Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Time for the Cyberfeminist Manifesto with TL;DR

Transcript

Time for the Cyberfeminist Manifesto with TL;DR · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: We're gonna go.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: We're live, told you I live. Hello everybody, and welcome
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: back to Honey Badger Radio. My name is Brian and
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: I'm here with Alison and Teal Deer and this is
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: maintaining frame.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: We're so like, I what is going on with YouTube?
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: Like, I don't understand why number one, I set up
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: the show this morning, like at nine o'clock in the
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: morning Eastern time, and there was no notification that went
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: out on our discord server, and there's no one waiting
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: as a few people but not many. And this is
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: a public live stream. I feel like the algorithm is
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: out to get us for real now, Like they're actually like,
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: what do you think it is?
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Do you think it's because of the title.
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: It might be the repetition in the title, because we
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: put this out like last Friday. It could be. Yeah,
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: I mean, you can't discredit the idea that the algorithm
• 0:56
  Speaker 3: is Algorm. The Algorm the.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Grim War is kind of like mythical ogre that lives
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: in al Grimoire under the bridge in Yeah.
• 1:11
  Speaker 3: The Alms. It's possible that the algorithms are out to
• 1:16
  Speaker 3: get us, but it's also possible that they're doing like
• 1:19
  Speaker 3: they have another server outage or it's just YouTube.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: I think YouTube is actively trying to oh.
• 1:29
  Speaker 3: Yeah, oh yeah. The question is if they're doing it
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: very specifically like this, like I mean, we're.
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: Already they don't. They don't have to get specific.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: Now they can just have AI, like because before you
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: would need like a team of people to find all
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: of the the I don't know, heretical content and like
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: suppress it. Now you can get AI to do it.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: And it doesn't like they're not going to kill our
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: channel in terms of like taking it down because we're
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: not breaking their terms of service, but you know, limiting
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: our reach. I think I used to think that was
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: like conspiracy theory territory like years ago.
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah, until.
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Well until yeah, it turned out we were like making
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: several lists.
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: Lists even yeah yeah, yeah, it could be one you know,
• 2:15
  Speaker 3: a B or C. No, no, but all right, So
• 2:20
  Speaker 3: speaking of YouTube and potential workarounds, please go to feed
• 2:25
  Speaker 3: the Badger dot com slash support or sorry, feed the
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: Badger dot com slash just the tip to send in
• 2:31
  Speaker 3: a message and a tip if you so wish with
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: that message. Well, actually you do have to just go
• 2:37
  Speaker 3: to feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip.
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: It's like super chat, except it we call it super Chow,
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: and it's basically the same thing. And you don't have
• 2:44
  Speaker 3: to use YouTube and run the gauntlet of YouTube's AI
• 2:49
  Speaker 3: algorithms determining whether your content is acceptable your comment content.
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: And uh, when I have it available, you can support
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: the show it feedbadger dot com slash support and if
• 3:00
  Speaker 3: you would like to read more.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Not available yet, no, because.
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: I have to do a whole bunch of like plug
• 3:07
  Speaker 3: in work, and I'm I think I might be procrastinating,
• 3:12
  Speaker 3: so I really need to Yes, I am, I really
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: need to knuckle down on that, and I will. I
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: will get it. I will get it. I'm gonna be
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: doing it after this stream, all right, so it should
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: be done soon, all right. Feed the Badger dot com
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: slash support to support the show and Badger Nation done
• 3:28
  Speaker 3: online if you want to read it about more of
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: the frameworks and the research that I talk about, which
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: is my original research into aspects of male female cognition
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: and endocrinology and all kinds of other stuff. All right,
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: So let's.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: So I changed the title.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: I don't know if it's gonna matter, but I changed
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: the title because it does seem appropriate.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: I was just like in a hurry to get it done.
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: It was nine in the morning, okay, but anyway, so
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: high tield dear, how are you doing?
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: Warm Melting Death, Donna Haraway, Cyborgs, All Fever Dreams, Mushrooms.
• 4:15
  Speaker 4: I discovered the name for one of my new bands.
• 4:18
  Speaker 4: Now we're coming through reading all this, I'm going to
• 4:21
  Speaker 4: call it the Ironic Ubermensch. It's a post industrial bands
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: with pop punk neo folk overtones. You probably wouldn't get it.
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: Oh good lord.
• 4:38
  Speaker 4: I content on MySpace because you know we're going back.
• 4:43
  Speaker 4: We're retro.
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: There's a good.
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: Argument Pizza Hut is back and now MySpace and Blockbuster Video.
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well, maybe we should never have left MySpace. Honestly,
• 4:59
  Speaker 3: Net does that.
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: Not still exist? Is my space for real? Gone?
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: I don't think it is. I just don't think anybody
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: really uses it unless it's ironic, or we could go
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: all the way back to like use net just everything
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: be use net and again.
• 5:16
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I have a very lengthyotical about the downfall of
• 5:19
  Speaker 4: my space. You can check it out in my life journal.
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: Uh that's like double irony. I think like we're achieving
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: levels of irony. No, one ever thought possible.
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: Regret using the word irony, because Donna Harroway uses it
• 5:40
  Speaker 4: quite a lot in this Well, it's her entire framework
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: of understanding the world apparently.
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean she's she doesn't get to own words.
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: That's that's not how it works. I refuse to allow
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: her to to decide that her words become her property.
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: Has she pissed on that word? I don't think so
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: can you? So therefore it is available to everybody to use.
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: But yeah, I might. I'm sure we'll we'll be enjoying
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: the how she abuses the word irony. Shortly, I was
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: reading the first paragraph. I didn't actually I attempted the
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: first paragraph. And then I'm like, I'm just running this
• 6:22
  Speaker 3: through my summarizer because what the first of all, she
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: begins her first paragraph, and I remember, this isn't a digression, right,
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: your first freaking paragraph. Shouldn't you be like giving you
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: a summary, giving your audience a summary of your thesis.
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: And she's just like she's doing the like uh literature
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: one oh one student kind of thing when they're writing
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: their verst very first story and then they just start
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: off and the narrators of churse for first person, and
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: the first thing they do is digress into some philosophy
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: of the universe, and it's like, well, this is yours
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: to be the universe and you're already digressing from it,
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: Like what okay, yeah, anyway, so anyway, I didn't read it.
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: I put it through the summary the summarizer.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: Well, I guess then that's up to me. Yeah, so
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: uh nobafan, Yeah, I guess I'll be the one. NOBA
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: fan twenty one gave us a rumble rant and said,
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: I've heard many years ago the algorithm dislikes numbered content
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: because users feel like they'll need to watch episode one
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: of the series before understanding the one thousandth episode of
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: One Piece Pokemon, et cetera. Well, I mean, you do
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: want to you don't want to skip parts, But I
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: changed the title anyway, so it doesn't have a number.
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: But uh, okay, so let's get into this. This is
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: the website vnsmatrix dot net projects Slash Projects Slash the
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the twenty first century, and then it
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: says nineteen ninety one, So I guess this is not
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: sold in a way, or at least that's when it
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: was conceived we are the future. That's literally what it
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: says on the screen. I don't know if there should
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: be a comma in there, and it's basically saying we
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: are the future cunt or if they're saying we are
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: the cunt of the future and uh yeah, I said
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: cunt a lot of times.
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: Now, is that this is being organized and taking place
• 8:18
  Speaker 4: in Australia, because that would explain a lot.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Oh maybe wha, wha wha.
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: I just saw sub headache go back up. Uh the
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: NS Matrix Merchants of Slime. Yeah, this is this is
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: some serious, like night like web point one point oh
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: kind of thing going on here.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Maybe that's what they were going for. I mean, I
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: don't know.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: I don't know if this is there way to date
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: a website to find out if it's like old and
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: maybe that's what's going on here.
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: But okay, I.
• 8:50
  Speaker 4: Am just going to point out briefly that that that
• 8:53
  Speaker 4: VNS Matrix Merchants of Slime really weird coincidence. That is
• 8:57
  Speaker 4: the name of my pre grown spin off band. They
• 9:02
  Speaker 4: didn't consult me about referencing us there, but here we go.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's Merchants of Slime. Is a good band name though,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: that is a name.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: I think that's what I'm going to try to do
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: to like maintain my sanity.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, look for ways to make this cool. Okay, So
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: we are the future cunt.
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: We are the modern cunt, positive, anti reason, unbounded, unleashed, unforgiving.
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: We see art with our cunt, We make with our cunt.
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: We believe in jewisence, madness, Jews, jeweishnce, madness, holiness and poetry.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: I'm going to see is this a word that exists?
• 9:52
  Speaker 4: It might be which I think something about life, maybe.
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: Like of.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Implying enjoyment.
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: Okay, how do you how do you see art with
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: your cunt?
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: Look, Alice, it's a it's another I basically it's your
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: it's your winking eye.
• 10:18
  Speaker 4: If you can use the anus as a window through
• 10:21
  Speaker 4: which to see things, this makes sense. That is black
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: analysy for you using the anus as a window through
• 10:31
  Speaker 4: which to observe blackness and black culture and society. That
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: is academic feminism, ladies and gentlemen.
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: I'm just trying to imagine what kind of art the
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: cunt I can appreciate. I can think about it. There's
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: a it's a narrow, it's a narrow section of art
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: I would imagine narrow and long. Okay, let's keep killing,
• 11:00
  Speaker 3: all right.
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: We believe in Ussant's madness, holiness and poetry. We are
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: the virus of the new world disorder. Oh so clever
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: are these lyrics rupturing the symbolic from within? Saboteurs of
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: Big Daddy mainframe. The clitteris is a direct line to
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: the matrix. VNS matrix, terminators of the moral code, mercenaries
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: of slime, go down on the altar of objection, probing
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: the visceral temple. We speak in tongues, infiltrating, disrupting, disseminating,
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: corrupting the discourse.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: We are the future cunt Cara vn S matrix. Okay,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: So in night.
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: Costs literally millions to do and host. Just so people
• 11:58
  Speaker 4: are aware, there are people who up getting paid like
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: five figures in some cases six to show up and
• 12:04
  Speaker 4: do things like this.
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's depressing. It doesn't quite hit right for this.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: So no we're not. We're reading smart guys. This is
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: a manifesto.
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: This is important. This is important stuff. This is like
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: paradigm shifting. In nineteen ninety one, VNS Matrix Unleashed their
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: collaborative manifesto, a cyberfeminist manifesto for the twenty first century.
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: They put it on the Internet and a giant traveling billboard. No,
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: do we call it the world Wide Web back then?
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: They put it out of the world Wide Web. From
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: there it quickly leaked onto the radio and magazine pages
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: and other irl ephemera, jumping from medium to medium at
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: rapid pace, eventually coming to rest the center of a
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: six meter or six meter by three meter billboard flanked
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: by speculative, fantastical icons in the form of a futuristic sigil.
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: It was in this Ghyina canonical text that the term
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: cyber feminism first appeared. Yeah, but this is not a religion, guys.
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: This is just like a worldview, you know. They have
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: they have icons, and they're in a futuristic sigils and
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: it's a gain of canonical text.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: So but yeah, not a religion this framework.
• 13:37
  Speaker 4: Does Does this mean the the Aol woman is like
• 13:41
  Speaker 4: one of the saints of this thing? Anyone remembers the
• 13:45
  Speaker 4: Aol woman with the little bob cut and the dress
• 13:48
  Speaker 4: was made out of flowing text and web page looking things?
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: Oh what was her name? I'm going to dig up
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: a picture for people so I can look or just such.
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: So I just put a AOL woman.
• 13:59
  Speaker 4: Yeah, she was in like all of the adverts. This
• 14:01
  Speaker 4: is just what I'm thinking. It's like, yes, cyberfeminism, women
• 14:04
  Speaker 4: on the Internet and all of this, because it's it's
• 14:07
  Speaker 4: era appropriate for what we're talking about.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: AOL lady.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: I think we found her, let me see, or I
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: think I may have found her. Well, there's a lot.
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I think this is it. Yeah, hold on
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: a second. Is this a small image? It is, you know,
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: too small.
• 14:30
  Speaker 3: I do have one thing to point out. They say
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: they are saboteurs of Big Daddy Mainframe, which obviously means
• 14:37
  Speaker 3: they're completely ignorant of what is actually going on. But
• 14:41
  Speaker 3: they require Big Daddy Mainframe to even exist and have
• 14:46
  Speaker 3: their ridiculous little movement, you know what I'm saying, because
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: without it, the the the very operative structure that they
• 14:54
  Speaker 3: exist within would not exist. Mm hmm. So basically a
• 15:02
  Speaker 3: bunch of harem girls saying that they're they're they're doing
• 15:05
  Speaker 3: a coup, They're they're gonna be the ones in charge,
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: and then they stop at the gate and they're like, yeah,
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: we did it. We got to the gate. Well, are
• 15:18
  Speaker 3: you going to go out of the gate? No, No,
• 15:21
  Speaker 3: it's too nice here. We have no conception of what
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: lies without, and we don't even like they don't even
• 15:26
  Speaker 3: realize that there's an out, So they think that just
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: declaring that, I guess they are saboteurs of the of
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: Daddy mainframe seem means that they have successfully engaged in
• 15:41
  Speaker 3: a coup against him, even though they have not exited
• 15:45
  Speaker 3: everything that he controls at all. So literally, it's just
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: if we signal this, if we say the words, that
• 15:54
  Speaker 3: makes it true. Yeah, what do you do with this
• 16:01
  Speaker 3: kind of thing? Case? Yeah, just except at some point
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: you realize you cannot have people whose native thinking patterns
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: run along these lines have access to the levers of
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: society because what will result will not be good, will
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: not be functional, will not persist for very long. But okay,
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: but I guess that's a that's a very controversial thing
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: to say.
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: All right, yeah, all right, let's get into the actual
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: essay that was just like the web page, Right, So
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: this is this the AOL lady you were talking about
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: til deer, Yeah, okay, there she is, yep, all right,
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: So I could see her being like one of the
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: patron saints of this. I could see that completely, all right,
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: So here we go the Manifesto by Melinda Reckham twenty eighteen,
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: so at least not that old, not nineteen ninety one.
