All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:49
1791 Evil - An Introduction

The deep foundations of the grimmest altar...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Guess the time has come to talk about evil.
What it is, where it comes from, and where it goes.
Now, evil, fundamentally, must be regarded as an insufficiency, as a lack of self-sufficiency, as a lack of ability to bring value to negotiations.
That's a very, very important thing to understand.
Evil is, in its most essential way, is the attempt to substitute punishment for reward.
So, the genesis of evil, of course, is in childhood.
And a parent who is not loved by a child but must still exercise authority over that child faces the problem of the child's lack of desire for reciprocity.
Lack of desire for reciprocity.
So, if the parent is unlikable or even hateful, Then the will of the parent is seen as a humiliating exercise of bullying power by the child.
Because the child does not feel loved and respected and wanted by the parent, then the child does not experience benevolence on the part of the exercise of the parent's power.
With my own daughter, she really, really likes me.
She has great affection for me.
She wants to come and wake me up in the morning.
She loves to come and play with me.
If I leave the room, she comes after me.
She's always jumping into my arms.
She has a great deal of attachment and affection for me, which is a completely delightful thing.
She wants to spend time in my company.
Now, there is a kind of authority that comes out of love that is not specific to parent-child relationships, but is inherent in all relationships.
If some random stranger tells me to do something, I am going to likely feel resistance and so on.
But if my wife tells me to do something, or if a valued friend tells me to do something, Then I'm going to do it because they have the trust of love and affection and that only arises from not being used, not being manipulated, not having to satisfy their own irrational emotional problems.
Isabella enjoys her time with me because I absolutely worship and adore her as the best person I'm ever likely to know.
That includes myself.
And because she loves me for a number of reasons, One of the most important is that I encourage her to take risks and to do new things and to...
I respect her decision-making, right?
So, if she wants to jump off the couch and she tells me she can do it by herself, then I, you know, swallow my anxiety and I'm there to help her, but I assume that she's right.
So, I trust her to make the right decisions about keeping safe within, you know, some limits.
She can't go on the street when there are cars going by even if she wants to and so on, right?
But But where decision-making is possible and appropriate, she makes very good decisions.
And that trust that I have in her is part of what she enjoys about my company because I trust her and encourage her to do new things, try new things and take risks.
Like we were just playing this morning, she's enjoying her ping pong balls and I bought out the ping pong paddles and we played for, I don't know, about an hour this morning trying to hit the ping pong balls and so on.
And yeah, she would occasionally whack the ping pong ball down on the hardwood floor and I'd say, please don't do that and so on, right?
But there are very few restrictions that That I have on Isabella, of course, right?
I mean, why would I want to give her restrictions?
And because of that, the restrictions that are there are not motivated by my anxiety.
Because my anxiety would be all-encompassing.
Anytime she tried something new, anytime she wanted to take a risk, if I had anxiety around that, it would be omnipresent.
And she would sense that it was my anxiety that I was managing by trying to control her behavior rather than any objective assessment of the risks or rewards or dangers of the situation.
When you're managing your own anxiety by trying to control others, it's everywhere all the time, pretty much.
But if you're looking at specific risks, then it's much more localized, right?
I mean, just very few things.
There's a few thou shalt nots, whereas with anxiety, it's thou shalt not provoke my anxiety, which tends to be much, much more restrictive.
A thou shalt is much more restrictive than a thou shalt not, right?
Like if there are a thousand doors, thou shalt go through one door is much more restrictive than thou shalt not go through one door, right?
One eliminates one, the other eliminates 999 possibilities.
So Isabella understands that the restrictions that I place on her are not out of my own personal anxiety, but out of some methodology or decision tree that she may not fully understand as yet, but she understands is not driven emotionally.
And so when I ask her not to do something, or even when I tell her not to do something, even though I can't really explain it to her as yet, she accepts that it's okay.
That it's rare.
She accepts that it's not emotionally driven.
And so because of that, when I place restrictions upon her, she really doesn't mind.
She really doesn't mind at all.
In fact, she normally just shrugs and moves on to something else.
She has no particular problem with it.
And also, she's incredibly sensitive to the tone of no in my voice.
So I have authority over her because she gets that it is driven by a rational, i.e.
not emotionally driven or anxiety driven, a rational assessment of the risks of any particular situation.
So I have authority over her.
In the same way, I think and I hope and I believe that I have some authority over listeners.
Not authority, authority with them, right?
Because I'm not trying to control them.
I'm not trying to exploit them. I'm not trying to, you know, one-upmanship them.
