Am I A Egotistical Piece Of Crap?

[Aaron Blain]

I consciously choose to allocate my attention primarily toward concrete argumentation and facts, presented by experts in their given fields.

 

Over time, I've improved the stream of what the YouTube algorithm sends me. I tell it to stop giving me alt-right rants and superficial 'progressive' blather.

 

As far as 'Leftism' is concerned, when you're listening to a real expert, a real journalist, they will have a more complicated understanding of social and political issues. Many will argue that reductionist identitarianism is something of a US phenomenon that serves to distract from structural/economic issues, for one thing.

 

Here are some names I search for:

 

Economists:

Richard Wolff

Michael Hudson

 

Journalists:

Chris Hedges

Christoper Hitchens

Amy Goodman

Paul Jay

 

Scientists:

Lawrence Krauss

Noam Chomsky (he straddles several fields but strictly speaking he's a linguist)

Dawkins, Tyson and all those folks

 

History/Experimental Archaeology:

"The Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages"

Matt Easton's "Schola Gladiatora"

"Lindybeige" Lloyd

 

I also got a subscription to "Great Courses Plus", which I highly recommend. I think I pay it quarterly and it comes to less than $10 a month. I watched two very in-depth courses so far about ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

 

There's so much worthwhile expert discussion that I really do not have time to pay attention to manboys who think the world is ending because women want to be a part of Star Wars and videogames.

 

I'm sorry, I don't want to start an argument about Jordan Peterson, but I have to say that while his discussions/lectures on topics where he is qualified are excellent (Peter Pan syndrome and all that), and that I deeply admire the way he conducts himself throughout even the most hostile interviews, he argues at great length about subjects of which he is clearly deeply ignorant. Alt-right rants about "Cultural Marxism" have no basis in fact, and are a repeat of an old Nazi conspiracy theory. If you're interested in the links between psychology, mythology and personal development, I can't recommend Joseph Campbell highly enough. This is an old series with Bill Moyers, another journalist with real integrity and complex views.

 

All of which is a long way of saying, as most others in this thread are saying, it's better to avoid rhetorical tricks, manipulation, emotionalism and tribalism, and to form your own views by consuming the best facts you can.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Aaron Blain

[[McD] James]

People who spend much of their time working themselves up over "SJWs" are the most easily triggered snowflakes that exist, ironically enough.

[Matias]

2 hours ago, Dark Pulse said:

and most of your parties are actually pretty close to the center?

This is not exactly true, the extremes still exist they just have their own parties. And some of these parties are for extremist ideologies such as communism. Of course the middle is heavily filled, most people are not extremists. And atleast our biggest parties in Finland are very comparable to Democrats and Republicans in many ways. And then you add strictly opportunistic and establishment parties to the mix as well. Of course i have no idea how it is in other european countries

 

Is there actually a reason for two-party system? We have 18 registered parties for a country of 5million. Seems odd that only two parties would be sufficient to represent over 300millon people.

[Cacodemon345]

According to some Americans the two-party system is easier to deal with because a multi-party system would only increase confusion and since all parties would have major disagreements with each others over stuff.

 

Personally, I don't believe the two-party system will actually do any good in regards of development of a country because it seems to be a symptom of stalled development.

[DNSKILL5]

I don’t think there’s much of a problem as long as you truly feel one way or another about it because it’s how YOU feel.
 

YouTube videos can be full of shit regardless of if they’re right wing, left wing, or anything in between. So don’t let that shake you up and always fact check when necessary. 

 

As for me, I am probably considered a fascist on the internet because I support gun rights in the USA, but my political beliefs go much further than that and I’m about as much of a fascist as Hitler was a painter, and that’s just an example for my country, not the world since obviously gun ownership is looked at much different in the US than many other parts of the world.

 

I am not fully right or left wing, but generally, I will side with the politicians least likely to molest the constitution with their own agendas, and their party affiliation or political leaning will not even matter as much as their character, their view on policy, etc.

 

So no, you’re not a bad person so long as it is YOUR belief and you’re not just going with the beliefs of people you surround yourself with to fit or blend in. That’s what assassins do, not good people. 

