Donald Trump: "You know, they have a word".
"It sort of became old fashioned.
It's called: "A Nationalist".
And I say really
we're not supposed to use that word.
You know what I am?
I'm a nationalist, okay?
I'm a nationalist"
Mia Mulder: Nationalism.
Nothing wrong with standing for your country,
right?
Nothing wrong working to make your country
better?
Great again?
Not like those globalists, or imperialists.
Donald Trump: "But radical democrats want
to turn back the clock and restore the power
of corrupt, power-hungry globalists.You know
what a globalist is, right?
You know what a globalist is.
A globalist is a person that wants the globe
to do well; Frankly, not caring about our
country so much.
And you know, we can't have that."
Mia Mulder: Being a nationalist just means
focusing on your own country, right?
Focusing on making your own country better.
Minding your own business.
So what's the deal with the title then?
What does Donald Trump have to do with anything?
Sure, Donald Trump calls himself a nationalist
but there's nothing wrong with that.
right?!
Isn't that what people want?
For him to mind his own business and and make
america great again?
Plant: "Eh-hrm, but Mia.
Isn't the term "Nationalist" far too vague
and outdated as a political label to accurately
derive significant political meaning?
Especially in the current political climate,
which has been built on the evolution of political
discourse over the last 200 years?
*cough-noises*
That's technically true.
You can derive meaning from a word using two
different ways.
Either by it's "original" meaning or by the
meaning that most people usually associate
with the word.
That's what words mean.
If everyone believes a word to mean something
then that is what the word means.
That's what language is.
When it comes to political labels, and nationalism
specifically, these definitions tend to be
muddled.
But you've read the title.
You know what my opinion on nationalism is
before you even clicked on it.
But before I go into why you should agree
with me or not, and you should because I'm
always correct, I wanna give a short history
lesson, kind of; to show that the issue is
not as black and white as you think it might
be.
Maybe Donald Trump is actually doing a good
thing by calling himself a nationalist.
You know, maybe?
Although, like, let's be...
To understand modern political labels we need
to understand the thematic and literal origin
of the term.
The term nationalism gained popularity during
the world wars, but it's ideological predecessor
can be seen since long before that.
Arguably, the first nationalist movement was
the American independence movement, leading
to the independence of the United States as
a country.
Not just because it established itself as
an independent colony but because it created
a national identity.
You weren't a "british subject" or necessary
even British anymore.
You were "American" which meant something.
It meant something more than just being a
white guy with a heritage from England although
to be fair that is what it meant practically
for a long while.
But supposedly it *could* mean more thing
than that.
Like eatin' steak and lovin' freedom!
The creation of a national identity is key
to the understanding of nationalism.
No-matter where the term is used, national
identity is still around.
I mean, most of us still identify with a political
ideology trying to further the goals of a
"nation" even if we might not agree about
what those goals are.
A "nation" doesn't have to be a state or a
country.
I can often just refer to a group of people
who are united by the things that they share
in common.
And, again, it doesn't have to have a state
associated with it.
But historically and over the last 200 years,
nations with states have either assimilated
or suppressed nations that don't.
And that "nation" can be many different american
colonies fighting to unify themselves as an
independent state.
Or, of course it can be any group of people
united by the shared oppression of an outside
threat.
And usually in these cases they form a national
identify that is in opposition to "Empire".
And it's usually, one empire.
And that's important.
Because nationalism doesn't necessary base
itself on heritage or shared background, it
can be created from scratch.
Also, there's "pan-nationalism" working to
unify a nation of people who aren't united
into a nation or a state.
For example, Irish nationalism usually being
described as working toward unifying Ireland,
containing then the northern part.
In the modern day, Nationalism is a term usually
associated with the right wing.
But historically this has not been the case.
Many nationalists were in fact left-wing,
trying to create a unified workers state,
for example.
Usually something that can withstand the forces
of outside agression that is driven by the
Bourgeoisie or some other thing.
And these types of nationalism are also driven
in opposition to Empire.
And again it's usually *that* empire.
Although, let's be fair, the French had one
too.
[as well as like, most european nations]
So is Donald Trump doing a good thing here?
Is he trying to unify a very devided America
on Ideology?
Is he putting America first and Making America
Great Again?
It's back.
What is that?
It's back...
Why does that keep coming up?
While you could drive a nationalist argument
on the basis of trying to create a unified
socialist stat, the reality is more complicated;
and there's a very specific type of nationalism
called racial nationalism.
