All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:13:54
752 Board Attacks Part 2: Mythology

The application of the FDR 'mythology' theories to the recent Board eruption

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, good afternoon everybody.
Hope you're doing well. It's Steph.
It's time for our walk and talkies.
And I wanted to thank a listener who has posted a question about the recent series on mythology.
Who said that, given that I had pointed out that this was as far as I'd been able to get in terms of philosophy in this particular area, Seemed alarmed and thought that perhaps I was just about to quit, which would not be the way to approach,
I think, a full-time gig, but what I meant by that was in the sort of, in the cult we call culture, there's a reason the first four letters are a cult, there is, this is sort of as far as I've been able to get, but, I mean, there's tons of other stuff to talk about, and, of course, as this conversation begins to work its way through the system, In our community, there will be more for everyone to add in the realm of culture and storytelling.
But he said that he kind of got that it was important, or at least important to staff, but he didn't quite get it.
What he got out of it was that people tell lies to control others, which he felt that we already knew.
And I'm relieved to find out that somebody had listened to those.
I actually... Must have checked the server two or three times to make sure I posted them correctly, because I thought there may be some comments that would come out of that series, but there hadn't been, so I'm glad that it seemed self-evident, though.
It was not self-evident to me, but that again could be just because I'm processing it from a different angle or a different way.
So I thought what might be useful is to take the principles that we were talking about in the mythology series and apply them to the recent altercation on the board.
And again, this is not just because it's a good primary source for this kind of stuff, I would say.
And because it's a good primary source for this kind of stuff, and it's something that We just talked about, I think it's going to be easier than me reading some, I don't know, some political tract or some overview of mythology or some statement from the Greek mythos or whatever.
So, since we have this material on hand, I thought it might be useful to take the principles that we talked about in mythology and to try and apply them to this altercation so that we can see I think, or at least try to see where people were coming from in this realm.
So the basic principles that I was talking about in the mythology series is that people invent stories and pass them off as reality, and the myth that they create, the story that they create, has a central character called virtue.
And if people believe in that central character called virtue, then They really have no choice but to obey the person who has created the story.
So, yeah, now we don't have traffic noises as much anymore, and the quality of the mic isn't quite as good.
I have not been able to find an over-the-ear, hands-free mic that has the same quality as the Sony's, but I don't want to have an hour or so walk hunched over a handheld microphone, so if anybody knows of any good hands-free microphones, that would be excellent. But now we don't have the traffic noise as much as we have the intermittent airplane noise.
I don't live more than a couple dozen miles from an airport, and so that's what that is.
Just in case you're wondering, I'm not sneaking off to work and pretending to be working on Freedermade Radio.
So I'd like to have a look at this, and we can see what happens when a story is challenged, or when the person doesn't know that it's a story, at least consciously.
So To return back.
And if this makes no sense to you, if you could listen to the previous podcast, which I think is 751, that would probably be quite helpful.
This won't make as much sense to you.
That's why we talked about this disagreement.
So, Bob puts forward something, and there's a story in this as well.
There's a story in everything that everybody does, including me.
I just try to reference a story to reality.
Reality is, to some degree, interpretation, always at some levels.
When we try to gain the lessons out of something like the American Revolution, or the Enlightenment, or the hellish French Revolution, we try to get morals out of these, but there's always some interpretation involved in this, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Science is also an interpretation of reality, but it's one which tries to be reproducible, logical, methodical, and subject to the scientific method peer review and so on.
All of that is required because the mind can make errors, right, as we talked about.
Oh, Lord! Back in, what, 373, the intro to philosophy?
So we can make errors, and so we are constantly...
We need a community.
We need a community of people to watch our backs.
And so here we have somebody who's posted a deathbed confession audio tape.
And the question is, of course, the first question to ask...
It's exactly the same as to ask in a dream, right?
So in a dream, if you dream of a, I don't know, a flying manta ray, like a manta ray flying through the air, the question is, why a manta ray?
Why is it out of its element?
Blah, blah, blah. Because your dreams can produce anything.
Now, there's a near infinite amount of material on the internet, and heaven knows I'm doing my part to add to that.
And... I have to find the right...
Sorry. As I begin to navigate this new environment, I'm aware that there is...
I've got two fuzzies over the microphone, but this can be a windy area, so I'm trying to do my best to keep the wind noise down.
I've already had to throw out a podcast because the wind noise was too high, so I'm trying to do my best to...
Sort that out, so if you'll excuse me while I try and work with this a little bit, I have the feedback from the iRiver going into my earphones, because I know you're just fascinated with the technical details of my podcasting.
I'm sorry, let me continue with the reason why we're talking.
So, of all of the material that is put out there, is available on the internet, why is it That this gentleman is posting, Bob, why is he posting this deathbed confession?
What is the purpose of that?
Let me just wait for this truck to go by.
I'm actually down, I'm going to go through a walk through the conservation area, so it should be pretty quiet in a moment, but...
There's a garbage truck going down to pick up the garbage.
Again, more details about my podcasting that you don't care about.
So the question is, why would Bob put this forward?
And Bob later says that this would be huge if it were discovered.
If it were discovered. So he's putting forward, and admittedly, of course, it is a conspiracy theory, whether we like to label it that way or not.
It is a conspiracy theory regarding JFK. And whether Lyndon Johnson was part of the assassination and the cover-up and all this kind of stuff, right?
The Warren Report and so on.
And these kinds of things are legion in libertarian and other kinds of circles that people are straining for a gotcha.
People are straining for a gotcha for the state.
Like, if they can only get the state in the act of murdering a president, then somehow this will wake people up to the evil of the state.
And I don't think that's true at all.
I mean, I just don't think it's true.
I think it's as much of a waste of time as trying to figure out 9-11.
All the evidence is gone, and there's just no way that the truth is going to come out.
People are dead and all that kind of stuff.
So JFK, of course, even more nuts and sort of distant in the past and so on.
So people are looking for a gotcha.
They're looking to seize upon something nefarious that the state has done so that They think that they will then...
I mean, I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of it is in terms of politics, what the cover story is, why people want to grab a hold of something that's happened in the realm of the state and give that to people so that what?
So that people will recognize that the state is evil?
But they won't. But they won't.
I mean, just my perspective, again, could be right or wrong, it's just what I'm thinking, but...
And JFK started a war, the Vietnam War, which resulted in the deaths of three million Asians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and so on.