[BigBoy91]

Sounds like you're letting clever rhetoric sway you a little too much. Why do you have certain opinions and viewpoints? Is it because you genuinely feel that way, or because something was presented to you in a persuasive manner? Keep in mind that we all grow as people as we get older and find new information. Don't look at it in such a polarizing way. I was a pretty staunch "anti-SJW" troll for a while there. It's easy to get sucked into stuff like that in the internet age. I still consider myself pretty conservative, but not to the point of being a caricature.

[Wereknight]

8 hours ago, DSC said:

Sometimes I just get really tired of the anti-SJW thing and start flocking again to the left... Does that make me a coward?

Nope, you just becoming easily manipulative person without its own right to think for him-\herself at all.

 

You know... like those NPCs in Blood2?

[Redneckerz]

@DSC

If you have to ask this, then you aren't an egotistical piece of crap.

Consider that a good thing actually! :)
 

4 hours ago, Dark Pulse said:

SJWs and bigots are pretty much the same, in my book - people who tell you what's "right" to think or believe. And they're both full of shit.

Text omitted, but everything that came underneath it, yes, yes, yes. We are already way deep into a society where a company, person, or anything else can be ruined at the whime of an out-of-context line of text. We are in a technodigital world where even the slightest hint of disagreement, even when its actually a difference of opinion, is seen as phobic. We live in a daily universe where even neutral newspapers more and more give way to splinterized groups that all have a one trick pony card up their sleeves - And none are actually for the freedom they say they stand for.

What these groups consider freedom or a voice to be heard is in reality an attempt to silence other people's freedom or voices. Because they are marginalized splintergroups, they feel they have more to say and act like others. After all, they are a minority, so they should count more. Right?

In this conquest for representation, they swing so hard out of lane that majority groups are now taking backseats - often for no good reason. The result is a dirty swamp of toxicity where its everyone for themselves. There is no representation.

Look. Proper representation obviously needs to have a sufficient place in society. But, like everything else, it should be balanced out. So we don't cancel someone because of one text line from years ago, nor do we remove voice actresses out of games because they said something years ago on a unrelated note not related to the game in the slightest. The more attention big outlets give to such things, the worse it becomes, where they end up being the thing they say they fight to never happen again - A complete onesided censored society.

4 hours ago, Dark Pulse said:

You guys in Europe, where you've got collaborative governments, and most of your parties are actually pretty close to the center? You have no idea how fucking lucky you are and how much I as an American envy you right now.

I hear you. Consequently, you have no idea how flabbergasted we look at things from here to things in America. And that makes me feel crap given i have accquaintances there.

Its the Land of the Free... but in that land, everyone still needs to find their place to be.

[DSC]

17 minutes ago, Wereknight said:

Nope, you just becoming easily manipulative person without its own right to think for him-\herself at all.

Hmm, what you said conflicts with what pretty much everyone else said... Not saying you're wrong, but could you please explain yourself a little bit more?

[jerrysheppy]

21 minutes ago, DSC said:

Hmm, what you said conflicts with what pretty much everyone else said... Not saying you're wrong, but could you please explain yourself a little bit more?

 

I can explain, or at least translate, it for you:

 

They did a driveby threadshit equating being tired of anti-SJW viewpoints with being 'an easily manipulated person without the right to think for yourself at all.'

 

I would put money on them being unable to give you any sort of valid, coherent explanation of their own, because it's a take that doesn't come from any sound source to begin with.

 

[AinuTheTaken]

No. I wouldn't say so.

[Dark Pulse]

4 hours ago, Matias said:

This is not exactly true, the extremes still exist they just have their own parties. And some of these parties are for extremist ideologies such as communism. Of course the middle is heavily filled, most people are not extremists. And atleast our biggest parties in Finland are very comparable to Democrats and Republicans in many ways. And then you add strictly opportunistic and establishment parties to the mix as well. Of course i have no idea how it is in other european countries

The extremes exist, yes, but over here in America, the Democrats (which the Republicans paint as far to the left) are actually closer to the center than some European liberal parties (i.e; the UK's Liberal Democrats are just slightly to the left of the US Democrats), whereas the Republican party is the furthest to the right of any mainstream party in the entire goddamn world.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

 

In Europe, those guys are the kooks that only gather fringe support. In America, nearly half the country voted to keep these people in power.

