We are All Brainwashed Slaves (ENGLISH with MACEDONIAN Subtitles)

And that's the end of it.

You can make progress, you can make progress.

How do you explain something like Brexit? How do you explain something like Trump? These are things that we've witnessed the world's elites fighting against those occurrences and losing.

Not really.

The European Union wanted the United Kingdom out for a very long time. The United Kingdom was a troublemaker. They undermined many initiatives. They refused to join the Euro, they were the enfant terrible of the European Union.

And when the United Kingdom left the European Union, everyone had a sigh of relief. Everyone was happy, and they will never take the British back.

On its part, the British had to make a choice between Europe and United States. There was a choice there. And they made their choice. They chose the Pacific, not the Atlantic.

It is true the United Kingdom can gain access to China, Asia, and emerging markets everywhere. And so they created this axis.

And if you look at history, with the exception of the last 400 years, the only exception, China was the superpower. That's history. China was the superpower. And America and Britain were allies. There was an axis, special relationship between Britain and its colonies.

So we are just back to normal. China is becoming the superpower again. And Britain belongs to the United States again.

Europe has an alliance, has a European Union.

Everyone thinks that this is unprecedented.

That is not true. There have been three other unions of similar size previously. In the 13th century, there was the Zolfiheim, which was a customs union of most of Europe, especially in the northern part. And then later on, there was a coalition of Europe, which was augmented after the Vienna conference in 1815, after Napoleon.

And throughout this period, various leaders in Europe created a European Union.

Napoleon created a European Union. Napoleon created a European Union. Adolf Hitler. By conquest. Never mind by which means. The fact is fact. Adolf Hitler created a European Union. Prior to these two, Charlemagne created a European Union.

The unity of Europe in a supranational entity is the normal state of Europe, not the abnormal state.

And the Brexit is the normal state of relationship between the United Kingdom and Europe.

Because the United Kingdom was always in splendid isolation. They always distanced themselves from Europe. That's the history.

And China being the superpower is the normal state of history.

Because when Europe was a toilet in the 10th century, China was already 4,000 year old civilization and culture, and controlled the vast majority of the world through later on the Mongolian dynasties.

Mongolians, who were essentially an extension of China after the 13th century, Mongolians conquered all of Europe. Almost all of Europe, not all, but almost all of Europe.

They got as far as Bulgaria, I think.

They got as far as Hungary, I think. They got as far as Hungary, Bulgaria, and parts of Spain.

So when you look at, you need to look at history, not in the last 40 years, not even in the last 400 years. If you want to have real historical insights, you need to look at it over the last 4,000 years.

But, I mean, I do get your point, but I think that's kind of glossing over, it's generalizing over a lot of nuances.

You know, it's a different thing to unify as independent states and build towards a union where everyone will be a participant. And it's a different thing to unify, to occupy someone and kind of force your ideology, your economics, all on top of them.

But even so, even so, I would say.

When we look at Brexit, it is undeniable that, like, are you saying that the entire media, the entire EU elite, the entire English political elite, were they playing, when they were actively campaigning, when they were basically calling people that were calling for Brexit, they were calling them, I don't know, unwashed masses, you know, fascist, whatever, you know. I mean, if that's what they, and after Brexit, they made the separation super painful for Britain. Are you saying that was all some sort of an elaborate scheme?

Because we witnessed this in reality.

Not elaborate scheme. I'm not prone to conspiracy theories.

But I can tell you that the European elite with whom I am acquainted, I'm not that acquainted with the British elite.

But I can tell you that, of course, the British elite did not want Brexit because Britain was a net receiver of benefits in some areas like fishing and agriculture.

But the European elite, this I can tell you with authority and certainty, because I know and knew the people, were delighted, absolutely delighted. They were worried about setting a precedent. They were worried about setting a precedent, nothing to do with the United Kingdom. It was about setting a precedent.

Similarly, should Hungary secede tomorrow, there would be celebrations, secret celebrations, of course. There would be celebrations in the European Union headquarters and in the basements when no one sees them.

Some countries are undesirable. They're troublemakers. It's not worth it. It's not worth it to have Hungary, which is a tiny country. They're making troubles which cost the European Union way more than the GDP of Hungary. So who needs this?

Would you say the same thing about Poland, for example?

No, Poland is much bigger. And Poland is also, I think, much more flexible, much more fluid in its political arrangements.

Hungary is a dictatorship. I lived there for two years. It's a dictatorship. It's in all but name.

I mean, the courts, the media, I have given interviews to RTL. RTL is the A1 of Hungary. I see before A1 was dismantled. I've given multiple, many interviews to out here and I got friendly with the journalist in RTL and so on and so forth. And I can tell you there was terror, absolute terror and censorship and everything. It's a dictatorship.

While Poland is not, in Poland there are still active processes of interpolitical conflict and dialogue and active coalitions. So it's still more so-called democratic.

All democratic processes are a sham because the real positions of power, the real centers of power, are not in the hands of the parliament or the government or they are behind the scenes. And it's not a conspiracy theory. That's how things operate.

Okay, then let's talk about Trump then. How do we explain that in this world?

I just said that there are periods where the masses revolt and threaten the elites, and then there are periods when the elites take over or reassert control and suppress the masses.

You would say in the US right now we are living through a period where the masses are wrestling control out of the elites?

Yeah, but it's temporary and they will fail. History shows that the elites always succeed.

And today in the United States, the elites are fighting back in two ways.

They are trying to delegitimize and criminalize Donald Trump and his movement.

Absolutely.

Shoot them.

And on the other hand, members of the elite are trying to bribe Donald Trump.

In through trade, basically, their way into Donald Trump.

Yeah, take over. People like Elon Musk and so. And the oil industry.

So either they will buy him or they will destroy him. It's a question of time.

Obviously they already tried destroying him a couple of times.

They haven't started yet, in my view.

Okay, can I ask something?

We're talking most about the methods. I want to talk a little bit about the reasons by which these rationalizations are constructed by the politicians and this elite that we're talking about.

What are the rationalizations are constructed by the politicians and this elite they're talking about?

What are the rationalization behind this?

Is it narcissism pathology?

Can we get a little bit deeper into this?

Money, power, land, benefits, the good life. What more, what other motivations do you need?

You can ask whether there is a specific psychological profile of people who desire money and power and sex and, you know.

And yes, the answer is yes.

People whose main motivation is the accumulation of power and money and so forth, they are known as dark personalities. And dark personalities are basically narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian, manipulative, and a small percentage of sadistic.

So this is the profile of the elites, and it's always been the profile of the elites. It is a fact of life that narcissists, psychopaths, to a smaller extent sadists, but mainly narcissists and psychopaths are manipulative and they rise to the top and they take over and they manage and they top and they take over, and they manage and they execute and they accomplish things because they are oblivious to the risks, and they believe themselves godlike, and they believe in impunity andThey're untouchable.

So they assume many more risks, and consequently they are more accomplished, because the more risks you assume, the higher the rewards if you succeed.

So gradually, over centuries, these people, the narcissists, the psychopaths, they accumulated wealth.

This is the work of Thomas Piketty. Thomas Piketty is a French economist who analyzed this process and proved conclusively that the vast majority of wealth today was not created by any economic activity. It was passed through generations, intergenerational transmission.

And so it started with an original narcissist in the cave. He had a bigger, you know, and he got the beautiful woman.

And over the generations, these families handed the wealth from one to the next and so on and so forth, and today there is a concentration of power and money and access and contacts in these groups.

And yes, you're absolutely right. There is a psychological profile.

Another thing is, one of the big lies, because we are living in an environment of deception and fallacious narratives, also known as lies.

One of the big lies is democracy, I mentioned it.

Another big lie, if you work hard, you will succeed. If you work hard, you will have a good life.

That is completely untrue, and this time I'm speaking as an economist, not as a psychologist.

Social mobility is the way you move up the ladder, the way you progress socioeconomically in correlation to the work and the effort you put in.

Social mobility in the United States, for example, is the lowest in the industrial world.

Lowest.

That's not true, no.

That is true, unfortunately.

No, 60% of basically, the wealthiest people in the US are people that have acquired new wealth and not inherited wealth.

Social mobility in the United States is the lowest in the world.