And that's just a guess.
I mean, they can't even round it off to the nearest million and get it accurate.
So, we have three million murders, started by Kennedy, continued by Johnson, and ended...
Well, for a variety of reasons, some of which we know and some of which we don't, public resentment and so on.
We then end up with the war being carried on by three presidents.
Three million people killed, and this is just one of the things that the U.S. was involved in during the 60s and the 70s.
So you got three million people killed over in Vietnam, or, you know, a couple million for sure.
And this is record, right?
I mean, this is not guesswork.
This is not pure imagination on anyone's part.
This is record. There's a couple of million people murdered over in Asia.
Now, it would seem to me that that is kind of like a gotcha.
It would seem to me that murdering a couple of million people, which we legitimately revile the Nazis for doing, would be kind of like a gotcha for the state.
But apparently, it's not.
For some people. For some people, the gotcha is an unverified deathbed confession from a dubious source about a possible murder of one guy 40 years ago.
That's... Right, that's the gotcha.
And it just seems to me that's kind of like missing the point.
But like if there was a House episode where a guy came in with both of his legs bitten off by a shark, and House said, all right, people, differential diagnosis.
How are we going to figure out what's wrong with this guy?
Let's run all the esoteric tests in the world.
Let's go with all the wild theories.
You know, come on, people, think.
Everybody lies. He must be lying about the shark attack.
What should we do? And I sort of feel like the guy in the room saying, but both of his legs have been bitten off, we might want to staunch the blood flow from the femoral artery, and, you know, maybe work from there, because he's got about 12 seconds to live.
That's my perspective, right?
I mean, I don't think we need a gotcha like 9-11.
I don't think we need a gotcha like the murder of JFK. I don't think we need any of that.
I mean, we've got governments that murdered 270 million people outside of wars in the last century alone.
And here we are, scrabbling around 40-year-old vague deathbed confessions about the murder of one guy.
By God, people!
Do you not think that we're missing the boat a little bit?
But, of course, it's not about the state.
It's about the family. It's not about the state.
It's not about the state. I sort of have this theory, and all the conspiracy theorists in the world will jump down my throat for this, which is fine, and that's part of what we do.
But I do have this theory that people who are into conspiracy theories had subtly brutal but conformist parents, parents who were embedded in a social situation or social structure that gave those parents a good deal of positive reinforcement.
So, you know, some sort of corrupt clergyman or some sort of public servant or executive within the civil service or some sort of businessman in questionable areas of business, but who got a lot of social feedback, who got a lot of social feedback, positive social feedback.
Fortunately, things that my parents never really got.
So I didn't have that problem.
But if you have a parent who was brutal or verbally abusive or emotionally distant or just bad in some way, but that parent got an enormous amount of social positive reinforcement, then it would seem to me very likely that you would be kind of obsessed with a gotcha. then it would seem to me very likely that you That you want to catch a parent doing something bad to validate all of the unconscious feelings of abandonment or abuse that you have received, which society is praising them for.
So you kind of really want a gotcha.
You want to catch your, I don't know, your dad molesting a hamster or, I don't know, drinking or having an affair.
You want a gotcha so you can finally put the screws on this guy who was really bad to you when you were a child, but who had a really great and positive social acceptance factor.
And of course, that translates itself to the government, right?
That The government has a very positive social acceptance factor, but is responsible for innumerable crimes, which people don't ever pay attention to.
So I think that what happens is people who've got these kinds of parents who are socially accepted and positive, they transfer those feelings and say, oh, if I get a gotcha to the government, then that's going to satisfy me.
And of course, the fact that they miss the major crimes while being obsessed with the minor crimes that are unprovable...
It indicates to me that the gotcha would be kind of painful to them, and they have very mixed feelings about it, ambiguity, and they're kind of half sure that they're wrong about all of this, and they kind of want to find out the truth, but then they pick stuff which is non-provable, and they have a very ambivalent relationship to their own parents.
And the reason for that, of course, is that they have a very...
I'm being chased by the garbage truck now, so...
The sound quality is just beautiful out here, let me tell you.
So they have an ambivalent relationship because, of course, it has a lot more to do with society as a whole than their parents in particular, right?
This whole sort of problem or issue.
And because of that, they end up being really focused on this stuff, right?
So when you look at the story that is wrapped around Bob's post about E. Howard Hunt...
If I'm right. I mean, that's just a theory.
I can't prove this kind of stuff.
Unless, you know, Bob were to be, like, radioactively honest about stuff which he may not have the capacity to be honest about stuff.
Or, of course, I mean, I could just be wrong.
This is just my formulation, right?
So, see if you find it helpful.
So, if I'm right about this, if the reason that Bob is posting this deathbed confession, E. Howard Hunt, CIA assassination team to kill JFK, and this and that and the other, if I'm right in this formulation that this is really about his own family and his desire to both get his parents in their malfeasance or corruption or evil or whatever,
if his... If his desire is a highly charged, ambivalent, wanna-get-cha kind of thing with his parents, then that's why he's posting this.
That's why he's posting this.
Because he both wants to get his parents, but at the same time, he also wants to not get his parents.
Because his parents don't want to be gotten, right?
So, this is somebody whose ego is not strong at all.
And because his ego is not strong...
And this is just an indication of both his abuse and also his approach to it, right?
So if his ego is not strong, then he's going to have a true self that wants to get his parents, and a false self, which is largely his parents' personalities, or lack thereof, which don't want to be gotten.
I'm sorry this is all so complicated, but I think that you sort of, you know, the people who harm us, we want to speak the truth, they don't want us to speak the truth.
But the truth can't be ignored completely, because that would be to be insane, right?
And we all have a reality processing that we have to process.
You know, just a, I'm thirsty, get a glass of water kind of thing.
So you can't get rid of the truth completely without going mad.
So there's a complex and deep and ambivalence here.
His parents don't want to be gotten.
He wants to get them, and he's tortured by this.
So, if we look at it from that standpoint, that there's a whole backstory here.
A whole backstory, sorry, for those who aren't art geeks like me.
A backstory is, what was your character doing just before he came in the room?
If your character just had sex before he walked in the room, he's going to have a particular attitude or a set of emotions.
If your character just had a big fight with his mom before he came into the room, then he's going to have a different attitude or set of emotions or whatever.
So, the backstory is, who were people before they came into your story?