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: They say that they foster disorder in all its forms, confusion, troubles,
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: violent debates, disarray, upsets, disturbances incoherences, irregularities, divergences, complications, disagreements, discords, clashes, polemics, discussions, contentions, brawls, disputes, conflicts, routes, debacles, cataclysms, disturbances, quarrels, agitation, turbulence, conflagrations.
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: Chaos, anarchy. What is this a slam poem? Money? What? What?
• 17:42
  Speaker 4: Sky table? Chrysanthemum, walker ocean? Which is wisting words? Now
• 17:55
  Speaker 4: apparently let's go with it.
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: Is this like the thing from Blade Runner where they're like,
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: you know, testing the uh, the replicants, to see if
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: they're human, if they're you.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: Know, and they throw they throw the words at them. Yeah, right, confusion.
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: Yeah, you've come across a pocket of anarchy, do you.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: Good? Lord?
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: All right?
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: I mean they probably think this is really deep, that
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: is what I'm saying.
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: It's not a word salad because a salad tastes good
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: when you have all the ingredients together. This is like,
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: this is like the word version of the Ganges. Okay,
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: but any okay, So that was just like to prepare
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: you for for this, Okay. So if you couldn't get
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: past this first whatever this is intro, you're not ready
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: for the actual manifesto. So I'm gonna try. I like
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: to imagine that VNS Matrix is a side her feminist
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: manifesto for the twenty first century, joyfully spat itself out,
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: simmered over summer under the thinning ozone in Adelaide, a
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: city sided between the desert and the Antarctic, fed by
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: the cyber fiction of Pat Cardigan, Octavia Butler, William Gibson,
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: Neil Stevenson, simultaneously soothed and stimulated by techno Patti Smith,
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: ambient trance and Diamanda Galas, enraged by the sexism of
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: Wired and Mondo two thousand and engaged by the raw
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: psycho sexuality of Kathy Acker and Linda Demons.
• 19:42
  Speaker 3: Okay, is this ever going to get to.
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: Donna Harrison actual?
• 19:50
  Speaker 3: Or is this something completely different? Like not just right?
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: You know, I'm wondering now, if I have the wrong. Yeah, no,
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: there's a bunch of this is not is this not it?
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: Okay?
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: Then how I search for? Okay? Okay, Donna Haroway? Is
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: that her name?
• 20:10
  Speaker 4: I was under the impression we were doing uh feminism.
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: Don't worry, I got it. I'll get you the thing
• 20:17
  Speaker 3: I want.
• 20:17
  Speaker 4: To adream with common language for women in the integrated suck.
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: It's surprising that we found two of these manifestos. You know,
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: if we had, if I had a quarter for every
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: time I found a cyber feminist manifesto, i'd have two quarters.
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: But which is not a lot. But it's strange.
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: All right, I'm going to just use Wikipedia. It might
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: actually be useful. Go to references Socialist Revolution, full text
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: of the article cyber Manifesto.
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: Here we go. It's an archive.
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: To be fair, to be fair. This one is a
• 20:55
  Speaker 3: lot more fun because it's so.
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: Up its own as Yeah, I'll leave, I'll leave the
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: tab open, I'll leave the table.
• 21:04
  Speaker 3: Let's refer back.
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe I can find a relationship.
• 21:08
  Speaker 3: It would do a little comparison between these two. Very
• 21:11
  Speaker 3: odd that we found two of them identically titled they
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: probably I wonder if they even reference each other. You
• 21:17
  Speaker 3: know what they probably do.
• 21:18
  Speaker 4: It's probably like what thirty years on, it probably is
• 21:23
  Speaker 4: a continuation of it.
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: That well, because look, let me go back.
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: Look at this, okay, a cyberfeminist manifesto for the twenty
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: first century. So it's like and then it says nineteen
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: ninety one right here, and then when I go to
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: the actual this is an archive link on the wayback
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: machine for the cyber of manifesto. It's Donna Harway a
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: cyborg manifesto science, Technology and socialist feminism in the late
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: twentieth century. And look nineteen ninety one, so it's the
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: same year. So yeah, I think it does reference itself.
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: But I think this is like an old her version.
• 22:00
  Speaker 3: This is.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: Pop this is a web this is an archive link.
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: So give me that and I will I will incorporate this,
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: I will unfold this.
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: All right, good, all right, So let's right, let's try
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: to get into this. And again, guys, send us super
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: chats or super child's if.
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: You want to contribute to this conversation such as it is.
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: Pause, okay, all right.
• 22:34
  Speaker 4: All right, I don't know if it might be worth
• 22:37
  Speaker 4: me giving a brief overview of what Donna Harroway considers
• 22:41
  Speaker 4: a cyborg to be.
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it may help.
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: But she does have a paragraph on it here. But
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: let's hear your thing and then hers before you go
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: into it.
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: You gave me the wrong you gave me the wrong
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: archive link. Oh no, wait wait wait wait, don't know
• 23:00
  Speaker 3: me to Okay, just just a second, I got I
• 23:02
  Speaker 3: figured it out.
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: Oh it went. Why did it go in twice? That's weird.
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: Oh no, no, it's a web archive and then it
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: goes and then it also has the Stanford Yeah you thing,
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: that's crazy, but yeah, that's how it appears in my
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: address bar.
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead, mit Tilder.
• 23:19
  Speaker 4: Okay, so we all know what cyborgs are. They are
• 23:24
  Speaker 4: organic and machine. You kind of just mash them together.
• 23:27
  Speaker 4: It's this sort of post human transhumanist thing that's been
• 23:32
  Speaker 4: the understanding of it for several decades. That's how people
• 23:36
  Speaker 4: use it. It is not how Donna half Away Harroway
• 23:39
  Speaker 4: uses it. She uses it a little bit in that sense,
• 23:42
  Speaker 4: but then it it spins off into basically being a
• 23:47
  Speaker 4: political identity. So the way that she describes these the
• 23:54
  Speaker 4: cyborg is as this ironic post society entity, because society,
• 24:03
  Speaker 4: in her framework is objective. It is things that men
• 24:09
  Speaker 4: have created. This goes back to some of the other
• 24:12
  Speaker 4: textbooks that we've read from, you know, society and science.
• 24:17
  Speaker 4: These things are created by men. Objectivity isn't real. It's
• 24:21
  Speaker 4: all sexist, racist, transphobic, bigoted, capitalist everything to put things
• 24:28
  Speaker 4: into boxes with your male brain thinking, with your your
• 24:33
  Speaker 4: male system thinking, and therefore it keeps the female system thinking,
• 24:38
  Speaker 4: It keeps the female process never ending out of everything.
• 24:43
  Speaker 4: Going to the full theology angle of it, this is
• 24:47
  Speaker 4: we hate the demiurge, who is the thing that created
• 24:50
  Speaker 4: the material world. You know, at best ignorant, at worst
• 24:54
  Speaker 4: actively evil, but it is a masculine force. And then
• 24:57
  Speaker 4: men use that internal bark of the divine that they
• 25:01
  Speaker 4: have to create all of these categories and force reality,
• 25:04
  Speaker 4: bend it to their will, you know, in the same
• 25:06
  Speaker 4: way that as that feminist textbook once said, you know,
• 25:10
  Speaker 4: men created the word hysteria and in so doing made
• 25:13
  Speaker 4: women hysterical because they defined something and therefore women became
• 25:17
  Speaker 4: that thing. Now, the irony that Donna Harroway uses in
• 25:23
  Speaker 4: regard to the cyborg is the fact that it is
• 25:25
  Speaker 4: something that inherently transgresses boundaries because it is both organic
• 25:29
  Speaker 4: and it is technological. The irony of it is that
• 25:34
  Speaker 4: it comes out of a scientific system where everything is
• 25:38
  Speaker 4: objective and rigid, and the cyborg is something that plays
• 25:41
  Speaker 4: with the boundaries. It confuses all of these boundaries. It's
• 25:45
  Speaker 4: this strange thing because it's neither male nor female. It's
• 25:50
  Speaker 4: neither organic, nor is it technological. It's all of these
• 25:53
  Speaker 4: things and nothing, and therefore it possesses, as she likes
• 25:56
  Speaker 4: to say, that level of irony, the incongruity with the
• 26:00
  Speaker 4: thing that it grew out of. Unfortunately, because it does
• 26:06
  Speaker 4: this thing where it bounces around borders and tries to
• 26:09
  Speaker 4: become in some way indefinable. She does actually think that cyborgs,
• 26:15
  Speaker 4: therefar are more female than male, which is weird, but
• 26:21
  Speaker 4: that that is part of I don't know, I guess
• 26:26
  Speaker 4: how she.
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: Strange.
• 26:29
  Speaker 4: It just seems to be like because as we all know,
• 26:32
  Speaker 4: the female entities within this pseudo spiritual framework is just wibbly, wobbly,
• 26:37
  Speaker 4: undefinable womanness that is everything and nothing. So if it
• 26:41
  Speaker 4: is something that is not being defined, then it's feminine
• 26:44
  Speaker 4: in its nature. If it's something that's transgressing a boundary,
• 26:47
  Speaker 4: it's feminine or female because this is just how people
• 26:52
  Speaker 4: like this work. And so within this frame you have cyborgs,
• 26:58
  Speaker 4: which are these more feminine than masculine things. They are
• 27:04
  Speaker 4: defying characterization. They are a rebellion against the irony of
• 27:10
  Speaker 4: the Enlightenment frame.
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: It.
• 27:15
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it just it gets weird like that. I think
• 27:19
  Speaker 4: perhaps is enough for people to maybe begin to understand
• 27:24
  Speaker 4: how and why she's using this word and misusing it.
• 27:29
  Speaker 3: I can give some additional analysis to what's going on
• 27:32
  Speaker 3: here if you wish.
• 27:33
  Speaker 5: If you're concluded, there's maybe another couple of points. Sure
• 27:39
  Speaker 5: it is because she's also in this women's experiences science
• 27:45
  Speaker 5: frame as well. She occasionally sort of touches this weird
• 27:52
  Speaker 5: thing where the existence of this cyborg as kind of
• 27:55
  Speaker 5: feminine but not really kind of ends up invalidating women
• 28:02
  Speaker 5: as being the sole arbiter of what is science and
• 28:05
  Speaker 5: what is real, because as we all know, women's opinion
• 28:09
  Speaker 5: is the only unbiased source of knowledge because it's free
• 28:13
  Speaker 5: from the taint of men hypothetically anyway. And there's some
• 28:21
  Speaker 5: tie to religion other than the gnostic tie, which is
• 28:26
  Speaker 5: very obvious to us, I suppose, because we've dealt with
• 28:29
  Speaker 5: it for so bloody long.
• 28:31
  Speaker 4: But people like this don't seem to know it. I
• 28:32
  Speaker 4: don't even know if Danna it's aware that this is
• 28:35
  Speaker 4: what she's going this is what she's putting it into it.
• 28:39
  Speaker 4: But there are like sort of little religious elements to it,
• 28:43
  Speaker 4: and it ties from like feminism, socialism, materialism, all of
• 28:48
  Speaker 4: these things are very openly. Oh yeah, these are all connected,
• 28:51
  Speaker 4: it's all. They're all part of each other. They're inseparable.
• 28:56
  Speaker 4: And the slight theological angle that she gets in here
• 29:00
  Speaker 4: is that there are these acts of acts of blasphemy
• 29:04
  Speaker 4: and that those things are themselves religious. And this just
• 29:07
  Speaker 4: also ties into me that you know, when we talked
• 29:10
  Speaker 4: a few weeks ago about how feminism has this aim
• 29:13
  Speaker 4: that they have to go into religion and support it.
• 29:16
  Speaker 4: They have to go in into the churches, into the synagogues,
• 29:19
  Speaker 4: into the mosques. They have to try and particularly undermine
• 29:24
  Speaker 4: the concept of like God as father. They have to
• 29:27
  Speaker 4: fall onto their theological well, God is actually the overflowing
• 29:31
  Speaker 4: immortal with the plerooma, and therefore is everything, and so
• 29:35
  Speaker 4: you attempting to limit it is bad. And technically it's
• 29:39
  Speaker 4: actually female because it defies characterization because it is everything, etc. Yeah,
• 29:48
  Speaker 4: there's a lot going on here, And unfortunately she couches
• 29:53
  Speaker 4: so much of this in her typical pseudo intellectual, semi
• 29:58
  Speaker 4: philosophical bollocks that make it very difficult to pick apart
• 30:06
  Speaker 4: what it is that she means. And then there's just
• 30:08
  Speaker 4: bits that are like outright internally incongruent or contradictory. It's like, oh,
• 30:14
  Speaker 4: cyborgs exist, they replicate, but there's no organic reproduction in them. Well,
• 30:20
  Speaker 4: if they contain organic elements, there is necessarily organic reproduction,
• 30:24
  Speaker 4: unless you're in some I guess Star Trek world where
• 30:27
  Speaker 4: you can use machines to I guess print cells somehow
• 30:35
  Speaker 4: without the cells ever dividing. But I don't think that
• 30:38
  Speaker 4: that's what she's getting to with things like that. And
• 30:43
  Speaker 4: she also has some very strange ideas about ferns and invertebrates, yes,
• 30:49
  Speaker 4: just plants and bugs, which is that that is kind
• 30:53
  Speaker 4: of related to cyborgs insofar as she thinks that plants
• 30:58
  Speaker 4: and invertebrates are. She actually just says an organic prophilactic
• 31:02
  Speaker 4: against hetero sexism, which I find really bizarre, for these
• 31:07
  Speaker 4: things reproduce sexually. I mean, some plants clone themselves. Invertebrates,
• 31:14
  Speaker 4: as far as I know, are all sexually reproducing. There
• 31:16
  Speaker 4: are probably some that can clone themselves. I'm not gonna
• 31:19
  Speaker 4: say that aren't definitively. I don't know the entire animal
• 31:22
  Speaker 4: tree off the top of my head. But this idea
• 31:25
  Speaker 4: that the mirror existence of these things is like this prophilactic.