You may wish to update yourself.

I saw that's the last time I've seen there was a big difference between social mobility in Europe and social mobility in the US.

You're right, social mobility in Europe is higher, you're right. Social mobility in Sweden, in Germany, and so on is higher than the United States.

You're absolutely right.

No, no, no. When I was reading it, it was basically...

What you were reading, I don't know what you were reading. Maybe we're talking about two different things.

They're not talking about different things, you're wrong.

I'm talking about...

Beto, you can be wrong. It happens.

You're wrong.

But I haven't made my point yet.

My point was that I read that in the US, most of the wealth accumulated is not inherited wealth. It's basically produced wealth within a single generation.

You're wrong about that.

While in the U.S., while in the Europe, all your information is wrong.

So what are we here to distribute disinformation? You're collaborating with the elites.

You're wrong. You're wrong.

I might be wrong.

That's not the problem. It's just, I'm just saying something that I've, that I've not made aware. It might be wrong. It might be outdated.

You are wrong.

I will, I will look this up for sure.

Look it up. I encourage you to educate yourself.

Let's proceed.

So what we were saying before that you were saying that all wealth is basically...

Not always.

No, absolutely not all wealth.

But the majority of wealth is...

The majority of the wealth has been kind of chugging along from the beginning of time.

Yes.

That is the work of Thomas Piketty, which is the authority on wealth in the world.

I see.

Piketty is P-I-K-E.

Piketty.

Piketty.

It's a French economist.

So Thomas Piketty analyzed the wealth in the United States also, and heconclusively that most of it is inherited, actually.

As to social mobility, there are the figures, the authoritative figures are published by the OECD and by the NBER, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the United States is at the bottom of social mobility.

It is much less socially mobile than, for example, Sweden and Germany, believe it or not.

Now, of course, your protestations are example of the brainwashing of the elite.

It's the first time I've heard this.

So, I mean, obviously I'm going to protest. This is an example of the brainwashing of the elite. It's the first time I've heard this. So, I mean, obviously I'm going to protest.

This is an example of the brainwashing of the elite.

Because the elite wants you to believe that if you work hard, you can make it.

That social mobility is high.

That, you know, all you have to do is invest yourself and commit yourself and get educated and so on so forth.

Okay, I buy this.

That's not the way to get ahead.

How is the way to get ahead?

This is the brainwashing of the elite.

The way to get ahead is to marry into the elite or something like that.

There is unfortunately at this stage, especially in the United States, but definitely I agree with you also in Europe.

Social mobility is low.

Comparative social mobility is higher in Europe than in the United States, but in general it's low.

So today, social mobility is a huge problem because, for example, wages have been frozen for well over four decades.

The first increases in wages started in 2016.

After 40 years, almost 40 years, depending on the country, 30 years, 40 years, that wages were frozen that did not go up.

So while capital had huge returns, so people who had capital became richer, the rich became richer, the poor became poorer because wages were suppressed.

Introduction of temporary work, introduction of Uber jobs and Mac jobs and so and so forth.

Work, as the millennials and Generation Z have discovered, work sucks. Work is to enrich the elite, basically.

Income inequality today is the second highest in human history. Human history.

Second highest. The first highest was in the 1920s, in the Gilded Age in the United States.

And the second highest is today.

And today, about 1% of humanity control, depending on your definition.

That is debatable.

But about 1% of humanity control more wealth than the lower 50% of humanity.

And if you change the definition of wealth a bit, they control 90% of the wealth in the world.

That's 1%.

And that is the famous 99% or 1% movement.

But isn't that the case in everything, in every hierarchy? Like the Pareto rule, for example?

No, income inequality is the highest it's ever been, except the 1920s.

That again is a fact that you cannot argue with.

I'm sorry, it has not been this very 18 century.

Would we say that income inequality today is higher than what it was in basically feudal, in the pharaonic time in Egypt?

Which part of second highest in human history is difficult for you to absorb?

The part where, you know, I can't imagine that the income inequality was lower in Faroe Egypt than it is in...

You're deeply into stereotypes and deeply into narrative. You're not a scientist, clearly, evidently.

Okay, what percentage of people in...

Before you make statements like this.

I'm an electrical engineer, so all I know has come from.

I will not be an electrical engineering, I promise.

So, but this is a serious question.

What percentage of people would have wealth in Pharaoh Egypt?

There have been studies of income inequality starting with the most ancient civilizations until today.

The problem in ancient civilizations, the accumulation of wealth was not as massive as today. The richest people in human history are living today, are alive today.

In absolute value, I would say, yes, but in relative value.

In also relative, they are living today, by far, by the way.

People in the ancient world, they had severe difficulty to accumulate wealth because productivity was much lower. And the wealth that they have accumulated was usually buildings or non-productive assets.

There were no capital markets. There was no concept of interest even. Interest was forbidden until more or less the 15th century.

So capital did not create capital. On the contrary, capital was eroded when there was inflation. Inflation was rare, very rare, but capital was eroded when there was inflation. Buildings and so on were non-productive.

So they lived hand to mouth. The rich people lived hand to mouth. They had like a thousand workers, and these thousand workers produced food, and they ate the food that same year.

If the next year there was famine or some natural disaster, they were doomed. They didn't have reserves.

If you read the Bible, for example, read the Bible. So Pharaoh is absolutely in panic that the next year there will be no crop. The next year will be famine, will be drought.

So Pharaoh built big warehouses, with the advice of a Jew, Joseph. He built big warehouses where he stored grain. He stored grain because he was terrified of the drought.

But why was he terrified of the drought? Because they had no reserves. That was a problem.

There was, and Karl Marx, by the way, was the first to make this observation.

Karl Marx said that we in capitalism, have created surplus economies. There was no surplus before. We were living hand to mouth.

And then, in the industrial revolution, we started to create surplus. And this surplus is the cumulative wealth that made many people rich, starting with the industrialists.

So we have transitioned from non-surplus to surplus economies, and that's why income inequality nowadays is the biggest in history.

Because these people are accumulating all the time.

Even if they don't do anything, if Elon Musk tomorrow stops working, doesn't do anything, and leaves his money in the bank, even with the current low interest rates in some countries, he would still get a fortune. He would make a fortune every year.

And why isn't he doing that?

Because he needs to work.

What do you mean?

He's a young man. He wants to work. He wants challenges. This is something personal.

So working hard.

So basically what that means is working hard doesn't need to have wealth as an ultimate goal, because we have someone like Elon Musk who is already wealthy and he's still basically working possibly more than any other person.

I agree. I agree.

The motivation to work hard can be related to money, but actually it rarely is. It rarely is related to money.

So it is good advice for someone to say, let's take the monetary incentive out of it. Let's say if you want a better life, if you want more meaning and purpose in your life, you need to work hard.

I agree.

Okay.

I'm saying the lie. So here we're finding common ground.

Well, I'm saying the lie is when you say to someone, if you want to progress in life, if you want to get rich, if you want the benefits of life, you need to work hard. That's the lie. The lie is not about working hard. Working out is good. Psychologically, by the way, working out is good.

Although if you work the way we work today, many of the psychological benefits are missing. If you work as self-employed, if you work alone, if you work in isolation, if you don't interact with other people, if you're not in an office, that's actually, that has negative psychological impact.

But if you work with other people, collaborating teams and you work hard, yeah, I agree with you. That has very great benefits psychologically.

So you were talking about the elites and the masses always being kind of at odds at each other historically through the history of the civilization but I mean we are seeing like today the civilization that we're living in today is markedly different than the civilizations previously.

I mean we can see with the advent of ideologies, with the advent of the ideology of democracy, with the advent of the concept of private property, with the advent of the rule of law and the Leviathan state which enforces the rule of law equally for strong and weak, I would say that that is proof enough that at least if we're not out of that historic animosity that you describe, that we are at least moving towards the direction where the masses, I mean, you could argue that it's relative, but they do have...

You're seriously brainwashed.

They do have...

No, no, but I'm asking your question.

Would you say...

You're telling me that the law applies equally to the poor and the rich.

What do you know?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is a member of the masses today, you could argue that he has more rights and more privileges than he had any time previously in the history of the On paper.

But not on paper. I mean...

Well, on paper, absolutely.

