that, you may have consequences because of that. But in terms of, of a moral position, I don't wanna pay any money to these people and what they're what they're spending their money on. So, but, yeah, your specific question, I would say tax I'm not asking you to justify
[01:44:04] Benjamin Balderson:
this government. It's it's taxes in and of itself. So when you're saying if I'm forcing it, basically, are you saying that let's say I have a a a village, and I am the mayor of the village. And the village has a firefighter fund that everybody wants to pay that everybody wants to pay into. According to about half the people in the chat and yourself, this is a a a viable good system. Now let's say half the people are shitheads, which we all know some. We've gotta be realistic. So let's say half the people decide, nah. Can't force me to pay into that fire fund. You know what? I don't ever recall there being a fire here. You know what?
Why are we even worried about it? Like, there hasn't been a fire here in 20 years. I think you're just trying to take money for for the fire fund because I don't have that extra money, and you're forcing me on it. This is against my will and my freedom. And then all of a sudden, the village burns down and or a fire starts, and you don't have the resources to fight the fire because half the village didn't pay into it because they you were violating their freedom. And and let's even take it further. What if you own the land and there's some people living on it? Well, are you violating them if they aren't gonna go pay you taxes or rent in order to upkeep the land. You're like, listen. I'm not asking you to pay me some giant monthly stipend, but, hey. We share the road together.
So why aren't you helping me throw into the roads? Which again isn't which is a completely separate issue than is this government corrupt, which a 100%. I don't know that there's even a debate to be had about that. This government is horrifyingly corrupt, and absolutely, a lot of the taxes are unapportioned taxes, which are constitutionally illegal. Unapportioned means taxes that haven't been earmarked ahead of time. So they're taking monies and not from us and not already having a place that those monies needs to go that has already been set up before those monies were asked for from the people. And so there's no wiggle room for them to go anywhere else. Just in this one very specific spot, that's an apportion tax.
Constitutionally, there was no unapportioned taxes. A 100%. I agree this government's corrupt, but are taxes in and of themselves corrupt? Or are you an idiot not to ask the leeches in society to give their fair share? Because this is where we end up here. Because I guarantee half a society, even if taxes were reasonable and being used in a way that most of us wanted, there would certainly be a large percentage that's like, nah. I like getting the milk for free.
[01:47:07] John Roeland:
Yeah. I guess I guess the answer would be it depends then. I I mean, it depends on the specific system you're talking about. But, yeah, I mean, I guess you can't make a blanket statement then that taxes are are, is theft. The definition, again, Merriam Webster, so take that with a grain of salt. But a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. So, I mean, why they use the word imposed? I mean, I guess, again, that's assuming that you recognize the authority and, acknowledge their authority, and you're okay with them imposing, these taxes on you.
But, yeah. I don't know. That's a that'd be a good question. I mean, again, I it would have to depend. And I would say, like, in this where we're at right now, taxation does seem to be theft.
[01:48:14] allen marcus:
But, again, maybe that's not your question. I hear I hear what you're saying. Well, you know, I I think that at this point, we started the the conversation beginning of the show, setting up a show to talk about masculine issues. And when it gets down to, you know, brass tacks, wherever meets the road, you know, fists are, a coffin and people are fighting. It's it's usually over resources and money. And it just say even in even in marriages, you hear so many people talk about, well, what why did the fall apart? Because the man didn't make enough money to satisfy his wife, this type of thing. So talking about money, taxes, job, work, that's that's a very masculine thing. And to be upset, even as a point of anger and rage that a reality today is a financial system that is printed out of thin air. We are living in an age of air. It's not an age of earth anymore. It's sort of this etheric sort of thing where there's there's value, but it's determined by central source printing more and more value inflating the reserve of this supply of value and pushing back against it with Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies or other systems. You know, we're not getting into an economics discussion. We're talking about the realities of limits faced today in terms of access to capital, wealth, just having cash in hand to go to a taco stand. You know, that seems to be where we're really getting this frustration with, you know, being a man, being a provider expected to have access to jobs, and then seeing the real of the workplace. I won't get into HR departments and women in the workplace and that whole debacle that many men experience and are disillusioned by. So if men are going their own way, they're withdrawing from participating in the economy, not starting businesses, not buying homes or cars, or starting families or these things because their financial limit is hard pressed to resources to have wiggle room to do these things, then that is a reality. That is a point of further exploration and explanation that needs to happen and questions of, you know, morals and ethics in regards to equal distribution and we talk about the welfare state or the nanny state. I mean, is it fair or unfair that the best option seems to be not to work, to collect food stamps, to let the government house you, and then stay at home and play video games on the Internet and compete in the World of Warcraft because that's where you can get real achievements and recognition for your skills and abilities. That's that's the transhumanist simulation, separation from reality thing. And that's probably by design to pull people out of pushing back and saying that, no. We need to stay grounded in the real world with real world governance at local levels, knowing our sheriff and these types of things to then build a local economy or a a a side and, like, build a real economy in the locality that you're in.
How do we do that? What's preventing us from doing that? These types of things. Those are the real solutions. If we're going to have to talk about solutions. And then we can argue if they work or not, after having tried them, that sort of thing. So within the fellowship of men gathering together to say, well, we need to work together to better everybody. I think that's where a new age of, renaissance can come about where we realize that it worked in the past. It has to get back to craftsmen, local businesses, apprenticeship, real skills, real world stuff, blood, sweat, and tears, and will probably be okay. But to blame government as evil, to not begin things, to not start projects because they're doomed to fail just means you're going to continue to, you know, sit in the shark tank waiting, waiting, waiting, and then bleeding, and then just ready to be gobbled up.