• 31:29
  Speaker 4: It's therefore this protection against heterosexism. It's okay, you're strange.
• 31:37
  Speaker 3: This is some serious lilith energy. Yeah, I finally understand
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: that that reference. I have come to my understanding of
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: lilith energy from a very very strange route that probably
• 31:49
  Speaker 3: nobody wants to hear about, but.
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: I do that.
• 31:53
  Speaker 4: It sounds insane, and I like insanity, and I'd like
• 31:56
  Speaker 4: to avoid reading Donna Hathaway.
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: I'm serious.
• 32:00
  Speaker 4: I can only have a stomach maybe a couple of
• 32:03
  Speaker 4: pages of her at any given time. It is excruciating.
• 32:09
  Speaker 3: Okay, let's table that, and I will tell you why
• 32:15
  Speaker 3: I think she's at war with the concept of women.
• 32:19
  Speaker 3: It's because it's an essentially operative concept concept. So it
• 32:23
  Speaker 3: is about biological function. It is objective. It is based
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: on a particular use that your body does. Right, because
• 32:36
  Speaker 3: women gestate, they give birth, they lactate, that kind of stuff,
• 32:40
  Speaker 3: and they also elicit particular hormonal responses in men, or
• 32:45
  Speaker 3: indocurrent responses and men. So the whole gamut is very operative,
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: like inputs machine output. And she denies that as a
• 32:53
  Speaker 3: patriarchal concept, as a patriarchal cognitive concept, that women should
• 32:59
  Speaker 3: be defined by their biological state, by their biological utility,
• 33:06
  Speaker 3: which is not like it's like, biological utility is not
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: just gestation. It's also whatever particular physical acumen that women
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: bring to the world. But any of that is classified
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: as verboten because it's operative. It's male thinking to identify
• 33:25
  Speaker 3: women as women. So instead what she's done is she
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: said that women are or woman is not like the
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: biological observation that women exist is male thinking. What we
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: need to replace it with is women's own cognitive modality,
• 33:44
  Speaker 3: which is everything in relation to everything else, you know
• 33:48
  Speaker 3: what I'm saying. So that's how women see the general world.
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: And so she's saying that women should be defined by
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: women's cognition without ever being that clear. So you a
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: woman is a node in a social network, and she's
• 34:06
  Speaker 3: defined in relation to everything else in that network. There's
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: no operative reality to define, and she's basically saying everything
• 34:13
  Speaker 3: should exist within women's cognitive understanding of the word women's cosmology,
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: and there should be no relationship to the way that
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: men look at the world and recognize that things do
• 34:27
  Speaker 3: things right, that things have observable features that are innate.
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: So she's basically saying that everything should be defined in
• 34:38
  Speaker 3: the way women define it, and and a cyborg having
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: all of the being something that's in relation to other things,
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: so in relation to the organic world, in relation to
• 34:50
  Speaker 3: the cyber world, and is defined by its relationships to
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: those things, that is feminine. And the whole process of
• 34:59
  Speaker 3: identifying with that is feminine. Because she's very much against
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: masculinity and the daddy mainframe or whatever the hell she
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: calls it on all of that. So what she's essentially
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: saying is that there's no legitimate male cognitive operation at all.
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: Everything should be in the female social web and everything
• 35:20
  Speaker 3: outside it, everything operative, is illegitimate. So that's why women
• 35:24
  Speaker 3: can't have an operative definition rooted in biology. They have
• 35:29
  Speaker 3: to have a relational definition. And in fact what ends
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: up happening is everything is woman. Everything legitimate is woman.
• 35:36
  Speaker 3: Everything legitimate is seeing the world through the process of
• 35:40
  Speaker 3: where do I relate to everything else? In the social web,
• 35:44
  Speaker 3: and any cognitive process that isn't that is illegitimate, and
• 35:49
  Speaker 3: any individual who engages in it is illegitimate. And every
• 35:54
  Speaker 3: individual who engages in it is a legitimate target for
• 35:57
  Speaker 3: either social censure moving into genocide because they aren't really human.
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: Does that make it? Did you guys understand what I'm
• 36:07
  Speaker 3: saying or do I need to explain it? Again?
• 36:09
  Speaker 4: Makes sense by my understanding of it. It's wibbly wobbly womanness.
• 36:14
  Speaker 4: It is female process. It is anything that you define
• 36:17
  Speaker 4: is masculine, demiogial thinking, which yes to be destroyed so
• 36:21
  Speaker 4: we can transcend back to well God or Geia or
• 36:28
  Speaker 4: the undefinable.
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: Well, that's socialobbly.
• 36:31
  Speaker 4: Whatever of subjective appearances and whys.
• 36:36
  Speaker 3: Again, when I made that example of the Harem girls
• 36:41
  Speaker 3: declaring a coup against Daddy mainframe, you know, the the Sultan,
• 36:46
  Speaker 3: they think that the coup is simply declaring that they
• 36:49
  Speaker 3: are free, or basically saying, well, we we don't acknowledge
• 36:55
  Speaker 3: that he constructed this reality. We're not going to give
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: him gratitude for having constructed this reality. Therefore, the reality
• 37:01
  Speaker 3: becomes our construct because we have refused to acknowledge his
• 37:05
  Speaker 3: position in the social web. So that's the way that
• 37:09
  Speaker 3: they're thinking. And I think Dona Hathaway's highway is sort
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: of in the same modality. Is that as long as
• 37:14
  Speaker 3: you don't acknowledge that men create the reality you occupy,
• 37:20
  Speaker 3: you refuse to express gratitude, you refuse to express any
• 37:25
  Speaker 3: kind of complementarianism. As long as you refuse that, then
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: the reality you own the reality because you have excluded
• 37:33
  Speaker 3: the men from the social web. So they're no longer relative,
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: They're no longer a part of your understanding or your
• 37:41
  Speaker 3: recognition that they should exist or have the right to exist.
• 37:45
  Speaker 3: Get what I'm saying. So if you wait, I'll wait
• 37:48
  Speaker 3: until you guys respond.
• 37:53
  Speaker 4: Go ahead, til dear, that makes sense, it's yeah.
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, it's a feminine approach to.
• 38:02
  Speaker 3: But it's not a literal coup. It's not it's not
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: actually going to the sultan and you know, killing him
• 38:08
  Speaker 3: and installing your own sultan. It's just simply saying you
• 38:11
  Speaker 3: are not part of the relational web. Therefore all of
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: your contributions are nullified and unrecognized. And and that's uh,
• 38:21
  Speaker 3: that's what they're doing. That's what she's doing. And she's saying, well,
• 38:25
  Speaker 3: the concept of woman is patriarchal, and we are nullifying that.
• 38:29
  Speaker 3: And now it doesn't exist. It's not part of the
• 38:31
  Speaker 3: social web. It's not acceptable. And yeah, it's just if
• 38:36
  Speaker 3: you once you understand it, it makes more sense. It's
• 38:39
  Speaker 3: not exactly logical, but it has coherence, if that makes sense.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, it's coherent, but I mean logical. Like
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: you said, I got I got a super.
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: Chow from Pierre, who gives us five dollars and says
• 38:59
  Speaker 2: the tenet. The tenticular ones make attachments and detachments. They
• 39:03
  Speaker 2: make cuts and knots. They make a difference. They weave
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: paths and consequences, but not determinisms. They are both opened
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: and nodded in some ways and not others. Donna Harroway,
• 39:16
  Speaker 2: staying with the trouble making kin in the Cuthulhu scene
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: twenty sixteen. The broader context, according to Google's Ai Haraway,
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: uses the metaphor of string figures like the Cat's Cradle
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: game to explain how the world is a web of
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: ever changing connections. She invites us to stay with the
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: trouble to embrace the complex, messy, and tangled realities of
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: the world, rather than looking for simple clean solutions.
• 39:44
  Speaker 3: You mean the ones that keep us alive. Yeah, hot,
• 39:49
  Speaker 3: damn no, but yeah, that's exactly it. She's always staying
• 39:52
  Speaker 3: in the being and she's always always fixated on these
• 39:56
  Speaker 3: contradictions that never resolve, all right, They never resolve into
• 40:00
  Speaker 3: any kind of actionable or goal or operative process. They're
• 40:04
  Speaker 3: always just things merging and unmerging and colleidoscoping and going
• 40:12
  Speaker 3: left and going right and then going into other dimensions,
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: and everything is just this endless relation between everything else, right.
• 40:21
  Speaker 3: That is the end state and the failure mode of
• 40:25
  Speaker 3: relational web thinking, like Donna Hathaway is literally like example,
• 40:31
  Speaker 3: no numeral uno of the relational web thinker taken to
• 40:36
  Speaker 3: a terminal point. And I mean it gets darker too,
• 40:41
  Speaker 3: because this kind of this relational web thinking completely detached
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: from reality and any kind of consequence. All it ends
• 40:50
  Speaker 3: up doing is is becoming a hostility generator and a
• 40:54
  Speaker 3: target marker. So it's basically a it's a war machine
• 40:59
  Speaker 3: that knows no peace time.
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: All right, let's say, yeah, exactly, it's it basically is
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: saying don't don't try to change anything.
• 41:12
  Speaker 3: Sorry about that, great indoors.
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, take it as a compliment, Okay, So now I'm
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: going to start the article. Uh, an ironic dream of
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: a common language for women in the integrated circuit.
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: This chapter is an effort.
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: To build an ironic political myth faithful to feminism, socialism,
• 41:34
  Speaker 2: and materialism.
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: This chat, I'm gonna read that again.
• 41:40
  Speaker 2: This chapter is in an effort to build an ironic
• 41:44
  Speaker 2: political myth faithful to feminism, socialism.
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: And materialism.
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: So if you're like writing all this to build an
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: ironic political myth, why would I even care? Why would
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: I even read? At this point, you're just playing around.
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: Perhaps more faithful as blast is faithful, then as reverent
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: worship and identification. Blasphemy has always seemed to require taking
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: things very seriously. I know no better stance to adopt
• 42:12
  Speaker 2: from within the secular, religious, evangelical traditions of United States politics,
• 42:17
  Speaker 2: including the politics of socialist feminism. But you repeat yourself,
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: blasphemy protects one from the moral majority within, while still
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: insisting on the need for community. Blasphemy is not apostasy.
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: Irony is about contradictions that do not resolve into larger holes,
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: even dialectically, about the tension of holding incompatible things together
• 42:42
  Speaker 2: because both or all are necessary and true. Irony is
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: about humor and serious play. It is also a rhetorical
• 42:51
  Speaker 2: strategy and a political method, one I would like to
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: see more honored within socialist feminism. At the center of
• 42:59
  Speaker 2: my ironic faith, my blasphemy is the image of the cyborg.
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: I'm just gonna let you guys, I need a break.
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: None of this is important, but also I want it
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: to be important, but I don't want to think too
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: much about it, because you know, I'm not a serious person,
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: but I am a serious person.
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: You're thinking about inputs, machine outputs. What she's doing is
• 43:30
  Speaker 3: just doing a series of signals of her position in
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: the relational web. She's being ironic but also serious. She's
• 43:38
  Speaker 3: taking it seriously but also blasphemy, Like this is are
• 43:42
  Speaker 3: just signals, Like she's just positioning herself in the web,
• 43:45
  Speaker 3: these are coordinates. You're like, okay, what are what are
• 43:48
  Speaker 3: the actionables here? What are the inputs, what are the outputs?
• 43:51
  Speaker 3: What is going on? And she's just signaling her coordinates.
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: It's a completely different mental cognition. And I'm laughing because
• 44:03
  Speaker 3: of course it makes no freaking sense because you're not
• 44:07
  Speaker 3: part of the web, and you're not part of the
• 44:09
  Speaker 3: coordinate system. So you don't. You're like, okay, well this
• 44:12
  Speaker 3: should relate to like this, this should be there should
• 44:14
  Speaker 3: be a mechanism here. There's no mechanism. The mechanism is
• 44:17
  Speaker 3: the coordinate system, and it makes no it's like completely contradictory,
• 44:22
  Speaker 3: but that's because you're not translating it into the coordinate system.
• 44:28
  Speaker 3: And she she can, she can signal things that look
• 44:32
  Speaker 3: completely contradictory from an operative perspective, but they make they
• 44:36
  Speaker 3: resolve perfectly from the relational web's perspective because they're simply
• 44:40
  Speaker 3: tracking her the coordinates that she's laying out. Oh, you
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: are plus plus h X plus two Y minus one Z.
• 44:51
  Speaker 3: I don't know who knows X squared right, this is
• 44:55
  Speaker 3: what the relational web people are translating this to. So
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: it makes perfect sense to them, both ironic and serious.
• 45:06
  Speaker 3: She's both faithful and blasphemous because she's wanting to be
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: in a particular position in the web, and that that
• 45:14
  Speaker 3: makes perfect sense to them, because those things are completely
• 45:17
  Speaker 3: orthogonal somehow. Whereas you're like, well, resolve woman, resolve, resolve it.
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: I can work with Okay, that's all I happen. All right, Well, yeah,
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: you're like let's let's take the nail out, like, what
• 45:36
  Speaker 3: what are the actionables here? You're you're, you're speaking your fla.
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: It's basically saying, let's not do anything that moves anywhere.
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: Everything is fine as it is. And the main reason,
• 45:50
  Speaker 2: maybe is because I'm afraid that if someone like, basically,
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: the act of resolving something is masculine.
• 46:01
  Speaker 3: Yes, one hundred percent, you're getting it. The act of
• 46:05
  Speaker 3: revolution is masculine. The act of clean a clean thing,
• 46:11
  Speaker 3: to do, a task, loop a goal, something to be
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: held accountable for that is masculine. Her spouting out a
• 46:20
  Speaker 3: bunch of contradicting, dry nonsense that resolves into a series
• 46:23
  Speaker 3: of coordinates in the relational web that she's signaling to
• 46:27
  Speaker 3: that is feminine, and she's her essential ontology is that
• 46:32
  Speaker 3: nothing should exist outside of the feminine. That the masculine
• 46:36
  Speaker 3: is completely illegitimate. Is like I said, the hair and
• 46:39
  Speaker 3: Girls declaring a coup against the Site Sultan because they
• 46:42
  Speaker 3: refuse to recognize his existence, already gratitude for the fact
• 46:46
  Speaker 3: that he has constructed their entire reality. That's what she's doing.
