The Thomas Sowell Thread for forums that don't have Thomas Sowell Threads.

[Aianawa]

Sowell tackles it again in this Youtube video. The Origin of Black American Culture and Ebonics


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4NQ9D0M6w

But, for political leverage and race division to exist this paradigm MUST BE RACIALLY derived even if it's not true. If you get my drift here.

He also tackles it with: Is it Discrimination or Disparity?

Or is it discrimination to acknowledge cultural, ethnic habits and tendencies or is just the disparity between culture and ethnicities. It's not anything that you get to talk about much because someone will get triggered, and rush over and stamp it out screaming such discussions are racist and everyone is exactly the same, exactly the same, damn you!

And then trip all over themselves gabbling on how we should embrace cultural differences. Everyone should celebrate Kwanza, eat authentic Mexican food. Sounds fun. But it also sounds like people are not exactly the same. So you do and then the same people scream in a rage that you are appropriating their culture. . Anything to keep the division rolling even if it means contradicting your previous premise. And that's not even politicians, that is the insane matriarchy at work throughout society. But as long as it's not an insane patriarchy it's okay.

And honestly Sowell's perspective here is not new. Europeans and people in other nations in forums such as these and elsewhere are always commenting how loud, aggressive and obnoxious, war mongering and violent Americans are. They have been for years.

Yes?

The US Is the bully of the world?

Yes?

And then ignore their own nations have become proxy nations of the US.

How did people come to that conclusion and insist its true so why should it be suddenly suspect or even controversial now that Sowell has isolated the element that gives rise to that meme? He's really isolating that certain segments of America have always been obnoxious, violent and easily triggered even before they reached American shores and that has influenced the behavior of other demographics of America. Not all of them. Some of them. America didn't become violent simply because someone planted a flag pole here and gush of violence spouted up like a wild cat oil field. Who planted the flagpole. The British? The Spaniards? It was brought here from abroad with the people that came to colonize the joint.


Throw some morphic resonance on the topic and it will really start to burn rubber

Mmmm rubber tree plantations come to mind lol

Must add am enjoying your number energy-ies, thread thread time stamp is 21 21 which for me is the new energy time we are in 21st arkeytype Hunaab Ku > a facet > http://www.lawoftime.org/lawoftime/s...nab-ku-21.html

[Diabolical Boids]

Mmmm rubber tree plantations come to mind lol

Must add am enjoying your number energy-ies, thread thread time stamp is 21 21 which for me is the new energy time we are in 21st arkeytype Hunaab Ku > a facet > http://www.lawoftime.org/lawoftime/s...nab-ku-21.html

That's interesting. Anything to do with math is of interest to me. Not sure if I believe it but it's interesting enough for further examination.

[Aianawa]

The 21 21 some look n feel as the new 11 11, some say both are evolving DNA promps.

Because the 21 by 21 grid gives 11 11 as in a cross, easily identifiable in given link.

Before 441 base matrix was earlier highest computer on Earth the 260 day tzolkin, some say oldest computer on Earth besides Earth itself.

Did you do your galactic siggyniture ?.

[Diabolical Boids]

The 21 21 some look n feel as the new 11 11, some say both are evolving DNA promps.

Because the 21 by 21 grid gives 11 11 as in a cross, easily identifiable in given link.

Before 441 base matrix was earlier highest computer on Earth the 260 day tzolkin, some say oldest computer on Earth besides Earth itself.

Did you do your galactic siggyniture ?.

I did look up my signature. It's yellow. A color I have love hate relationship with.

[Diabolical Boids]

Anyway, if no one objects, back to the topic for a little while.

Or what happened to America. We were heroes in WW2 and now we are shite.

America's problems have unfortunately become everyone's problem globally.

If you haven’t listened much to Sowell –or Bill Maher—since both sides should have some input because both sides created our problems in the US--or too absorbed in by political correctness to get the message, the framework Sowell comes from reflects what America is supposed to operate from is:

American values. Not strictly democratic values, not strictly republican values. American values were established, recorded and exercised before either Democratic or Republican parties were established. American Value can be summed up by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Very classical liberal attitudes. Self-responsibility and determination instead of letting a lord or monarch determine your life. Very social concepts.