In the west this is the type of nationalism
we refer to as "white" nationalism because
that is the "race" of the people driving the
racial nationalist argument.
This is the type of nationalism that can be
ascribed to people who want to create "ethnostates",
because they want to create a state, a nation,
for a very specific kind of people; That is,
white people.
But it's important to note that this can be
applied to any people.
It's just that from our perspective and in
the western world it's mostly been white people
who do this.
In these cases the "national idea" is not
necessary built on class or history or culture
or language.
It is based on ethnicity.
Which, as the name implies, ties a persons
nationality directly to their ethnicity.
This expresses itself in many different ways.
The most extreme example of this that most
people have heard of is the Nüremberg Laws
which directly stripped Jewish Germans from
being German.
But it can also express itself in less direct
ways.
Tying a persons right to vote to their ethnicity
for example.
Because if you can't partake in the nation
that you exist within then you're not really
belonging to national identity anymore.
And if you have been excluded from "the nation"
in any way because of your ethnicity that
means that the nation has to be, at least
in part, ethnically based.
But what is Donald Trump then?
Is he a racial nationalist?
I mean he hasn't gone out and said that Black
people can't vote.
In fact he says he *loves* Black people.
Trump: Oh, look at my african american over
here.
Look at him!
Are you the greatest?
Do you know what I'm talking about?
Mia: All he did was call himself "nationalist"
which in itself can mean anything, right?
I've already mentioned a couple of examples
of what nationalism can mean; everything from
leftist nationalism, to pan-nationalism to
racial nationalism.
But there are even more types of nationalism
than I can even mention here!.
There is no way I'm going through all of that.
So what's wrong with just generic nationalism?
Keeping the nations interests first.
Isn't that what all political ideologies these
days kind of want?
I'm not seeing a lot of ideologies saying
that we should prioritize the interests of
other people before ourselves.
America First doesn't seem to be that bad
of a political ideology for an *American*
political party.
And he didn't say that non-white people aren't
allowed to vote.
so I don't think he can be described as a
racial nationalist.
Right?
Maybe he's even a left wing nationalist, I
mean who knows, really?
He does like jobs! so- and that's- The left
loves jobs, right?
they love... jobs!
Well, at least we know this.
He's not an imperialist right?
I mean PragerU has told us that.
The opposite of nationalism is imperialism.
And he has described himself as a nationalist
which means that, at least you know, he's
not an imperialist, is he?
Augh!
There is an understanding among right wing
thought leaders that nationalism is something
else than imperialism.
And you can see why; if you focus on your
own country then you're not as interested
in trying to fuck with other countries.
at least that's the theory.
By using some definitions of nationalism this
is technically true, it can even seem isolationsit
to some.
but once you look at what history is you realize
quickly that this makes absolutely no god
damn sense what so ever.
The problem arises when you excamine what
demands are made from the national identity.
What is the nation according to the nationalist?
Those are the specifics that we need to understand
and define.
Once we know that, then we can start to get
into the business of other things but I'm
gonna go into that in a couple of minutes.
Which means that I have, eventually when we
talk about nationalism, I have to talk about
the Germans.
Oh this isn't about the Nazis.
Yet!
The German Empire is a stellar example of
nationalism.
The idea of a unified German state was popularized
in large part of an existing outside threat.
The French in this case.
In some way creating the German Empire was
a way to protect yourself from the concept
of "Empire".
however once the unification was done central
Europe suddenly had a unified ball of angry
industry.
The national idea of unifying to survive
against outside aggression quickly faded and
the new national identity emerged of a great
German Empire.
But then the first world war ended and suddenly
there was many people who spoke German, who
maybe identified as German who did not live
within the German nation.
And then, in come the Nazis.
Building their ideology on the nationalist
ideals of the past.
Unifying all german nations under one, starting
with annexing austria, and then more german-speaking
land.
And then land for the Germans to settle.
The national idea of "Germany" no longer alligned
with the actual De-Facto borders of the world.
It didn't align with reality.
But that doesn't matter to a nationalist.
what matters to a nationalist "the ideal".
The theortetical nation that you *could* have.
PragerU: Nationalism holds that borders are
crucial.
The border is where each nations ambitions
should stop.
Mia: What pragerU says here is technically
correct.
It just happens that the "German nations"
didn't fit within the borders of what the
world considered to be the German Nation.
The same argument still remained.
A pan-german argument.
Unifying all Germans under one nation.
But this time it was used as a pre-lude to
war.
To expansion.
