All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:12
100 Social Fictions Part 1

The myths of falsehoods

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
It's Steph.
It's 8.20 in the morning on February the 14th, 2006.
I hope you're doing well and a very happy Valentine's Day to you.
And I'd like to chat this morning about a topic that was mentioned or I mentioned based on a fine young libertarian's email on this question of the social construction of reality.
So we'll leave the soul of a soldier and return to less controversial topics, although very interesting, because in this division between the theory and its application, everybody who's intelligent and logical loves philosophy as a theory.
Very few of us have the stomach for its consistent application, and I speak of myself among that number as well.
It can be very hard to see the applications of philosophical thought In the real world, and it can be certainly more comfortable to pursue the logic within one's own mind, and then try and detach the consequences of that logic from the world.
But I don't think that's a productive thing to do.
However hard it may be emotionally to deal with the effects of philosophy, it is the most powerful science in the world, and it is the science upon which all Other sciences and human happiness itself depends.
So, although it is difficult, it is only difficult because we have been so misinstructed throughout our lives and so subject to pretty horrific levels of propaganda.
So, it's fun to talk about the theory, and I love the theory, don't get me wrong, but it's the application where, as they say, the rubber hits the road.
So let's talk about this idea of the social construction of reality, which is a very prevalent notion these days, and which is a very fascinating package of thought.
Not least because it is one of these packages that, if believed, becomes true.
Which is a very, I mean, true relative to when it's not believed.
So that is a fascinating part of thought.
So for instance, if you believe, a sort of similar example would be if you believe that God rules your life, and you then pray, and whatever you get back from the void is what rules your life, and you submit to a church whose edicts then rule your life, then what you're saying is, my beliefs will rule my life.
But then it becomes true because it is believed.
Because you believe that your beliefs rule your life, your beliefs end up ruling your life.
So these are particular instances of thought patterns that are very hard to untangle and get rid of in people's minds, because they are self-fulfilling prophecies, and the social construction of reality completely falls into that category.
And one of the reasons that it is such a tough and resistant strain of irrationality It's because it is one of these packages that, when believed, becomes true, and therefore it's highly resistant to analysis and interpretation and correction.
Which, of course, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, because the truth is the finest game in the Mental Hunters universe.
So let's have a look at this package and see what we can't do with it.
So, to sum it up briefly, this idea of the social construction of reality is to say that... It says something like, what we believe is placed there by the opinions of others.
So, if I believe that the United States was justified in bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima because they were supposed to save a million lives from the invasion and so on, and I don't ever look up the fact that three weeks before They dropped the bomb, that there was very clear indicators that Harry Truman had very clear indicators that the Japanese wanted to surrender and were willing to do so unconditionally, and so on.
And then, if I believe that this occurred because of the need to save lives, why then, I believe that it was a moral act and a regrettable but necessary thing, and the Japanese sneak attacked us in Pearl Harbor, and all I know is everything in isolation.
Like, the Japanese just attacked American ships out of nowhere, because those crazy Japanese, who knows what they're going to do next?
And then the Japanese tortured American GIs during the Second World War and had kamikaze planes and were, you know, brutal, cold, vicious, evil people with no feelings and, you know, nothing but hatred and, you know, all of that sort of race hatred that drives a lot of these kinds of conflicts.
And then there was just no way to get Japan to surrender other than invasion, which would have cost a million American lives.
And therefore, regrettably, the only thing to do from the U.S.
was to bomb these civilians.
And that is what caused Japan to surrender.
And although it cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Japan, it saved many more, both Japanese and American lives.
So it was one of these necessary evils.
That had to occur in order to save everybody from the horrors of an invasion.
Well, what you get out of that, of course, is a fable, a tale which explains the obvious genocidal destruction of hundreds of thousands of Japanese huddled in their homes out of a clear blue sky when they, of course, were subject themselves to dictatorial commandments and had no capacity to overthrow their own emperor.
Also, the other aspect of these kinds of fables is to portray a fight when there is no fight.
This is one of the major aspects of war, which is that you need to believe that your enemies are powerful, and that makes your soldiers brave and noble, and the threat very real, and so on.
And, of course, one of the things that even as a teenager I remember being rather baffled by was why the Japanese would fly their planes into the sides of the American ships in the Kamikaze approach.
And, of course, they're simply smacks of desperation that they simply don't have the kind of equipment that it would require to really make this work.