• 46:51
  Speaker 3: She's ejecting any recognition of masculinity from the relational web
• 46:56
  Speaker 3: and Unfortunately, when a society does that, it craters for
• 47:02
  Speaker 3: obvious reasons. And that the reasons that I put out was,
• 47:06
  Speaker 3: you know when you said there's nothing, there's no clear
• 47:09
  Speaker 3: thing to do, right, there's no clear action. Yeah, it's
• 47:13
  Speaker 3: clear actions that keep us alive. And when a society
• 47:16
  Speaker 3: can't recognize that, it can't function anymore. Right if it's
• 47:22
  Speaker 3: if it's being controlled by Donna Hathaways. And yes, our
• 47:25
  Speaker 3: society is being controlled by Donna Hathaways on every fricking level.
• 47:28
  Speaker 3: And not just female Donna Hathaways who are academic. You're
• 47:32
  Speaker 3: talking about naval procurement is controlled by by male and
• 47:38
  Speaker 3: female Donna Hathaways that do not understand the concept of
• 47:41
  Speaker 3: a clear task loop, a clear operational goal. That it's
• 47:47
  Speaker 3: showing up there, it's showing up in the silver market,
• 47:50
  Speaker 3: it's showing up literally everywhere in places you wouldn't you
• 47:52
  Speaker 3: wouldn't even think it should show up. And that is
• 47:56
  Speaker 3: the end of a civilization when we can't clearly state
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: that things need to eventually resolve into clear actionables that
• 48:05
  Speaker 3: keep us alive. All right, I'm getting off my podium.
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, let's see here. I'm just checking something
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: because I see that the chat has slowed down.
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I figured there was something wrong with it, all right.
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, because you guys didn't know,
• 48:26
  Speaker 2: a hybrid of machine and organism. A creature of social
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: world changing fiction. God, our most important This is so painful, like,
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: it's our most important political construction and a world changing fiction.
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: So it's a lie, but it changes the world.
• 49:00
  Speaker 3: She's just signaling the web, dude. This is my position.
• 49:05
  Speaker 2: The international women's movements have constructed a women's experience as
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: well as uncovered or discovered this crucial collective object. So
• 49:16
  Speaker 2: women's experience didn't exist before the international women's movements constructed
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: them this experience.
• 49:23
  Speaker 4: Before this women's experience was put upon them by men
• 49:28
  Speaker 4: defining things. And when these women were able to do
• 49:32
  Speaker 4: their wibbly wobbly undefinable womanness process never ending female system thinking,
• 49:38
  Speaker 4: now they can do all of this right because they
• 49:43
  Speaker 4: stopped having to define things by the way men define things.
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, uh, this experience is a fiction and fact
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: of the most crucial political kind. Liberation rests on the
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: construction of the consciousness. That okay, that's true, well, at
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: least like the Marxist like critical consciousness thing. That's what
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: this is, okay, the imaginative apprehension of oppression and so
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: of possibility. The cyborg is a matter of fiction and
• 50:21
  Speaker 2: lived experience that changes what counts as women's experience in
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: the late twentieth century. This is a struggle over life
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: and death. But it's also not serious. But the boundary
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: between science fiction and social reality is an optical illusion.
• 50:42
  Speaker 4: Fiction is reality. If you imagine it, it becomes so yep,
• 50:52
  Speaker 4: it's tiresome.
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: This really is, it really is is.
• 50:56
  Speaker 3: The endless process of relational website. And that's all completely
• 51:02
  Speaker 3: divorced from anything operational, anything that clearly states its goals
• 51:07
  Speaker 3: and attempts to achieve them. That's what this is, yeah,
• 51:15
  Speaker 3: all right.
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: Contemporary science fiction is full of cyborgs, creatures simultaneously animal
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: and machine who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted modern okay,
• 51:30
  Speaker 2: so modern medicine is also full of cyborgs, of couplings
• 51:35
  Speaker 2: between organism and machine, each conceived as coded devices and
• 51:40
  Speaker 2: in an intimacy and with a power that was not
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: generated in the history of sexuality. Cyborg sex restores some
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: of the lovely, replicative baroque of ferns and invertebrates, which
• 51:55
  Speaker 2: now we're getting to the ferns and invertebrates such nice
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: organic prophiles against hetero sexism. So ferns and invertebrates are
• 52:05
  Speaker 2: an organic propylactic against heterosexism.
• 52:09
  Speaker 4: Cyborg replication existent, the mirror existence apparently disproves like heterosexuality.
• 52:16
  Speaker 4: I guess in the same way that cyborgs disprove heterosexuality
• 52:21
  Speaker 4: because oh they're neither male nor female, that kind of
• 52:25
  Speaker 4: a little bit of everything. Guys, they can be whatever
• 52:28
  Speaker 4: we want them to be. Her.
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, cyborg replication.
• 52:35
  Speaker 3: This is telling because I was saying, this is lilith energy.
• 52:39
  Speaker 3: This is the refusal of the generative act the way
• 52:42
  Speaker 3: humans engage in it. Heterosexuality, Yeah, this is uh, it's
• 52:50
  Speaker 3: a refusal of human para bonding, the refusal of compilentarianism,
• 52:56
  Speaker 3: the refusal of the literal physical act that reduces new
• 53:01
  Speaker 3: humans with the uh you know, it's it's it's like
• 53:06
  Speaker 3: I said, lilith energy. And I will explain how I
• 53:10
  Speaker 3: went and I found this at some point, but that
• 53:13
  Speaker 3: would be a digression, So continue, Brian.
• 53:16
  Speaker 4: Part of me does actually wonder if, within this insane
• 53:23
  Speaker 4: female way of thinking about this, that these people seem
• 53:28
  Speaker 4: just compelled to think about whether they actually think that, actually,
• 53:33
  Speaker 4: I suppose they do, that people are actually just created
• 53:37
  Speaker 4: within this You just define them socially and then they
• 53:41
  Speaker 4: exist like you don't actually physically produce them via sexual reproduction. No,
• 53:47
  Speaker 4: you just identify that this person exists and then they
• 53:52
  Speaker 4: spring into being somehow, which, of course, if you're part
• 53:56
  Speaker 4: of a theology that believes that humans are totally able
• 53:59
  Speaker 4: to up the vibrational frequencies and manifest things into existence
• 54:04
  Speaker 4: by just willing it to be so, well, you would
• 54:08
  Speaker 4: think that of course you would yep, yeah, and really
• 54:16
  Speaker 4: create are the souls by just thinking about it really hard?
• 54:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, And so there's no necessity of recognizing or accepting
• 54:27
  Speaker 3: the fact that there we have any evolutionary inheritance, or
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: if you want to look at from a religious point
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: of view, because every religion, every philosophical system, Confucianism might
• 54:37
  Speaker 3: be the only outlier, but they still recognize that the
• 54:41
  Speaker 3: union between wife and husband was the central relationship in
• 54:46
  Speaker 3: the society from which everything else flowed. But every religious philosophy,
• 54:52
  Speaker 3: religious faith puts the sacred right there, like Catholicism is
• 55:02
  Speaker 3: the relationship between man and woman is like the relationship
• 55:06
  Speaker 3: between Christ and the church. You know. The Hinduism has
• 55:12
  Speaker 3: the to the God and the Goddess and and all
• 55:15
  Speaker 3: and Hera, the the goddess of the hearth, and all this,
• 55:18
  Speaker 3: so that every religion or pagan or otherwise says that
• 55:24
  Speaker 3: the union of male and female in marriage is sacred right,
• 55:28
  Speaker 3: it's a sacred union. And she is saying the exact
• 55:32
  Speaker 3: opposite of every functional philosophy and religion throughout human history,
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: that it is not the source of the sacred it
• 55:40
  Speaker 3: is actually the source of sin and demonic It's like
• 55:47
  Speaker 3: where Hell cracks open and the demonic forces enter the world.
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 55:52
  Speaker 3: That that's her. That is Feminism's allegation towards uh, towards
• 55:58
  Speaker 3: heterosexual union, especially specifically a marriage, because they I think
• 56:02
  Speaker 3: they're okay with like casual sex, that it is the
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: source of sin, it's the source of demonic energy. It's
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: just like the hell mouth opening up, that's what they
• 56:13
  Speaker 3: are asserting.
• 56:14
  Speaker 4: And it's interests the male part of those unions.
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: Well, you can't really have heterosexuality without the male part.
• 56:20
  Speaker 4: Right, But all of it comes down fundamentally to just
• 56:25
  Speaker 4: we don't want the male bit of it. Because remember,
• 56:27
  Speaker 4: any anytime there's anything male actual otherwise or metaphysically male,
• 56:32
  Speaker 4: or even just male thinking, that is when all of
• 56:36
  Speaker 4: these things become oppressive because it starts being defined.
• 56:39
  Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean, yes, it is the male part
• 56:42
  Speaker 3: that is bringing me the evil. But my overall point
• 56:47
  Speaker 3: is that the result of that is to identify the
• 56:52
  Speaker 3: point that throughout all of human history, every religion and
• 56:56
  Speaker 3: philosophy identified as either sacred or fundamental and is actually
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: essential to the existence of humans. We exist because of that,
• 57:06
  Speaker 3: and not just heterosexual sex and the casual context, but
• 57:09
  Speaker 3: pair bonding. We exist because of that, and pointing to
• 57:14
  Speaker 3: that and saying that that is the that is the
• 57:17
  Speaker 3: thing that must be destroyed. You know, this is the
• 57:19
  Speaker 3: repeating motif in feminism, is that this is the thing
• 57:23
  Speaker 3: that must be destroyed. What a surprise, it's being destroyed, right,
• 57:27
  Speaker 3: que the trad cons doing surprise Pikachu face. Why why
• 57:30
  Speaker 3: are birth rates and marriage rates declining? Where could that
• 57:33
  Speaker 3: have come from? It must be men, men failing to
• 57:37
  Speaker 3: be men. Not this gigantic ideology that has located the
• 57:42
  Speaker 3: locus of evil in that very act and controls all
• 57:45
  Speaker 3: kinds of levers in academia, government, NGO's corporations, investment funds. No, no,
• 57:54
  Speaker 3: that's not where it. It must be men, it must
• 57:57
  Speaker 3: be pulled. It must be young men failing to do
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: what they need to do to make this all work.
• 58:01
  Speaker 3: But anyway, it's just that that's that's what's sort of
• 58:05
  Speaker 3: That's why I call it Lilith energy because it's the
• 58:07
  Speaker 3: same energy that was identified in Lilith who refused you know,
• 58:15
  Speaker 3: the particular configuration of uh I put a man on top.
• 58:22
  Speaker 3: Basically she refused missionary. And now do you guys know
• 58:27
  Speaker 3: about that, right, Well, I don't know.
• 58:31
  Speaker 2: I know some things about Lilith, but no, I didn't
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: know that she refused missionary.
• 58:37
  Speaker 3: Though it makes sense, yes, And the feminist framing of
• 58:42
  Speaker 3: that is that Lilith refused to be subordinate to Adam.
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: Yes that I know she rebelled against Adam.
• 58:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that she wanted equality, specifically in missionary like she
• 58:53
  Speaker 3: wanted what she called equality. And feminists latch onto that
• 58:58
  Speaker 3: and say, well, patriarchy is about dominating women, But what
• 59:03
  Speaker 3: it actually what that Actually that whole thing is about,
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: Like Lilith demanding that they have sex in a position
• 59:10
  Speaker 3: other than missionary wasn't about men being able to dominate women.
• 59:16
  Speaker 3: It was about Lilith taking a complimentarian act and turning
• 59:22
  Speaker 3: it into a status jockeying, Like she took something that
• 59:27
  Speaker 3: was complimentary and sacred and she turned it into a
• 59:31
  Speaker 3: status jockeying between the two parties. That was the actual problem.
• 59:37
  Speaker 3: She was saying. This isn't this isn't complementarianism, This isn't
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: a sacred act, This isn't where little humans come from.
• 59:44
  Speaker 3: This is actually Adam asserting dominance over me, and I
• 59:47
  Speaker 3: refuse that, and I want equality. Well, that entire framing
• 59:51
  Speaker 3: is the social web framing. It's the framing of hierarchy
• 59:55
  Speaker 3: and something that's essentially complementarianism. Both parties are submitting, Like
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 3: if you look at the endocrine architecture, men are submitting
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: to the fact that their freaking entire understanding of safety
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 3: is reorientating around her so that he prioritizes her safety
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 3: and protection over his own, Like there's no more there's
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 3: no greater submission than that. So her submission is almost
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 3: perfunctory and it to to take that and that essential
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 3: like interaction, complementary and interaction of the pair bond and
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 3: turn it into a status context or contest is the problem.
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: That is the Lilith energy. It's taking the most essential
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 3: and most divine aspect of human interaction and most essential
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 3: to our actual perpetration of her continuation as a species,
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 3: and it's turning it from what it is into a
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 3: freaking status competition. And that's that is exactly the problem
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 3: that Lilith brought. And by turning that into a status competition,
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 3: you introduce all of the other stuff, the the abortion,
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 3: the casual sex, the constant like inability to settle, the
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 3: constant turning everything into status, hierarchy, power differential, which is
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 3: the relational web thinking. And then you bring in the
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 3: destruction of everything from that one act. Everything else flows
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 3: from it. From seeing heterosexuality as a status competition. All
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 3: of the corruption flows from that. And the problem is
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 3: in women's thinking because it is not a status competition.
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 3: Thinking that it is a status competition is where the
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 3: the the corruption begins. Okay, I'm having a lot of
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 3: conversation here, does that make sense?