Founding Fathers were liberal.

What is the pursuit of happiness? It's something that requires life and liberty. Beyond that its up to you. As long as you aren’t hurting someone or infringing on their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Founding Fathers were also conservative or conservative with the US constitution. You know, conservation of the constitution.

We are forming a government.
It will try to become its own animal.
Don’t ever trust it.
Don’t let it expand or grow beyond what is necessary.
Be vigilant against governmental hedonism.
The government is your servant not your master.
Don’t let it near your rights.
Don’t let it near a Central banking system.
Don’t let it form secret mirror governments or governmental love children.
Don’t let it seduce you.
While lawyers are a necessary evil, make sure they stay in the judicial branch until they show they can show they can be trusted in the executive offices.
By exercising your rights, natural and implied, you can keep the government small.
All with respect to individuals.
Here.
And abroad.

There’s a lot of nations that suffer from today’s US Government expansion into foreign directly or by proxy, because these principals were not adhered to? Wouldn’t America be Great if it hadn’t done that?

This represents checks and balances to keep the government from being an enslaving monster all under the name of not the God we trust but under the creator.
Of course we let it do all that by not respecting our life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and our rights. Our responsibility. Our self determination.

This sounds all very MAGA ish but it existed before MAGA too.

But American patriots came from liberal and conservative places like they do today. The same way America was developed. Elements of both. Both served the people.
What happened to this nicely developing infant nation with all these high ideals to turn it into the hot mess it is today.

The GOP and Democratic Parties formed.

[Diabolical Boids]

Now it’s the present and what comes with the present is Presentism.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm83mE2jthg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm83mE2jthg


In the PRESENT, the first-place people retreat to in attacking the time where America was great (not perfect but flawed and developing ideals as most infancy nations do) is that none of this could possibly be true, America was not on the path to greatness; it was horrid and hypocritical because it had SLAVERY.

So did practically every other nation but without the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Slavery was not grown here it was imported here like tea. By the Spaniards, by the Dutch, and by the English. All white people, yes.

How could America be a marvel of liberty if its developers, the founding fathers, OWNED slaves? You can hardly say they were poor, white crackers.

The founding fathers were also the first luminaries to argue against slavery from a moral perspective. EVER.

But why did they still have slaves?

This is concept that has been coined presentism. Judging everything in the past by today’s standards. This is why no can understand why some founding fathers had slaves but still spoke against the misery of slavehood. Yes it does sound hypocritical. We are judging it from the present.

None of these people today know how to responsibly tackle a paradigm of human misery that had been occurring since the beginning of time. Looked at that way, one might realize it's not something that can be solved over night or by arbitrarily signing an executive order.

If you were responsible for 20 people under your care who were not educated, had hardly ever been off their plantation, were not worldly, or literate, illiterate, had never been allowed to make their own choices, develop the ability to do so, would you just turn them loose today with no ability to drive a car, seek work, find a home, avoid people who would capitalize on their ignorance?
We would!

We turn out children like this in droves from homes and public education. Illiterate, unworldly, never allowed to make their own decisions.

None of those people realize that turning out the occupationally and mentally impaired out of mental health facilities to roam around homeless without basic needs mirrors exactly that question TODAY. That’s not very important though, that Present problem is not as important as something that happened 200 years ago and has been laid to rest and solved in the meantime. The subject of slavery then is used to avoid real problems today.

But no we have to keep chugging down that road: It’s STILL hypocritical to say slavery is immoral and then keep slaves.

It sounds hypocritical by today’s standards of presentism, but people today did not have a moral and legal quandaries the public servants of a new nation have in the developed one today.

1) As a newly formed nation there were few laws, and immigration law was not well developed. Slaves were imported here. Forced immigration.

2) People today do not have to struggle with moral, financial, and economic responsibilities of inheritance. Most founding fathers had slaves that were inherited from their fathers and the laws at the time dictated that simply turning them loose in a developing nation, illiterate, and uneducated was irresponsible and not safe for the slave. Educated people today judge black people then by the same standards they are judged today. There are no black slaves to compare them to.

America was our inheritance, and we were not responsible with it which is why we and the rest of the world have America problems. More so today than back then. If anyone questions go look at Ukraine.