You know, to really be able to oppose the U.S.
Navy.
And the other thing, of course, that never made any sense to me was that, you know, we were always taught that capitalism was productive.
I mean, that was something that was generally believed, and that dictatorships were not.
That was part of the whole Cold War thing.
So it sort of made it hard to understand exactly how Japan, which was a command-and-control economy, could fight against the free market U.S.
in the long run.
So there were lots of questions that even I had as a kid.
But, if you just sort of accept this narrative, like there's the narrative of Jesus, which also is just a sort of bunch of made-up stuff that's collated from a large number of characteristics of earlier heroes.
And so, if you believe these stories or these fables, then that becomes your, quote, reality.
These beliefs or these fables or these fairy tales then become what it is that you call reality, and you make your decisions based on that.
And the whole purpose of these fables or fairy tales is to provide instant answers to complex questions.
It's not philosophy.
It's not even philosophy for dummies.
It is lies for dummies, I guess you could say.
It is things... And again, I'm not saying that people who believe these things are fools.
It's simply that... I mean, no, I can't speak Polish, but that doesn't mean that I'm a fool when it comes to speaking Polish.
It simply means that I neither have the time nor the incentive and perhaps not even the particular skill to speak Polish.
And it's also true when it comes to what could be called historical revisionism.
That people simply don't have the time, they're stuffed full of this nonsense when they're in high school and junior high school and in university.
And then they are simply told, sorry, they then go on with their lives, and they have to get things done, and they have to work at their jobs, and they have to raise their children, and they simply don't have time to go and look into one.
And what would be the point?
What would be the point for most people of digging deep into philosophy and try and finding out the facts of history, when even if they do that, then what difference is going to make in the world?
It's not going to really make any difference.
I mean, if everybody suddenly realized that the truth about the American involvement in the Second World War, or the war crimes of Churchill, or whatever it is, I mean, what difference would it really make?
It's kind of interesting old topics.
I mean, if I could snap my fingers and have people in the world understand this, it would be helpful.
Because then at least you have a reference point to say, ah, well, you know, then they said the Japanese were aggressive in the early 1940s, but it turns out that America had provoked this aggression through sanctions.
Well, they said that Iraq was aggressive in 2002, And it turns out that they had provoked Iraq to the degree which it even was aggressive, which is pretty questionable.
They had provoked Iraq based on sanctions.
And so, although it turns out they don't even need an attack anymore, I mean, they just can go and invade anyway.
So, learning the truth about history would be very helpful for people, but nobody's really going to bother to do it, and no teacher is going to bother to teach it.
This is one of the problems with propaganda.
It's intergenerational.
And that's why it's so important for the state to sort of lay quiet and educate the kids and do no wrong for the first generation that it's educating them because if you were a teacher who began teaching the truth about something like Pearl Harbor and you taught it to the kid who was in a military family who had been force-fed or
I guess bottle-fed all of these falsehoods about the military, then the next thing you know, there would be pickets, there would be chants, there would be calls for resignation, and the kids would be traumatized, and the kids would be upset, and the children would very quickly have to revert.
To their parents' beliefs, because they have to get along within this family of military people, and if they continue to be kids who, you know, question the value of the military, I mean, they're just gonna have a wretched life.
And of course, a wretched childhood, for sure.
And they're not gonna change their parents, so...
There's really no benefit in it whatsoever for a teacher to attempt to teach this kind of stuff more realistically.
I have a tougher time understanding why that's less the case in university.
I really can't figure out exactly why professors are so cowardly.
because they have tenure and they don't have nearly as much problem with parents storming their educational facilities and so on.
The only thing that I can really imagine is that tenure, as one of these state-backed, union-based things, always achieves the opposite of what it intends or what it claims to intend.
So, of course, tenure was brought in to protect professors who were critical of the establishment.
And all it means, generally, is that professors will now no longer get hired if they are genuinely critical of the establishment.
And what I mean by that is that they don't fall into the generally lefty view of, let's get socialized medicine and get out of Saudi Arabia.
And there are some right-wing professors, but very few.
Most of them fall into the middle-left view.
And so tenure, it simply means that you're not going to hire anybody who is going to be difficult or uncomfortable or controversial to work with, and therefore you're going to want to hire everybody who's just got a sort of hand-me-down photocopy of your own general prejudices and precepts.
That's the only thing that I can think of.
