Deliberating Dogface Dudes

Share on social media:

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

• 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.