So, if it's true that the reason he's posting all of this stuff is because he both desires for people to get a gotcha on the government...
While ignoring all the major crimes.
If he desperately wants that, not because of his relationship with the government, because of his relationship with the parents, with his parents, then we are in a highly charged emotional state to begin with.
And this is certainly true with people who are into conspiracy theories that they are...
They're highly charged emotionally, and that's of course because I believe it is a redirect or a projection from their relationship with their parents.
Again, could be wrong.
Put away your pitchforks, my brethren villagers.
This is just my theory.
Because I'm trying to sort of work empirically and say, well, why would it be that these people are so emotionally charged about minor potential unprovable crimes in the government when there are so many proven and established crimes that From the government, it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me why that would be the case.
So, if we look at it from that standpoint, then this is a false self entrapment.
This is a false self entrapment.
It's the false self that gets us obsessed with minutiae, Like, say, the quality of Freddie Mercury's singing voice for me, but it's our false self that gets us obsessed and emotionally charged with the minutiae, rather than what's really going on.
Because, again, you know, it's that old thing.
If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, nobody cares about the answers.
If you spend your time and energies focusing on who shot JFK, or was there a cover-up of the Cold Fusion situation, or what happened on 9-11...
That's great, right? Then everybody except reality and your true self is happy.
And that's why I continually focus on the psychology of these sorts of things.
Where you have an emotionally charged situation, then you need to look in a more detailed manner at what is going on for you so that you can get to the truth of it and not be distracted by these minutiae, these unprovable hypotheses of a deathbed confession that maybe has been these unprovable hypotheses of a deathbed confession that maybe has been ignored by the mainstream media and maybe has this and maybe God damn it, who cares?
Who cares?
We do not need...
We do not need a parking ticket to convict a mass murderer.
*sad music* And if you focus on the parking ticket, you're missing the point.
And we don't need 9-11 or JFKs or anything like that to convict the government.
We don't. We really, really don't.
And given that that's completely obvious, the question is, why do people focus on this stuff?
And so I've tried to give part of an answer here.
And I promise not to be as detailed about all the rest of the posts.
I just want to set this up.
So let's say that this is the case, that Bob has this tremendous ambivalence with regards to his own parents, right?
That he desperately wants to get them, but society shielded them, and they don't want to be gotten, and so he's, you know, focused on the minutiae so that he doesn't have to confront that, but he can't let it go because the truth has to come out, and so it's tortured, right?
It's tortured, and it's volatile.
It's volatile. And this is what I'm trying to say.
This is the mythology stuff, right?
When you look at somebody, you can look at them exactly as if you would look at your own dream or how you would look at your own dream.
When somebody says to you, I don't know, how's it going?
I'm a successful lawyer.
There's an enormous amount of information in that about that human being.
I've just sort of picked something totally off the top of my head.
But I mean, we've all heard stuff like this before.
How's it going? And then he answers his own question with something that praises himself.
So this is a narcissist of some kind or another.
I mean, why this and not anything else?
He could come up to you and say, I'm really into yodeling.
Ricola! Or whatever, right?
But he doesn't. He comes in and says, Hi, how's it going?
I'm a successful lawyer.
Or, how's it going? I'm a lawyer.
Or, how's it going? I was just out of my yacht this weekend.
You sail? Right?
This is a Petty one-upmanship, right?
I mean, this is a narcissistic invasion.
So when somebody posts something on the board, they have chosen that over every other conceivable thing that they could post.
And they have chosen to post this over every other conceivable activity that they could be doing.
So the sophistication, I think, that I'm trying to get across in the Mythology podcast series is to ask why.
Why? Why are they doing this, right?
Why are they doing this?
So if we sort of continue, you know, Greg responds, Ah, yes, Art Bell and George Norrie, that show was so much fun to listen to just before the millennium.
And then we end up with a, so right, so, Bob was putting a story ostensibly about Howard Hunt and JFK, and then when somebody, in a, you know, slightly mocking tone, lightly mocking, lightly breaded and mocked, It says, oh, that's not a credible source, or, you know, that's just, like, they're a bunch of goofs.
There's, like, the National Enquirer or something.
Then Bob gets really, really angry.
And you need to ask, why?
This is like, there's a story here.
This is not to do with reality.
Nobody can be that interested in JFK, right?
Nobody can be that interested in JFK or 9-11.
Nobody, but nobody, but nobody.
Unless you lost your love in 9-11...
Which I doubt someone from overseas did, unless JFK was your paternal great-uncle or something.
You can't be that interested in these things.
You just can't be. It has to be something that's more personal.
It has to be.
Why would you get enraged about a questionable source for a possible death by murder or something 40 years ago?
Why would you get enraged?
And it's not because people really care about JFK. Something much more personal is going on.
Now, when Bob then responds to Greg's post with, can a moderator do something about this troll?
I'm quite serious, by the way.
This is, again, a very complex statement.
Because, of course, Bob is the troll.
And can a moderator do something about this troll?
He thinks he's talking about Greg, but he's really talking about himself.
So again, it's complex, right?
Amen.
Now, when Greg responds that the people who have this deathbed confession tape believe that human beings are some experiment from ancient lizard people ruling the world and so on, what he's saying is the source has no credibility.
The source has no credibility.
Now, the false self, obviously, is terrified of humiliation because it is a scar tissue of humiliation.
It's a response to humiliation, early childhood humiliation.
And so, because this is all so charged, and because this has nothing to do with JFK, and this has nothing to do with, what is it, this coast-to-coast radio show, it has nothing to do with any of that stuff.
It's entirely to do with personal history and family.
Early humiliation, tortured ambiguity with regards to parental roles within social approval situations, and a desire to get you, and a desire not to get, and it's so incredibly charged, right?
But the story obscures all of that.
The story that it's about Greg's negativity, or it's about Bob's sources, or it's about whether we care about the JFK possible murderer or assassin, or whatever, right?
The story eclipses the truth.
And because the story eclipses the truth in the same way that the story of God eclipses the truth, which is the priest wants you to obey him, you can't ever get anywhere.
You can't ever get anywhere.
And the reason that I said people can change their stories all the time, we see going on in this conflict.
We see going on in this conflict that the story keeps changing.
That everything's made up and facts are strenuously resisted.
Facts are strenuously thrown out the window as being irrelevant.
And that's how you know that you're in a story.