There are numerous studies that demonstrate that the rich are treated by the law in all its levels very, very differently to the poor.

But even if I grant you that, the poor today, I'm not talking about the difference between the poor today and the rich today.

But if you don't get justice, the poor today.

But you're confusing access, you're confusing narrative with outcomes that you have access to the courts is meaningless if you don't get justice.

Let's not talk about the courts. Let's talk about the relative wealth. Like the poorest person today, you would agree that he has more wealth than any previous time in history. The previous person.

So you would agree with that. Yeah. So I would say the result of that is the fact that each individual person, even the lowest levels, there is a way for them now to own property, to basically be paid.

I mean, you might say it's not fair, but a wage for their work, you know.

So there is a way for a poor person, the bottom of the ladder, to have some semblance of a normal life while having some the most degree of control.

The prison conditions have improved.

I agree.

Okay, can I say something?

I'm sorry, Sam. Petler, you're talking about the percentage of democracy in certain society.

Back in a day, the percentage was lower.

As Aristotle says, democracy is alive, it evolves.

So we're talking about the percentage or percentages of democracy implemented in particular society.

On a large scale, democracy is still a utopia. It doesn't exist.

We still slaves to the 1% as Sam says.

It's just a different specter of democracy.

Somewhere, some people are more segregated. Some other countries people have more rights and more possibility to climb up the ladder and achieve some success for a decent life.

But it's far, far away, as Sam says, it's far far away from the 1% in order to get to the 1% and become...

I mean, you don't have to be a part of the 1% in order not to be a slave. Most of the people in the world today are not slaves.

I'm not a slave.

You're not a slave. Most people in the world today are slaves, but to different things.

How?

They are slaves, for example, to consumption. They're slaves to consumer goods. They are slaves. They are slaves to narratives, lies like democracy, the rule of law.

But how are they slaves to them?

They want to consume those things.

That's the slavery.

But how is that a slave? Slavery is being forced to do something?

I mean, if someone, okay, what's an example of a slavery that's...

The worst type of slavery is when you don't know that you're a slave.

That's the worst type of...

But if you don't know that you're a slave and none of your existence is an existence of a slave, you have the freedom to do what you want when you wanted, then in what respect are you actually a slave?

Actually, majority of young people have woken up and they do realize the slavery element in capitalism and consumption. Consumerism.

What is that?

They do realize the slavery element and they are opting out of society, of the workplace, of...

So there's an awakening process that what has happened is I agree with you that the conditions in the prison have improved.

Even I would say dramatically improved. There's more food, more entertainment. You have a television now. You have a refrigerator and you think because of that you're not a slave.

First of all, you're a slave to the television and the refrigerator.

But you're a slave in mentality. You will not think to undermine the established order because you have a television and a smartphone.

That's your slavery. Your slavery is you'll be afraid to lose your smartphone. You'll be afraid to lose your miserable job with pitiable income, you'll be afraid to lose the bribes that the elites gave you. You will be afraid.

I mean, you don't have to have that job. You can look for another job.

Whatever job.

So all jobs have pitiful wages? All jobs are of course my job doesn't.

Your all jobs have pitiful wages? All jobs are pitiful.

Of course.

My job doesn't.

All jobs are, you are getting a fraction of what you should be getting, what you should be paid.

How do I know?

Because other people are getting insanely rich, disproportionately rich.

For example, a typical manager, a typical chief executive officer in all, any company, in any country in the world, makes 600 to 6,000 times the salary of the worker. A typical chief executive officer.

And you think that's not fair?

I have no interest in fairness, right and wrong. I have interest in reality.

Oh, so you're saying that's the situation.

I think it does not reflect a differential of productivity, if that's what you're asking.

Yes.

What is the feeling? So if you're asking. Yes. What is the feeling...

So if you're saying that someone is getting compensated for not congruent to the amount of......

in a higher......

to contribution.

Yeah, so he's not being...

So he's being disproportionately compensated for his or her contribution, but that's the definition of unfairness.

That's up to you. I'm not interested in fairness, not fairness. I'm interested in reality.

You have a right.

Would you agree, would you agree that a CEO has much more responsibility about the health and money?

Nothing justifies, nothing justifies, nothing justifies a $45 billion salary. End of story.

Who's making $45 billion?

Elon Musk.

He's not making $45 billion. That's not worth. He signed a contract for $45 billion.

He's not making $45 billion.

He has signed a contract for $45 billion salary.

You are not updated.

But is that a yearly salary?

It's salary, options and everything.

Even if it is not yearly, even if it is for the next 100 years, it's not justified. I mean, if it's for the next hundred years, it's not justified.

I mean, if it's for the next hundred years, maybe it is justified.

Well, it's not for the next hundred years.

But my point is like, I mean, come on, no one's making $45 billion. I agree that people, there are people worth billions of dollars.

No.

But that's, that's, that's combined worth of all their holdings and potential.

No, there are no people worth billions of dollars. None.

But in reality, there are.

No one is worth billions of dollars. That is again your brainwashing. No one is worth billions of dollars.

Oh, you mean like in actuality they're not worth?

As a person, they're not worth.

No, no one is worth the salary of billions of dollars.

I'm saying they're net worth. They're combined value of the stuff they own.

Most of the net worth of the 1% is nothing to do with work or productivity.

That we agree.

It has to do with capital markets and has to do with inheritance.

Can I ask then, what is the ceiling of the capitalism? How far these bubbles are going to blow and go?

These non-tangible assets introduced into the marketplace. The consumerism that you're talking about, the pathologies related with the consumerism in our day and age. Is there any relation in this with the increase in feminism and all of this, the pathologies related to this new time and age that we live in regarding the expansion of capitalism and all this consumerism being in the narrative in all mainstream media.

I think these are two questions, basically. I'll answer the first and then the second.

The first one is, how long can it last?

Indefinitely.

As long as there are people like Petal who are happy, happy with his smartphone, happy with his podcast studio, happy with his job, there will be no revolution, of course, and capitalism will continue indefinitely.

And I'm not criticizing Petter for being happy.

I'm criticizing him for not being woke, not being open, not realizing that he's being brainwashed. I'm criticizing him for accepting the narrative as true when it's manifestly false if you study the data.

But I'm not criticizing him for making this choice. Petter has a right to say, I am happy with my smartphone, I'm happy with my television, I'm happy with my job, and fuck you. That's it. It's good enough for me. And I'm not going to, I don't want to change this. I'm happy as I am. He has a perfect right to say this. And there's no point or possibility to argue with him because that's a value judgment.

It's a value judgment. It's a value judgment.

But many of the statements he made are not supported by data, and that is where we part ways.

So the answer to your first question, as long as the elites bribe the masses, bribe them.

This is mito and corruption.

As long as the elite bribe the masses, and the masses. Bribed them. This is mito and corruption. As long as the elite bribe the masses, and the masses are contented, bribe to be reasonable and acceptable, and desirable, then we will continue to have this regime forever and ever amen.

Your second question, I think, is even more interesting, and that is a connection between feminism and capitalism.

Capitalism is not an organizational principle. It's not a way to organize society. That's a common mistake. To believe so.

Capitalism is a wayresources. Capitalism tells you how to allocate scarce resources in order to produce more and distribute more.

So it's an allocation, allocative system.

But capitalism started off as an allocation mechanism. And then, as actually, I think Petty said, if I remember correctly, then it became an ideology. And the ideology of capitalism involves elements which have nothing to do with capitalism.

For example, growth. There's nothing in capitalistic theory that talks about growth. Growth is not an integral element of capitalism. You can have capitalism in an economy which is stagnant over 200 years. It would still be capitalism.

So growth has nothing to do with capitalism. Growth is an outside import, something, a transplant on capitalism.

When you combine capitalism with the philosophy of growth or the ideology of growth, what you come up with is known as consumerism, because you need people to consume more and more. You need more and more people to consume more and more in order to produce growth. Otherwise, there's no growth.

And what happened in the 20th century is that 150 million men lost their lives. 150 million consumers lost their lives. And there was a shortage of consumers and a shortage of manpower. That's a fact.

Sorry.

When, when you were saying, when did this?

12th century, throughout the 20th century, 150 million men lost their lives artificially, not because of natural.

As part of the wars.

Yeah.