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 2: I have?
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I've explicitly said that repeatedly. You know, like there's
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 4: all the feminist papers that I've gone through, all of
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 4: the ones that I quite enjoy doing because they're hilariously
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 4: lewde But every single time in all of those papers,
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 4: and they always they always like to talk about the
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 4: fucking and the getting fucked because they're really obsessed with
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 4: that dynamic. And it is always penetrat or as dominant,
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 4: penetraty as subordinate. This is like it's everywhere throughout their literature,
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 4: Like I have myriad live streams going about it that
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 4: this is what they do. I mean, even if you
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 4: go back like a couple of weeks ago to the
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 4: you know, when I brought up the what does feminist
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 4: academics say about the men's rights movement, it's, oh, you're
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 4: just fucked. You're you're oh you have castration anxiety because
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 4: women are now fucking you, and so you have to
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 4: get into the female conversation. You have to grow this giant,
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 4: enormous metaphorical pallas to start fucking the conversation around you
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 4: because you have to be dominant in it. That their
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 4: entire canon is replete with that nonsense. It is a
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 4: fundamental basis for what they.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 3: Do, yes, And I mean like, I'm not coming at
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 3: it from like a religious perspective. I'm coming at it
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: from like a like a secular environment evolutionary perspective. More,
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 3: I don't I don't like say that there isn't an
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: aspect of divinity in this. I don't. I'm not precluding that.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 3: I'm just don't don't know, that's not my focus, if
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 3: that makes sense. So the so, what they're essentially doing
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 3: is destroying the source of human potential, the next generation
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 3: and human prosperity, right, and they're doing it because of
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 3: short term gains, and they're encouraged in doing it by
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 3: financiers who who enjoy the the ability to basically dis
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 3: like separate financial interests from operative interests. So you are
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 3: rent seeking on men who actually make something. And that's
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 3: that that that feminist firewall, that masculinity itself is suspect,
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 3: allows financiers to do that without inevitably getting the French
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 3: Revolution right, because it's essentially pushes down the idea of
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 3: being immoral on the men themselves. So they're constantly fighting
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 3: with their own nature and constantly diss regarding their own
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 3: nature as disreputable or wrong, or being encouraged to act
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 3: in a world that considers it wrong. So have they
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 3: end up having a moral load that prevents them from
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 3: recognizing their own exploitation. Now I know that sounds like
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 3: comedy commy gobblygoot, But the exploitation comes from communism itself,
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 3: comes from communism for the elites. All right, Okay, I'm
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 3: going off into the wades. Anyway, this is lilith energy.
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 3: And that's how I understood. I came to realize it
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 3: is that it's that it is this rejection of heterosexuality.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 3: And that's something that that people three thousand years ago
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 3: recognized was a failure mode for human civilization. Like three
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 3: thousand years ago they wrote this because they're like, yeah,
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 3: this this stuff kills. When you get a critical mass
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 3: of relational web thinking that turns everything into status jockeying,
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 3: including the very source of human potential, your civilization is
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 3: done for. You got to stop that shit. And it's
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 3: specifically this, it is specifically women turning heterosexual reality itself,
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 3: the relationship between men and women into status jockeying. That's
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 3: what destroys the society. And I'm I'm a little embarrassed
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 3: how I had the convoluted path I took to land
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 3: on this. That's why I'm like hesitant to explain it.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 3: But yeah, that's where I'm at now. They knew three
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 3: thousand years ago. Who knew? You know, like the ancients
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 3: were wise.
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's almost like they have something to offer, and
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 2: there's a reason why we disenchant those people so much. Okay,
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 2: So I got a super chat from official Rev Trad
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: and they say at Typhon Blue is MiG Tao a
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 2: philosophy that views marriage as sacred? And then he made
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: like a emoji afterwards for five dollars thank you, Official
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 2: Rev Trad.
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 3: I think that they view the current way that marriage
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 3: is constructed in Western society to be extractive on the
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 3: part of women in the state, which would tend to
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 3: make it not sacred. I don't know, like maybe they
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 3: have personal opinions about marriage and what it is, but
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure that MiG Tao isn't a rejection of
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: traditional marriage like one hundred years ago. It's a rejection
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 3: of marriage today. Does that make sense.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 4: It's a symptom of how marriage has changed. That's it.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 4: It's the marriage contract changed. You know, be the introduction
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 4: of no fault divorces and the ability for women to
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 4: just take men's children away with mere allegations. Mick noow
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 4: is not actually a philosophy. It is merely a codification
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 4: of an observable phenomenon of men just saying all of
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 4: these oddst acts against me, why would I even bother?
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 3: Yes, exactly that, and your personal attitude to what marriage
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 3: is and is is irrelevant to that.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 4: And a bunch of them, if you ask them, would
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 4: still prefer to be married. They would still prefer to
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 4: have children, because, as it turns out, that's what most
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 4: people want. I mean, when you serve a people, the
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 4: attitude it tends to be sort of seems to fluctuate
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 4: anything from about ninety five to about eighty percent of
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 4: people like want marriage and children as just like the default,
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 4: and about eighty something percent of people. They eighty eighty
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 4: five percent of people throughout all of society will achieve
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 4: those things at some point. Miketail. Guys are generally within
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 4: that framework anyway. It's just that the experiences that they
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 4: go through in life makes them think, Okay, you know what,
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 4: I'm just not playing this game anymore so, they give
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 4: up on it, that's.
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: All that is.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Or they just looked at how things have worked
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 2: out for people in their uh, you know, their frame
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 2: group or in their social circle and then through yeah,
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 2: or their parents, or they're just looking at the data,
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 2: at the statistics on divorce and all of that, and
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 2: they're like, yeah, this is uh not not a good
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 2: place to you know, get involved with this.
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 1: But I do I agree with Tilda.
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 2: I think most men and women want to you know,
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 2: start a family, get married, have kids. Okay, well yeah,
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 2: but the well that's a digression, but thank you for
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 2: the super chat.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 4: Well know, if it is a digression, it is directly
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 4: related thing that feminists are attacking, and it is for sure,
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 4: he's generally like about ninety something percent of people want
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 4: these things. There's always this like single digit percentage of
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 4: odd balls who just don't. And they also at that
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 4: single percentage number of odd balls also seems to be
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 4: the weird has seems to have a weird amount of
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 4: overlap with the people who are unusually intelligent and or
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 4: productive in society. Like if you look at the oppersialans
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 4: of like scientific achievement, mathematical achievement, there seems to be
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 4: an overrepresenter of those kinds of people. And it's probably
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 4: just because they're kind of spurgy and so they can't
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 4: really achieve the social bit of it. So they just
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 4: in a lot of cases they're not interested in it.
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 4: Just so it's just you just have to accept that
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 4: those those people exist.
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 3: Well, they provide in other ways.
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 4: Right, Well, yeah, you don't have to provide with the
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 4: whole family children thing. It really annoysy when you get
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 4: track toks who play that card say no, you need
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 4: to do this other ways. You're ruined, and eris no,
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 4: that's that's really stupid. But I'm not down to how
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 4: and why, because I would be here for a while.
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I would tend to agree with that.
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 3: I think that people come in all kinds of flavors,
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 3: and as long as nobody is directly going after heterosexuality
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: as the source of all sin in the world, we're
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 3: probably going to be fine. You know. So we don't
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 3: have to force people to necessarily all do the same
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 3: thing as long as they're contributing in other ways and
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 3: they aren't sucked into this toxic relational web thinking, you know,
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 3: and they want to actually make the world better. Through
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 3: their existence. We don't all have to do the same thing.
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 3: This is not prescriptive, it's just more I'm more like,
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 3: why don't we stop putting these gigantic social barriers and
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 3: ideological barriers towards people just doing what they do naturally.
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 3: You know, if we just get rid of that, we
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 3: don't have to force marriage. We don't have to make
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 3: marriage compulsory. We don't have to make children compulsory. We
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 3: don't even have to put a lot of I don't
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 3: even think we have to put a lot of social
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 3: pressure on it. We you just have to take out
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 3: the ideology and maybe make women give have women have
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 3: a little fewer sources of oxytocin and dopamine, and everything
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 3: will probably be fine, right, It'll probably equalize itself, equalize itself.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 3: But yeah, anyway, if I get up the courage, I'll
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 3: explain how I figured out the lillith energy thing. But anyway,
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 3: let's keep going, all right, maybe and questioning that asking
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 3: that I'll be forced to all right, all.
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 2: Right, cyborg replication is uncoupled from organic reproduction. Modern production
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 2: seems like a dream of cyborg colonization work, a dream
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 2: that makes the nightmare of tailorism seem idyllic, and modern
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: war is a cyborg orgy coded by C three I
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 2: Command Control, Communication, Communications Intelligence.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: So four.
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 3: What war is feminine? According to her?
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 2: Uh yeah, I guess so I don't know, Like I
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: just want to get through this paragraph Command Control, Communication
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 2: Intelligence and eighty one no sorry, an eighty four billion
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 2: dollar in nineteen eighty four's US defense budget. I am
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: making an argument for the cyborg as a fiction mapping
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 2: our social and bodily reality, and as an imaginative resource
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 2: suggesting some very fruitful couplings. Michael Fuquot's biopolitics is a
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: flaccid premonition of cyborg politics, a very open field.
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 3: Okay, Now, while she had to.
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: Get I think I need to put this through like
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 2: a translator, because I know that she's sent trying to
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 2: say something coherent, but she feels the need to like
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 2: just absolutely crowd this with like gobbledegook. So I'm gonna
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 2: ask I'm gonna talk to Groc.
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 1: Let me see.
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 2: So we're gonna go to Roc and I'm going to
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 2: basically ask Rock to translate. I'm just gonna say, take
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 2: this and give it to me. In Layman's terms, that's
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 2: what I'm gonna do, all right, So give me this
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: in layman's terms, just so I just so I can
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 2: see how it's how it puts it together, all right,
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 2: Groc is working.
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 4: The data center has just somehow committed suicide somewhere. We
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 4: didn't know such things were possible.
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 2: Bottom line, I'm just gonna read the bottom line. We're
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 2: all becoming cyborgs, humans blended with technology. How Away thinks
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 2: this is liberating. It breaks old rules about gender, sex, bodies, work,
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 2: and power and opens the door to new creative ways
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 2: of being. Instead of fearing the machine human mix, she
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 2: wants us to play with it and use it to
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 2: imagine better futures there.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: It is now.
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 3: What Grock is doing, the Grock thing, which is making
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 3: it sound better than it is it?
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean it's I think it's just being somewhat objective,
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 2: like I think this is what she wants to do.
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 2: I didn't ask Roc to give me an opinion on it,
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 2: but I think that it sounds to me in the
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 2: same way that Mike Cernovich. You guys know Mike Cernovic's
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 2: he I remember him saying he was doing an interview
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 2: and I just happened to see this clip on like
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 2: shorts or something where he said that he doesn't use
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: a cell phone like a smartphone because the people who
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 2: use smartphones are basically cyborgs.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: That's that stood out.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 2: To me as ridiculous, Like using technology means you're a cyborg, Like,
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 2: like you know what I mean. And I think that
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 2: that's what she's saying, because likenteen and nineteen eighty four
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 2: the C three one command, command, Control, communication, and intelligence.
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 2: Just using technology makes you a cyborg. Like that's what
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 2: that That's what it sounds like, you know. So by
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 2: that that definition being as broad as it is, then
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 2: we have been cyborgs, like what since like the fucking
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 2: I don't know, like the first machines, like the ancient
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 2: Greeks when they had like or the whatever, the the
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 2: aqueduct was made. I don't know, like like I don't know.
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 2: It's just like it's just a broadening of the definition.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 2: So Hula Troop says, I totally get that phones reprogram
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 2: our brains, not the other way around. I mean, I
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 2: don't know about that. I mean I think that we
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 2: have free will and we don't have to like let
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 2: them do anything to us if we don't want them to.
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 1: It's but I'm maybe I'm wrong. I just it starts.
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 2: It starts to sound like I blame the Internet for
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 2: all of our woes.
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 1: No, no, I blame people. How about that? But okay,
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: go ahead, uh Allison.
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 3: All right, Okay. So this is doing a full inventory
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 3: of any mentions related to sexuality, right, okay, And this
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 3: is what she's basically saying. She's direct hits on the
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 3: male generative sexual reproductive role, masculine, masculinist reproductive dream, masculinist,
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 3: which nobody is. They're no masculinis the male they constantly
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 3: attribute to men instead of masculinity, which would be a
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 3: recognition that men have their own way of doing. They
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 3: call it masculinist, which means it's an ideology, which means
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 3: it's chosen and illegitimate. At the same time, masculinist reproductive dream,
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 3: the male desire to self replicated derided as a caricature.
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 3: Their fathers, after all, are inessential paternity declared dispensable. The
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 3: fabrication of a heterosexual mate completion in a finished hole.
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 3: Heterosexual pairing is the Frankenstinian trap. Such nice organic prophylactics
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 3: against heterosexism. Heterosexual sex framed as an ideological pathology, the
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 3: phallic mother from all, from whom all humans must separate.
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 3: The phallus relocated to the mother and made the thing
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 3: to be escaped from this one actually roots the phallus
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 3: away from men. Modern war as cyber orgy, male coded
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 3: violence as displaced sexuality. The phallow genesism, fallow phyalagiocentrism cluster
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 3: five to six instances attacks male authority overmaning language, not sexuality.
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 3: Phallis as logos, not Fallis's organ father patriarch cluster attacks
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 3: male origination not euros. And here are more direct attacks
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 3: couplings between organism and machine not generated in the history
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 3: of sexuality. Cyborg sex restores some of the lovely, replicative
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 3: baroque of ferns and invetebrates, such nice organic prophylactics against heterosexism.
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 3: Cyborg replication is uncoupled from organic reproduction. Modern war is
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 3: cyborg orgy, the final appropriation of women's bodies and a
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 3: masculinist orgy. Michael Ficult's biopolitics is a flaccid premonition of
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 3: cyborg politics. I'm so clever, I'm mocking his penis and
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 3: his ability to get it up. The only flacid in
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 3: the text applied to applied to Ficult's theory, not to
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 3: a body. Argument for pleasure and the confusion of boundaries.