When objective facts are thrown out as irrelevant and interpretation is everything and rules...
Change continually, and hypocrisy is the order of the day, then you know that you're in a story.
And what you need to do when you're in a story, I would invite you to, what you need to do when you're in a story, is either get the person to understand that it's a story, that you're not fighting about the real thing, or leave the conversation.
Because if you get in there and start arguing about the story, you'll never get anywhere.
Because then you're in somebody else's screenplay.
And in somebody else's screenplay, they can say, oh, you wake up and it turns out to be a dream and you're actually living on Mars.
Well, you can't disagree with it because it's their story.
So Bob has this whole emotionally charged stuff to do with his family that is coming out in this tortured way with this inconsequential, possible detailed deathbed confession that can never be verified.
That can never be verified.
Putting it forward as an important thing.
And this is a trap. This is a very unconsciously laid out trap.
trap.
I'm not going to say conscious.
I think that would be an insult.
You know, this guy also is the guy who said, I invite anyone who wants to talk about free will versus determinism, blah, blah, blah.
And then every time you try and communicate about it, he just says, oh, that's a mythology.
It's a trap. It's a trap.
And the trap is the recreation of the original abuse, right?
So the trap, I mean, he quotes this story, which is clearly not credible, and Doesn't mean it's not true, it's just not credible.
I mean, every story, maybe there were lizard people who once ruled the world, but who's going to spend a whole lot of time investigating it, right, and spend their whole life trying to figure this out?
But it's not credible. And so what do you do?
What happens? So he puts forward a story that's not credible to people he knows.
It's very knowledgeable. This is why I say nothing's accidental in these conversations.
Nothing. So what's the trap?
Do you come in and say, that's great.
I agree with you completely.
Howard Hunt has confirmed the assassination of JFK. Which means what?
The second most important question compared to what is, which means what?
Which means what? Which means the CIA kills people?
Have you never heard of the black ops that went on in the Vietnam War, where the CIA... Murdered about 25,000 people?
Do we really need the murder of a president to figure out that the CIA kills people?
Of course not. Why are you running to establish a proof for something that's already been proven?
And why are you putting forward an unsubstantiated, unproven, quote, proof from an unreliable source, when we already have the proof?
So this is a story. You know that it's a story.
Because it's completely unnecessary...
That this is a trap.
So you either come in and you say, well that's, you know, now we've finally proven that the state is evil, I'm totally with you, thanks for posting this, this is the best thing ever, this is totally true.
Which is not a rational response to it, right?
So this is how the virus of irrationality spreads.
Or you come in and say, I think that those sources may be...
Unreliable. Or I think those sources are unreliable, and here's why.
In which case you get attacked for being negative.
Or you don't involve yourself in the debate, in which case you get attacked for being...
for not caring about the truth.
This is the classic parental corner, right?
Your mother's down.
Go tell her she looks pretty. You either go and lie...
Kiss your stinky grandmother who's unpleasant and screechy and tells you all about creepy stories about the saints.
Go kiss her on the cheek. What do you do?
Do you go kiss her on the cheek and then be humiliated by your subjugation to bullying?
Or do you say, I don't want to kiss her on the cheek and then get attacked for being uncaring?
Or do you pretend not to hear and then get attacked for not listening?
There's no win. No win in these situations.
No win.
And when you're in a no-win situation, you know you're in a story.
And so, given that this has nothing to do with JFK, and everything to do with Bob's family... .
When the source is criticized, the source of this story is criticized, given that it's a story manufactured by the false self to keep the truth at bay, to keep you looking in the wrong place for the keys.
There's this old joke about the drunk who's on his hands and knees around...
A traffic light. This is the classic story.
The reason it's so famous is because it's a perfect example of the false self.
So there's this drunk who is on his hands and knees scrabbling around the base of a lamp light, like a street light in the middle of the night.
And someone comes up and says, can I help you?
And he says, yeah, I lost my keys.
And so the guy is on his hands and knees helping him.
Ten minutes later he says, you know, there's no keys around here.
He's like, oh no, I didn't drop them here.
I dropped them on the corner.
He says, well, you dropped them on the corner?
Well, why are you looking here?
He's like, oh, there's light here.
There's no light on the corner. That's the false self.
Get you looking for where you can't find anything because the light is there rather than where you can't actually find something but it's hotter.
It's easier to focus on JFK than it is to focus on your family.
The false self will give you light there.
It will give you evidence.
It will give you the internet.
It will give you people who believe the same thing, like 9-11.
And I'm not saying, I don't know, maybe 9-11 was a government job, maybe Howard Hunt killed JFK, I don't know, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
We don't need a parking ticket to convict a mass murderer.
So, because this is a false self story, as all stories are false self stories, I mean, unconscious, not sort of conscious, I mean, when I write a novel, I'm not in the grip of the false self.
At least, I don't think so. There is an ego identification with the story.
Right? The true self is ego-identified with reality, with logic, with empiricism, with science, with tangible, material, sensual, empirical reality.
Right? That is the ego identification that the true self has.
The false self is ego identified with a story, with fiction, because the false self is fiction.
It is the scar tissue that arises from never being able to speak the truth, from always having to kiss your grandmother.
So, the false self, ego, identifies with the story.
This is, I think, how the mythology stuff can help you.
And I'm not mad at anyone.
I'm just passionate about the topic.
So, the false self ego identifies with the story.
This is why when you question a religious person, they take it personally.
This is why a patriot gets so angry when you criticize America.
They have ego-identified with the story because it is just a story.
And it's a false self-manufacture, the content and central focus of which is ethical fantasies.
Obedience to people who call themselves the government is the highest virtue.
at you.
Well, you break it down that way.
Everyone says, well, that's nonsense.
Obedience to people based on a label they give themselves.
If I call myself Grand Poobah, Master of Time, Space, and Dimension, I doubt anyone's going to obey me, because they'd recognize that as silly.
But if you put George Bush and the government together, and patriotism, somehow people think that it's less insane.
I mean, self-labeled is not...
As I said on a recent call-in show, if I call myself Stephanie rather than Stefan, my penis doesn't fall off and I don't grow a vagina.
I've tried.
and And if I self-adhere a label to myself, President!
Yes, you can obey the label if you want, but it's got nothing to do with reality.
Just obeying a story. A story called the President.
A story called the government. A story called your parents.
A story called God.
Culture. Whatever. So the false self, ego, identifies with the story.