The zinger problem that the presentism moralists cannot answer:

What do you do with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens that have been forced here against their will? Or what do with them responsibly, for their own safety?
They aren’t criminals. They didn’t do anything wrong. They don’t belong here in the position they have been forced into. They are illegal aliens but it’s not their fault.

No one in the present seems to be able to answer that except to say the same old thing--turn them free, uneducated, illiterate and vulnerable like we have done to disenfranchised people today. The homeless. Turn them free so I can feel good about myself in the present --but expect that people then should have known all the answers when people today cannot answer the question today.

Thing is they knew the answer then. People in the present do not. People then didn't like the solution any more than they do now because they wanted instant gratification. This has evolved into the moralists--especially the white moralists--acting as if slavery affects them more today than slavery did to its victims back then!

It was an answer that was wrangled and developed from 1776 until the emancipation.

In posing this question repeatedly, no one has ever answered it even though it’s a simple answer, a solution that is used today with such frequency we don’t even notice it anymore.

[Fred Steeves]

Anyway, if no one objects, back to the topic for a little while.

Or what happened to America. We were heroes in WW2 and now we are shite.

America's problems have unfortunately become everyone's problem globally.

I see this as a mixed bag. On the one hand, I’m very appreciative of the Bill of Rights passed down to me, never more so than knowing I have say, the right to respond in the negative to a nosy cop wanting to go on a fishing expedition in my vehicle on the side of the road.

NO, can be a very powerful word.

And the founders dipped into sources such as the Magna Carta, philosophers such as Cicero, not bad historical company if I may say so. They got a lot of things right!



Then on the other hand, whenever I see America’s wonderful days of yesteryear invoked, I like to invite the presenter to point me to exactly where in our history where the good old days really were. Is it WW2 when one hand was fighting the Nazis, while the other hand was funding them on the down low?

WW1, where the US saw it’s chance to be a major world player, as the Klan was wreaking havoc on the home front, and the Federal Reserve was born?

Was it in the long westward in its land grabbing genocide under the banner of “Manifest Destiny”?

Or maybe at the very beginning when they sat back and ignored the next country who won their independence in a revolution, Haiti, allowing it to whither on the vine? They let it die, and keep it dead to this very day as punishment for the transgression.



I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, just that when something from our past is being pointed to as something we should strive to recreate, I like to know exactly what it was and why it was an enviable time

When were the good old days, and why are they the ones we should strive to go back to? Does Thomas Sowell touch on the subject of “American Exceptionalism, and when it was?

[Diabolical Boids]

Fred Steeves; I see this as a mixed bag.

So do I. Because it is.

On the one hand, I’m very appreciative of the Bill of Rights passed down to me, never more so than knowing I have say, the right to respond in the negative to a nosy cop wanting to go on a fishing expedition in my vehicle on the side of the road.

NO, can be a very powerful word.

Yes. No can be a very powerful word.

Falling out of your vehicle during a t stop milling your arms, and screaming about your rights and generally acting like a madperson instead of just saying no may get you shot. Or in jail. Or injured.

And the founders dipped into sources such as the Magna Carta, philosophers such as Cicero, not bad historical company if I may say so. They got a lot of things right!

A lot of things right. And a lot of things wrong. America was an experiment. We got things right and we got things wrong. Now we just mostly do everything wrong for what we think are the right reasons.

Then on the other hand, whenever I see America’s wonderful days of yesteryear invoked, I like to invite the presenter to point me to exactly where in our history where the good old days really were. Is it WW2 when one hand was fighting the Nazis, while the other hand was funding them on the down low?

They weren't wonderful days. I'm sure black slaves thought Emancipation was wonderful though. Southern Democrats less so. And places in between. On and on life goes on. Black and white wasn't black and white. Just like People in the Bible didn't have a Bible. It's a matter of proportion and perspective.

America was a developing nation. It did great things. It had great principles to try to get there. It did things wrong. It did things right, it was generally going in the great direction until Centralized banking came, the Federal Reserve, the wars for profit and wrong things were done for all the right reasons.

WW1, where the US saw it’s chance to be a major world player, as the Klan was wreaking havoc on the home front, and the Federal Reserve was born?