 

4 hours ago, Matias said:

Is there actually a reason for two-party system? We have 18 registered parties for a country of 5million. Seems odd that only two parties would be sufficient to represent over 300millon people.

It just sort of evolved that way. There *ARE* third parties in this country - they just don't have enough of a following for anyone to really give a rat's ass. The last time a third-party candidate got even 5% of the vote was 1996 (Ross Perot); the last time a third-party candidate won a state was 1968 (George Wallace). While there are other parties here, like the Green Party or whatever, they've got zero chance and zero hope of actually contesting for the Presidency or legislatures - much less winning any of them.

 

As for how it got here, basically, they evolved over time. George Washington had no party. John Adams was a member of the Federalist party, who won the next handful of elections. Then the Democratic-Republicans came into being (begun by Thomas Jefferson) around the early 1800s, who eventually became today's Democrats.

 

Republicans, meanwhile, were born out of the remnants of another party that actually took hold of offices in this country for about 20 years - the Whig party, which is the last non-Republican, non-Democratic party to hold any major office in this country. As that party collapsed in the 1850s, the Republican party arose from their ashes; the young party immediately got put to a test via the Civil War.

 

To make things even more confusing, by the way, the parties essentially flipped agendas sometime around the late 1960s; you can thank the Civil Rights movement for that, when the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed that into law, it basically lost the Democrats the Southern US (a bloc they've struggled to regain ever since). Modern Republicans are nothing like the Republicans of old; the original Republicans are far more like the Democrats of today, and the Democrats of the time were more like Modern Republicans.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Dark Pulse

[Serum]

Allowing your opinion to change is something that I wish all adults were capable of.

[jerrysheppy]

31 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

 

To make things even more confusing, by the way, the parties essentially flipped agendas sometime around the late 1960s; you can thank the Civil Rights movement for that, when the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed that into law, it basically lost the Democrats the Southern US (a bloc they've struggled to regain ever since). Modern Republicans are nothing like the Republicans of old; the original Republicans are far more like the Democrats of today, and the Democrats of the time were more like Modern Republicans.

 

While it's true a big realignment took place then, I think it's possibly misleading to say they 'flipped agendas'-- I think there's still a lot of the FDR ethos in the modern Democratic Party, for instance.  So that hasn't changed.  It's just that LBJ, as you say, added civil rights (including racial ones) into the party's portfolio, which, uh, annoyed certain blocs that had been happily Democrat for a long time.

[Dark Pulse]

17 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

While it's true a big realignment took place then, I think it's possibly misleading to say they 'flipped agendas'-- I think there's still a lot of the FDR ethos in the modern Democratic Party, for instance.  So that hasn't changed.  It's just that LBJ, as you say, added civil rights (including racial ones) into the party's portfolio, which, uh, annoyed certain blocs that had been happily Democrat for a long time.

And those blocs tend to now be staunch Republican supporters, yes.

[Murdoch]

@DSC yes. Changing your mind is strictly forbidden under the interwebs act section 5 paragraph d. I will notify the proper authorities. 

 

Seriously i concur with most of whats been said here. Echo chambers are dangerous. It is why some people are antivaxxers and think the earth is flat. The anti-sjw crowd do have some good points on some issues but many of them are just as much examples of zealotry as their enemies. Even the slightest whiff of something amiss can set them off and whatever valid points they may have once had get lost in the lunacy.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Murdoch

[Wereknight]

2 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

We are already way deep into a society

Of course, somebody would mention it and here comes the asshole with Joker beside him asking "Hey, what's in a Colt, Bats?!"

 

... Obviously dumb joke but whatever. AHEM!

 

2 hours ago, DSC said:

Hmm, what you said conflicts with what pretty much everyone else said...

Maybe. It's a matter of perspective, though.

2 hours ago, DSC said:

Not saying you're wrong, but could you please explain yourself a little bit more?

 

Just had to dive into topic, Just saw that whole thread breathes by politics mixed with SJW "ideas" (which are bullshit since this day SJWs are not justice warriors, about 70% are just braindead scum, and don't ask me why is that)... Fockhen pohliteczs... That's the exact topic I hate so much.
Okay English is not my strongest side of a character but I'll try to say what I what to:

Just distance yourself from this shit and don't bother with that as long as it even possible, I know that what's going on might be important, but letting (possibly) wrong (wannabe) ideologies sneak into your mind might cause irreversible damage to you.