And this is why these things get so volatile.
And this is why it's a trap.
Because the false self ego identifies with the story, when you criticize the story, you are perceived by the false self as attacking the person.
Right?
If you ego identify with reality in the true self kind of way, then when you attack, two plus two is four, right?
Nobody gets angry. They might get exasperated after a while.
But no scientists really get angry at the Flat Earth Society.
I mean, it's kind of amusing, right? It's a bunch of cranks.
We assume that it's just an excuse to get drunk, right?
Like a frat or something.
And nobody gets seriously angry because the world is round!
So this is the peace of mind and emotional stability that comes from not ego-identifying with a story, but with reality, which is what philosophy is all about.
When somebody ego-identifies with fiction, when you say the fiction is fiction,
the person who is ego-identified with the person who is ego-identified with the fiction hears, you are a manipulative liar. .
So, of course, because Bob has ego-identified with this story of Howard Hunt and this and that, when someone says, the source is mad, or the source has no standards of truth, or the source is irrational...
Bob's false self, which is, sadly, at the moment, mostly Bob, hears you are a manipulative bastard.
Liar. Liar!
If somebody says to me, this is back to this podcast, right?
If somebody says to me, my story is set in Morocco, I can't call them a liar.
But if they think that their story is set in Morocco, when it's actually set in Algiers, then I can say that they're incorrect.
But if they've conflated the fiction with the documentary within their own minds, they have made up a story, but they believe that it is true.
So when you say it is a fiction, you threaten their whole worldview.
We see this with religious people all the time.
We see this with patriots.
We see this with our siblings when we talk about the vices of our parents.
When somebody has ego-identified with fiction and thinks that it is reality, when you call it fiction, you are attacking them as surely as if you were shooting at them.
Somebody believes it's a documentary when it is, in fact, a screenplay.
When you say, this is a screenplay, You are attacking their entire sense of self and reality.
And you're also attacking their primary means of dominating others, which is also exposing corruption within their own personality.
Because if Bob had responded and said something like this, to Greg's criticism of the source of this story, if Bob had said, you know, that's very interesting.
I never thought to check the source of But I posted this with credibility markers like nationally syndicated radio show, blah, blah, blah.
I'd never thought to check the source, which means I must have a bias.
If I have a bias for the truth of this story, if you don't check the source, if you don't question, self-critical.
Now, if I have a bias or a predisposition to believe something and don't want to check the source, it's because I doubt that it's true.
Right? I have no problem checking the source for the world is round.
Right? I mean, I have no problem checking that source because it's true.
Somebody emailed me, just an example, I get tons of these a week, but somebody emailed me and said, oh, in a podcast you said that the rate of poverty shrank by 1% a year until the 1960s when the Great Society programs went in and then it began to rise again, blah, blah, blah.
Well... What's your source, they said.
And I was like, here's the source.
Well, no problem. Because this is valid, right?
But if I say stuff, and it turns out that I don't check the source, and I find out that the source is nonsense, or highly, highly suspect, then an honest person, somebody who's not in the grip of the false self story, or is not covering up nonsense to do with their family, Corruption to do with their family and, of course, corruption to do with themselves, an honest person will say, gee, wow, oh gosh, oh golly, golly, golly.
It would appear that I have a bias.
It would appear that I prefer that this story be true, but I don't believe that it is, which is why I don't check my sources.
So if I prefer that this story be true, but I don't believe that it is, or I have serious doubts that it is, then if I post it as if it's true...
Then I'm trying to suck people into an irrational preference or bigotry on my part.
That's kind of corrupt, right? But that's okay.
We've all done it.
But you've got to be honest about it.
Just got to be honest about it.
And then you say, okay, well, why do I have this bias?
And that, of course, is the beginning of the journey to self-knowledge and to reality.
First of all, admitting you have a bias.
Second of all, saying, why this bias?
Why do I have this bias? Why is it so important to me to figure out who killed JFK? Why is it so important to me to figure out and get the government on 9-11?
Why is it so important for me to obsess in an unprovable manner in a tiny corner of the blogosphere about how I can prove habitual liars liars?
Right? That I'd love to see published by people who are into this kind of stuff.
And that book is with the title, And Charles Manson Was Rude.
Which is the story that somebody has spent years researching and talking to people who knew Charles Manson to establish that Charles Manson was rude.
Whereas most people would say, yeah, I guess if he's a cultish mass murderer, I'm guessing that he's rude, but it doesn't really matter.
If this is the moral crime that you're focusing on, well, obviously it doesn't have much to do with Charles Manson.
And so there's no need to participate.
Right, so then, and again, I know we're on the first page, I'm not going to do this for the whole thing, but this is sort of what I want.
This is the power of the mythology thing, right?
So then, Bob, after Greg points out the ancient lizard people, secret messages from dead people on Mylar tape recordings, the psychics who predict magnetic pole shifts at the Millennium, secret cabal to cover up cold fusion, the ever-popular face on Mars conspiracy, right?
So then, he's saying that these people are not credible.
There's no fact-checking. There's no fact-checking.
That it's entertainment, like the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.
It's entertainment. It's not news, not philosophy.
And entertainment may be accidentally true.
I could make up all the rumors in the world or psychically predict where every stock is going tomorrow and I'd be right.
A few times.
Doesn't make it sense.
So then...
And look, I mean, to be perfectly frank, I mean, there's no reason for me to have any bias either way.
I'm just looking at the facts here. When Greg says, knowing that this is a highly charged situation, knowing that Bob is reacting as if Bob is being attacked when the source of a story that Bob has posted is being questioned or being criticized, when Bob responds with rage, Greg provokes him.
Greg provokes him.
So, Greg's knowing, knowing, knowing that Bob is ego-identifying with the story, that Bob is highly volatile.
Greg pushes him.
Well, it's pushing back, right?
It's pushing back.
And I don't have any particular problem with that.
So when Greg says, give me one good reason why I should buy anything spewing out of that show now...
Greg absolutely and completely and totally knows that Bob is going to hear this in the following.
Give me one good reason why I should buy anything spewing out of you now.
And spewing, of course, is a volatile word.
Not just because it sounds like sewage.
So Greg is absolutely provoking him back, right?
So, Greg is attacked, and Greg attacks back.
That's okay. We're fine with self-defense.
But he's, because, I mean, Greg totally, when somebody totally overreacts to something, you know that they're ego-identifying with the story, with the mythology.