Yep that happened. And I think that it began to creep in before it came into focus. Of course it didn't come into focus until hindsight. At that time that was all great! No one thought about the after effect or how people power grab. If they did, who listened? Since its been taking a downward spiral where the good is swamped with the bad. So yep, I think that is about there is where we stopped moving towards greatness for good forever and put being a major world as premier importance, full speed ahead screw the nation and its people and every other nation.

[/QUOTE]

Was it in the long westward in its land grabbing genocide under the banner of “Manifest Destiny”?

Yep that was a contradiction in terms. I have many many more that I haven't posted because you have to examine the intent to know where the contradiction comes in. And you've done a fine job of adding some "BUT" contrast. I have some doozies too. Don't let the government grow more than necessary but expand westward which would result inevitably as more government growth. How quickly they forget.

But the argument then was the NATION should grow, not the government. If we didn't grow the bigger nations would beat us up! Certainly, it was not "what do we do with all these people?" because the Immigration waves hadn't started then. We expanded beyond 13 colonies, then the entire continent, and then to the other side of the world.

Whose interests did it serve? Could have served the interest of people looking to expand slavery?

It could and did benefit people who could get vast tracts of land for a pittance.

It didn't serve the Native Americans.

Does that not sit well with you. No? Me either.

Or maybe at the very beginning when they sat back and ignored the next country who won their independence in a revolution, Haiti, allowing it to whither on the vine? They let it die, and keep it dead to this very day as punishment for the transgression.

I'm not quite sure I get this. Haiti won its Independence from the French. Was the US supposed to have intervened post Haitian revolution and...? Not sure where you are going with this? Or is it a mixed bag of American should mind its own and we should have intervened?

I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, just that when something from our past is being pointed to as something we should strive to recreate, I like to know exactly what it was and why it was an enviable time

No. Smart ass isn't what I would call it. Who envied it? It was a new experiment that represented an opportunity for individuals (not the government!) to determine their own destiny without a lord or monarch to hang them for trespassing against their king and God. Since it was new, and dangerous, I'm pretty sure people aren't looking at the inherent dangers of then, and those inherent dangers made it somewhat not enviable. We have an intersection of opportunity for we the people and opportunistic of the government ill will we were warned of.

When Orville and Wilbur Wright were succeeding very little and failing a lot but still making progress who envied them?

When were the good old days, and why are they the ones we should strive to go back to? Does Thomas Sowell touch on the subject of “American Exceptionalism, and when it was?

He does go into American Exceptionalism. I'm not sure if he's written a comprehensive work on it or just some articles. Mostly its about how people don't understand it which is sort of obvious. And maybe its one of those things you grasp abstractly. Appreciation for what was attempted, cringing at the mistakes were made, and made worse by how we ended up. And how something for the betterment of mankind ended up in such a cluster.

Does American Exceptionalism exist today?

Only in the head of some people.

American exceptionalism as it existed from the beginning doesn't exist now. We are an exceptionally horrible nation that turned away from so much potential. Worse we have destroyed the potential of other nations that attempted to adopt some concepts of liberty.

What time should return to?

We can't return to any time. Sometimes you let things progress beyond the point of no return. There's good things about each decade that we don't necessarily have to relegate to the past maybe? Without dragging the bad along? I don't have any answers about how we can reintroduce those good elements into the present with such divided, brainwash, rigid people. We as a people have no place to go but down down down.

But I think everyone wants to be at some time that was much simpler. Or things could be simpler period. Where we had real money and buying power and unfettered opportunities without tripping over government, politics, regulations, or everyone else's all so important feelings. Where people weren't immersed in screens and spoke to each other and participated in their local communities and our rights weren't some ghastly horrible things that posed a threat to everyone. Where men could be men and women could be women, and when men weren't women, and progress didn't have to be based in in division and eugenics.


With that said, any immigrant from some oppressed part of the world, who found new opportunity, freedom and life in America would be correct in saying. "Oh please, you have it so bad, you big sissy. You are too entitled and have it too good and let me tell you just how bad it is where I came from."

Those are the people who would be most apt to slow American's decline.

WE aren't the only nation that is gripped in the midst of exceptionalism issues.