 

Just look at overall clash between my country and USA, it's always a conflict, on same field\level\whatever as SJW\anti-SJW shit. Whenever there is a reason to complain it often goes the exact same way: one start complaining, shitting at other side, and in reverse. 

That's what I'm neutral in terms of politics and related crap, as well as all this SJW\Anti-SJW shit. Not that I don't care, but really? It's all just have no meaning behind.

 

2 hours ago, jerrysheppy said:

They did a driveby threadshit equating being tired of anti-SJW viewpoints with being 'an easily manipulated person without the right to think for yourself at all.'

 

I would put money on them being unable to give you any sort of valid, coherent explanation of their own, because it's a take that doesn't come from any sound source to begin with.

and what are you telling there, I wonder...

[Sparktimus]

Not getting your rhetoric from Youtube reactionaries doesn't make you a coward. It means you're capable of actually thinking for yourself.

[dew]

10 hours ago, Chezza said:

Somewhat out of topic, but I admire the Canadian Psychologist / University Professors Jordan Peterson. He doesn't like to align himself to any ideology and when he criticizes any political stances I find he does so logically and respectfully with no sign of personal bias beyond his belief about healthy minded happy people = healthy society. 

Jordan Peterson is an altright icon and a hypocritical asshole who preaches about personal responsibility and elevating yourself by cleaning your own room, even though he himself fell to a benzo addiction that almost killed him and his family had to ship him to a private clinic in Russia where they nursed him back to health so he could go back to lying about his own positions. Anyone admiring this person is blind to his lies. Go watch how he got deconstructed by Zizek, he's just a religious fundie in disguise.

[AinuTheTaken]

He didn't "fall" to anything, as far as I know, although winners don't do drugs. Fallen is a religious dogwhistle. :^)

[dew]

5 minutes ago, AinuTheTaken said:

He didn't "fall" to anything, as far as I know, although winners don't do drugs. Fallen is a religious dogwhistle. :^) 

Don't worry, as an atheist I don't care about religious nuances and I'm fine with just agreeing that Jordan Peterson is an abject failure under his own criteria.

[Mr. Freeze]

Jordan Peterson's popularity is the biggest indicator of how far we have fallen as a society. 

 

Read books -REAL books, mind you- and stop watching fucking Youtube videos. 

[AinuTheTaken]

And please stay away from the 1,000 page one that doesn't make any fucking sense.

[FractalBeast]

13 hours ago, DSC said:

It seems some people are getting confused at what I'm trying to ask here, which is alright, English isn't my first language anyways. So I'll try and clear everything up: I do identify as in the left, but should I still watch those anti-SJW videos even if I think they are nothing but hateful cesspools and it ends up taking a big emotional toll on me? Am I wrong in disliking them and should I still not be a coward and force myself upon them while abandoning content that appeals more to me?

As someone who dips deep into actual left political philosophy, there's nothing wrong with hating your typical SJW shit since it represents a highly problematic "capitalist" or "liberal (center) right wing" way of thinking.

Ignoring problems faced by minorities by claiming them "problematic" and forcing them out of the public view does not help any minority. It just helps the majority keep on trucking like nothing is wrong. This is pretty much how political correctness works in the West. Don't talk about how issue X affects minority Y because it makes the majority feel bad feels.

 

As for whether you should watch that shit? Probably not. You're just giving fucking wankers views and ad income. Of course, you're just not going to find any sensible anti-SJW videos like those alt-right clickbait grifters make, because no one except them cares enough to make shitty videos like that.

[AinuTheTaken]

Well, anyway, here is what I trust is a helpful post for you, OP. Somebody up above recommended a mysterious Dawkins, but you probably don't know his name if you've never read a book by a scientist. Those are the odds, anyway. His full name is Richard Dawkins and he's a great read. Richard Dawkins' studies about memetic communication are very interesting, whether you really like memes (I do) or if you just wonder how Idea X became so popular in group Y. Any current, well known scientist, particularly an evolutionary scientist, is going to be enlightening, maybe entertaining, and you won't regret reading what they've published. I don't suggest that you study journalism because that's even worse than what you find online. I remember that, while in school, they made us read Longitudes and Attitudes (I think that was the name of it) by a journalist who never asked any exceptionally critical questions and was best characterized as an Idea Man. He could point blank propose such ideas as, "They just don't value life as much as we do" [referring to the Middle Eastern world]. Yup. That's the substance of journalism more or less. You get bloodthirst and ignorance from journalists, and not much else. So, expand your horizons by getting in touch with people who really want to understand the world we live in, this will mean scientists and researchers.