Wars and there was the pandemic, the influenza pandemic in 1980, 50 million, 60 million men died on that pandemic alone.

There were 20, another 25 million men who died in the Second World War, 20 million men died on that pandemic alone. There were 20, another 25 million men who died in the Second World War. 20 million men died in the first World War, a total of 150 million.

So these 150 million people were consumers. And there was a shortage of consumers and a shortage of manpower.

The capitalists panicked. You can see it in the work of Keynes, the economist. There is panic, absolute panic.

Keynes says, wow, what are we going to do? To regulate unemployment, to stabilize inflation. There was a panic.

And then they came up with a brilliant idea. Let's introduce women into the workforce. Let's convert women into consumers by giving them a salary, by taking them out of the home, bringing them into factories, into offices, we will be able to justify giving them a salary, and they will consume this salary.

So here is the engine of growth that we were looking for because of a shortage of men.

This is not just a theory. That's exactly what happened.

Already in the First World War, 20 million women started to work in factories, especially munitions factories and so on. During the Second World War, 45 million women joined the workforce. They worked in transportation, they worked in medical services, they work in education, they work in munitions factories and so on.

Suddenly, tens of millions of women joined the workforce. Prior to that, the majority of women in the 1940s, or the 1950s were housewives. And suddenly there were another initially 100 million new consumers.

And these new consumers rebooted the post-war economy and became of course part of society.

But by the way, weren't they more consumers when they were housewives because they didn't need to get paid. Only their husband needed to get paid, but they would still consume.

And there is research that says, even when women were not voting and working, they had more control over how the household income was spent.

Yes, but there was a single salary.

That means they would consume, I mean...

The salaries of men actually, Petal, you really, really must begin to accept the authority of data. Data. Not your opinions, not your prejudices, not your stereotypes, data. Here's the data.

The salaries of men after the Second World War, during the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, in 1970s up to the end, up to 1979, salaries of men exploded, went up dramatically.

Add to this, the salaries of women. So the aggregate salaries, aggregate salaries went up dramatically because the men were working, they were getting paid more, and now there was a second salary at home of the woman which did not exist before.

You're right that women made important decisions about consumption when there was a single salary.

But after that there was more salary, not less salary, to distribute and to consume. And this definitely restarted and rebooted the engine, the economic engine, post-war.

The problem is this.

When you give people money, they discover their power. When they discover their power, they want rights. When they want rights, this creates conflict, societal conflict. Anytime there is a group which demand new rights, this creates conflict.

And so feminism transitioned from the first and second phase, which were pre-war, feminist transitioned to the third wave and the fourth wave, which is a very aggressive conflict-based kind of variant of feminism.

Women became wage earners.

Today in the United States, 43% of all primary wage earners are women. Under the age of 25, women make more money than men. Under the age of 25, women make more money than men. Under the age of 25, if you take the overall, women make less money than men.

But under the age of 25, which is the future, women make more money than men.

Women are 1.8 times more educated than men. Women are 1.8 times more educated than men in degrees, M.A., M.S.C. and Ph.D. Almost two-thirds of women. One-third of men.

I mean, but again, who is educating them? It's the establishment that's educating them.

The establishment is also women.

The majority of the teacher.

They're educating them to be good slaves, right?

Good consumers, yeah.

Good consumers, right?

So, I mean, yeah.

So women are definitely the future, because women are much better educated than men.

I'm talking about specific countries, of course, I'm not talking about Afghanistan, but United States.

Women are much more educated than men, and education is the major predictor of lifelong income.

The more you are educated, the more income you make lifelong. That's the major predictor, the number one.

So because women are much more educated, they're going to make much more money.

Because they're going to make much more money, their dependency on men, cultural, societal dependency, but also economic dependency, has vanished.

And when you're not dependent on someone, you have the tendency to rebel and revolt, of course, especially if you've been a slave for 10,000 years.

So, back to you, Goetze, you're right to connect capitalism to feminism, but not the pure form of capitalism, but the ideological capitalism, of consumerism and growth and, you know, this kind of capitalism.

Now, because women took over, just let me finish the, because women took over of professions that used to be male professions.

For example, in the 19th century, the vast majority of doctors and the vast majority of nurses, nurses, medical nurses, who were men, not women. Today, it's women. In the 19th century, the vast majority of educators, teachers were men. Today, overwhelmingly it's women. In the 19th century, there was no female judge and extremely few female lawyers.

Today, majority of lawyers are women and about 40% of judges are women. In the lower courts, majority are women.

So women are taking over sectors, professions, and these are not minor professions.

There are two exceptions where women failed to make inroads. They failed to take over.

And that is high tech, in the high techsector, women are underrepresented, massively. And, no, management. In management, women are underrepresented.

And when I say management, it includes politics because politicians are managers. They manage the state.

But it's a question of time, of course. We have Kabbalaharis. You know, this would have been unthinkable in the 1950s. It's a question of time. It will take another 100 years, another 50 years.

The future is female.

I would disagree about the time factor that you mentioned because I claim that women are not capable of being leaders because they bring their decisions based on emotions and not like a man based on a ratio.

So that's why.

Decisions based on emotions, come on.

No, no, no, no.

This is I agree with Peter.

Sometimes I agree with you.

I agree to disagree, but women make their decision based on feelings and emotions, men are more rational.

That's why 80% of the debt in the United States is owed by women because they are manipulated by the commercials. Oh, this is going to make you younger 10 years. Boom, buy it right away.

We on the other side, men, we have different process of thoughts. Do we need this? Is it worth it? And do I need it to buy?

So that's why the debt is 20% for men.

I was going to mention conformitism and consumerism, as you mentioned, as you mentioned yourself, affecting higher percentage of women.

And that's why because it more easily manipulated by the marketing companies and propaganda to buy into the consumerism.

That's why I don't believe they are capable of being good managers or leaders or how many women scientists do you know?

I don't want to sound, you know, feminist, I mean, toxic, but how many scientists are women out there?

Don't worry you're not sounding feminist.

Yes. You're not. Goose, relax, you're not.

Goose, relax, you're not.

Anyway, I would disagree that women are good leaders, otherwise it would be proven in history, and I would disagree that women are invented.

When did I say that women are good leaders?

Well, I said it's a question of time. When did I say that women are good leaders? When did I say that women are good ladies?

Well, I said it's a question of time.

No.

Okay, I was going to ask you then.

Yes.

Okay.

Where is that going to take us?

My question, where that's going to take us?

The higher percentage of females in the leading positions, knowing that they bring the decisions based on emotions, where that's going to take us? What kind of society we're going to live in? If the judges most are women, teachers, a woman, they don't have no punishment. And it's a different, totally different system of education and judging and mental process thought. So where that takes us?

So first of all, I hope I made it clear. I, at the very beginning, when I told you about the other talk show that I had to Brexit, I'm not here to express my opinion. I'm interviewed here as a scientist, not as a...

Numbers.

I have very clear opinions, by the way. Very clear opinions.

Some of these opinions actually match Petal's opinions, but they are not supported by data.

Numbers.

So when the numbers, by data, by information, by, you know, so I'm forced to follow the evidence where it takes me.

Even when I don't like it at all.

I do not like the coming world which is going to be not patriarchy but matriarchy. I don't like this world.

You are right, by the way, that women make decisions differently to men.

Psychological studies show that it's not true that women make decisions based on emotions. And men don't. That is a myth. There are many studies about this, not a few, and they are over 70 years. So even when women were not consumers, we're not so. We have a lot of data about women feminine decision making, and it's not based on emotions.

On the contrary, by the way, in some cases, women are much more calculated, cold, scheming, cunning and manipulative than men, in some cases.

But you are right that they make decisions differently.

Whereas men make decisions usually based on some criteria. The criterion could be the law, for example.

Women tend to ignore formalisms, formalism like the law, or formalism like no entry criteria, or they tend to ignore rules. They tend to ignore formalism.

And instead, what they try to do, they try to create consensus. Women are consensus driven.

So if a woman has conflict between what the law says and happy consensus, she will choose happy consensus and ignore the law, which of course would make women not so good judges.

Similarly, we have a big study about students who apply to universities and people who got interviewed for jobs, job interviews.