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/bey...t-all-go-wrong

It stands to reason if GB was once great, then maybe for a little while we were too. We came from the flippin' place after all.

[Diabolical Boids]

More Mixed Bag.

We the people versus today’s narrative

A couple of mixed bags or things that don’ t make sense I found. Fred stole my favorite which was expansion into the West so I'm stealing his term Mixed Bag. But you will find ‘mixed bags’ all over, not a straight nice neat good versus evil narrative. And really Sowell is doing nothing that the rest of us have done. Challenging present narratives that are getting loopier and loopier all the time. It’s no shock that white people were responsible for slavery and oppression. We just thought it was ‘those’ people, not ‘our’ people.

Black Leaders of Reconstruction: Era & Hiram Revels - HISTORY - HISTORY

Radical Reconstruction
During the decade known as Radical Reconstruction (1867-77), Congress granted Black American men the status and rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 1867, branches of the Union League, which encouraged the political activism of Black Americans, spread throughout the South.

Wait. What? How’d that happen if black people were not allowed to vote until 1965? It was only Democrats who were involved in Civil Rights. Who put the black people in office. Were they appointed by white people? How the hell were they voting then , and not in 1950? It certainly jars our favorite narrative today.

The obvious answer is they were allowed to vote. According to records of the time. At one time. And black people held office way before the 20th century. You had to be elected to get there. The question is what happened? A lot between then and the 1960's.

In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South.

I can hear the official narrative spinners screaming in agony:

No! This is the right narrative: Blacks were never allowed to do anything until the 20th century when all noble and good Democrats set them free (after assassinating the man who we can actually thank for getting the ball really rolling this time around?) They just hung out in a state of suspended animation until 1965 then suddenly were animated and went out started voting, working, earning, living their lives. They never had a life until White Liberals came along. No liberty. No pursuit of happiness.

Or did we need a lot of black people for cannon fodder for war that developed under a Democrat admin.

And I can't deny Democrats were primarily involved in Civil Rights. But I suspect I will find some evidence Republicans were not entirely absent or some reasons why there were not more involved.

And I always believed this Noble Democratism myself once.

Now I find all that nobility and niceness suspect because and makes me wonder about what agenda they had since everything continued to go to hell afterwards and why such reversals in progress in race relations happened most obviously during some Democratic admins in recent years. Especially in light of the fact they killed the man who solidified the plan for Civil Rights. Then a few more were killed in the midst of the decade of Free Love.

Any way it seems post Civil War is when real seeds of Civil Rights started.


But before the North gets too smug.

Slavery in Northern States.
US Slave States: Map & History | Study.com

What? No! That was a southern thing! The noble North didn't have slaves!

They did. It just stayed a southern fixation longer than it did in the north.


But the parties flip flopped! That explains it. That’s how slaves got free. Democrats changed their mind overnight just like good decent Germans in Nazi Germany did but they decided people needed to be freed not stuck in death camps. The Republican party didn’t form until right before the civil war. It didn’t have time to flip flop. We were in the midst of a Civil War. No one was flip flopping, they were either trying to end the war, extend it or fight it.



Another good one. America the good and noble went to fight concentration camps in Germany. While forming their own in America. Can't blame Nazi Republicans for that though. It happened during the time of FDR and the eugenics era.

https://www.history.com/topics/world...can-relocation

And my all time real favorite.

If Democrats and Republicans are the arms of the same nefarious body and we really believe that, why is it we still try to assign good to one arm and evil to the other? When they aren't. Or are they? Or both. Maybe its a mixed bag.

[Diabolical Boids]

In posing this question repeatedly, no one has ever answered it even though it’s a simple answer, a solution that is used today with such frequency we don’t even notice it anymore.

What do you do with thousands and thousands of illegal aliens forced here against their will?

Naturalization. Since laws did no good giving slaves US citizenship then you had to wait for the majority of those imported to be overtaken population wise by those who were born here. Natural Naturalization. Naturalization happens every day in America to the extent we don't notice it anymore.



I like this because while these assholes were obstructing emancipation, nature did a dirty end run behind them.

[Fred Steeves]

Or maybe at the very beginning when they sat back and ignored the next country who won their independence in a revolution, Haiti, allowing it to whither on the vine? They let it die, and keep it dead to this very day as punishment for the transgression.