[DSC]

@AinuTheTaken don't worry I know who Dawkins is, watched alot of his stuff when I started becoming an atheist!

[DooM Bear]

No you most definitely are not my good man :-) Changing your views when given more information is the rational thing to do in all situations :-)

 

You are a good person from what I have seen on here and personally hate the left vs right bullshit as it does more damage than good. Each side uses the extremest views from the other as a emotional hot button saying “look! This is what they are all like!

 

In reality though, I doubt there are many people on either side are extremests and those people should all be condemned when they do something illegal / destructive. I believe most rational people look and stuff from both sides and say “oh that’s a good idea, na that’s a bad idea” regardless of who brought it up :-)

 

I really just wish we all could see someone and say “ oh you’re a person! I’m a person too” and that is all that should matter. What we look like, who we sleep with and what we believe in shouldn’t matter. We shouldn’t push our views on others and in return shouldn’t have others views pushed on to us :-)

[CBM]

12 minutes ago, DooM Bear said:

No you most definitely are not my good man :-) Changing your views when given more information is the rational thing to do in all situations :-)

 

You are a good person from what I have seen on here and personally hate the left vs right bullshit as it does more damage than good. Each side uses the extremest views from the other as a emotional hot button saying “look! This is what they are all like!

 

In reality though, I doubt there are many people on either side are extremests and those people should all be condemned when they do something illegal / destructive. I believe most rational people look and stuff from both sides and say “oh that’s a good idea, na that’s a bad idea” regardless of who brought it up :-)

 

I really just wish we all could see someone and say “ oh you’re a person! I’m a person too” and that is all that should matter. What we look like, who we sleep with and what we believe in shouldn’t matter. We shouldn’t push our views on others and in return shouldn’t have others views pushed on to us :-)

I agree and that is also why destroying beloved IPs with unwanted political views, bad storytelling and disregard for pre existing canon and fans are NOT ok... Even if the ones digging their own graves own the IPs and rights to do so.... because they are still hurting fans and trying to impose political nonsense by doing so (watch overlord dvd on youtube)

[Matias]

@Dark Pulse My point was to add to your comment about the parties being "center". Because it's more complicated than just saying the parties are more centrist than in the usa and saying just "your parties are actually pretty close to the center?" gives idealistic view on the european politics. I never meant it as disagreement that US parties might be more polarized. And i also wanted to add that there still is polarization and very much so. With the two party system in the US it's going to keep groups such as communists out of mainstream politics much longer than in the europe where people can start parties for that specific ideology and get validation for their ideas that way. Saying "those guys are the kooks that only gather fringe support" again makes a very idealistic claim. Just because some party would be smaller doesn't really mean it only gathers fringe support. In Finland our fastest growing political party is Right-Wing Populist party and it's currently looking that in the next election this party will be the biggest party(let's hope so atleast). Again i'm not going to make any claims about other european countries except that all around in europe Right-Wing Populism has been on the rise since like 2015 as far as i know.

 

As for the Democrats vs Republicans thing, i think this nytimes piece and your comment really show the biggest issue with the two party system. Democrats are pretty much split by the progressives and establishment democrats. Establishment democrats bring the party as a whole closer to the center even tho lot of these progressives are "far-left". And who is the party leader far-left progressives or the establishment is always a question, this is why Republicans call democrats "far-left". This obviously would be solved by splitting the party in two different parties "Progressives" and "democrats". Even tho calling the entire party "far-left" is incorrect, there is a base for that claim, and with Democrats calling Republican "far-right" it's fair to fight fire with fire. I think if we would split both US political parties and we would get "Progressives", "Democrats", "Republicans" and "RightWing Populist party" we would see that progressives and the populists would be the biggest of the four.