It's got nothing to do with the truth.
Facts are irrelevant, and people are going to start inventing magical words like tone and negativity and things like that, but none of which can be objectively proven, right?
What is the negative polarity of Greg's statements down to the nearest three decimal point percentage place?
Well, it can't ever be established, right?
No way to know. So, Bob, entirely predictably, because he's in the grip of the false self, and the false self's ego identified with the fiction...
And the fiction is an emotionally charged cover-up for the truth, which is the need to deal with your goddamn parents.
When Greg says, give me one good reason why I should buy anything spewing out of that show now, Bob hears, give me one good reason why I should buy anything spewing out of you, Bob, now.
So Bob, of course, then entirely reacts with predictable false self-rage.
You don't have to buy anything, but get the fuck off my thread if you don't have anything positive to add.
So here's another story.
And the story has a moral now, right?
And the story now, we have the introduction of a moral.
And the moral is positivity.
This is the fiction, right?
This is the moral of the story.
Which is that negativity is bad, and positivity is good.
Greg is being negative by criticizing.
Therefore, Greg is bad because he's not being positive.
And so, and therefore what?
And so what? And you'll notice that there's a studious and not at all accidental avoidance of the facts of the matter.
The facts of the matter are completely bypassed.
And this is, of course, how you know that you're in a story.
All that's being looked for is internal consistency.
So now, a moral of the story is being entered, right?
This is true. The source is bad.
You're negative. Well, what does negative mean?
There's no definition of it.
And negative is very different from false.
False. If I say, 2 plus 2 is 5, and you say, no, 2 plus 2 is 4, can I say that you're wrong?
No, of course not. The truth or falsehood can't ever be invoked in a story, because it's a screenplay.
So true and false don't apply. Interpretation only applies.
Imagination, fantasy, making things up.
Mythology only applies.
So we're not in a world of reality here.
We're in a world of fantasy, where you can just make up anything you want.
So I'm going to make up the label negative, and I'm going to apply it to anyone who questions the veracity of what I'm posting, the source.
And as we've moved forward, and you've sort of heard this in the last one, as we move forward, we realize, of course, that That nobody's interested in the truth here.
That there's a warring series of mythologies here.
And I shouldn't say nobody's interested in the truth.
Bob specifically and studiously rejects the truth.
The truth has to be studiously ignored and rejected as irrelevant.
The truth is irrelevant. And of course, truth is irrelevant to a story.
I don't... I mean, if I was a friend of J.R.R. Tolkien's, I wouldn't say, but J.R. Orcs don't exist!
That's irrelevant. It's a story.
But there is no wizard.
There's no such thing as magic.
It's a story. It's irrelevant.
The only question is the story internally consistent.
And then what we do is we go from the story of the mythology to the impugning of motives, with no evidence.
The impugning of motives is a very, very essential part of mythology.
Anybody who attacks mythology is going to be attacked back.
But not in terms of facts, because facts are irrelevant to mythology.
And the antidote to mythology.
But what happens is then motives get impugned.
So then someone comes in and says, Bob is stating that Greg has purely negative energy and can't help himself from getting involved, even though he has nothing positive to add to the discussion.
And all we're interested in is helping Greg to, quote, develop.
So, if we look at this aspect of the mythology, and I'm sorry this is such a long podcast, but this is the punishment you get for not responding to my earlier podcasts on mythology.
Don't blame me. I'm just responding to you in an entirely helpless manner.
So then, Fred says, Bob is stating the fact that Greg has purely negative energy and can't help himself from getting involved, even though he has nothing positive to add to the discussion.
This is not a single incident, but rather a culmination of weeks of posts.
Bob has been almost infinitely curious and patient, but it has not helped.
Bob's posts were simply to say, enough is enough.
I want you, Greg, to stop posting on this thread.
Get the fuck off.
It's not abusive. Continuation, escalation, blah blah blah.
Steph, your referee response here only further impedes Greg's development.
Not only does it invalidate Bob's emotions, it does not allow Greg the opportunity to realize that people can get legitimately mad at other people for their continuing negative actions.
So, I'm sure you're getting the hang of this, right?
But now, we're in a morality tale.
Right now, and it's amazing how rapidly this all happens.
It's really wonderful, in a terrifying kind of way, how incredibly rapidly all of this stuff happens.
So now we're in a morality tale, where Bob is nobly defending the curious, honest, and righteous pursuit of truth from Greg's satanic and purely negative energy.
And that Greg can't help himself getting involved even though he has nothing positive to add to the discussion.
Again, the impugning of motive.
That Greg is entirely unconscious.
Greg is just reacting.
Greg can't help himself.
But of course, if Greg really couldn't help himself, then swearing at him would be like swearing at somebody who's deaf because they can't hear.
So all of these contradictions are totally clear.
If Greg has purely negative energy and can't help himself...
From getting involved in these discussions, if that were true, then there would be no point getting angry, right?
The funny thing, too, of course, is that Bob is a determinist, right?
So he believes that there's no choice, no free will.
Which, of course, means that getting angry at people is irrational, right?
But... Determinism is just another false self story, in my view.
Again, I don't know much about the science or where things are at, but that's sort of my opinion.
I'm not going to stick by that, but that's sort of my opinion.
So if Greg has purely negative energy and can't help himself in getting involved, so we have an attack upon Greg, purely negative energy, whatever that means.
What does negative energy mean?
Does Bob reach up, squeeze the sun shut like a pop in a pimple and turn the lights out?
Purely negative energy and can't help himself.
So he's saying that Greg is acting in a purely unconscious and automatic manner, which of course would mean that rage is like getting really angry at your baby for having a bowel movement, right?
And then Fred then not exactly attacks me, but then Fred says, Steph, your referee response here only further impedes Greg's development.
Not only does it invalidate Bob's emotions, right?
I have invalidated Bob's emotions.
So if somebody is abusive and I say, don't be abusive, I'm invalidating their emotions.
Well, sure I am. False self-rage should damn well be invalidated.
Because it's an unjust redirection of just complaints.
Like the guy we talked about recently who disliked women because his mom was a witch.
Should we invalidate his dislike of women?
Of course we should. Because it's an unjust projection of his anger towards his mother.
You shouldn't make other people pay for the moral crimes of your parents.
It's completely unjust.
And, naturally, a recreation of what your parents did.