I genuinely and generally do try to be enormously concerned.
And it's not a big struggle or strain, but I do try to be enormously concerned with what is occurring for people.
And I've built up that kind of credibility over the years with my listeners, and that's a sort of irreplaceable commodity.
Trust is an irreplaceable, an irreproducible commodity in that sense.
Evil is, in a sense, the opposite of trust, and it certainly is the opposite of self-trust.
So, if you're a parent who dislikes being a parent, dislikes the child, resents the child, wants to control the child for one's own petty anxiety management, then what happens...
Is you end up controlling the child enormously.
And the child resents that.
Now, because the child gets that...
We'll just use the female.
It's a little easier for me with the daughter.
Because she gets that her mom is controlling her, not for any objective reasons, but rather because of anxiety management...
The child resists and resents the exercise of authority as controlling and manipulative and immature and as a lie.
Because the mom in that situation does not say to the child, I am experiencing anxiety at the moment so I feel a strong need to control your behavior.
But rather, the parent almost always, in those situations, insinuates or openly states that the child is being bad.
In other words, by not conforming to the emotional anxiety reduction drive of the mom, in other words, by not allowing herself to be used, the child is, quote, bad, is wrong, is naughty, is naughty.
And that's a very deep hypocrisy on the part of the parent.
Because it's completely not UPB. And UPB is something that children are hardwired to get and to understand.
The universalization of specific principles...
This is essential to any sane human being's growth, and it's what children do automatically.
Isabella does not assume that the next set of stairs is something she can fly down, but she extrapolates to new stairs from old stairs, which is you have to navigate them carefully.
So the extrapolation of each individual instance to a general rule is what children's brains, from extremely early on, from a few months, or you could almost say from the womb, That's what we're hardwired to do.
And so, children are UPB machines, so to speak.
And of course, the huge problem with a mom who says, you must conform to my anxiety management, the huge problem is that that can't conceivably be universalized.
For the obvious and simple reason that this level of control makes the child feel anxious and frustrated.
And therefore, if it's a universal principle that each must conform to the anxiety management of others or must act in a way to minimize the negative feelings of others, then the mom is ensnared by her own principle, right?
The mom is ensnared by her own principle because she should then conform to the child's anxiety management and not doing what she's doing to get the child to conform to her anxiety management.
So this is the hypocrisy that so many children experience and the frustration and the anger and the resentment that builds up.
And this comes out in teenage years, right?
And since the principle has been established by the parents that whoever has the most power gets their way but calls it good, well, this is, of course, exactly what the children do when they become teenagers and have more power.
They're simply reflecting back the principles that they absorbed when the parent had all the power when they were toddlers or young children.
How teenagers exercise the power of freedom and the power to cause anxiety in others, how they handle that is a direct reflection of exactly how they were taught that as children by their parents.
Thank you.
Now, there's a soft differentiator that is necessary to talk about between black-mask criminality and white-collar criminality, right?
So, black-mask criminality is, you know, stick them up in an alley, rape, and assault in a bar and stuff like that.
That's sort of black-mask criminality.
That's Hamburglar crime.
And that is completely unimportant and absolutely simple to evade.
I grew up in an extremely violent home in a violent neighborhood, and I've never hit anyone in my life.
And outside my family, I've been on the receiving end of exactly one punch to the gut when I was about 12.
So I've managed to avoid all of that.
I've now moved into a neighborhood where you can leave your doors unlocked.
You can leave stuff out on the lawn.
Everybody respects property.
That stuff is very easy to avoid.
And that's not what we need to fear.
It's not guys in an alley who are getting, you know, half my money and selling off my daughter's future and mine.
So it's not black mask criminality that you need to worry about.
It's the white collar criminality.
Now, the black mask criminality comes out as a direct result of physical and sexual abuse.
But the white-collar criminality comes...
Okay, so the real criminals, right?
Like rapists and murderers come from sexual abuse and extreme physical abuse.
Criminals come from physical abuse.
Verbal abuse produces the slave class, like the underclass, the workers, the drones, the secretaries, the automatons who push levers back and forth.
The workers are produced by verbal abuse, you know, you're dumb, you're stupid, and all that kind of stuff.
And none of those are particularly dangerous in general.
In order to exist, like in order to be murdered, you have to be in the murder class.
You have to be down among the sewage layers of the killbot class.
Same is sort of true of rape.
For the most part, I mean, there are exceptions, and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all, but most.
It's easy to avoid. To avoid, you know, stick them up and stuff like that, you can avoid those kinds of people.