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 3: Oh god, what is pederaste? What is the what is
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 3: the British word for a pedo? Because the I forget
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 3: what it is. It's it's not a poofter, right, it's
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 3: a nons Yes, non argument for pleasure in the confusion
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 3: of boundaries. That's nons talk. Committed to partiality, irony, intimacy,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 3: and perversity, pleasurably tight coupling human machine, of course, not
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 3: human human for fruitful couplings. Also human machine intense pleasure.
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 3: This woman is writing a love letter to her vibrator. Intense. Yes,
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 3: that's that's the source of her cyborg identity. Guys yet
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 3: polishing her knob with their electric toothbrush. Intense pleasure and
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 3: skilled machine skill, partial fluid. Some signs aspect of sex
• 1:20:27
  Speaker 3: and sexual embodiment. Heterosexuality specified all negative or pathologists, the prophylactics,
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 3: the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, the radical change in
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 3: American white heterosexuality. They get it wrong. Serial heterosexual monogamy,
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 3: Silicon Valleys, women's intimate realities listed among burdens the harmony
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 3: of legitimate heterosexuality in the garden of culture, and so
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 3: cannot base identity on a myth moregana Moraga Herder. Sexuality
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 3: is the myth one is excluded from and better for it.
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 3: So I'm guessing that's the garden of Eden. So heterosexual
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 3: sexuality was part of the garden of Eden, and now
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 3: we're excluded from it. And that's good because also something
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 3: something the demiurge. All right, I'll reproduction consistently. The target
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 3: sexual reproduction is one kind of reproductive strategy among many
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 3: one kind guys. Lord, ideologies of sexual reproduction can no
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 3: longer ideologies of sexual reproduction is sort of like masculinity
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 3: being an ideology not an actual cognitive process. So ideologies
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 3: of sexual reproduction can no longer reasonably call on notions
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 3: of sex and sexual as organic hmm, subverting the structure
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 3: of desire and modes of reproduction. Of Western identity suspicious
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 3: of the reproductive matrix and of most birthing. That's probably
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 3: patriarchy being suspicious, patriarchy being both enforcing the reproductive matrix
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 3: and birthing on women, but also suspicious of it and
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 3: hateful towards it. The thing that they've constructed. We require regeneration,
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 3: not rebirth, not of women born. Okay, another's desire, not
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 3: of the self. Slabor is the origin of women, you see,
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 3: that's the That's what I was talking about. How she
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 3: says that woman is an operative label applied to women
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 3: by men, so they have to deny it, and everything
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 3: becomes this subjective like where I am in the web,
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 3: and that's the origin of everybody's identities in the female
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 3: cognitive process, right, yeah, feminist consciousness of the non existence
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 3: of women except as products of women men's desire. Probably
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 3: she's calling out feminists saying that men only exit or
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 3: women only exist in reflection of men's desire. All pleasure
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 3: that's endorsed is human machine, not human human. Right, So
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 3: this is a woman's owe to her. I'm going to
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 3: use a reference Lily of the Valley. That's a reference
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 3: to the no man's own. It's like a Russian parody
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 3: of feminism. Okay, yeah, yeah, Lily of the Valley is
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 3: like the the ultimate status symbol. It's basically a vibrator
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 3: and in this in this feminist utopia that is the
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 3: ultimate status symbol and the ultimate consumerist item.
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, so yes, I got a rumble rant from
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 6: Nova Fan twenty one for a dollar before I read
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 6: the next bit, and they say, I swear her coming
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 6: nonsense is less coherent than the stammering copy pasta that goes,
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 6: have you ever had a dream that you?
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: You had your you?
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 2: You? Okay, thank you Nova Fan for that next section.
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 2: So I well, I'll just read this first. The cyborg
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 2: is a creature in a postgender world. It has no
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 2: truck with bisexuality, pre edible symbiosis, unalienated labor, or other
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 2: seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 2: the powers of the parts into a higher unity. In
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 2: a sense, the cyborg has no origin story in the
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 2: Western sense, a final irony, since the cyborg is also
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 2: the awful apocalyptic telios of the West, escalating dominations of
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 2: abstract individuation, an ultimate self unite, I'm sorry, an ultimate
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 2: self untied at last from all dependency, a man in space.
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 2: An origin story in the Western humanist sense depends on
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 2: the myth of original unity, fullness, bliss, and terror represented
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 2: by the phallic mother from whom all humans must separate
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 2: the task of individual development. End of history. The twin
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 2: potent myths inscribed most powerfully for us in psychoanalysis and Marxism.
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: I mean, before you continue, good lord.
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 2: So I have been arguing for a while now, and
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 2: I know that a lot of people know this is true,
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 2: but I'm seeing I'm glad to see it here coming
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 2: out because what I'm seeing here is essentially like a
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 2: big push for transhumanism, which I believe is what the
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 2: transgender movement is about, which is essentially the removal of
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 2: the It's the it's the the separation of the mind
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 2: from the body and like and the removal of all
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 2: categories in terms of our physical forms, which is why
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 2: she says the cyborg is a creature in a postgender world,
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 2: has no truck with bisexuality, pre edible symbiosis, unalienated labor
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 2: or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 2: all the powers of the parts into a higher unity.
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 3: But it's not it's not just separation from the mind,
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 3: it's separation from the concept of self as well. So, yes,
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 3: are a node in a social organism and you're like,
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 3: there was I think Tielder pointed out, I think it
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 3: was Tiel Deer that this is they they're looking at
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 3: this the world and they think that things exist because
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 3: they're identified, right, because they have an identity. So trans
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 3: exists because it is an identity. It's like an identity
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 3: divorced from the body, and that is something that only
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 3: exists in the social web. But through social recognition there's
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 3: there isn't well, I mean, there is an operative definition,
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 3: but they also refuse that. You know, you notice that
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 3: the whole brain science thing they don't like, they don't
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 3: like to really seriously engage with, even when it comes
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 3: to recognizing what trans transsect like transgender transsexuality actually is,
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 3: which is why they don't use transsexuality because it they
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 3: want it to be an identity constructed by recognition in
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 3: the social web, and they're not. So they're not even
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 3: And it's also not really a self because in order
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 3: to have a self, a real understanding of self, you
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 3: have to be able to divorce yourself from the social web,
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 3: and that requires more operative thinking. It requires being able
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 3: to see be able to step outside of yourself and
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 3: see yourself. Does if that make sense, which is if
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 3: you if like a visual demonstration of this would be
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 3: the selfie photos that women take, you know what I'm
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 3: talking about when they have an object and object, yeah,
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 3: and when they talk describe first person point of view,
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 3: they aren't in their actual direct experience. They're outside it,
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 3: watching themselves as if they're in a web watching themselves, right,
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 3: So they have to position themselves in relation to the object,
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 3: because they are literally positioning themselves in relation to the
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 3: social web. In order to actually have a sense of
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 3: like a continuous sense of self, you have to be
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 3: able to see yourself as separate, which means you have
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 3: to be able to see yourself without reference to other
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 3: people's cognition. You have to be yourself, you know, lights
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 3: turned off, cell phone like an iPhone turned off, no
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 3: social media, no girlfriends, just on your own, considering how
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 3: well you have attended to your day's task loops, and
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 3: you know, in relation to your expectations for yourself. Self
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 3: monitoring in other words, and in a lot of ways.
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 3: I don't think women have that, at least they don't
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 3: have it in our society. When you know they don't.
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 3: They don't get that V one a R cross cross activation, right,
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 3: that's what it is cross activation with oxytocins. They don't
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 3: get that priming to have that kind of specificity. They
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 3: don't even regard themselves as an individual. So what they're
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 3: doing with the trans thing is they they've they've latched
• 1:29:32
  Speaker 3: onto it because it is an identity that requires social recognition,
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 3: continuous social recognition to maintain. Do you see what I'm saying, Brian,
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 3: So it's right in their modality.
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 3: And and when they when they do that, it isn't
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 3: about the self like, it's not about recognition of the self,
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 3: because that requires an additional action which is independent of
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 3: the social web, which they don't do naturally. So it's honestly,
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 3: if you look at it this way, these women really
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 3: do need men to drag them out of this tar
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 3: pit of hell that they are constructing for themselves, which
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 3: is why women are increasingly miserable, because they they are
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 3: constantly subject to the whims of the social web with
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 3: no inner core to anchor them. And that includes physical
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 3: like the physical recognition that you're a woman, which of
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 3: course is patriarchy. Now I feel like I've drifted, So
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 3: I'm just going to shut up and hopefully people can
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 3: get what they what they can from that. Yeah, I've
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 3: drifted into my own internal web.
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 2: Okay, field, did did you want to say anything?
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: Or can I just keep going?
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 4: M My sensation is to throw in some small bits
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 4: about the uh, the pill and estrogen receptor tickling that
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 4: that does, and how that messes with people's are bonding
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 4: and interacting with each other. But I don't think I
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 4: will well?
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 1: Is that.
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 3: That's another kind of.
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 4: Yes, it is. As it turns out, when you shoot
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 4: people full of exogenous hormones, it changes how they interact
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 4: with people, and not always for the better, depending on
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 4: which receptors you are tickling. But if you tickle one
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 4: of them with a suitable amount of estrio and it
• 1:31:40
  Speaker 4: encourages bonding with a lowering amount of empathy. And what
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 4: do you think that causes when it comes to humans?
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 4: What do you think a human will do when they
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 4: bond or they want to bond but they have slightly
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 4: reduced capacity for empathy? What is going to happen there?
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 4: When it comes to in group and out group dynamics?
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 3: Can I can I make a a comment that's coming
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 3: out of left field? Uh? Forced to penetrate? No, that's
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 3: that's really out love of field like desire to bond
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 3: without empathy. That sounds like suspiciously like sexual assault. But
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 3: maybe I'm taking that in a different direction.
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 4: Well, no, that that's kind of a very extreme possible
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 4: manifestation of it. But it's it's just so you you're
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 4: in a more salient position. Yeah, I mean this, this
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 4: is more I suppose off in the wields, the wields,
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 4: the wild fields, the wield Well, wields are a thing.
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 4: So we are in the wield of the endocrine architecture
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 4: that you like to talk about and that I occasionally
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 4: deal with because why the hell not. Well, yes, when
• 1:32:52
  Speaker 4: you have these ox dose environments, it makes any interaction
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 4: that you do more salient. So anytime you're in that
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 4: sort of state, you're more you're more it's not so
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 4: much receptive to positive bonding, but you're also more receptative,
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 4: more receptive to negative bonding because it just raises the
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 4: salience of any social interaction that you have.
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 3: If you then, oh, I see what you're going with us.
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 4: Yeah, well that's what that is. And then if you pile,
• 1:33:22
  Speaker 4: for instance, pills on top of that, hormonal birth control pills,
• 1:33:27
  Speaker 4: which flood estrogen into the body, Now, floods are estrogen
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 4: into the body encourage bonding. However, it's mostly estrogen alpha
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 4: receptors that get tickled that do that that encourage positive bonding,
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 4: which obviously you need because hey, you have infant. So
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 4: you get the oxtosin brushes, you get the dopamine rushes,
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 4: you get that little bit of tickling onto your estrogen
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 4: alpha receptors. These are all things to prime you for
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 4: bonding with a child. However, pills are also able to
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 4: tickle the estrogen beta receptors, and when those ones get tickled,
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 4: it actually lowers people's emotional responses to things. Evolutionarily speaking,
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 4: this may simply be Okay, you're in a situation of
• 1:34:15
  Speaker 4: bonding positively or negatively. That's kind of necessary. Just bonding
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 4: like that is just generally a bit more salient. You're
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 4: having negative bond stimulated, positive bond stimulated. You're having the
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 4: ability to bond something with empathy or bond something without empathy.
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 4: It's very possible. This is just like a survival mechanism
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 4: for like still bath and things like that that you
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 4: can kind of separate from a little bit. But if
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 4: you take all of that together, you're putting someone in
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 4: a position whereby they are more salient to bonding, so
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 4: they're more open to positive and negative And if you're
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 4: flooding them with exogenous estrogens, which tickle the beta receptors
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 4: at a higher rate than they would naturally because it's
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 4: an exogenous substance, there's more of it, and it's tickling
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 4: more of those receptors than natural product would. You are
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 4: effectively putting someone in a position where they are wanting
• 1:35:06
  Speaker 4: to bond with things. Any bonding experience they have is
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 4: more salient, it's written more upon their psyche than it
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 4: would be. They have that desired bond, but they're lowering
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 4: their ability to empathize with other people in those bonds.
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 4: Like this is a wonderful thing that if you want
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 4: to incourage.
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 3: Really attached girlfriend overly attached girl.
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 4: If you want to have overly attached girlfriends who don't
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 4: actually care that much about you, If you want to
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 4: encourage women to be a little more sexually aggressive while
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 4: not caring about what their partners are doing, If you
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 4: wanted people to have that urgent desire to bond with
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 4: in groups and lower rates of empathy, which would then
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 4: because you're primed for positive and negative in group and
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 4: app groups. So you've got you're primed for more salience
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 4: of positive interaction with in groups, and you're also primed
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 4: for more negative or le sympathetic bondings to out groups.
• 1:36:03
  Speaker 4: You then get women who are going to be more
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 4: politically extreme because you have people who are looking at
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 4: their in group and thinking, this is my in group.
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 4: I really really like them. Because I'm slightly defective in
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 4: lower empathy because of exogen es estrogen, I also view
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 4: my outgroup as less human than I would otherwise.
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 3: Yep.
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 4: Now, with all of this stuff that I've just laid
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 4: out here, does this not sound exactly like the society
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 4: that we live in?
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 3: Mm hmmm, it does indeed. And then you have the
• 1:36:32
  Speaker 3: additional problem with women having such incredible comfort that they
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 3: don't get that V one a cross activation with oxytocin,
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 3: So oxytocin binding to V one a R or v
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 3: one a.