Your parents made you pay for the moral crimes of their parents.
Now you're going to make other people pay for the moral crimes of your parents.
It's not just. It's how the world never gets fixed.
It's how the world continues to lurch along in a messy and often blood-soaked manner.
So, I am now accused of impeding Greg's development and invalidating Bob's emotions.
It does not allow Greg the opportunity to realize that people can get legitimately mad at other people for their continuing negative actions.
And again, here, we're totally in mythology.
But they might as well be talking about Zeus and Hera and Apollo.
And so everything is a wrestling for the narrative.
It's a wrestling for whose story is going to get to dominate Other people's story.
Whose story wins? Whose story wins?
Who gets to dominate other people with their story about what's happening?
Of course, there's no reference to the facts here.
It's all just interpretation, the impugning of motive, blatantly self-contradictory statements.
I mean, this is religion.
This is religion.
And you can see...
The hysterical escalation and the abusiveness that goes on in the realm of religion, of faith, of made-up stories.
The battle of narratives is blood-soaked.
It is the root of violence. Can you imagine scientists talking like this?
about the truth of a theory, the accuracy of a theory about matter.
Can you imagine them impugning motives?
I mean, maybe they do, but it would be ridiculous.
I mean, this is what priests do.
And, you know, to be honest, and without wanting to be biased, and let me know if you think I am, this is not Greg.
I don't think this is Greg.
Greg, this is not Thomas, it's Fred and Bob.
So then, of course, I respond and say, no, this is being abusive.
Right?
Respect his emotions? I'm not going to respect his emotions.
And it should be very clear from 750 podcasts that I do not believe that emotions are things to be respected without cause.
I mean, our parents feel certain kinds of attachments to us.
Should we respect their emotions and call it love?
No, of course not. People get angry at me.
Should I respect their emotions and assume I'm a bad person?
No, of course not. I can listen to their arguments and certainly correct if I'm wrong, but no, we don't respect emotions.
Especially hysterical overreactions, right?
I mean, that's certainly nothing that we should respect.
My mom can burst into tears whenever you cross her.
Disagree with my mom and she's on the floor in a fetal position sobbing.
Should I respect that emotion?
motion?
No, of course not.
Because it's just manipulative viciousness.
So then, and of course, I said you both are Greg and Apology, which is true.
If we spark off the past and attack people in the present because of the crimes people inflicted on us in the past, we owe the people in the present an apology.
And I don't do that in order to humiliate people, but in order to help them.
When you apologize to people in the present, you're holding yourself to a higher standard of behavior than your parents, who don't apologize.
Or if they do, it's sickly and manipulative, as we saw later in the threads.
So we have an enormous number of fictional, mythological characters with morals, right?
I'm not respecting people's emotions.
Greg is purely negative.
Greg can't help himself.
Greg is totally responsible.
It's all made up. It's all made up.
And you can see how incredibly rapidly the facts get thrown out the window.
And people just get wildly attached to stories.
And this is what I was trying to get across and clearly failed abysmally, which is fine.
I mean, I can't get everything right.
But this is what I was trying to get across in the mythology.
And there's a reason this came along after the mythology podcast, right?
Nothing is accidental in this community.
Nothing is accidental in the world.
In people's motives and choices.
Nothing is accidental. There's a reason this came along, right?
I don't think that people were able to process, and I'll certainly take the lion's share of the responsibility for that.
I don't think people were able to process the mythology podcasts, but they got that they were essential, so instead of processing them, they acted it out.
They acted out a morality play so that we could further understand the mythology stuff.
So that we could see it in action.
So then Bob comes back with his oh-so-teeth-grittingly-condescending definition of the word abuse.
Right? And then he's got a new morality tale.
Enough is enough. I will not tolerate any more negative energy.
It was getting in my way, and it was not getting better over time.
Right, so then this is the story that was introduced by Fred, which is now backed up by Bob.
And the story is that Bob is a noble victim who has patiently been trying to teach Greg to be more positive and to be better and to not be hostile and to not be pure negative energy or whatever, right?
So he's been patiently and nobly trying to get through to Greg.
But unfortunately, Greg has maliciously resisted all attempts at improvement.
I mean, this is Soviet, right?
This is This is dictatorial, right?
This is parental, right?
I try and I try and try with you kids.
I'm as patient, but enough is enough.
Right? Well, that's just nonsense.
If you failed to get through to Greg, it's your fault.
If I fail to communicate something, it's my fault.
And I should have given more concrete examples of the mythology so that we wouldn't need to analyze this thing, because then it wouldn't have happened, or at least it would have happened in a more self-aware kind of way.
And that's my fault.
And that's one of the reasons why I apologized yesterday, and it's one of the reasons why I continue to apologize, that I put this radioactive stuff out there without enough preparation, without enough concrete examples so that people could see it in action.
So then, I mean, the final sort of thing that I'll say here, well, maybe not, final, maybe not, right?
Okay.
Which is that we have blatant self-contradiction.
See, in fiction, you can make up anything you want.
You can change the nature of reality in fiction.
As I said, you know, a man can be a woman, can be a seal pup.
Things can change all the time.
All of this stuff, because it's all fiction.
It's all made up. Luke Skywalker can lift an X-wing with his mind.
It's all an illusion, right?
Of course, in the background, there's some damn crane with an X-wing, but...
It's all made up.
Elite character can live.
Elite character can die. If I write a screenplay and give a guy cancer, I can choose whether it goes into remission or not.
I can make anything up. I control the reality of the story.
And that's fine, as long as you don't say it's a documentary.
But what happens is, when you have a narrative, or a fiction, or a mythology, a story, screenplay, and you say that it's true, then you face a problem.
Which is that people will say, the evidence contradicts your story, which is how we know that it's a story, and then you have to keep changing your story to match the facts, or to ignore the facts, or to reject the facts, or to attack the facts, or to say that they're not facts, but another story.
You know, if you just say, if George Lucas said Star Wars is a documentary, you'd say, well, you can't go faster than light.
Right? So you can't have Luke Skywalker fly from Tatooine to God knows where without aging 200 years.
So they wouldn't be the same age, and none of this makes any sense.
So if you're going to compare your mythology, if you're going to say your mythology is real, you're going to be constantly colliding with reality, and you're going to have to keep changing your story.
*sad music* Which is why you can't pin anyone down in religion or politics or in the virtue of the family, right?