The broken down victims of verbal abuse, the people who can't stand up to authority, who just fold and do what they're told, which is very convenient for bullshit hierarchies, including those in the private sector.
They do not pose any particular threat.
They've been broken and snapped into.
The grave danger comes from the white collar criminals, the politicians, the justifiers, the intellectuals, the people who Who dilute, cover up and praise the white collar enactment of black mass crime.
So if you go and rob a bank for $1,000, then you get thrown in a cell.
If you go and rob the American public of a trillion dollars and give it to a bank, then you're called a savior of the economy.
And everybody's going to line up.
Giving you kibbles and gonads of the people in order to get a few crumbs of the blood that you have taken, of the blood and treasure you have taken.
So big theft is what we really need to be concerned about.
The theft that is not seen as theft, the justified theft, the grand scale larceny that occurs.
If a man goes to a bank and tries to use a baby as collateral, he's considered to be an inhuman monster.
When governments do it, it's sound fiscal policy, or at least not considered quite as immoral.
So, the real evil, the only evil that I fundamentally care about, well, I mean, there's two.
There's the effects, which is statism and religiosity, and then there's the cause, which is the emotional abuse.
Emotional abuse is the furnace wherein the black souls of the white-collar criminals, the politicians and the priests, are forged, and the intellectuals.
These are the most dangerous predators that man has.
Because a predator you know is a predator, you can guard against.
But a predator you think is a friend is much more dangerous, right?
So, if I see a lion in the distance, I will climb a tree.
If I see a little poodle...
Then I may go up and pet it, but if the poodle is a sort of savage Cujo beast, then I'm in much more danger because I think it's not dangerous.
And the white-collar criminal class is always perceived to be benevolent, not malevolent.
And that is why they are the most dangerous class that there is.
Now, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse all show up pretty bright and harsh in the mind's eye.
And so, they're generally not good.
They're not considered to be good.
And because of that, they remain hidden, right?
It's the evil that is blandly spoken out loud and passionately proclaimed in public squares that is the greatest danger, right?
A parent who is seen saying to her son, you know, you're such a stupid, bad kid.
Well, that is perceived to be bad.
That is accepted as bad.
And so it's hidden. And the child sort of gets it.
That it's hidden.
And the child sort of gets that it's socially disapproved of because the behavior is so much different in public than in private.
That the fact that it's hidden gives the child a broad sense of public morality, right?
So, to give you an example, when I was a kid in boarding school about the age of six or seven, my mother came to visit.
And took me out for the day.
And I was in my school uniform with my little cap.
My little odd fontal right green cap.
And I was running around a fountain and I fell in the fountain and I thought, oh my god, I'm going to get the living shit beaten out of me now.
But my mother laughed and did nothing when I was arrested.
I wasn't shoplifting, a friend of mine was, but I kind of got scooped up and my mom came to pick me up at the police station and she laughed about it as a youthful indiscretion did not right in front of the cops, right?
So that was a very different situation.
And I got a sense of the public morality of society by what my mother kept hidden.
It's a very, very powerful lesson for a child.
What does your mother, what do your parents keep hidden?
What do they do in private, what they don't do in public?
Well, that gives you a sense of what is considered moral, acceptable versus unacceptable and immoral within society.
Whatever your parents hide is the sort of broad outline of the shadow of society's Morality.
And that's very important.
Because that gives people a map of how adulthood is going to look from a moral standpoint.
Right? So that's really, really, really important.
So emotional abuse is the real source of evil, or at least the evil that remains undistinguished, so to speak.
Now, I'm going to give you an example of what I would call...
Like, I understand it's all just my opinion.
I don't have any proof. It's a pretty good case, but it's not a clincher by any means.
So, I'll give you an example of emotional abuse.
I was talking with a friend of mine whose father was a sales trainer and a sales manager.
Is, I guess, still. And...
His father was constantly saying to his employees, to his father's employees, when he was training them, is that, you know, it doesn't matter how slick you are.
It doesn't matter what a good talker you are.
It doesn't matter this. The only thing that matters is the quality of your relationship with the client and the degree to which you satisfy that client's needs.
That's all that matters in terms of being a successful salesperson.
That's all that matters.
That is the only standard of success when it comes to being an effective salesman.
You have to satisfy, to understand, to meet and continue to satisfy your clients' needs.
Nothing else matters. Not how slick your suit is or how sharp your language is or how witty you are.
Any of that. It only matters how well you satisfy your clients' needs.
And this guy, the father, was on the road and working 70 hours a week.