Because I know if I was a professor who had tenure, I would directly engage the falsehoods that had been pumped into the children's minds through the educational system, but that's probably one reason why nobody was ever interested in my thoughts or ideas when I was a graduate student, although I wasn't exactly soft-spoken, and I think that the ideas were interesting enough to warrant
Further attention, but it was very very hard to get through graduate school And I had to do a lot of I had to use a lot of emotional skills to get through and not the kind of emotional skills that I like to use but the sort of political emotional skills that You need to do to get through in a corrupt environment when you have a goal so
This idea of the social construction of reality is to say that people live in a world that is artificially constructed by others.
And there's lots of talks about patriarchy in the media in these kinds of situations.
So the media portrays a certain type of information or a certain world of information And what happens then is that people absorb that as if it's the real world.
And they live in a propagandistic, concocted fantasy of other people's construction.
And they think that that is reality.
And, of course, there's a truth in that.
And the greatest truth of that, though, is religious.
I mean, this is one of the ways that you can get people to understand this idea which this teacher in the The email that the Young Libertarian sent me could have done if he had a pair of cojones to take on the real issues.
He could have said, look, if you believe in Jesus, and you believe in the resurrection, and you believe in the virgin birth, and you believe in the three magi, then you believe that this is all specific historical facts that has occurred, and so on, and yet there's no historical evidence that it did.
There was a 40-year gap, at least, Before the Gospels began to be written after the supposed death of Jesus, some people put it hundreds of years earlier, and Jesus is an amalgam of a number of other mythical figures in the past, the Dionysus and Osiris and so on, who all had these sort of 22 checkpoints of mythical figures.
I can't remember them all, but they're very interesting to review.
And so people believe this as if it's true, but they don't realize that it is a story that has been concocted based on its appeal to well-known emotional hot buttons in the human psyche.
And so, that's a pretty important way to look at something like the social construction of reality.
I mean, for instance, is it 22% of Americans believe that the rapture is going to occur in their lifetime?
The only thing that I can say is, good Lord, is there any way that I can speed this thing up?
Is there any way that we can, you know, throw some loose change into the get the rapture here quick coin box, so that we can get these crazy lunatic Christians taken up to heaven and leave the world a little bit more peaceful and quiet and rational thereafter?
But sadly, all they do is talk about going.
They don't actually leave.
It's like the annoying party guest who just says, oh it's late, I better go, and then sits down and starts to tell another boring story about backpacking through Indonesia.
So, and I think another 20% or so, so almost half of Americans believe that the rapture is going to happen within the next 50 years, is going to or likely to happen.
So these people, of course, are living in a socially constructed reality because these rapture books, I can't remember what they're called, but they sell in the millions.
They talk about this coming time when all the faithful are taken up to heaven and there's even a website, I think called raptureletters.com, which will email to your godless friends and family after you've been taken up.
It will email everybody and say, oh, you might be able to catch the last ride up, but you have to do X, Y, and Z and come join me in heaven and so on.
So these people are living in a socially constructed reality.
They are living in a fable and believing that it is true.
And from that standpoint, the professor is correct in that if you simply accept what anybody says on face value, and this of course includes me as much as if not more than most people because I'm telling you things that are fairly counter to what social reality tells you.
But everything that everybody says, if you just accept it on face value and believe it and chant and, you know, drink the Kool-Aid and so on, then you are living within a socially constructed reality and that is a true statement.
However, it's not a completely true, it's certainly not a comprehensively true statement.
So, for instance, it would be true to say that the people who live in the world of the Rapture and the coming Armageddon and so on, that they are living partially within a fiction.
And they're only living very partially within a fiction.
And that's a very important thing to understand.
Nobody lives completely in a socially created world.
Nobody lives completely in a fictional world.
That would be the argument of the Descartesian demon.
For those who've never read Descartes, his basic belief or approach is, he sort of sat down in his study and he said to himself, what if nothing that I perceive is true?
What if the entire basis of my perception was If all of my perceptions were the result of an omnipotent demon who had me in his thrall, in the grasp of his horny hand, and was manipulating my brain, and I could be sort of a brain floating in a tank somewhere, and all of my stimuli were being manipulated by this external demon, then nothing that I perceived would be true, and none of my memories would be true.
This sort of matrix thing, right?
That everything's implanted and everything's created and controlled by some sort of external force.