Your parents were good. Well, they did bad things.
Well, they did the best they could.
Well, how do I know? Because they did the best they could meant they didn't abuse me in private.
Sorry, they didn't abuse me in public, but they abused me in private.
Well, they had tough childhoods themselves.
The story just keeps changing.
When someone says, your parents are good, you say, well, they did this and this and this really bad thing.
Well, they did the best they could.
It's like, well, which is it? Were they good, or did they just do the best they could?
And if they did the best they could, and I should not criticize them for their behavior that fell short of an ideal, then why are you criticizing my behavior which falls short of your ideal?
Do you see how these narratives just keep twisting and turning?
Whatever nonsense they can make up to get you to believe stuff, they will just make up to get you to dominate you.
So the story that Bob has, the moral character that Bob has, is that he is nobly trying to be positive, and Greg is in a vile manner, as he talks about when he apologizes in a pseudo-apologistic manner, and says that what Greg did was vile, but he shouldn't have gotten so angry, which is a total non-apology.
I should not have allowed myself to get as provoked by your evil actions.
It's not exactly a heartfelt apology.
But the story is that negativity is bad, heartbreak.
Hostility is bad. But is this bad like an opinion, or is this bad like it's true?
Is this bad like it's only bad for Greg, or is this bad like it's bad for everyone?
And this is how you know it's a story, because the morals are made up.
And whenever you try to apply them consistently, the story changes.
This is how you know you're in a mad fiction.
Facts are irrelevant. The story can change at any time.
Well, if the story can change at any time, it's got nothing to do with reality, because reality doesn't change whenever you want it to.
So if something changes because you want it to, it's myth.
It's narrative. It's story.
It's a lie. And it's to dominate.
It's a lie to dominate. I mean, this is how I know that I failed completely, for which I'm so sorry.
I failed completely in communicating mythology.
Because... The question that I got this morning from a listener...
Like, I don't get the whole mythology thing.
I must be missing something. Because I totally get that people lie to control others.
This is a listener who was involved in this debate.
And this is how badly I failed, right?
To communicate. It's why I wanted to pick this story and communicate it in more depth and detail.
Because I did this whole series on mythology, which was then acted out like clockwork on the board, and nobody made any connections.
And that's... I'm sorry.
I really am genuinely sorry.
I should have given more concrete examples rather than Morocco and screenplays and so on.
But it's okay. Where I was deficient, the social organism that is Free Domain Radio gave me the material so that we could learn.
I didn't bring my clay, but there was clay where I went, right?
Or where I didn't go, in this case.
So the story, of course, is that negativity and hostility is bad, is wrong.
And therefore, Greg, who is defined as negative and hostile, is bad.
Greg, who is defined as negative and hostile, is bad.
But then we have to look, is it a tautology?
If it's a tautology, then you know you're in fiction.
Tautology is, you know, Coke is it, and then what is it defined as Coke?
It's circular, it doesn't mean anything.
Two is two.
It's not an equation.
So what we do is we say, well, if you're going to say that Greg is negative and hostile, let's have your definitions of negativity and hostility.
Bye.
So that we can understand how it is that you have discovered that Greg is negative and hostile.
But you can't ever get that definition.
Because it's a tautology.
Because people are angry at Greg.
Well, they're actually angry at their parents, but they're taking it out on Greg.
They're angry at Greg, and so they just call him, they just launch labels at him, like missiles, negative, hostile, whatever, pure negative energy.
PNE, it's like some villain in Spider-Man.
No, it's pure negative energy.
I'm feeling weaker.
My clock is stopped.
So they're just throwing labels, like monkeys with feces, right?
Throwing labels. Oh, Greg is negative, right?
So you say, oh, okay. So you're saying that Greg is objectively negative and that negativity is objectively bad.
So what's your definition? How do you know that Greg is negative and hostile?
And you can't get a definition.
You just get a change in the story.
Because, of course, if the definition is put forward, negativity and hostility, then those who are attacking Greg for being negative and hostile...
Are going to very quickly realize, if they have intellectual integrity and honesty, if they're not in an unconscious state, that they are far more negative and hostile by any definition than Greg ever was.
Saying, I think your source is nonsense, when I have facts to back it up.
If that is defined as negative and hostile, what is, get the fuck off my thread, you evil bastard of purely negative energy proportions.
Right? You can't win.
Right? If you define somebody else in a hostile and negative manner as being negative and hostile, then that is bad, and that's why you're attacking them.
That gun totally goes off in your hand.
So you can't get the definitions of how you know you're in fiction.
Just label, poo-throwing, label-sticking.
You know you're in a mythology, you know you're in a fiction, where people are grabbing at the levers, like the same way that religious people try and grab a hold of the government.
These people are trying to grab a hold of the narrative and force their narrative down other people's throats.
And the board reacted magnificently, I think.
Magnificently. By saying, what are the facts?
What is your definition? How do you define negativity?
How do you define hostility?
If negativity and hostility are bad, how is cursing and swearing at someone and attacking their personality and their motives not negative and hostile?
And then, of course, like everyone in the world who's not a philosopher...
They then say, well, I was reacting to.
I was provoked. I'm not going to...
Like, if the virtue is curiosity and openness, and I did not display that by cursing someone, it's because I was provoked.
Right? Because I was provoked.
But if you get to just attack people who you feel are provoking you...
Then Greg could just say, well, I felt provoked by this post about the death of JFK. So I get to attack whoever I want, because...
Right, you see, there's just no way out of this fog, this mess, this primordial soup of narrative, of myth.
Rules are always put forward as objective truths, and whenever you question the definition, and whenever that definition may include...
The person who's wielding this morality like a big sword, you find the definition changes because you're in a narrative.
So, it's probably worth, I'm sorry again for this is so long, but it's probably worth having a look through that post.
That's serious. It's on the board.
And I'll also post a summation of it, the one that I was looking at, so that people can see it a little bit more clearly, without having to sort of go through the tangents and all this.
All the tangents are instructive as well.
And I'm really, really, you get them.
I'm so sorry. I mean, I dropped the ball on this one, in terms of making my position clear.
And a half-truth or a half-digested truth is really a lot worse than no truth at all.
So I hope that this stunningly excellent example from the board and the excellent responses to the narrative, the vicious narrative that was invented, I hope that it's more instructive and can help you figure out when you're in a story and when you're not in a story.
▲
Export Selection