The trouble then becomes: Is Germany acting
on nationalist interests here, or are they
imperialist?
The modern right wing would say that they
are clearly imperialist, they are messing
with the affairs of other nations.
End of discussion.
But I would say, in this example, there is
no real difference.
The national idea can only be furthered by
imperialism.
In the ideal world and in theory Nationalism
is perfect.
every nationalist ideal would already align
with the world as it is.
All peoples would be contented to belong to
the nation that they belong to and furthering
the goals of that nation.
There would be no need for imperialism.
There would be no need to further nationalist
ideas using imperialism as the tool.
But Praaaag fails to realize that history
exists!
I mean I don't have to talk about the nazis
to talk about why nationalist ideas are imperialist,
you have that in America!
Manifest Destiny, anyone?
How about you manifest some f*cking literature
John O'Sullivan before I drag your corpse
to Sant-
Manifest destiny is a peak example of when
nationalist ideas are inherently imperialist.
Manifest destiny is also specifically National
Mysticism.
Manifest Destiny is the idea that America,
as a nation, was destined by god to strech
from coast to coast.
This was a nationalist ideal.
This was the idea that America as a nation
personified belonged as a certain shape.
It was an idea specifically in the interests
of the American nation and this was an idea
that was shared by many people, not just some
specific big-wig in Washington or something.
This was an idea that was shared by millions
of people.
And it was seen as part of being American.
It is also a narrative which has sustained
itself within the national consciousness.
The entire idea of the frontline (Frontier)
settler, taming the American west is a result
of manifest destiny.
Yee-Haw
It would be possible without the idea of Manifest
Destiny.
Even the most American thing of all, the Cowboy,
wouldn't really be as possible without as
it is with out the nationalist ideal of manifest
destiny.
Even the song "Sea to shining sea" is just
a song about how America could and should
be.
But if you consider just one other perspective
it's clearly imperialist.
The land that was used to sustain Manifest
Destiny didn't just come out of nowhere.
For the Mexicans living in the territory that
was claimed by the United States it was clearly
an outside foreign force invading.
For the native americans whose land would
be taken from them and given to white settlers
it was clearly an imperialist move, by many
seen as a justification of genocide.
So "nationalism" can have the term of being
a progressive unifying protective force.
But, from another perspective, that protective
force can also be devastatingly imperialist.
Without any context and from one perspective
alone the analogy holds up; Nationalism and
imperialism are different things.
But if you consider just, like, the perspective
of another person at all that falls apart.
Theoretically different but when it comes down to brass tax, there's no difference really.
That's partly because almost all modern political
ideologies are in some form based in nationalism.
It's hard for us to even grasp what a world
would look like without nationalism.
Imagine geopolitical diplomacy without the
concept of a nation or a state.
It's mind-boggling because that is what the
world has been for a very long perod of time.
Nationalism is in theory perfect.
If you have one nation you want to focus on
making that nation better, right?
Staying within your own borders, sure, I think
most people can agree to that.
But what happens when the national ideal goes
beyond the de-facto borders that nations currently
abide by.
This is the case with both Manifest Destiny
in America and Lebensraum in Nazi Germany.
And when it comes down to it there's really
no way of knowing where Trump lies in all
of this.
So the term is even more complicated.
It's not even dedicatedly left wing/right
wing, we can't even really distinguish it
from imperialism, but sometimes we can.
But we go back to the question, what does
this mean then?
Is Donald Trump calling himself a nationalist
as opposing to imperialism?
Is he saying it to say something about unfiying
as a nation?
Is he saying it as a dog-whistle about racial
nationalism?
We can't identify the original meaning behind
the term simply because there are too many
of them.
The term "nationalist" is really too vague.
And that's really the issue isn't it?
But I know how we can solve it.
Donald Trump go- Augh!
From all of this chaos, where is the meaning?
Where is the meaning in all of these terms,
behind all these different meanings behind
words?
These terms are hell!
But if the term is so vague is nationalism
even an ideology at this point?
Is anyone a nationalist?
Am I a nationalist?
Nationalism as an ideology isn't really an
ideology, at least not in the way we view
political ideologies today.
Instead it's more like a genre of ideology.
A type.
A format of ideology.
"Nationalism" in its most basic form is about
identifying with other people with a shared
history, language, culture, whatever.
Whatever your nation is, your tribe.
But what nationalism means in politics is
about aligning the resources and powers of
a country or a state with the interests of
the nation, the interests of the people so
to say.
Today this is fairly obvious.