And he said, well, the only thing that would then be certain in that world, or in that nightmare, the only thing that would then be certain is the fact that I am being fooled.
So I can't trust any of my perceptions, but I do know for a fact that I am being fooled, or I am being controlled, my senses are being controlled.
Which is the root of his, I think, therefore I am.
Which is that if the world is entirely created by a demon and your senses are all manipulated by some external force, then you can't be sure of anything except for the fact that you exist because something must exist to be fooled.
Even if everything you perceive is an illusion, the fact that you perceive is not an illusion, and therefore you exist.
This is, of course, somebody attempting to fight off a severe form of mental illness and failing.
As I remember talking about this with my philosophy prof, this super annuated gentleman who taught me this relatively early on in my academic career, career for want of a better word, I simply asked, well, what would the evidence be for the existence of this demon?
And of course, he just gave me that thousand-yard stare, which people always give you when you ask them questions that they are pompously pretending to have the answers to and don't.
Then they always give you that hostile stare.
And the funny thing, of course, that this guy was very keen on Socrates.
But you try turning the Socratic method on any of these pompous windbags and they will immediately get cold, hostile, withdrawn and punish you with bad marks.
I learned that fairly early on.
That what people say they praise is very rarely what they actually want to experience.
So this is also true for a lot of people who praise war.
The people who praise war tend to be rich and right-wing and white, and they generally are older, and they have no possibility of ever going to war, and they also have no possibility of their children ever going to war, so lo and behold, they think it's a noble endeavor.
But if you suddenly put them on the front, you take Bill O'Reilly, you plop him down in a Humvee with no protection, riding over some IED-strewn wasteland in Kabul, then he's suddenly probably going to change his mind a little bit about the nobility of war, and he's going to hope to keep his testicles and legs and head and arms intact.
And it's going to lose a little bit the larger vision of the noble purpose of US foreign policy.
So, this idea that everything is created is ridiculous.
I mean, there's simply... Occam's Razor simply deals with this very effectively by saying, okay, well, where's the proof?
And there is no proof, and therefore, who cares?
It doesn't matter.
But in that case, somebody is being entirely manipulated by external reality, or all of their senses are being manipulated by external reality.
But in the Cartesian world, the falsehood can be identified.
There's only one true or false statement, which is, do I exist?
Am I being fooled?
And if the answer is yes, then something has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt, which surmounts all of the illusory capacities of this external demon.
So the fact that you do exist is a fact, and everything else could be a falsehood, but that is a fact.
So that is not a socially constructed entity.
So if I grew up believing in all this Christian nonsense and, you know, fabled historical nonsense, then, yeah, I sort of live in a lot of fiction, but the fact that I live and believe this fiction is not a fiction.
So, nobody lives completely in a fictional universe.
And, of course, people don't do a lot in this fictional universe.
So, if you're a Christian, you're going to go to church, and you're going to give some tithes over.
Maybe you're going to do this, that, and the other.
You're not going to go around shooting Jews.
You're not going to go around shooting homosexuals, and you're not going to go around killing atheists and stoning to death adulterers and so on.
I mean, it's very rare.
I mean, the odd lunatic who actually takes Christianity seriously, or as the Islamics do, as I think I wrote in an email to a young lady that Islam is Christianity taken seriously.
And it's still not taken totally seriously, because they should be over here killing us in greater numbers than they ever want to do.
And so they don't really believe in that either, but nobody believes completely in the social fictions that they are handed down.
It's a convenient way of answering troubling questions.
And it's sort of a ritual.
It's like a ritual.
Somebody asks you a question, where did you come from?
Well, God made me.
It's a way of just getting rid of difficult or troublesome or consuming questions without having to think.
So, there's sort of a mental convenience.
You know, we are the greatest country in the earth.
Well, we're the only country that used atomic weapons on anybody ever.
So isn't that kind of evil?
No!
We were saving lives!
Right?
So it's just a way of getting rid of troubling questions.
You want these incantations, these magical spells, to eliminate the need to analyze anything.
And what's the purpose of my life?
Well, to serve Jesus.
And you don't have to think about it anymore.
And that's sort of really the purpose of it.
And it's not that people don't want to think.
People desperately do want to think.
Which is why Christians are so insane.
They're simply not ever taught to think.
They're taught that thinking is evil and wrong.
To question faith is the mock of the devil.
Beelzebub and Satan are at your throat.
And so you can't do any of that stuff.