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 4: It is v one a AR. It's that's the receptor.
• 1:36:52
  Speaker 4: I pause.
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 3: The reason why I will pause is because I realized
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 3: I was saying v one a R and then using
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 3: the word receptors after it, and I was like, oh no,
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 3: that's not okay. I just I just did a brain
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 3: fart there. But yeah, it's uh, you don't get that
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 3: cross activation, which means you don't get that that's that
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 3: empathy with specificity. So that's empathy towards individuals rather than categories.
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 3: And so you get a situation where women are are
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 3: empathizing with trans people, which is actually functionally impossible. And
• 1:37:27
  Speaker 3: I'm gonna tell you why. The real empathy is empathizing
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 3: with people who happen to be trans. Right, So you
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 3: empathize with somebody who happens to be trans, you empathize
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 3: with somebody who happens to be I don't know, or
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 3: to have cancer, or you empathize and I'm going to
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 3: try to use an example that isn't like a medical
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 3: You empathize with people who happen to be a minority.
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 3: Do you see the difference, you know, the difference between
• 1:37:58
  Speaker 3: I empathize, I empathize with people versus I empathize with
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 3: a person who happens to be trans right, you're putting
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 3: the person first. You're putting the individual first. And that's
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 3: really the only way you can express compassion because it's actionable.
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 3: It's an individual. If they need something, you can identify
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 3: it and give it to them. You cannot give anything
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 3: to the category trans and that's what their empathy is.
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 3: It's categorizing people and then saying I have empathy for trands.
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 3: It's like you can't that you cannot have empathy for
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 3: a category Like it's it's just functionally impossible, Yeah, because
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 3: the category isn't a person, and empathy requires a specific target.
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 3: So that's I think that ties exactly to what you're
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 3: saying til Deer, so that not only do they have
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 3: this more powerful in group, which is a category bonding,
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 3: and in the case of what Donna Harroway is doing,
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 3: she is constructed an in group that is so nebulous.
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 3: Everything is out group. So it isn't even really about
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 3: caring about the in group. It's about hating the outgroup.
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 3: So when you're that estrogen dominant, it isn't about caring
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 3: about the in group, it's about hating an outgroup because
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 3: you don't have empathy or you have lowered empathy, and
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 3: you certainly have no specific empathy. So the in group
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 3: is always category. It's never a specific person. You're always
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 3: expressing or virtue signaling your concern over categories. That Categorically,
• 1:39:34
  Speaker 3: you can't really have empathy for and you have no
• 1:39:37
  Speaker 3: empathy for anyone specific. You see what I'm saying, like
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 3: making sense?
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, Yeah.
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 2: You can't have empathy for some something abstract or like
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 2: a group of people.
• 1:39:53
  Speaker 3: You can't express it, you can't activating.
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 2: It's like it's like saying you care about the X
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 2: y Z community whatever it is, but it's just it's not.
• 1:40:05
  Speaker 2: It's not because it's real or because those people.
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 1: Might even benefit.
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 2: It's because you want to be seen as someone who cares.
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 1: So it's purely self serving.
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 3: It's purely egoist, yes, and purely about identifying an outgroup. Ultimately,
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 3: it's not about expressing empathy to someone you could actually
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 3: express compassion for because you could take compassionate actions. It's
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 3: about expressing virtue towards a category group and and and
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 3: that you know, people don't really belong to categories. Categories
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 3: are abstractions, so ultimately it's about using the category to
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 3: create the largest possible out group to direct her hostility against. Yes,
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 3: exactly maps to what til Deer was saying in terms
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 3: of what the pill is doing to women estrogen receptors
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 3: in conjunction with what I'm saying about V one a
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 3: R cross activation with Okay.
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm running out of time.
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 2: I got like maybe fifteen minutes, but someone in the
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 2: chat is asking you to check your super chows and
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 2: I looked and there's nothing new here.
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 1: So I'm guessing something is stuck.
• 1:41:23
  Speaker 3: I'll poke the boleskay, go ahead and see if there's
• 1:41:26
  Speaker 3: something there.
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 2: It was from Knokos immediately, No, I got I got
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 2: like ten minutes, okay, but soon.
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 1: So I'll finish off this paragraph.
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 2: And I think you got like an analysis thing you
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 2: want to do and we can just stop there.
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 3: So okay, oh yeah, sorry.
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 1: Go ahead, I can.
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 3: If it's not showing up, I can read it.
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not showing up.
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 3: Okay, I'll read it off here because I got my
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 3: own little, uh like dashboard. Uh so this is from shoot.
• 1:41:58
  Speaker 3: It doesn't really give me.
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 7: The the the the name that should pop up so well,
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 7: but this is We've been cyborg since the first use
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 7: of technology, So since the innovation of the wheel, or
• 1:42:13
  Speaker 7: the or the first use of fire and cooking, or
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 7: the innovation of pockets and clothing.
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 3: Wow, guys, we've been cyborgs for over twelve thousand years Yo. No,
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure that she would. She would date the
• 1:42:26
  Speaker 3: creation of the cyborg with vibrators. You can buy in
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 3: like Woolsworth or something, what.
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 1: If what if it started when?
• 1:42:34
  Speaker 2: Because you know it was said, and she's she is
• 1:42:38
  Speaker 2: going she's framing this in like a let's say, in
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 2: contrast to Abrahamic religions like Christianity, as you like you said,
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 2: this has Lilith energy, Lilith being a character that doesn't
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 2: actually appear in the Bible, by the way, but appears
• 1:42:56
  Speaker 2: in the Talmud.
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: But that's another story for another time.
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 2: But Adam was one thing that he did when he
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 2: was in the garden was he named all of the animals.
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 2: So the God created all the animals, but Adam named
• 1:43:10
  Speaker 2: all the animals, the plants and the things that fly
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 2: in the air and crawl on the ground, so he
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 2: categorized them.
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: And Eve spoke to the animals.
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 2: That's why the snake was able to talk to her,
• 1:43:24
  Speaker 2: was able to like tempt her because she speaks to
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 2: the animals and then speaks for them in a way,
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 2: so it's almost like she was an advocate. So and
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 2: maybe that goes into the thing that Alison has been
• 1:43:36
  Speaker 2: talking about, which I think is interesting, is that men
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 2: work in this sort of like you know, I don't know,
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 2: causality and of objective measuring of the world. Like they
• 1:43:48
  Speaker 2: give things names and they put them into categories, and
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 2: you know, they they compartmentalize them and find out what
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 2: their they what their uses are in terms of their
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 2: input and output and their functions. That that's why men
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 2: like to talk about like, for example, the lore of
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 2: like fantasy worlds, and they look at it from a
• 1:44:05
  Speaker 2: very system systems oriented way, and women like the social
• 1:44:11
  Speaker 2: web stuff like Eve was interested in talking to the animals,
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 2: which is why she was able again to advocate for
• 1:44:17
  Speaker 2: them and speak to the serpent. So I just think
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 2: it's an interesting thing because it's sort of like, I
• 1:44:24
  Speaker 2: don't know if I'm I'm adding anything, but it's sort
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 2: of like expanding on that because again, this woman is
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 2: she is trying to discredit the male contribution to the world.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 2: That's why she's eliminating categories. It seems because men create categories,
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 2: you know what I mean.
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean create categories in order to establish task
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 3: loops that interact with their environment, right, And again that's
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 3: the modality that she can she cannot. I I don't
• 1:45:00
  Speaker 3: know if she's really aware that it exists, and or
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 3: if she just thinks that if she makes it illegitimate,
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 3: she doesn't have to deal with it, or she doesn't
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 3: have to consider that there's a there's a style of
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 3: cognition that she doesn't have access to. You know, there
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 3: might be profound insecurity on her part.
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Lilith is a heretical is a
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: heresy that somebody go ahead.
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 3: And somebody asking about Lilith?
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 2: No, no, no, I was just saying, because you were
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 2: saying it's a little the coded and I was saying,
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 2: Lilith comes from the Talbot.
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, she's Babylonian. She's a Babylonian thing.
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 3: I think it's still legitimate.
• 1:45:47
  Speaker 2: I mean, no, I know it's still a time. I'm
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 2: not saying it's we shouldn't talk about it. I'm saying
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 2: I'm basically saying it it doesn't. It's it doesn't. She
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 2: doesn't exist in.
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 1: The Bible in the way at least not in.
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 2: Not in the way that that uh.
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: How do I put this?
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 2: Because I know that there are people who don't think
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 2: that anything in the Bible is legitimate, but I'm just
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 2: saying it's not in that in the the commonly understood versions.
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 1: I'll put it that way.
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 3: But anyway, all right, so that was from uh, I'm
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 3: going to just use magic Lantern because you didn't go
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 3: through Superchow. That previous supercho Chow was from Magic Lantern
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 3: for five dollars, Thank you, Magic Lantern. So yeah, this
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 3: is I did. I did do a little analysis comparing
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 3: Haraways versus the VNS matrix, which is what you were reading. Say,
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 3: So the analysis is this same architecture opposite craft register.
• 1:46:47
  Speaker 3: Haroway is the high theory formalization. VNS matrix is the
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 3: same operation stripped to its combat function and shouted where
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 3: Haraway spends seventeen hundred worlds. World were building affinity not identity,
• 1:47:02
  Speaker 3: which is basically, things don't have actual they don't exist
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 3: in reality. They only exist in the relational web, the
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 3: web of things. VNS matrix asserts the finished out group
• 1:47:15
  Speaker 3: topology in twelve lines. The moral circle the manifestos is
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 3: pure target acquisition, with the care register almost entirely deleted.
• 1:47:25
  Speaker 3: No litter, no lemurs, no unreachable sympathy sympathetic objects to
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 3: launder the hostility. The in group is we the modern cunt.
• 1:47:34
  Speaker 3: The outgroup is named directly Big Daddy men. Mainframe, the
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 3: moral code, the symbolic, the discourse, the verbs are all hostile, rupturing, sabotaging, terminating, infiltrating, disrupting, corrupting.
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 3: This is the Haraway operation with the sandbags removed. So
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 3: what the reference to the sandbags is is you know,
• 1:47:53
  Speaker 3: if you're in a position that you're trying to hold,
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 3: use sandbags to protect it. Haroway is using the lemurs,
• 1:48:03
  Speaker 3: the the agility dog, the all of the mushrooms, the ferns.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 3: She's using this as a way of protecting her position.
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 3: So and saying that this is about you know, we're
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 3: not actually a machine gun nest. We're about caring about
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 3: the butterflies. Disregard the sound of bullets coming out from
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 3: our position. We're really And also if you even acknowledged
• 1:48:29
  Speaker 3: the fact that bullets are coming out of your position,
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 3: that's patriarchal thinking. That is misogyny. We're not shooting at you,
• 1:48:38
  Speaker 3: you're shooting at us. This is the Haraway operation with
• 1:48:42
  Speaker 3: the sandbags removed, which is why it reads is aggressive
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 3: rather than ethical. It's honest about being a weapon. Haroway's
• 1:48:49
  Speaker 3: craft is precisely the litter that VNS matrix doesn't bother
• 1:48:53
  Speaker 3: to deploy, So Haroway's hiding what she's doing. Matrix is
• 1:48:57
  Speaker 3: just out in the open spraying bullets at everything. So
• 1:49:05
  Speaker 3: this is a more direct attack on men and how
• 1:49:11
  Speaker 3: they do. The pair bond and reproductive architecture aren't dissolved
• 1:49:16
  Speaker 3: through theory. They're replaced with a single decontextualized organ wired
• 1:49:20
  Speaker 3: to a network. The clitoris is a direct line to
• 1:49:24
  Speaker 3: the matrix, so the the intercourse is no longer between
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 3: men and women, it's between clitoris and the matrix, the
• 1:49:34
  Speaker 3: matrix vibrator. Sex is uncoupled not just from reproduction haraways move,
• 1:49:40
  Speaker 3: but from any partner at all. Autoerotic machine interfaced with
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 3: no second person. The bonding context isn't reorganized, it's deleted, unbounded, unleashed, unforgiven.
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 3: Is the explicit rejection of any terminal bonding state. So
• 1:49:56
  Speaker 3: this is feminism not just rejecting heterosexuality, but literally human
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 3: bonding in its entire spectrum. All right, Obviously, this is
• 1:50:07
  Speaker 3: reading default like the the VNS manufacture manifesto, the modern
• 1:50:13
  Speaker 3: cunt manifesto, with its direct interface with the machine orgasm.
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 3: We see art with our cunt, We make art with
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 3: our cunt. The organ does no organ specific work. It's
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 3: a symbol of transgressions, wappable with any abject token. The
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 3: essay confirms the slime abjugate objection, the visceral temperate template
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 3: all rotate through the same slot. Direct line to the
• 1:50:45
  Speaker 3: matrix is the cleanest case. The clatorus isn't connected to anything.
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 3: It is a position marker in the social web.
• 1:50:51
  Speaker 1: What you know? You are so like, they're just they
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 1: they're just this is just I don't know. They're they're
• 1:51:01
  Speaker 1: horny all the time and they need to stop. Where's
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 1: my thong? They are?
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 3: They are seeking something, and that something is very obvious
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 3: when you read between the lines. Their clitorist has no
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 3: direct line to the matrix, and the rehtor mystifies technology
• 1:51:22
  Speaker 3: and misinterprets the daily life of the female computer worker.
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 3: That's the swap test failure called out by name. The
• 1:51:28
  Speaker 3: operative reader actually does the technical work, hits the reference check,
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 3: and the symbol collapses. Yes, how do we connect clittoruses
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 3: to the matrix?
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 1: Lord?