So I asked my friend, I said, well, I don't understand.
He told me this thing about his dad.
And I said, but I don't understand.
And he said, what are you talking about?
I said, I don't get it.
If understanding and satisfying your customers' needs is essential, and you missed your dad and wanted him to be home, why didn't he ask you what you preferred as a child?
Because the ultimate customer is the child, right?
The ultimate captive customer is the child of the parent.
The parent is the service provider, the production provider, the parent is government, and the child is the ultimate captive consumer.
I mean, customer is not quite the right word because customers have choices.
It's a crazy thing when you recognize that.
It took him a while to recognize it.
To his credit, he's a very smart fellow. He got it pretty quickly.
But it takes a while to get just what a complete disconnect that is.
So in the business world, where it's much less important than your family relationships, your relationship with your customers is much less important than your relationship with your kids.
I mean, your customers aren't going to be there to wipe your ass when you're 90.
Customers are going to go off and do their own thing.
And the customers is a relationship based on material functionality, fundamentally.
Saying, you've got to find out your customers' needs, satisfy, that's the only thing to do that makes your relationship in business valuable.
But did he find out his own children's needs and preferences and work hard to satisfy those?
In other words, did he sit down with his kids, his dad, and say, Okay, kids, we got a choice ahead of us.
Look, you know, I can go and work like crazy, and then we can have lots of stuff.
You know, we can go on the occasional vacations, you can have new bikes, you can have video games, you can have funky clothes, you can get all this funky stuff, but I myself will not so much be with the around.
On the other hand, I can work 9 to 5, and I can be home evenings and weekends, and we can do a lot more stuff together on a continual basis, but it means fewer toys, fewer new bikes, fewer vacations, that is. You know, do you want me or do you want stuff?
Because that would be trying to figure out what the customers want.
But no, the father unilaterally imposed his unwanted absence upon his children, while at the same time proclaiming that finding out the needs of others and satisfying them is the most important thing in a relationship.
Now, my friend knew this from a pretty early age.
The speech that his dad gave and also the fact that his dad was gone all the time.
And that's pretty horrible.
And that's horrible in a way that is subtle.
Very subtle. Hard to see.
Once you see it, it's like mule kick to the forehead, blindingly obvious, but it's hard to see.
That, to me, is abusive.
It's abusive because the values are held high of finding out and satisfying in a permanent way or in a long-term way other people's needs in a relationship.
Because the values are held high, held aloft, and proclaimed to the family, to the children.
And the exact opposite is followed.
What that communicates to the children, what that communicates to the children, Is that they are not worth living virtuously for.
That virtue is for the business world.
Virtue is for the customers of your widget factory.
Virtue is for the people who buy your database software.
Virtue isn't for your children.
Your children are not worthy of being the recipients of integrity, of virtuous action.
It is not worth enacting the values you loudly proclaim with your children.
That is very humiliating for the child.
That is bone crushingly humiliating for the child.
What my mother communicated during the times that she perfectly held her temper together.
The astounding thing is that when my mother was in public and I did something that would have gotten me beaten up in private, my mother did not grit her teeth.
It was not a white-knuckled situation.
It was not... She wasn't like an astronaut going at 90 G's around a centrifuge.
For my mother...
It was perfectly easy to control her temper.
It did not even appear that she was controlling her temper.
That was an amazing thing to me.
It did not even appear that she was controlling her temper.
In other words, it was so easy for her to control her temper in public and to laugh and joke about things which would enrage her in private.
It was so easy for her to control her temper that when she didn't control her temper, it was especially...
Ugly and humiliating because I knew that she was a simple smile and a laugh and a shrug away from not losing her temper.
But she succumbed to a temptation that was almost impossibly easy to resist in her aggression against my brother and myself.
I just want to make sure that's clear because it's a confusing thing to talk about.
I feel confused talking about it because it's like a negative pole for me in my mind.
I have a lot of avoidance defenses set up around this.
I just want to make sure I connect with the idea with you.
If a man is addicted to drugs, and every time he takes drugs, he harms his children, and then when he's offered drugs in public, he smiles and says no easily, then he can easily not take drugs.
So then when he does take drugs and harm his children, his children know that he can incredibly easily not...
Take drugs. And so the fact that he does take drugs means that his children are worth even less to him than the tiny temptation of taking those drugs.
I hope this makes sense.
Oh, it's so important.
I hope it makes sense. I hope it makes sense.
Anyway, let me know if it doesn't.
I'm sure it does. You people are really smart.