You can't sort of question faith.
And so you're really scarred.
You have lots of scar tissue where your creative thinking original personality should be.
You just have this wad of brutalized scar tissue.
So you can't think, right?
And you still have pain and agony and distortion in your false self because it is so destroyed the true self, but you still don't live completely in this fiction.
And you know this because, of course, Christians go to doctors when everything is supposed to be fated.
And, yeah, I mean, there's lots of ways that you can tell that people don't live completely in these fictions.
So, it would be more true to say that everybody lives in a social construct to varying degrees, and those degrees are never very great.
And those social constructs are generally only activated when a threat to the thought system comes along, to something which questions the veracity Or the independent verifiability of these thought systems.
When something like that comes along, then the thought system rouses itself from a sort of sluggish state and activates itself to beat back this virus of truth with the antibodies of chanting, incantation or just ways of thinking that are comfortable and familiar and banish truth.
And they also make, of course, they make A true question, or an honest question, or an honest exploration, or curiosity, they make that in to be a desperate evil that must be fought.
And if you ask these questions, then you're evil.
And so, you know, it all uses the argument for morality and so on, but the issue would be more truthful to say that people are controlled By thought systems that are inflicted upon them through grave punishment and threat and some mild rewards through other people.
And this causes people to be desperately harmed mentally for the remainder of their lives to the point where they attack what could actually nourish them and feed on what is actually starving them.
But they don't live completely in this social reality because no one has the capacity to rearrange your entire sensual evidence.
I mean, nobody has ever been able to make me see God or anything like that.
So there's no way that people actually live in this social reality.
It's just an eject reaction that people have when faced with difficult questions.
Why are we in Iraq?
Well, Bush wants us to be there, and we're doing this, and we're doing that, and we're saving the Iraqi people, and we're getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and we're hunting al-Qaeda, and we're establishing peace in the Middle East.
These are all just incantations.
People don't actually think through these things and come up with these conclusions.
They just are told these things, or read them in the newspaper, or see them on Fox News, or see them on some PBS station, or hear them, and they just repeat these things.
They're just incantations which eliminate the need for thought.
And they are fictions, but people don't live in them.
They just use them to get rid of troubling questions.
So, the other question, of course, is that when people say that people live in a social reality and everybody derives their opinions from other people, there are a number of other questions which would naturally come to mind about this.
Which is, I mean, some of the ones are, is the belief that people live in a social fiction part of the social fiction that people live in?
That's a very important question, although it does sound a little like a circular Mobius strip.
It's a very important question.
So if a teacher comes to me and says, we all live in a social fiction, Then I would say, well, so you're telling me that I live in a social fiction?
Yes.
Well, is your belief that I live in a social fiction part of that social fiction?
Yes.
Well, then it's not true, so I don't believe it.
So forget it.
I think your position is obviously false.
And if they say, well, people live in a social fiction, And I say, is the belief that we live in a social fiction part of that social fiction?
And they say, no, it is outside that social fiction and part of the realm of truth.
Then it's relatively easy to say, okay, so then people don't live in a social fiction.
They may live partially in a social fiction, and I may have lived in a social fiction until this very moment that you have told me that I live in a social fiction, but now that I believe that, I don't completely live in a social fiction, so it's one of these truths that simply can't be true.
The moment you say it, you have penetrated this social fiction and established something that is considered to be true outside of the social fiction, and therefore it's not the case that we do live in this social fiction.
Now the other thing is that Who would be the first person to come up with this idea that we live in a social fiction?
If human beings live in a social fiction, and everything that we believe is derived from the beliefs of others, well then, what was the first cause of belief?
There is no possibility of a first cause of belief if everybody believes things that were simply told to them by others.
Then who was the first person to come up with those beliefs that were to be inflicted or communicated through the social fiction mechanism?
Well, there is simply no way.
Somebody had to come up with beliefs to begin with in order for this social fiction idea to work.
And where did they come up with those beliefs?
Well, they couldn't have come up with their beliefs because other people had told them, because the social fiction myth disallows that.
Everybody gets their beliefs from other people.
And so if everybody gets their beliefs from other people, you have this infinite chain of causality going back to the beginning of the universe and beyond, wherein people just are inheriting their beliefs from others.
And so they have to say that there's some capacity to come up with thoughts that are not part of the social fiction.