This is how most modern countries operate
even if they define "working for the people"
a bit differently.
Nationalism grew in popularity in response
to monarchism which isn't about aligning the
resources of the country with the nation but
rather with the monarch.
The "nation" isn't what creates the state.
The monarch is the state.
Monarchism also says that the monarch knows
best.
They are ordained by god after all.
What this usually means is aligning the interests
and the goals of a nation with the interests
of the specific monarch.
And that usually means cake for the king and
nothing for the peasants.
The Monarch knows best after all.
Nationalism then says that we should be loyal
to the nation rather of the monarch.
The nation itself becomes a sort of leader
to follow.
You don't fight for "the king", you fight
for America!
And what is a nation if not the people, rather
than the crown?
This makes nationalism sound pretty democratic
actually.
But remember: fighting for "the people" means
different things to different people.
Hitler did fight for "the German People" after
all.
Instead nationalism works for the sovereignty
of the people.
And this is pretty much the case for every
single country on the globe today.
Either because they themselves decided to
be a nation, a state or because they were
forced into nationalism in response to colonialism
and imperialism.
And this is pretty much the case for every
country around the world.
Most people identify with the nation that
they currently exist within.
But there are peoples who aren't sovereign.
There are still nations who fight for independence
or sovereignty whatever that means.
But nations is the default way that people
align themselves in international politics
these days.
The idea of nationalism is so mainstream that
it's hard to imagine a world without it.
Nationalism then becomes a very vague and
complicated ideology to describe because almost
all modern political ideologies kind of stem
from a specific offshoot of nationalism.
Nationalism doesn't fit in to the spectrum
of left-right politics, instead it *is* the
spectrum.
Even the most staunch royalist that wants
to f*ck the queen probably don't actually
want the queen to have absolute political
power.
Although, maybe that is what it takes to fix
Brexit.
[God Save The Queen starts playing]
So Nationalism is still an ideology.
It's just that it hasn't been very relevant
because it has been around, it has been the
default state of politics for over a century.
but people do describe themselves as nationalists
after all.
But why?
If nationalism is the default state of politics
and almost all political ideologies are nationalist
to some degree why does Donald Trump, and
other right-wingers, call themselves nationalist?
Why do many people defend Nationalism?
Why is there a reason to do that?
Well as I mentioned there are many types of
nationalism.
But there's this specific type of nationalism
that stands above the others where nationalism
itself, the idea of the nation, is the ideology.
Nationalism 2.
Nationalism plus?
Nationalism XL.
Augh!
The only practical reason that I can think
of, of why someone would describe themselves
as a nationalist in the current political
climate where everything is nationalist to
some degree is Ultra-nationalism.
Ultra-nationalism describes an ideology that
is so nationalist that even within the generic
state of nationalism everywhere, where we
all kind of accept that we should all have
countries and nations and borders and stuff
like that , not everone agrees with that but
that is how the world operates currently,
even then it stands out as being nationalist.
This isn't just putting America first or siding
with your nation, that's just normal nationalism.
Ultra-nationalism however promises absolute
loyalty to the nation at any cost.
even at the expense of other nations, other
peoples or even it's own people.
It places "the Nation" as inherently superior
to all others.
The nation is the best thing in the world.
Ultra-nationalism also comes often with auhtoritatianism,
racism and xenophobia.
"Those damn illegals, they aren't American!"
Since nationalism is pretty much fulfilled
in most places of the world, unless you're
fighting to rid yourself of imperial rule
- [Bagpipes blaring] - stating that you are
a nationalist just adds to the normal nationalism
of the default which naturally places you
within the realm of ultra-nationalism.
And it's not like you have to look very far
to see signs of ultra-nationalism within the
right wing that I have just described.
The reason they think they can get away with
it is because of what I spoke of in the beginning.
Nationalism is a very vague term.
Nationalism doesn't actually mean that much
in itself in the current political climate
unless you know the history of the term and
how it has been used.
The right wing currently call themselves nationalist
to pre-emptivly undermine the description
of them as Ultra-nationalist.
"I'm just a nationalist, like we all are right?
We're all nationalists, it's normal to be
a nationalist.
You should be a nationalist! everyone should
be a nationalist.
How do you do, fellow ideologies?"
So it's deliberate and they are aware of the
term.
They know everything I've said in this video.
People who describe themselves as nationalist,
they know what ultra-nationalism means.
And they know they don't want to be associated
with it.
Trump: You know, they have a word.
It sort of became old fashioned.