Really, really, really smart.
Now that is the kind of abuse that is really subtle.
And that's the kind of abuse that shows up in white collar.
Criminality. I'll sort of give you another example.
I've mentioned this before, but it really helps, I think, reinforce the point that my mother could be like in a screaming, full-on, hissy-fit, gremlin-brained rage.
And then the phone would ring, and she'd think it might be her boyfriend of the day or whatever, and she would immediately pop on a smiley mask, switch out of screech-banshee-overdrive, And comfortably and immediately be charming on the phone.
In other words, it was that easy for her to, like, even when she got into a full rage, she could stop on a dime if she so chose.
She could stop on a dime at any time.
If the incentive was there, she could stop her raging on a dime.
She was not out of control.
She was not ever out of control because the moment that somebody knocked on the door or the moment that the phone rang or whatever, she could switch like that.
She was never out of control.
And what's so humiliating about that is that some stranger that she's banging who's going to be gone in a week is infinitely more important than her own children.
This is the kind of special brain rot humiliation that I'm talking about here.
This is where white-collar crime comes from, that subtle, deep, buried, non-impactful kind of humiliation, where the values of the parent are held aloft, easily attained, but the needs of the child are constantly erased.
In that situation, the needs of the child are constantly erased.
The child desperately does not want the parent to do X. The parent says it is good not to do X. The parent displays to the child, shows the child how incredibly easy it is for the parent not to do X. The child desperately doesn't want the parent to do X. Parent proclaims,
it is virtuous to not do X. Parent says, it's completely easy for me not to do X. Parent does X! That is a special kind of catastrophe to the burgeoning, glowing, reaching mind of a child.
That is an act of ultimate erasure for the child.
Not lying is the highest value.
It is completely easy for me not to lie.
You don't want me to lie.
You desperately don't want me to lie.
I'm going to lie.
That is incredibly crushing to the self-esteem of the child because it tells the child exactly where the child stands in the brutal hierarchy of the family.
It tells the child in no uncertain terms that the child is worth less, that the dust...
On a mosquito's eyeball, the child is a mere thing that should never ever require integrity on the part of the parent.
For statism and religiosity to work, like, even a little bit, people have to And not experience that kind of subtle humiliation.
I'll sort of give you another example, right?
So, most of the families, and this is going to sound harsh, and I understand that there are reasons why people feel they need to do this, and this is the generally accepted thing to do, so I'm just talking about it from the child's perspective.
Almost every family that I know, with a few exceptions to be notably admired, most of the families that I know dump their kids in daycare in order for the parent to go to work.
And they do this as if it isn't the child's best interest.
And they say the child really likes it, the child has friends, the child enjoys it, and so on.
Like, children are sort of designed to be apart from their primary caregivers for eight or more, or ten hours a day.
That's somehow what they want, is to be apart from their primary caregivers eight to ten hours a day.
Now, from the child's perspective, It is very clear where the child stands in the hierarchy when it comes to those kinds of decisions.
Where does the child stand? Well, that's very easy to see.
It's chilling, but it's very easy to see.
The child's preferences are not Request it.
Write child and say, well, what would you prefer?
Do you want to be home with mommy or daddy or do you want more stuff?
Basic preferences. Child is asked, right?
Well, no. The child is put into daycare.
They can say, well, but sometimes the children are too young to ask.
Well, but if they cry a lot, then they're telling you, right?
The reality. So, that is very important to the child.
Now, I'm sensitive to the fact that I'm sensitive to these facts, right?
I mean, my childhood is a massive series of separations from my mom, which I didn't particularly mind because I had given up on having any preferences, of having any authority, of being asked about anything, but I was just shipped from relative to boarding school to other relative to Other relatives in Ireland and then back to boarding school near Wales and then back to other relatives at Tenterton and so on.
So I was a gypsy kid, right?
I was a nomad. And I was never asked about any of it or whether I wanted to go to Canada or any of that.
But a child who goes to daycare is clearly seeing that his, let's just use the traditional, his mom is choosing something other than himself.
And not only is she choosing something other than himself, but his needs and preferences do not exist.
Do not exist. His protestations mean nothing.
Now, I hope you understand.
I'm currently running a bunch of errands.
I had to go fix a fax at Christina's office.
I had to go pick up some business cards for her to send out at Christmas.
I hit the gym and picked up an exercise bike because to save money from canceling gym membership.
So, Isabella didn't want me to go.
So, there's times, you understand, there's times where it's fine and you can override the child's desires because things need to get done and you don't want to completely exceed to the child's desires.