And of course this would be consistent with the idea that we can think that there is such a thing as a social fiction which is not part of the social fiction and so on.
So, since human beings do have the ability to come up with alternatives to the existing orthodoxies, to the existing fictions, then the question is, where do they come up with those ideas?
Where do those ideas come from?
They can't come from other people, because they're original, relatively, and even if they say, well, those things are derived, then that's fine, but they then have the problem of saying, but they're adapted and they're changed, and there's something new that's added to the mix, and where does that come from, and so on.
So then they may have to say people are born with innate ideas, or people can think for themselves, or manipulate symbols and come up with new things, and therefore not everybody lives in a social fiction.
There's a number of other approaches to dealing with the logical issues that are brought up by the problem of people believing in a social fiction.
Another one is sort of in the general broad sweep of history.
Why is it, particularly over the last 500 years or so, why is it there have been such enormous changes in the way that people think?
For instance, I mean, 500 years ago everybody was crazy religious and Christian and, you know, we lived in theocracies and, you know, the life expectancy was 20 odd years and there was no such thing as the free market, there was no such thing as intellectuals, there was no such thing like you could go on and on.
I think you get the idea.
And now, so much later, not that much later relative to human history as a whole, a couple hundred years later, everything's changed, and even if you look at people's perceptions about things like racism 75 years ago or 50 years ago compared to today, where I think we've swung a little too far the other side into political correctness, but that's not particularly relevant here, then people's ideas do change, people's minds do change.
And they would say, well, it's the creation of a new narrative which you impose upon society or you stimulate debate within society.
But does the problem still exist?
That if everybody lives in a social fiction, then why would society ever change?
Even if you deal with the problem of the first cause of the social fiction, which is logically impossible, then you still have to answer the empirical question that societies change enormously, and why would they change if everybody simply derived their beliefs from other people?
So that's another important question which really can't be answered under this realm of social fiction.
Now, politically though, even if you did believe in something like the social fiction, then the first thing that you would want to do, logically, would be to get rid of public education.
That would be the very first logical thing.
I mean, if you assume that the social fiction is a bad thing, then you would look for its greatest manifestation in society.
That would sort of be the most logical thing.
Then, without a doubt, the greatest infliction of what is called a social fiction or propaganda Is that exists in the world outside of perhaps the schools within the Muslim world is public education throughout the world and particularly I would say particularly in the West because it's all over the world.
Let's just say public education all over the world.
So if the infliction of a social fiction... I think I'm starting to wrap here.
If the infliction of a social fiction is a problem, in other words, people live partially in social fiction and partially in reality, and we should want them to live more in reality, then the logical solution, the first and foremost logical solution to that issue would be to deal with the real cause of the problem, or the greatest infliction of social fiction, which is the public school educational system.
So, if these people really did believe that social fictions exist, that you shouldn't live in them, then they'll look for the greatest transfer of social fictions, which would be the public school, right?
14 years as a child, 6-7 hours a day with homework, is a fairly rigorous and consistent exposure to the big lies of society, and therefore, in order to rescue minds, tender young minds from those lies, you'd want to get rid of public school education and so on.
That would be the logical result.
But of course, no.
I mean, they never pick on public school education for a variety of reasons, but what they do is they pick on the media, and they pick on capitalists, and they want more government, and they want more publicly funded things, and they want more socialized medicine, and so they obviously don't really have any interest in this idea of the social fiction per se, because if they did believe in it, then they would look for Public school education is the primary cause of it, and would oppose public school education, but which they never do.
So we know for sure that they're not really interested in this thing called social fiction and alleviating it, which means that they must have another purpose for this idea of social fiction.
Everyone's beliefs are created through other people's beliefs, and we can't think for ourselves, and people don't even know it, and so on.
So the question of what Other reason they have I'm sure is fairly evident, so I'll talk about it briefly this afternoon, but it's a very interesting Area to look at logically because
It does seem to be the case, to me at least, that, and I'll try and make a strong case for it this afternoon, that the social fiction that they're so hated, that they dislike so much and feel so in master of, they're actually the primary proponents of it and don't know it.
So it's one of these sort of ironic things where people say that, you know, they, I have found the enemy, but they never say and the enemy is me.
They always say that the enemy is some defenseless media capitalist who they can portray as evil so they never have to deal with the corruption of their own thinking and the brutalization of their own personality that occurred through their own primary public school education.
So, thanks again for listening.
▲
Export Selection