And so we made the study like this. There were women who made the interview and men who made the interview. There were women interviewing the students and the job applicants, and men interviewing the students and job applicants.

The men adhered, followed clear criteria. This guy has this education, this guy has this experience, this guy, V, V, V, V, V. Okay, you get the job, bye.

They didn't pay attention much to the, not so much to the personality, impressions, they were much more objective.

Women, on the other hand, tried to make peace. They tried to restore harmony. They put emphasis on consensus and so on.

So ultimately, they made very different choices to men. And these choices reflected mediocrity.

For example, when women were confronted with someone who was brilliant, they ruled him out because brilliant people make trouble.

So women reduce the level of the average intelligence of the applicants that they accepted. The women prefer harmony to intelligence.

Also, when women came across people who were very experienced, they ruled them out. Because if you are very experienced, you will make trouble to other people who are not experienced. There will not be harmony.

So yes, you're absolutely right that women decide differently, not based on emotions, based on empathy, on consensus, on networking, and all these concepts are alien to men, because men are goal-oriented.

What men asks, can this guy do the job properly?

What a woman asks, will this guy be a troublemaker? Is he going to be liked by the other people? Is he going to collaborate well? If he has a new idea or if he disagrees, will he be pleasant about it? Will he not engage in conflict? Will he even shut up and not share his viewbecause others don't agree?

So the emphasis of women was much more consensual, and emphasis of men was on obtaining goals, which would explain why women are underrepresented in science, in management, in high-tech, because these are goal-oriented situations, where the enterprise or the institution measures output and outcomes.

They don't care much about internal dynamics. They care, are you getting the job done? You need to do it at midnight, do it at midnight. We don't care. Just get it done.

And women care about the workplace, the environment, the pleasure, the pleasant, to be nice, to be kind, to be empathy, to be compassionate, to be... things that have nothing to do with accomplishing the goal.

So the world is going to look very different. And I happen to dislike it.

So what is you saying?

I'm sorry.

What you're saying is the quality will suffer in the long run.

Yes.

Don't fly, guys.

I confirmed it and studies confirmed it.

Women prefer mediocre men, mediocre people. They dislike.

I'll give you a shocking study. By the way, huge study, so it's not a mistake. When women were asked, would you date a man of 120 IQ?

No, of 100 IQ.

Women said, yeah, not very exciting, but okay, if there's nothing else.

Would you date a man 120 IQ?

Yeah, 120 IQ? We will date, definitely, because he has advantage on the 100 IQ men.

And now, listen well, shocking. Will you date a man with 140 IQ?

No way. No way.

Women are afraid of exceptionalism. They are afraid of the outlier. Women want average, mediocre. Women want to mediocre everything. They want the middle ground, the golden way, you know. They don't want trouble. They don't want.

And of course, there's no progress without change. Schumpeter, the famous economist, called it creative destruction. You need to destroy and to disrupt in order to have progress. You cannot continue the same path into new things. Novelty, new things require the destruction of the old.

And women are not capable of this. They maintain the status quo. They maintain what exists. They like mediocre people. And they are terrified of super intelligent people, super accomplished people, disruptors, new ideas, invention. They don't like that. They absolutely don't like it.

Okay, so I don't want to go too much further in this direction.

It's actually, we have, I think, a little more than half an hour to go.

So it was more interesting for me the point of disagreement that we had previously, but you guys went on a much too large a tangent. I don't know if I should go back, but I do want to pose Sam with one question and that's to go back to the kind of slave mentality because I do get, I do get the feeling that this post-cast is kind of casting capitalism.

So the ideology or the economic system doesn't matter in an overly negative light.

So basically what I wanted to ask Sam is, from a psychologist's perspective, so you were saying that people are being conditioned into consumerism, they are being conditioned into wanting things that they don't necessarily need, and they are being paid, including bringing in the women into the workplace to pay them more money so they have more disposable income so they can basically consume more and spend it more.

And when I brought them, these effects.

Everything you said, don't you know, there's effects.

Okay.

So I did represent your position correctly.

Okay.

So my position, these effects.

I mean, there are women in the workforce.

I mean, what you are trying to say.

And then I kind of countered, which I don't think we really discussed with, but they really do want those things.

So from a purely psychological perspective, in their internal kind of awareness of themselves and the world, these people feel like they want something and it makes them happy to consume it.

Nope, it doesn't.

But let me just pose my kind of thesis.

But you're starting with a wrong foundation. People are not happy nowadays more than they used to. They're much less happy.

Okay.

But my point is, how can you call someone a slave if they basically perceive themselves, like, from a psychological perspective, if a person doesn't perceive themselves as slaves, if it doesn't see the boundaries that need to be there in order to be able to define a slave, if they don't see them, if they don't feel them, then what is the actual difference between them being a real slave or a perceived slave?

That's what I'm interested.

Okay, it's a good question. It's a good philosophical question, of course. Nothing much to do with psychology, but it's a philosophical question.

But before we come to it, just two comments.

First of all, I'm all for capitalism. It's the most efficient method of allocation of resources, and it yields wonderful outcomes. Even China agrees. Even China has capital.

I'm against the ideology of capitalism, which is growth forever, at any cost, environmental cost, any cost. Consumerism as a form of addiction, I'm against this. This is the ideology of capitalism.

And it's nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism was invented essentially in the 16th, 17th century, mainly in the Netherlands, the Baltic States and so on. And it has nothing to do with it.

Original capitalism was Puritan. Puritanism. These people were against consumerism, totally against consumerism.

Okay, that's point number one.

Point number two, in all our conversations, we must always follow where the evidence leads, even if we don't like it. And many, very often, we don't like it. We, not onlywe.

The fact is that people are much less happy than they have ever been since records began.

I don't know what happened 2,000 years ago.

Since we started to keep records about the well-being and happiness of people, which was more or less in the 1840s, that's when we started to keep records. Today, people are the least happy ever. People have never been more unhappy. That's a fact.

Second fact, people are much sicker than they've ever been. They live longer, but they are much sicker.

Now, it could be that they are much sicker because they live longer. Could be.

But these are two facts.

When we ask people why they are unhappy, and there is an annual happiness study that has been conducted for decades now, and this study also ranks countries.

I'm familiar with it.

Finland is the happiest and I know.

And also the biggest consumer of antidepressants, but yeah.

Yeah, I'm as shocked as you that Finland is the happiest. I mean, these people are drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning. No exception.

Hey, that's the cure for basically unhappiness, obviously, yeah.

But when we ask people, so we have longitudinal studies, we look at people all over, and then we pick a group, it's called focus groups. We pick a group and we ask them why are unhappy.

The number one answer is I don't have agency. I don't have control over my life. That's the number one answer.

And I think it's a great definition of slavery.

Now, as to your question, you say if people are not aware that they are slaves, can we call them slaves?

Well, people are not aware that they are psychotic. Can we call them psychotic?

The overwhelming majority of people with psychotic disorder are not aware that they're psychotic. They believe their hallucinations and illusions. Can't we call them psychotic?

Narcissists don't know that they're narcissists. They would argue with you that they're not narcissists at all. And yet they are.

In short, self-awareness is a very bad test as to your real situation in life.

So slavery, I think, is defined in two ways. Your options. If you have many options, the more options you have, the less of a slave you are.

And your internal state, to some extent, not necessarily self-awareness, but do you feel good? We call it egosyntony. Are you egosyntonic? Do you feel good with yourself?

The answer to the second question is easy. Majority of people feel bad, not good.

We know today that 35% of the adult population in industrialized countries report depression and anxiety, 35%.

Report that they are depressed or anxious in a clinical way that requires medication and intervention.

That's unprecedented. Unprecedented. Never ever happened before.

We know that in 1980 there was a giant study on friendship. People reported in 1980 that they had 9.8 best friends. Best friend means you can confide, you can share, you can ask for advice.

In the year 2020, the study was conducted again. People reported that they have 0.9 best friends. From 9.8 to 0.9.

We know that 42% of adults in the West, especially United States, I'm sorry, 42% of adults are lifelong singles.

We know that the frequency of sex has collapsed, deteriorated to the point of vanishing almost, especially among young people.

All these are indicators of unhappiness. No one can equate this with happiness. These are indicators of unhappiness.