I'm not quite sure I get this. Haiti won its Independence from the French. Was the US supposed to have intervened post Haitian revolution and...? Not sure where you are going with this? Or is it a mixed bag of American should mind its own and we should have intervened?

Just that one might think the founders might have seen some kinship with their cause, instead they panicked thinking the newborn nation may export the slave revolution to home shores, so they essentially turned their backs on the matter, and Haiti wasn't officially recognized as a nation until 1862. Unlike our revolution, Haiti's revolution was left to flounder.

That's always rubbed me the wrong way.

I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, just that when something from our past is being pointed to as something we should strive to recreate, I like to know exactly what it was and why it was an enviable time.

Who envied it? It was a new experiment that represented an opportunity for individuals (not the government!) to determine their own destiny without a lord or monarch to hang them for trespassing against their king and God. Since it was new, and dangerous, I'm pretty sure people aren't looking at the inherent dangers of then, and those inherent dangers made it somewhat not enviable. We have an intersection of opportunity for we the people and opportunistic of the government ill will we were warned of.

When Orville and Wilbur Wright were succeeding very little and failing a lot but still making progress who envied them?

I'm referring to present day point of view, looking backwards pining for "the good old days". I see it a lot with conservative commentators like Glenn Beck, as in for example "we need to get back to our roots, we need to get back to God, we need to get back to real education", etc.

So like were it me (I'm 56), I'd say something like "my grandparents lived in a time where the middle class family could live comfortably off of the man's paycheck, God was still in our classrooms, and we need to get back to that". Except that the main reason they had it so good (and they really did!) was because much the rest of the world lay in ruin starting over from almost scratch, and America's industrial base was humming along at warp 9. The new juggernaut had no economic competition.

Or here's another example: "We need to get back to the days when we were in the business of innovation like sending people to the moon", when as it turns out the only reason that came about in the first place, the foundation of Kennedy's bold 1961 prediction of a man on the moon before the end of the decade, was because he had a "Project Paperclip" rocket scientist/soon to be superstar in his hip pocket. Werner Von Braun, he would know how soon it could be done given the needed resources.




Hopefully this gives you a better idea of how I'm looking at this.

Hopefully I'm not coming off as "everything is bad" either, I fully recognize the many revolutionary inventions that have advanced the world come courtesy US, and there's still Spirit, love here as well, just recognizing the nuanced unmentionables that tend to sail under the radar when looking back.

[Diabolical Boids]

Not at all, responses are usually enlightening. It's made me think more about Manifest Destiny. How it was wrong for America expanded into the West by purchasing land from nations that had already expanded into the West well before. Or that Great Britian created an empire and many of those lands are now known as the West we know today but manages to escape any criticism for doing so.

And also what sort of problems would have cropped up if we had not expanded into the western portions of the nation and what problems would have been avoided which is really just spitting into the wind speculation.

My opinion we are discussing a nation that now only exists in historical record or as a belief in people's heads. So there really should be no excess contention over something that no longer exists. I cannot pinpoint the exact day we stopped being America, but I think the present shows that we have gone far beyond the point of no return. It's certainly not the America I was born into but maybe it had ceased to be America then. May be that point was a long time ago & people are just waking up today a little and deciding that the barn door needs to be closed long after the cows escaped, lived out their lives in greener pastures and died.

But the philosophy of American values will keep going on and on in people's heads. That will cause a lot of problems in a nation reforming itself into something that isn't America.

[Aianawa]

What he doin nowadays you know of ?

[Diabolical Boids]

What he doin nowadays you know of ?

He's 92 so isn't quite in the limelight anymore and he's been a such a prolific writer it's hard to say what else he'd write about but pops up enough to irritate people. He's still a Senior at the Hoover Institute at Stanford I believe. I don't think that necessarily means he actively working though. Still, I guess his spotlight comes from people wishing a return to common material sense.

Or from liberals and conservatives who can't believe he exists or wants to wish him out of existence because he won't stay in the box that conservatives and liberals want him in.

He's a bit out of their reach now. That must drive them crazy.

[Aianawa]

His material is being moreso shared atm, A strong future hero.