 

This opinion piece also from nytimes has something about the democratic party split

It argues it being split into three but two is much easier and realistic

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/2020-progressive-candidates.html

 

Here is also one from rasmussen

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_ted_rall/the_splitting_up_of_the_democratic_party

 

I'm not sure if those are the best about Democratic party split so you might find some better ones by just googling.

 

In that Nytimes opinion piece you linked i didn't like how they were using wording "far-right". Better term would have been "strong right" since the term "far-right" comes attached with some very negative ideas. I don't view republicans "far-right" at all. Strong right yes. People seem to have very different ideas of what counts as "far-right" or "far-left" i personally view it from Authotarian policies. This is best way in my opinion to actually see who is "far-left" or "far-right" since both absolute extremes in either side of the political spectrum are going to be authotarian. Republicans have protected free speech, 2A and many being anti-war etc. These are not Authotarian at all. Where as Progressive Democrats have pushed for limiting free speech and gun ownership and other more authotarian views. This alone makes me say that Nytimes piece is incorrect in putting Democrats closer to center and calling republicans "far-right" . Also with contents of this piece starting to be old and discussing 2016 i would be interested in how the parties sit in 2020, we can clearly see that 4years is plenty enough to move a party substantially toward either side.

One thing that i find concerning about calling Mainstream Right-wing politics "far-right" is the possibility that some younger person could see that and have their views labelled "far-right" and just say "i guess i am then" and over time getting possibly radicalized and moving towards wignats or some other truly far-right groups.

 

 

16 hours ago, Dark Pulse said:

Republican party is the furthest to the right of any mainstream party in the entire goddamn world.

This very well could be true, but the question obviously is if Republicans are too right-wing or europeans not enough.

 

"The resulting scores capture how the groups represent themselves, not necessarily their actual policies."

This is also very interesting detail about the opinion piece you linked, it could be that burgers are just more outspoken.

 

Some other issues in that piece are also how much weight you put on different things. I personally don't agree that mentioning God should push the party more towards right, or constitution. Also there is difference what is viewed "left" "right" or "center" by country or the person you ask and to add even more confusion is that there is even more of a difference in what is viewed "far-right" or "far-left" politics. So you just end up in a opinionated mess that is inaccurate and holds very little value.

 

I do appracciate you taking time to write so much about the Two party system in the US. I hope it wasn't too much of an effort since i really didn't expect someone to write that long about it. I was expecting something short and sweet like the one by @Cacodemon345 , also very much apprecciated comment. My understanding of the US Two Party system has increased substantially on a Forum dedicated to a game from the 90s, who would have thought.

 

[dew]

1 hour ago, Matias said:

People seem to have very different ideas of what counts as "far-right" or "far-left" i personally view it from Authotarian policies. This is best way in my opinion to actually see who is "far-left" or "far-right" since both absolute extremes in either side of the political spectrum are going to be authotarian. Republicans have protected free speech, 2A and many being anti-war etc. These are not Authotarian at all. Where as Progressive Democrats have pushed for limiting free speech and gun ownership and other more authotarian views. This alone makes me say that Nytimes piece is incorrect in putting Democrats closer to center and calling republicans "far-right" .

What the hell are you talking about? Republicans being anti-war? Republicans are neo-imperialists, republicans invaded Iraq over lies to secure oil. Republicans protecting free speech? They only care about the freedom to say the N word on Twitter - but they actively work to limit the most important freedom of expression: voting. American republicans are notoriously pushing all forms of active voter supression, particularly of the minority vote.

 

And of course Republicans are far, far, faaaaar-right from an European's perspective. They champion despicable lunatic shit like banning abortions, allowing gay conversion therapy and reversing state-religion secularization. Those are unthinkable positions for Europeans with the exception of authoritarian hellholes called Poland and Hungary.

 

edit: Important caveat: When I say republicans are neo-imperialist, it is crucial to point out that democrats are also neo-imperialists. Bill Clinton was as bad as George Bush when it came to selectively overthrowing governments in other countries by force, Obama was just very slightly better and Trump... is probably a tiny improvement over Obama in this regard, except for the fact he'd gladly invade Venezuela and Iran if his folks didn't dissuade him.

Edited November 21, 2020 by dew