So internal state, as far as I'm concerned, is slavery. In other words, you are not happy and there's nothing you do about it. So that's slavery.

Options.

We are being brainwashed into believing that we have many options, that there is social mobility, that it's only up to us to shape our lives, that we are in control, that there's nothing, if we put our mind to it, there's nothing we cannot accomplish.

We are being told all these lies time and again, that we affect the political process through democracy, that technology empowers us, and we can do anything now. We have a smartphone that is greater than NASA in the 1960s.

So we are being told all these, mostly lies, not all, but mostly lies.

And so we have the illusion of options because we have choice.

People confuse choices with options.

We have a lot of choice. You go to Amazon. You have 3.7 million books to choose from. That's a lot of choice.

But what are your options to buy a book?

Amazon. And only Amazon. Amazon controls 87% of the book market in the world.

So you have a lot of choice, but you have no options.

It's the same in the search engine area, it's the same in artificial intelligence, it's the same in operating system, and it's the same in the political process.

In more and more countries in the world, there's only a single party to choose from, and in the best case, two.

Even the United States, the new Athens, has only two parties, which frequently, I mean, increasingly are difficult to distinguish.

Two parties.

So, I mean, on paper, yes, but I mean, in the Republican Party you have, like Trump is nominally in the Republican Party, but most of the Republican Party considers Trump an existential threat.

I don't know about most, yes. I don't know about most. Statistics, yes. I don't know about most.

The establishment of the Republican Party.

So, I mean, on paper, yes, but in reality, I mean, you can be for Trump.

But what does it mean, if you don't support Trump? You're dead.

Okay? So that's what I'm saying. You have a choice, but you don't have options.

Ultimately, when you go to the ballot box, you have not options. You have a lot of choice, but this is illusory choice. It's an illusion. You have no options.

Everything is monopolized. Everything is cartelized. Everything is concentrated.

And this is typical of situations where you have an elite or groups, different elites, that acquire more and more and more money, more and more and more power, more and more access.

But don't you think that's the reason for this case is because now in order for you to have more options, the stuff that you have to basically create is bigger, it's more abstract.

You were bringing up, for example, search engines.

Like to make an engine, now it's previously for you to have a choice, whether to move to the neighboring town or, you know, get on a train and move out somewhere really far away, it's comparatively easy to offer options in that kind of scenario.

But now the civilization, the world has become so abstract and so complicated that basically it's become more complicated, more difficult to offer options.

Yeah, this is called in economics barrier to entry. The barriers to entry are higher.

But that's exactly what I'm telling you. They are brainwashing you to believe that you have options and choice.

But actually, because of barriers to entry and other things, not only barriers to entry, options are dwindling. They're going down, not up.

And you're right. The complexity of the world, the barriers to entry is one reason.

But the fact is that you are living in the world that is increasingly more concentrated, increasingly less diverse, increasingly more focused on the elites and what they own.

But is that really true on a micro level?

I mean, I do get your point about on the macro level.

Where can you buy my book? I can tell you that when I published my book the first time, 30 years ago, it was available in nine marketplaces, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Smashwords, etc. Today you can buy it only on Amazon.

That might be, I'm not arguing against that. What I'm arguing against, like I could, I could retort to that, that the civilization now has moved on from the basic book as a way to transfer knowledge.

Right now, I mean, you can have hyper-indexed books, which we now call webpages or repositories.

We are not talking about how many options you have.

But there's fewer and fewer options.

But there's fewer and fewer demand for books.

But the demand for books is also lowered. Wouldn't you agree? That people are getting their information and knowledge from different sources.

Actually, that's not true. It's not about books, Peter. It's not about books. It's about the principle, about...

Yes, exactly. Yeah yeah, some other options. How free are you?

But let's say, let's say on a micro level, me as I walk through my daily life.

I mean, I understand, you know, fine if I want to buy a book, whatever, but on my minute to minute.

Everything in your life is monopolized by elites and you have usually a single option. Almost everything. Including the political choices.

The political choices are not my minute to minute decision.

YouTube is your minute to minute. Amazon is your minute to minute.

They are only a minute to minute. YouTube is your minute to minute. They are only a minute to minute. YouTube is your minute to minute.

There are other platforms.

Rumble, shmumble, they're nonsense. They're bullshit.

There's only YouTube.

Come on, they're not bullshit. They're trying.

There's only YouTube. I have, I'm present on all of them. I have the statistics.

Forget it. It's only YouTube. It's only Google. It's only Amazon. It's only, you know, wherever you look in every field, by the way, not only, I'm talking, oil, retail, I mean, you name it.

We're down to one or two competitors.

I understand it's hard to challenge, for example, the Google in the search space.

But I mean, Google is...

Which part of the following argument you find very difficult to understand?

The less options you have, the less free you are.

Can you argue with that?

No, no, that I completely agree with that.

What does it matter why you have less options? The less options you have, the more, the less options.

Okay, this is my return to that.

Before the concept of internet search existed you had less options in different places and it did look like that those were the limits that you had but then the concept of a search engine came out of thin air altavista, you know, Yahoo, whatever, they're all dead now, but the concept of a search engine appeared.

Multiple players started playing.

The fewer, I don't know what you're talking about, nor am I interested in what you're talking about.

The fewer options you have, the less free you are. And no amount of wizardry with words will change this.

It's not wizardry.

And it's not only search engine. It's for example retail space. In the United States, Kmart just closed down. And that left Walmart as the only supermarket chain in the United States.

End of story.

Retail in the United States started in the 1890s long before search engines. It's nothing to do with modern technology. It's in everywhere. It's in everything.

Even in airlines, you have much fewer airlines than you had.

Actually in the United States, you have three airlines. You used to have well over 300. This is a fact.

And the fewer options you have, the less free you are. This cannot be argued with. This is so simple that there's no need now to ask, why do you have fewer choices? And it's not interesting for the conversation.

I agree. Less free.

And less free is the definition of slavery.

I agree, but I think we're looking at this in a very narrow way.

When we're looking at airlines, we're looking at search engines.

We are beginning to talk nonsense. Move on, no?

My question is like, right now, if I need to search, I don't go to Google. I go to AI search now.

Don't get stuck. Move to the next question.

Yes.

It's an illusion of choice, basically.

It's not even there. You don't even have a choice.

If you want to buy books, you've got one Amazon.

No choice even. Even the illusion of choice for much.

Yeah.

And even in democracy.

Exactly.

That's what I was going to talk about. Politics.

It's an illusion of choice. It's not even a choice.

Because the democratic representative, they should be representative who came out of the people.

But the people did not choose them or select them. The president of the political party selected them individually and they're his own representatives on the ballot list.

So basically, we are not voting in a democracy for the democratic representative in the parliament because those representatives did not come on the ballot. I did not vote for them to come on the ballot so everybody else can vote. They are selected by one single person who has leverage over them.

And it is an oligarchy on the bottom line.

It's a

Yeah, in political science, just to answer this observation. In political science, we distinguish two types of democracy. We have participatory democracy and we have representative democracy.

The global lie, which is sold by the elites in the process of brainwashing, is that participatory democracy is the only possible democracy because there are too many people.

That is of course nonsense. Already 40 years is possible to have participatory democracy.

Now, the difference between the two.

Participatory democracy is when every voter directly chooses someone. Representative democracy is when voters choose someone who chooses someone.

So in representative democracy, you choose someone and that someone makes the choice. While in participatory, everyone votes for everyone.

It was not possible until 40 years ago because of technological problems. There was no technology available.

But starting 40 years ago and definitely in the last 10 years, this is totally possible. Tomorrow you can have participatory democracy in Macedonia. Everyone in a smartphone will download an app and they will vote through the app, and the results will be known within less than five minutes. It's totally possible.

And yet, there is not a single country in the world with the exception of Switzerland that allows for participatory democracy. All the countries in the world have intermediaries, they have brokers, they have layers between the voter and the system.

So in the United Kingdom and in Israel, you have the party, the political party. You don't vote for directly, you vote for the political party and the political party chooses the people. In the United States, you have the electoral college. The electoral college is often divorced from the popular vote. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She won the popular vote by 3.7 million votes.

And yet Donald Trump got elected because of the system of electoral college. Electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote.