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 3: What's the coupling apps? Uh Viennis matrix is more revealing
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 3: than Haraway, precisely because it's worse crafted. Oh Man punished,
• 1:51:54
  Speaker 3: Claude's getting sassy. It shows what the cyberfeminist operation is
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 3: when you remove the caroline a stated in group with
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 3: no positive content, defined entirely by what it ruptures, occupying
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 3: a named antagonist, corrupting a named antagonist with a body
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 3: reduced to a transgression token. Haroway supplies the moral cover
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 3: that makes the identical structure read as ethics. This essay's
• 1:52:18
  Speaker 3: closing smeared with slime, and they smiled. Is the affect
• 1:52:22
  Speaker 3: the care Register normally hides. So Haraway is, you know,
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 3: putting a fig leaf on it, the Kunt manifesto, the
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 3: Cyberkunt manifesto. That's just taking the fig leaf off and
• 1:52:37
  Speaker 3: letting the engorged matrix clatorus hang right out. Sorry for
• 1:52:46
  Speaker 3: making that gross.
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: You didn't make it. You didn't make it.
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 3: Oh it is sort of repulsive anyway. That's that's the
• 1:52:58
  Speaker 3: connection between what Brian was reading and what Haraway was creating.
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 1: Haway, it's a continuation of her work. Then they're taking
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 1: it to the next level.
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 3: Guys. Yeah, they're taking it to the next level. They're
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 3: taking it to the point where they pull the gun
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 3: out and say, here you go, suckers. This this is
• 1:53:26
  Speaker 3: the payload right in your face.
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 2: It's not quite as cool as I had hoped cyberpunk
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 2: would be. Yeah, it's just it's just horny.
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 1: That's it, all right. I'm afraid I have to stop,
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 1: so till dear, do you want.
• 1:53:45
  Speaker 2: To say anything about this before we I mean, we
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: can get through more of this later, but I've this
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 2: is I can't believe this one got paid to do this.
• 1:53:55
  Speaker 1: I mean I can, but.
• 1:53:59
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I can spurg out
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 4: slightly about Lilith and the origins of Christianity and the
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 4: weird gnostic texts that should have got put into the
• 1:54:13
  Speaker 4: Bible and were not, and all of that weirdness. I'm
• 1:54:19
  Speaker 4: not going to because that will be very, very lengthy
• 1:54:22
  Speaker 4: and a tangent other than that, I'm going to say. Inevitably,
• 1:54:25
  Speaker 4: there are people who get upset of me when I
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 4: point out the biopsych origins of people's behaviors. They like
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 4: to say, oh, you're being prescriptive and biologically determinist and
• 1:54:36
  Speaker 4: asserting that people will do these things. No, when I
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 4: talk about these patterns of behavior, it's merely in a
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 4: population large enough in these certain things, it would not
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 4: be a surprise if you see certain behaviors manifest. Example
• 1:54:51
  Speaker 4: I always use for this as addiction. There are literally
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 4: alleles one and two in your body. If they are
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 4: both a certain particular way, and you have a serotonin
• 1:54:59
  Speaker 4: in deficiency in your final three or final fluid, you
• 1:55:03
  Speaker 4: will be more uh in that addiction. Yeah, you'll be
• 1:55:08
  Speaker 4: more prone to addiction. It doesn't mean you will become
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 4: an addict to anything. You can control your environment, you
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 4: can control your behavior. It's simply if you have two populations,
• 1:55:18
  Speaker 4: one high in that Allele frequency and one low in
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 4: that Allele frequency, you would expect just everything else for you,
• 1:55:25
  Speaker 4: and even in the environment for the first population that
• 1:55:28
  Speaker 4: it's higher in that Allele frequency to have more forms
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 4: of addiction, just any form of addiction, doesn't matter what
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 4: it is. Could be sex, could be drugs, could be
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 4: rock and roll, could be video games, doesn't matter, could
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 4: be all three, could be all of them, It doesn't matter.
• 1:55:42
  Speaker 4: You would just be more inclined to see that. So
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 4: when I point out all of these things regarding exogenous
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 4: estrogens going into the bodies and altering how people behave.
• 1:55:54
  Speaker 4: It's not saying any particular one person would be. It's
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 4: just if you blast like three quarters of your population
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 4: with it, it's not going to be surprised if the
• 1:56:03
  Speaker 4: population changes its behavior slightly.
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 3: Mm hmmm.
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 1: That's it.
• 1:56:08
  Speaker 4: I just I just feel the need to put those
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 4: disclaimers on these things. Every so often. People like to
• 1:56:14
  Speaker 4: get really angry when you say, hey, did you know
• 1:56:17
  Speaker 4: that humans are biological organisms and the behavior is a
• 1:56:20
  Speaker 4: product of biology? Mm hm, And some people get really
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 4: mad at you for that for some reason.
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 3: Yes, yes they do.
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 4: As it turns out, humans are biological They are not
• 1:56:34
  Speaker 4: the the Your Your consciousness is not this thing that
• 1:56:36
  Speaker 4: gets beamed into your brain. Your brain is actually just
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 4: this giant, complicated meat sack that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Well, I mean I still allow the position
• 1:56:51
  Speaker 3: that there could be divinity in all of us.
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 4: Even if there is, that doesn't and that doesn't say, yeah,
• 1:57:00
  Speaker 4: it doesn't change the fact that you have genes and
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 4: they do things.
• 1:57:03
  Speaker 3: Yes, doesn't like that.
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 4: Even if you want to say, like, now, human consciousness
• 1:57:07
  Speaker 4: is totally something you know, it's totally something from elsewhere, Okay,
• 1:57:12
  Speaker 4: but you still have all these underlying things that matter.
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: So yep, so attend to them humans.
• 1:57:20
  Speaker 4: Yes, it is kind of weird people when they they
• 1:57:25
  Speaker 4: start trying to do this, they always end up with
• 1:57:26
  Speaker 4: this weird human divine argument where it's like, no, everything
• 1:57:30
  Speaker 4: about humans evolved except the brain. At some point, the
• 1:57:34
  Speaker 4: brain just popped into existence, and it is exactly the
• 1:57:38
  Speaker 4: same between all people at the point of conception and
• 1:57:42
  Speaker 4: possibly at the point of birth or very shortly before that,
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 4: after which it starts changing. Mhm. Yes, that is definitely
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 4: how animals work.
• 1:57:55
  Speaker 3: Patriarchy is injected into baby boys brains at the moment
• 1:57:59
  Speaker 3: of birth or something. The patriarchy faery just waves his
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 3: pallas and they all become little patriarchs. And that's not
• 1:58:07
  Speaker 3: a bio essentialist truth. That's not even though it's one
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 3: to one for every boy born, it's not bio essentialist
• 1:58:13
  Speaker 3: because that's not allowed. No brain, all brains are different,
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 3: or are all brains are the same. There's no male
• 1:58:19
  Speaker 3: and female brain. It's just that patriarchy all the always
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 3: emerges in the male one. The desire to oppress the
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 3: opposite sex always emerges in the male one. But but
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 3: that's not a gender, that's not a sex. Differentiation somehow
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 3: it's it's it's interesting because it's all like but again,
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 3: contradictions just are coordinates signaling coordinates in the relational web.
• 1:58:42
  Speaker 3: So okay, I sense that Brian must depart. Is this correct?
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 1: I'm afraid? So yeah, but you know, we can.
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 3: Pick this up again whenever you feel up to it.
• 1:58:54
  Speaker 3: Still there and yeah.
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 4: With Donna Harroway, her writing style hurts me.
• 1:59:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, perhaps when the task we could do something else.
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 2: If you find something more less cancerous, I guess.
• 1:59:15
  Speaker 4: We are never discussing feminism ever. Again, this isn't.
• 1:59:19
  Speaker 3: Let's go Yeah, well, I'm actually curious about what you
• 1:59:24
  Speaker 3: have to say about Lilis and the mythology around that.
• 1:59:27
  Speaker 4: Oh, that's just going to involve me spurging about the
• 1:59:30
  Speaker 4: origins of Christianity and how everything that you know about
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 4: it was written about four or five hundred years after
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 4: the religion actually found it, and how it's all basically
• 1:59:38
  Speaker 4: just sorro Astrianism bawled up and screwed up and shoved
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 4: into Jewish shaped robes. But people get off when I
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 4: point things like that out. I look again, is it's
• 1:59:49
  Speaker 4: almost like they start with this divine thing and my
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 4: religion my particular interpretation of my denomination at some point
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 4: just popped, fully formed into existence. It has no corollary
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 4: with anything else that was happening in that era at
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 4: that time, which is really weird when you have a
• 2:00:05
  Speaker 4: messiah and the concept of one, but there was no
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 4: concept of one before that. The religion fell fully formed
• 2:00:13
  Speaker 4: with a Messiah inside it, with no sort of prophecy
• 2:00:16
  Speaker 4: or anything. No, just don't don't think about it, don't
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 4: ask it. Religion didn't change, spirituality didn't change. That weren't
• 2:00:23
  Speaker 4: shifts with all of these things. It Nope, that it
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 4: just appeared one day.
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 3: Well, I would like to think that, you know, setting
• 2:00:31
  Speaker 3: aside the uh, the argument about where the origin of
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 3: these things came from, because I think that if there
• 2:00:38
  Speaker 3: was a god, the way that he would operate would
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 3: probably be on the the societal level anyway. But uh,
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 3: And I'm not saying that there isn't either, I'm I'm
• 2:00:50
  Speaker 3: I'm open to all of this. So but the other
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 3: thing is that these what remains is that these religions
• 2:00:57
  Speaker 3: have very functional proscriptions for managing human stuff that doesn't
• 2:01:06
  Speaker 3: seem to exist outside of them. So the question is,
• 2:01:09
  Speaker 3: how do we look at them and look at their
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 3: evolution and derive something beneficial to us going forward. So
• 2:01:18
  Speaker 3: I'm not I'm like, I personally don't have a problem
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 3: with talking about how things evolve socially in terms of
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 3: how religions evolve, how they develop, and all of that
• 2:01:29
  Speaker 3: other stuff. But you know, so it's it's fascinating to me.
• 2:01:33
  Speaker 3: It's a conversation I would love to have, but I
• 2:01:35
  Speaker 3: don't know if it would make other people uncomfortable.
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 4: So there's a particular strain of very online Christian who
• 2:01:43
  Speaker 4: gets incredibly angry at you about it, which I don't
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 4: even understand because, as I always like to point to them,
• 2:01:48
  Speaker 4: it's like, Okay, look, even though I am objectively archaeologically
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 4: correct about this, you know me pointing this out doesn't
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 4: invalidate what you think or what you believe, right, and
• 2:01:58
  Speaker 4: any any relationship you have with transcendental that can still
• 2:02:02
  Speaker 4: be in place, You can still have that, you can
• 2:02:05
  Speaker 4: still believe the things that you do. You can still say, Okay,
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 4: this this book, this is what as this did come
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 4: from other places. This is like the finalized version, and
• 2:02:19
  Speaker 4: this is like literally this guy came to fulfill the thing.
• 2:02:25
  Speaker 4: This is it. This is the full you can still
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 4: do that, like me just pointing out that there's other
• 2:02:28
  Speaker 4: stuff around there related to it and before it doesn't
• 2:02:32
  Speaker 4: say that you can't do this or that you're wrong
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 4: for doing this. Now, well you'll just take it as
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 4: personal at acts, I guess because.
• 2:02:39
  Speaker 3: I would, I would point you know what, you know,
• 2:02:42
  Speaker 3: what we need?
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we can, we can talk about it. I'm open
• 2:02:46
  Speaker 1: to it next week.
• 2:02:47
  Speaker 3: Whatever or whenever, you know, not feeling up to dealing
• 2:02:52
  Speaker 3: with I.
• 2:02:53
  Speaker 2: Mean, I wanted to like get into a thing with
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 2: Lilith with Genezia Mango because I wanted to talk about
• 2:02:59
  Speaker 2: the story as like a you know, as like a
• 2:03:02
  Speaker 2: as a piece of literature that's often used by feminists
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 2: to sort of like back their belief system. I want
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 2: to see the connections between Lilith and feminism because I
• 2:03:14
  Speaker 2: think that there might be something there. But Janis said
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 2: that she hadn't read a lot of that, so I thought, okay, well,
• 2:03:21
  Speaker 2: maybe there'll be another opportunity, so we could talk about
• 2:03:24
  Speaker 2: Lilith next time, if you.
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 3: Guys want, yeah, the Lilith energy of the cyber manifesto,
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 3: if if if you're open to it. But uh, I mean, okay,
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 3: maybe I'm framing this wrong. Uh, this is a problem
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 3: that needs to be resolved anyway. Okay, yeah, the Badger
• 2:03:41
  Speaker 3: dot com slash just the tip if you want to
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 3: send a message after the show is over. Do you
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 3: want to comment on any of this? You want to
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 3: tell us anything you want us to talk about, you know,
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 3: elaborate on and be it Badger nation. Do online if
• 2:03:53
  Speaker 3: you want to read more of my thoughts that like
• 2:03:56
  Speaker 3: they're they're a little more concise when I write them
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 3: out because I get help with my ADHD from punished
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 3: claud and uh yeah, so that's gagination not online if
• 2:04:07
  Speaker 3: you want to read more, And thank you til dere
• 2:04:10
  Speaker 3: and very appreciate it. It's always great to talk to you. Yeah,
• 2:04:16
  Speaker 3: and I'll hand it back to Brian.
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 2:04:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks TiAl dear for coming on the show, and
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 2: thank you guys for coming on. If you guys liked
• 2:04:23
  Speaker 2: this video, please hit like subscribe if you're not already subscribed,
• 2:04:26
  Speaker 2: hit the bellf notifications, leave us a comment, let us
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 2: know what you guys think about cyberfeminism. Did you were
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 2: you able to follow.
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 1: This at all?
• 2:04:35
  Speaker 2: And uh yeah, what do you guys want us to
• 2:04:37
  Speaker 2: delve into next time. If you have any suggestions, let
• 2:04:40
  Speaker 2: us know. Thanks again for coming on the show and
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 2: we'll talk to you guys in the next one. Have
• 2:04:45
  Speaker 2: a good weekend everybody.
• 2:04:46
  Speaker 4: Thank you for racial Tito to the jugular. This is
• 2:04:49
  Speaker 4: Honey Badger Radio Radio week d