Otherwise, they don't learn how to handle disappointment and they don't learn that other people have needs.
But I'm talking about a really fundamental one like being with your child.
I said this when I was younger.
This is why I never particularly wanted to get married and have kids, because this was just the standard.
I said to myself, I can't imagine why you'd have kids and then want other people to raise them.
Because it's fundamentally what is going on.
Other people are raising them. Other people are getting all the fun stuff, and you're getting all the wake them up, get them out the door, get them fed, bathe into bed, which is the less fun stuff.
You don't get that day full of playing.
It's sort of like saying, I want a girlfriend, and then I want us to have a long-distance relationship for 15 or 16 years.
I mean, it's kind of crazy. That's obviously dysfunctional if somebody said that.
I'm not going to date you unless you're about to move to China.
We get to see each other 10 or 15% of the time.
And so, the kid very clearly says, clearly understands that the parent is choosing something other than the kid, which means that the kid's desires are non-existent, will just be overridden.
But that's an act of self-erasure, and that act of self-erasure is foundational to the survival of the state and of religion.
If that act of self-erasure were actually processable, statism would end in about a week.
Religion would end in about a week.
But because people can't process that depth of trauma, that depth of self-erasure, and it doesn't just occur with going to daycare.
I mean, it occurs in school and in church and wherever you fundamentally override children's desires and preferences, legitimate desires and preferences, in a consistent and universal way.
That self-erasure, that implosion of identity, that non-existence, it's so painful to process that people would rather just conform to whoever repeats it than actually stop and process that experience.
So, we know these people in the neighborhood.
They've just put their one-year-old into daycare.
And now, of course, not only is the one-year-old unhappy about being in daycare, but she's sick all the time.
All the time.
And brings home illnesses which make the parents sick.
And a kid's got to get ill or whatever, right?
But there's still a bit of difference between graduated exposure and the biochemical weaponry of daycare tables.
And the kid, when the kid gets older, she may ask or she may not.
The parent's going to say, well, you know, I needed an income.
And the kid's going to notice.
Four-bedroom house, two cars in the driveway.
Kid's going to notice, well, parent chose stuff over me.
Parent chose stuff over me.
Stuff is more important than people.
Screw the vulnerable to get stuff.
Are you beginning to understand where the white-collar criminal mentality comes from?
Fuck the vulnerable.
Go for stuff.
Sacrifice the vulnerable to get stuff.
It's not a very funny book.
I sort of stopped listening to it. But the Earth, the audiobook, has a great line, which is something like talking to space aliens after the humanity's been wiped out.
Talking about money. Well, we did all this stuff for money.
We fought from dead wars and blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, it's yours if you want it.
Because we're all dead. Don't want to be the richest guy in the graveyard.
That's a very important thing when it comes to spending benevolence and excess in your life, which is what I'm very happy to be doing.
But it's screw the innocent, they don't exist.
Screw the young, screw the vulnerable, they don't exist.
The important thing is to get stuff.
And then you must loudly proclaim that family is the most important thing.
But if family is the most important thing, then go and live in a tent and be with your children.
I mean, these are the kinds of families that if they downgraded to a townhouse, they would only need one parent working.
Downgrade to a townhouse, sell a car, live that way.
I mean, I'm cutting bare bones back on expenses to make sure that I can continue to spend time with Isabella.
I mean, that's just a fact. It's just a reality.
But this idea that the government loudly proclaims to protect us while only exploiting us, while our needs are nonexistent relative to the state's preferences, this all comes from the family template, and it comes enormously early.
If it didn't come that early, that kind of humiliation, that kind of exploitation, that kind of abuse.
I'm not saying that these parents are all stone evil, because this is the generally accepted moral paradigm.
But you know that people aren't happy.
With their choices to toss their kids into daycare and head off to work, you know that parents aren't happy with that because they won't be honest about their priorities and say, well, my kid is, you know, somewhere below my career, having two cars, having a nice house, having good furniture, redoing the driveway, having a vacation, having nice clothes.
Somewhere down like 20 or 30 is my child's knees.
No, people always... Because that's the reality.
It's the empirical reality of the choices they're making.
But they're not comfortable with that because they don't talk about that openly.
What they say is, everything for my children, and they don't live that way.
That's very humiliating, confusing for children, and is, I strongly believe, the root of the white-collar evil that so infests and surrounds us today.
We'll get more into this. If you're interested in this topic, please let me know, and I will continue on with it at the sort of genesis of how this continues.
▲
Export Selection