Yeah, it's not a democratic tool. It's a republican tool.

It's not a democracy.

And I can go country by country, not to mention, of course, China, Russia. I'm not talking about this.

Do you think that participatory democracy will increase the options of people?

Of course. In participatory democracy, what will happen?

Participatory democracy, you will receive on your smartphone a list. And the list will say, for Prime Minister this, for representative of your region in the Parliament this.

So you will have, let's say, 20 names. And you will have an app, and the app will open the page with the 20 names and next to each name you will have a checkbox. Yes, no. Simple. Single page. Yes, no. End of story.

We'll take you if you are very slow. Two minutes and the most important thing, because it's a smartphone, the results can be known within minutes.

I understand logistically that's a solution. But do you mean in terms of options, how many of those 20 people will represent different options or the same choices that the elite allows you to have?

Yes, because...

To go back to your original point.

Because today when you select the political party, the political party decides that Sam Vaknin will be prime minister.

But if you vote directly, you will have three options. Five options. 90 options. I don't know how many are qualified, and you will decide who will be Prime Minister.

But I mean, that's the same thing with elections now, like when you go to the ballot now in Macedonia, you have 50 options, yet all voting is concentrated in two or three or five.

So the presence of the options doesn't necessarily translate to actual.

Ode-sons will be prime minister.

Again, it doesn't matter if you make use of the options. Matters that you have the options. If you make an individual choice not to use the options, okay, many people don't vote. So does it mean we have to cancel voting?

You must have but if we look at it that way, then I would, I would say Amazon is not the only option to get books.

Where can you get books?

Barnes & Noble still exists. There is 10 bookstores. There is not 10, but three bookstores in Bitoa, which have no affiliation with Amazon.

Yeah, and you can get there four million books?

You can't get four million books, but you can buy, basically, the books that you're most likely to be looking for, based on the appearance of choice but not having options, you can find it.

90% of the books on Amazon are not available in Basin, but I know because I work with both. They're not available.

Okay, but then your point is not available because bonds and often went essentially bankrupt.

I see, but, but is that, is then that your, is then your point that options represents that if there's five complete copies of Amazon's, but they're not called Amazon?

Option represents your ability to not buy in Amazon.

But there is that option right now.

No, there isn't.

And your retort is you can't buy everything that you can buy on.

There isn't.

Yeah, but your retort is you can't buy everything you can buy on Amazon in another place.

And that's true.

But then what you're arguing for is for identical clones of Amazon.

So that you can...

They are limited. If you can't buy my book anywhere except on Amazon, your options, by definition, are limited.

No, but if your book is basically an international bestseller, you will be able to buy it in any bookstore.

My book happens to be international best.

You know what I mean?

Like if it's something very...

No, I don't know what to mean. Most international bests.

I mean if it's something that people often look for when they enter, for example.

Brick and mortar...

That is not the definition of options. Options is when you are looking for what you need, not what other people want.

So in your basically definition, an option is only something that can support everything a different option can support.

Not a subset.

The option is that if you want something, you will not limited to a single provider. Single politician, single political party, single store, single retail outlet.

I would argue that's the case even right now.

They're all limited, but I mean, I would say Amazon is not even an option in Macedonia.

Because, I don't know, sometimes you say in Manson's that it's...

Do you know, for example, that a good...

I don't know anything.

I prefer if you move on to the next question.

Really, sometimes you say things that I...

Who's this guy? I mean, what the fuck? Where did you come from?

You're talking mass.

We are different people. We have different understandings.

It's not different. You are hoping we are hoping to understand each other.

Okay.

Better if you continue, I will have to say goodbye. I don't deal with people who talk nonsense, not based on reality.

Can I'm sorry. You're trying to show that're clever, you're smart, you're intelligent. Got it, you're intelligent. Move on.

What I'm trying to find, what I'm trying to get clarity from your position.

You're not trying to get clarity.

You're trying to show that you're clever. Got it, you're clever.

Move on. Move on.

Okay, can I intervene, please?

I would say this, that monopole or oligopol is present in all major industries.

Currently in United States, the army industry, the war machine, it's about 600, 700 billion, I believe.

You know, Sam, what's bigger than the army?

Is the sick industry, I call it, is the health industry.

So basically, once they get you sick, or let's say you have problem with your blood in the sugar, you know, your lifelong customer, you know how much they work? Over four trillion. I mean, it's a 600 billion.

These are four trillion. I'm sorry. Four trillion versus 600 billion, the army.

So the health industry, the monopoly or what you call them, oligopoly, a couple of them, COVID vaccines and all of them, they have a monopoly, just like in the political illusion of choice.

The same thing is in the health or sick industry, I call it. The same is in the army industry. You got to have NATO standard bought by NATO standard equipment for your army. So it's a monopoly on a global scale in most of mainstream media.

Just mention one word.

All of them pretty much are in the hands of the 1%.

And like Sam said, we are slaves who have a partial freedom of illusion of the choice. That's what I would surprise this whole thing.

If you like to add something, please do so.

There's a concept of media desert, media desert in the United States, for example. These are huge parts of the country, today about 80% of the United States, that either have a single newspaper, or in majority of cases, no newspaper or any other medium, not only newspaper, and no media of any kind. That's close to 80% of the territory.

So if you live in these villages and towns and small cities and so on and so forth, you are utterly dependent on media providers that are essentially national.

And there are very few of them, of course.

And you don't have a local paper, for example, who is investigating the corruption of the mayor. The mayor is corrupt. The police is corrupt.

And used to be, in the 50s and 60s and so on, there used to be a local newspaper, and usually two or three even, and they would compete to expose corruption and so on.

Today, in majority of the United States, you have a media desert. In other words, there's nobody there.

And so they are highly...

Haven't they moved online, basically?

No, they vanished. They disappeared.

Online is, they tried the model of online behind paywall so that you put your content as a paywall, you have to pay it.

But it didn't work. Even for Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, paywall is a huge problem.

Washington Post.

Paywall has become a big problem, it's not fully operational model.

And so there is an impoverishment, an impoverishment of our options, which this is why you call it slavery, because, yes, you can do anything you want. You can buy books, you can buy, you know, pork chops, you can travel, you can drive a car, I mean, anything you want you can do. And your relative material condition, as Petter has said, has improved, of course.

But you are more and more, and every year more, every year more, dependent on a tiny group of providers, all of them owned by a tiny group of people.

That sounds a lot like slavery to me.

Slaves have agency. Even slaves in the South, they had agency. They could do this. They could sing. They could dance.

But ultimately, the question of is, can you exit the system? That's the key. Can you exit the system?

What is the answer to that? Can you exit the system now?

You can't really exit the system.

Why not?

Because of globalization and so on, but not only because globalization itself is not the major problem.

The major problem is international brands have been weaponized.

It's well known, for example, that when Walmart comes into a new area, all the small grocery shops closed down. They're dead.

Same with Amazon.

When I started to work with Barnes & Noble, Barnes & Noble had 2,400 branches all over the United States.

Brick and mortar.

Brick and mortar stores?

Yes.

All over the United States. It was an institution. People were going there not only to buy books, but to socialize to you.

And then Amazon came.

And Amazon didn't only go online.

So you could say, okay, there's Barnes & Noble brick and mortar and Amazon is online.

Amazon initially established brick and mortar stores.

Yeah, there was a few years ago.

Just to destroy Barnes & Noble. And the minute Barnes & Noble closed, they closed. The only purpose of the brick and mortar of Amazon was to destroy.

So today, Barnes & Noble is down to, if my memory doesn't fail me, here you can check me up. But I think down to 400 branches, or maybe 200. I'm not sure. They lost 2,000.

So this is what I mean.

And when I started to sell books, I'm talking about my book because my book used to be, now is not, but used to be a giant vessel, an international vessel.

And so when I started, you could buy it in at least nine locations, at least.

Today I have no choice. I must sell it in Amazon. I must sell it in Amazon.

And Amazon, by the way, if you sell it elsewhere, they take your book off. They don't let you, like in perfect competition.

In perfect competition, I can sell it here and there. Amazon says to you, if you sell it anywhere else, forget about it. You can't sell it with us.

They're becoming like a monopoly, basically. The monopoly.

They're not like the monopoly, absolute monopoly.