That's a defeatist attitude. That's not what we're that's not what I'm about. My position is not a defeatist or, black killed, nihilist, doom doom guy. That's not my position. I'd like to argue that there are options. We can continue to try them. And right now, it is difficult, but we have Internet. We are streaming, and we are having this conversation. So there is work to be done, and let's do it. Let's keep working on
[01:53:37] John Roeland:
it. Yeah. I I definitely appreciate the conversation here tonight. You know? I mean, I'm I'm still learning and still finding, you know, honing in on my world view. I do agree with you guys in general. I was kinda sticking hard to the to the, objective perspective, just because I have been in that thought pattern for a while. And, but I I definitely understand the idea of we need some struggles and some things that we would consider evil to grow. So I do understand the balance in that, and I do think that that's a key word is is balance between all of it, where it just when it seems imbalanced, you know, it it really feels like we're going in the wrong direction, and it feels like evil. But maybe that's just the lesson to teach us to push back the other way and try to find that balancing point.
And then yeah. I mean, I think I would say, like, with taxes, like, the one thing I would say is, like, my local community, I I see tax money going towards good projects, and I appreciate that. But when it's tied into what the federal government is doing and the military is doing and all of that, it's just it's hard to not you kinda can't, separate the 2, I guess. So, I mean, if there were a way for me to contribute locally and not contribute to wars, I would I would do that a 100%. You know? So, I guess my focus now is to, again, be able to function as self sufficiently as possible, which I'm not anywhere near being at that point, but also understanding the the legal the difference between legal and lawful, and finding ways to, navigate the the system that we're in and the corruption that we're in and to, separate myself from that.
I know the one guy in the comments was talking about, what's his name, Joe Williams, Brandon Joe Williams, who has a website, which is kinda gets into all this stuff. Like, basically, like, the system does allow you for to, you know, get out of debt, get get money back. And, again, these may who knows? I haven't looked deep enough into them, but that's kind of where my mind is at personally on on a personal level. But I do enjoy these conversations and, working through all of these different topics, especially with you 2 gentlemen. So I appreciate you. And everybody in the chat too. I saw a lot of good comments in the chat.
[01:56:27] Benjamin Balderson:
Oh, this has been an absolutely beautiful, discussion, and you can easily see where even this is kinda honing in on our our our more on our own personal world views and also our experiences. Like, I fully believe that, the taxation thing comes down to a have and have not, which is just a, you know, a tale as old as time where the people that have, you know, the people that have not complained about the people that have and people, you know, vice versa. If I had people living on my property, and let's say I owned a 1,000 a 1000 acres and I had 10 people and it was no big deal for me to let them live down there, but then they're also now sharing my land, sharing my space, doing things that that upkeep is gonna start costing me. And if they aren't gonna put into it, And then further, if they are gonna be beneficial to the land, why the fuck should I even have them around?
So now all of a sudden, you know, the it's the have, have not. Like, this is mine, and you're gonna come here and you and use it and partake from it. I expect you to also give to it. And that's just a basic give and take scenario. Give to it. And that's just a basic give and take scenario. So, are those people who don't want taxes, which again, that's not to discuss this government. This government is absolutely corrupt and absolutely just asinine. But when it comes down to it, then, you know, to go the exact opposite way and say taxes are just illegal and that, they're immoral, then to me, then we're gonna have a country with 99% of people that don't pay anything because why would you if nobody's gonna force you to? Because, for me, then it just comes down to, oh, I like this, so I'll pay to it, and I don't like that. Well, hell, I don't like any of it at this point then. I'm not paying a damn penny to any of it. And so nothing's gonna actually get done. But, there's so many more refined subjects that this is all leading into that we're gonna further delve into and explore our world views. We really appreciate everybody for coming.
I appreciate John and Marcus for the conversation. This was just absolutely beautiful, and, we're just gonna get deeper and more varied as it goes.
[01:58:51] allen marcus:
And we love all you guys. Thanks. Let's remind him to subscribe to the new channel so we can go live from that new channel.
[01:59:01] Benjamin Balderson:
Exactly. Please, subscribe to deliberating dog face dudes. That way, once we get, enough subscribers, we can just start going live there. We will be cutting it from John and my channels and just switching over to this, hopefully, fairly quickly. And, again, we're gonna start bringing in other people after we kinda get our world views fleshed out and get an understanding for everybody. Please come over and sub and sub. Also, please go check out the, John's channel. Please come over. Check out my channel, and, Weave Inspire's Welcome on Saturday nights where, Marcus and I are, and John is absolutely always welcome.
He can come in anytime he wants. We are more of in a culture, and things like that than this kind of thing. But, we thought this would be very important to the reality that we're living in now. So we appreciate you guys walking this walk with us.
[02:00:06] John Roeland:
Alright, you guys. Thanks a lot. I'm gonna end the stream. You guys have a good night.
Introduction to Deliberating Dog Face Dudes
The Concept of Red Pill and Orthodox Christianity
Natural Freedom League and Worldview Debates
Is Reality Objective or Subjective?
The Origin of Reality and Consciousness
The Concept of Good and Evil
Taxation: Theft or Necessity?
Final Thoughts and Closing Remarks