It's called a nationalist.
And I say, really, we're not supposed to use
that word.
You know what I am?
I'm a nationalist okay?
I'm a nationalist.
Mia: And I don't think I can convince people
who are that far down the ultra-nationalist
arguement.
But if you're on the fence on nationalism,
perhaps within American discourse; know what
they mean by that.
Make sure you know what they mean when they
say nationalism.
Candace Owens: I agree, I actually have no
problems at all with the word "nationalism,
I think that it gets- uh- the definition gets
poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism.
Globalism is what I don't want.
So when you think about whenever you say nationalism,
the first thing people think about, at least
in America, is Hitler, right, he was a national-socialist?
But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany
great and have things run well, okay fine.
The problem is that he had ambitions outside
of Germany.
He wanted to globalize, he wanted everybody
to be German, everybody to be speaking German,
everybody look a different way, that's not
to me, that's not nationalism.
So I'm thinking about how we could go bad
down the line I don't really have an issue
with nationalism, I really don't, I think
that it's okay, it's important to retain your
country's identity and to make sure that what's
happening here which I think is incredibly
worrisome in terms of the just, the decrease
in the birth rate that we're seeing in the
UK is what you kind of want to avoid.
So I'm not, I don't have anything problem,
I have no problems with nationalism.
It's globalism that I try to avoid.
Mia: Technically it's true that Hitler wasn't
a nationalist in the sense that most nations
and most politicans are nationalist.
Hitler wasn't a nationalist like any other.
He was an ultra-nationalist.
Which means that Hitler was a nationalist,
just he wasn't like other nationalists.
I think most people are nationalists, even
leftists.
As I said before it's basically the ideological
foundation of modern ideologies, at least
from the 1800s and forward.
It's just that Hitler's nationalism wasn't
the defauly zeitgeisty nationalism that we
see in other political ideologies.
They went above and beyond that.
Hence the word ultra, meaning more.
More nationalism!
Ultra-nationalism.
Oh, and I wanna make clear here that I'm not
calling Donald Trump a nazi by saying this.
I am saying that in a certain field of political
ideology Donald Trump and Hitler
share a very wide ideological base.
I do believe that they are both ultra-nationalists
and that they have that in common.
But ultra-nationalism, like normal nationalism,
doesn't fit neatly into the spectrum of left-right
politics.
It all depends on the national ideas and ideals
that the nation itself has.
I'm still saying the nazis were right wing
extremists though, they were.
They did a lot more than just be ultra-nationalists
after all.
But it is technically possible for leftists
to be ultra-nationalists too.
It all has to do with the national ideas that
you base the nationalism on, and what you
base the inherent superiority of *your* nation
on.
And that can be race, as with the nazis, but
it can techically also be class belonging,
lack of class.
Anything that you think makes a nation inherently
superior to other nations is something that
can fall within the ultra-nationalist field
of ideology.
God damn, I've talked so much about the nazis
now.
I wanna talk about Donald Trump!
I don't wanna talk about the nazis all day,
this video was about Donald Trump.
Isn't he gonna Make America Great Ag-
Listen, I know the term isn't perfect.
There is contradiction in how words and terms
are used within nationalism and that's fine.
Nationalism has been around for over 200 years,
weird things happen.
That's sort of the consequence of these terms
existing in the real world and not just in
an academic, theoretical setting.
We need to look at how the terms are actually
applied in real life.
And we have seen historically how nationalism
has been used to fight imperialism, to fight
oppression.
But also we've seen how nationalism can be
used as an excuse for genocide and imperialist
expansion.
It's a term that has been used by all sorts
of people for their own ends and it's hard
to describe the term as belonging to a specific
field of ideology.
It's a very generic term.
Nationalism on it's own can mean anything.
But if you only identify as a nationalist
alone, without context you leave the viewer
to connect the dots themselves.
And that only leads one way.
It leads to ultra-nationalism.
You describe yourself as a nationalist, we
live in a world of nationalism, I can only
assume to mean nationalism plus nationalism
then, which just means more nationalism hence
ultra-nationalism.
Or you can do what the American right wing
has done and ignore any contradiction or ignore
the history of the word or ignore anything
it and just decide a new meaning of the word
nationalism.
If they could preface of contexualize their
own identification as nationalist to something
that isn't ultra-nationalist they would have
done that.
But they can't.
They lie about history of the ideology and
how the ideology of nationalism has been applied
in real life.
It's telling that they often refer to Hitler,
right?
Saying he wasn't a nationalist.