Same with the Google Play. If you place an app on Google Play, they put such conditions that take the app outside of other marketplaces.

Which is why Google now is in court with antitrust. There's an antitrust lawsuit against Google for this.

Same with YouTube. YouTube doesn't tell you what to do, doesn't it. If you want to take your video, put it in rumble, your similar bitch shoot or whatever. No problem with that. There's no problem with that.

But Google imposes implicit conditions that are such, for example, censorship of speech, that make it homogeneous, make it monopoly, so this is called monoculture.

Why did you, a few months ago, there was a bug, there was malware in a provider, in a service provider of Microsoft, not Microsoft itself, but a severance provider, security provider. And there was a bug, there was a malware, and thousands of systems around the world collapsed, and there was a big mess, and there were losses of billions and so on.

You're talking about Cloudflare.

Yes.

Why did this happen?

Because it's a monoculture. Because Microsoft controls well over 90% of all the screens in the world.

It's not only a question of choice, of options, of slavery. And these are philosophical debates. You can agree, disagree.

It's dangerous.

It's simply dangerous.

Because if tomorrow there will be a superhacker, a genius, who would find a way to utterly destroy Windows systems everywhere, what will happen to the world?

And so we are increasingly becoming concentrated in the hands of probably 10 individuals.

We are talking 10 individuals, Bezos, Musk, 10.

We're not talking.

But do you think that's a recent development? And do you think this is continuing to develop in that direction?

Because I mean, you mentioned Rumble. Rumble became a provider of basic video services as a response.

I mean, Rumble used to exist as a provider of just commercial videos, but they were not kind of being a YouTube competition. They have grown into a YouTube competition as a response to what you're talking about.

Yes. Rumble grew, became an alternative to YouTube because of the limitations of free speech, essentially.

So wouldn't you say that explained?

But look at the numbers.

But look at the numbers. Who cares that there is...

Look at the numbers. It's meaningless. Rumble is meaningless. If it were to vanish tomorrow, nothing would happen. It's meaningless.

There was a much bigger rival to YouTube, much bigger than Rumble.

Vimeo.

Vimeo was much bigger.

And YouTube destroyed Vimeo. Destroyed Vimeo. Destroyed it in a variety of ways.

So YouTube doesn't pay attention to Rumble. Rest assured, Rumble will become dominant, forget about Rumble. Rest assured.

I would say not that we just cannot get out of the system, under the claw of the system, but we cannot even speak against the system.

Depends against which monopoly or which oligarch he's speaking against, that's what kind of consequences you're going to bear.

Look at Assange. He spoke against the military, industrial warmongers complex. That's what happened to him. They have a big claw. They can touch anywhere.

So the bigger they are, the scarier the consequences.

So far away from getting out of the system, even farther from freedom of speech. YouTube doesn't have a freedom of speech. So like Sam said, Rumble has freedom of speech, but it's too small to compare to YouTube.

And the monopoly has YouTube, the monopolies in Google, the monopoly is in the warmongers, in the health industry. Wherever you look, it is a single person or organization that has the claw over the population in general.

You know why YouTube, yes, I agree with it. He summarized perfectly what I've been saying all this.

But you know why YouTube and TikTok have become monopolies?

Because of influencers. Today, about 72 or 73% of the traffic on TikTok is influencers selling consumer goods. And I don't know the percentage on YouTube, but it's not small. And of course, advertising on YouTube.

So I mean, they're at the top for sure.

Yes.

YouTube and TikTok are extensions of the consumer ideology. They're not educational platforms. They're not free speech platforms. It's bullshit.

This is the brainwashing.

In actuality, they're an advertising platform, which happens to have content. Happens to have content by mistake.

But it's again about who is advertising.

An analysis published recently demonstrated that of 10 advertisers control 70% of the advertisements on YouTube, and these 10 advertisers happen to be the biggest conglomerates in the United States, which happened to be owned by these famous five oligarchs or five tycoons, whatever you want to call.

Whichever way you look, these are loops interfering with other loops. These are all feedback mechanisms, self-enhancing, enhancing each other.

There's no way out. There's no way out.

This is the sense of slavery. Not, I agree with you, we are not slaves in the sense that we do things under threat, but the threat is that you will be excommunicated, that you will be taken out of the system. That this is the threat, and the threat is the Damocles sword, you know? It's floating above you. If you misbehave, they will silence you. If you misbehave even more, you will end up in prison. If you misbehaved, they will ban you, block you, take you out of the system, and there's no life outside the system.

I would say that was worse maybe two, three, five years ago. I follow a lot of dissident, for example, people that have alternative media and stuff. Previously, when they were blocked on YouTube, it was impossible to find them anywhere.

But since the advent of Rumble, since the advent of, you know, since especially Musk bought Twitter, right now a ban on YouTube is not a death sentence.

Not a death sentence, but a comma sentence.

Yeah, yeah.

What is rumble?

What is rumble?

I mean, they have the highest live stream, I think. Dan Bongino is like the highest live stream numbers. We're talking about concurrent users on the stream watching live.

Well, you have options like Telegram. Telegram. Also, yes.

They have basically, they support streaming.

Since the pandemic, since the pandemic, people have learned that they're slaves. I agree with it. There's been a great awakening.

That's exactly proves what I'm saying, actually. That people left YouTube and went to Rumble and telegram. That proves what I'm saying.

Why did they leave YouTube if they were not slaves? They left YouTube because they woke up to their situation and their condition. They woke up to this brainwashing and control of the masses and the masses said, we need an alternative, we need options. And the masses started to construct options.

But will this survive for long?

I doubt it. The elites will strike back. I have no doubt about this, because the masses are becoming dangerous. The masses are really empowered with technology and so on, and democracy.

So they will take away democracy, the elites, you will see. They will take away democracy and they will take away technology. Suddenly there will be regulations, there will be all kinds of things and you will find that your ability to operate with technology freely is more and more and more and more and more and more limited to the point that you are criminalized if you do certain things.

I would say that I would agree with that up to the COVID pandemic.

And I think during the COVID pandemic, the kind of the shadow elite that you're talking about, I think overplayed their hand and I think they were, they kind of facilitated the awakening that you're talking about.

And I believe in the ingenuity of the human civilization. And that's where you have stuff like crypto, you know, basically ways to, as you said, disconnect from the system.

Yeah, yeah, disconnect from the system. And that's one of the things that we are kind of advertising on this podcast inside Macedonia to disengage from the narrative of the system, of the state, so that you can kind of reclaim some of the sovereignty that has been taken from you by the state.

I will finish by mentioning something that I think is undermentioned.

Academic publishing, books, copyrighted books. Today you have shadow libraries, like Library Genesis, Z Library, and so on, where you can get any book ever published. Anna Archivehas most of the books ever published.

So for free, you have the biggest library available, and of 107 million published academic papers in history, you have 83 million available through these platforms.

In academic publishing and in publishing generally, the masses won the battle. There they won the battle.

So maybe you're right. Maybe that's a precedent. And it will happen in other fields.

I hope so. I hope so because the alternative is tight control by a group of tycoons, many of whom are mentally ill. Now I'm speaking as a psychologist, mentally ill, tycoons.

And these people will impose on us monoculture, and we know from medicine, that when you have homogeneity and monoculture, you're susceptible to viruses and bacteria.

You die.

The body will die if we don't free ourselves of this awesome that I do believe in the ingenuity of humankind we will find the solution for this as well we found solution for everything, including this.

Even for this dialogue.

Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Guys, let me say this last, if you guys found this a bit of interesting and educational, hopefully you have the links that Sam provided for you to upgrade this self-update.

If that wasn't enough, I invite everyone to come in Saturday, so October 26th, 6pm in Ohrid in Kasarna Hub, Professor Sam will be holding a lecture in the narcissistic abuse title into the dark side and back you all welcome to come it's a free entry so I hope to see all guys over there at 6 p.

m. Saturday.

I hope to see both of you Peter and Goetzee I hope to see you in Opit. It's not that far from Bitola.

Yes, yes. Skopje is far, but Ohrid not so much.

So you got the good bargain.

Thank you very much for your answers and for the interesting discussion. I hope you had a good time.

I hope you will come back when we invite you next time.

Of course.

Everyone else, have a good time.