And that's an easy answer.
It's more easy to digest than the complicated
answer of: Hitler was a nationalist.
But so are most people, most political parties.
Almost all political parties around the world
are in some capacity nationalist.
And most of us exist on the spectrum that
nationalism has provided.
Which means that we need to know about the
spectrum.
And also that there are alternatives beyond
it.
We don't have to be nationalist and the alternative
isn't necesserly monarchism, or feudalism.
It can be something else, it can be something
beyond that.
Modern politics focuses a lot on economy and
social issues within the nation.
But politics can be so much more than that,
ideology can be so much more than that.
We can form our own desires beyond just economic
and social.
If we want we can picture a world that is
fundamentally different from the one we have
right now.
In every single way down to how we have borders,
if we should have borders.
And we can use political ideology and philosophy
to imagine a world that isn't necessarily
based on nations at all.
And maybe that's a better world.
Maybe it's a worse one.
but we can't have the discussion without knowing
that the possibility exists.
Radical progressive change is possible but
only if we are aware of its possibility.
After the world wars, nationalism took a step
back.
We understood the horrors that nationalism
can bring and we realized that maybe focusing
on the supermacy of a nation or even the existence
of the nation at all maybe isn't the best
way to focus our political energy.
We had a massive change in how the world operates.
The United Nations was founded and has lasted
far longer than any predecessor.
The European Union and other economic unions
throughout the world have also been founded
and have seen great success.
These institutions aren't perfect, obviously.
There can even be an argument that they are
also in some way nationalist, but for a new
age.
European nationalism, for example.
But at least they aren't built on the inherent
superiority of individual nations.
And I think that's a good thing.
In fact, it is a good thing!
We have fewer wars now between states than
we have ever had in human history.
And that's a really, really good thing.
It's easy to be pessimistic when we see armed
conflicts or bad military interventions but
at least we're not mass producting invasions
every couple of years.
And I think that's a good thing.
Donald Trump and other nationalist groups
seem to be wanting to take a step back from
this.
To retreat into borders and nations instead
of seeing that across the border there are
people who look and sound just like us.
They might not speak the same language, they
might not have the same skin color.
But we're all human.
The result of this is usually negative, even
for the people who belong to the nation they
are fighting to protect.
Because they're not really fighting for the
people.
They're fighting for the nation.
Working to help ourselves not by co-operating
with other people but helping ourselves at
the cost of others.
But we can help each other!
We don't need borders, we don't need isolation,
we don't need these things.
Working to help each other is a very good
thing.
We can be more than a nationality, and I think
we should be.
The alternative, I think, is worse.
Putting the genie back into the bottle.
It won't work.
The globe is becoming more interconnected
each and every day and it's not really gonna
slow down.
At worst we are doomed to repeat the mistakes
of the past and that is a very bad thing.
And that's why I think we shouldn't be nationalists.
Not specifically ultra-nationalists, but nationalists
in general.
We are more than belonging to a group of people,
we are all different kinds of people.
And if we all leave nationalism behind us
and instead try to embrace that we all live
together on this globe I think we can do good
things.
Trump: But radical democrats want to turn
back the clock and restore the rule of corrupt,
power-hungry globalists.
You know what a globalist is right?
You know what a globalist is.
A globalist is a person who want the globe
to do well ... [voice trails off]
Thank you for watching that video.
I want to give thanks to literally everyone
who has been watching this video and I would
only ask that you can maybe leave a like,
a comment.
If you like what I do I suggest that you subscribe
because I like to think I do good videos but
that has still to be determined.
I also want to thank Baphometrix for allowing
me to use some really, really great tracks
as music for this video.
You can find a link to their website in the
description.
I also to thank Harry Bomberguy, more known
as Hbomb, hBomberguy for providing the voice
of my plant for that very specific joke.
Thank you so much Harry, it really means a
lot.
I want to give a special thanks to all my
patrons especially Alice.
Amelia Fletcher.
Christopher Steinmuller.
Dan Sinfield.
Dirty computer.
Eggs_box.
Emil Rutowski.
Emma (not) Goldman.
Foxx Cant.
Ibrahim Aldrige.
Jørgen Danielsen.
Katarzyna JJ.
Linus2Punk0.
Rosie.
Ryan Kolak.
Sinzdri.
Wario van Pebbles.
William Pietri.
and Wrex.
Thank you.
Honestly, to everyone who supports my content
as a patron or subscriber or anything: I love
you so much.
Thank you so so so very much.
