All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:23
2269 The Fascists That Surround You - Part 2: Sociopaths
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Rolini from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So I'd like to put forward, I guess, a fairly disturbing thesis that I think is very important to understand and goes a long way towards explaining why the world is the way that it is and where it is likely to be heading without significant intervention.
So, you've probably heard of the phrase or the word sociopathy.
And sociopathy, I just use these words as an amateur as always, but sociopathy is basically a condition wherein a person does not have a conscience.
It's not bounded by guilt or remorse or shame.
They really experience only the most primitive of emotional sensations, you know, lust, fear, rage, and so on.
But they don't have a conscience.
And it's not an insignificant problem in society.
I mean, Estimates are that 4% of people in the West are afflicted by, or I guess they would feel liberated by, sociopathy.
That's huge.
Four times more prevalent than schizophrenia.
And it's really, really important to understand just how prevalent this condition is and the effects of its prevalence on our society.
Because they're hard to see.
And I'm going to make a case as to why they're hard to see that I think will be scary, but very important.
So, first to sort of understand, you know, we have this sort of typical view of a sociopath, like the Hannibal Lecter ex-murderer kind or whatever.
But, I mean, most sociopaths are not particularly violent or criminal directly in terms of going out and stabbing and robbing people, so on.
But they are...
Because they operate without a conscience, they have a kind of liberty, so to speak, that, you know, those of us who are blessed or afflicted with a conscience don't have.
Some sociopaths, the typical charming, empty manipulators who go for power and control and all that kind of stuff.
But you can also have deadbeat sociopaths.
The range of ambitions and drives and intelligence and so on is highly variable across society.
Some of these people will You know, just sort of hang out and sponge off people and pretend that they're looking for work, but have no real interest in...
Well, have no real capacity to experience the emotions of other people or anything like that.
And so, we're just resources, livestock, pawns for them.
And that's really kind of a chilling world to live in.
And this is not a kind of moral deficiency.
They're not covering anything up.
So lots of studies have been done on sociopaths or on people who have this tendency.
And they find that, you know, you and I will respond to the word mother differently than we will brick or a made-up word like flippity-jibbit or something.
But sociopaths don't do that.
They react the same to horrifying images as they do to pictures of cute puppies, as they do to a picture of a blank wall.
They really don't have emotional connections.
Now, they may simulate these things, which is not that hard to do for any reasonably intelligent person.
You don't have to be that bright to be an actor, trust me.
And so they can simulate emotions, they can mimic what is appropriate in various situations, but they don't actually experience emotions in the way that you and I would, and they certainly don't experience a conscience.
So just imagine, you could do whatever you wanted and Whatever you could get away with, and you would never experience the slightest shred of remorse, like you wouldn't push it down, like it simply would not arise for you, there would be no remorse, no guilt, no sense of shame, no sense of having done anything wrong or anything like that.
That would be, that's really, to me it's an impossible state of mind to genuinely get, which is one of the reasons why it's hard to identify.
I mean, they're very foreign.
So, one of the basic facts about sociopathy is that very few people get it.
They understand it.
Very few people process it.
And this can be immensely frustrating for people who do.
I mean, one in 25, so odds are you know one.
Of course, they tend to be fairly prominent in society.
I mean, the mental health problems of politicians and celebrities range just about anything you can imagine, narcissism being a very common one, of course.
Narcissism is different from sociopathy.
A narcissist will experience genuine suffering at a lack of connection, at a lack of closeness, but a sociopath won't.
A narcissist will experience their own emotions very vividly.
But not the emotions of others, and they're continually confused and frustrated and upset as to why their relationships aren't going better when they want them to.
But a sociopath has no interest in that.
I mean, they really are cold-ass alien mofos and don't even experience any emotions of their own in any particular way.
I mean, they have a sort of feral kind of chimpanzee, like, want to win and want to conquer and all that kind of stuff, but they don't experience any rich emotions.
A narcissist will, but just has a genuine inability to process the emotions of others.
A narcissist will often end up in a therapist's office because they're suffering.
But a sociopath, I mean, one of the reasons there...
What's considered virtually impossible to treat is that they don't feel that anything's wrong.
They get that other people have a conscience, and they get that having a conscience makes you controllable in the same way that having attachments makes you controllable, but they themselves don't want it.
I mean, they like the freedom for the most part.
They don't feel that there's anything wrong with them.
They just feel that there's...
And things wrong with other people.
I mean, asking a sociopath to heal themselves is like asking a farmer to become a cow.
I mean, not a lot of them are going to be down with that, so to speak.
So, they're very hard to see, and they really shouldn't be that hard to see.
Most people will get, like after spending some time with us, they get the emotional chilliness, the coldness, the manipulation, and the emptiness, and so on.
And you get that Ice-eyed stare from them and so on.
But they're, I mean, astoundingly obvious when you get the concept, but most people don't.
And I don't think this is accidental.
I don't think this is accidental at all.
I mean, I make the case that we are...
The livestock of sociopaths, for the most part, in the political, religious, educational realm, we are the livestock of sociopaths.
They keep us in the pen, in the enclosure, in the paddock called culture, which they manage and control and manipulate so that we don't see them for who they are.
Now, they are the most prevalent natural predators of mankind.
Mankind is not one big family.
It's not one big group of people all trying to muddle their way through life.
Mankind is divided into predators and prey.
I mean, there are some random predators like true psychopaths, but most of the predators tend to be on the sociopath side.
And they are not of our species, so to speak.
They are predators within Our environment.
And they have as much in common with us as a lion does with a gazelle.
And that they like to hunt, they like to eat.
And they can only hunt and eat because they don't.
I mean, any lion that had empathy for the gazelle wouldn't last very long.
Empathy gets bred out of those who are hunters.
And there are quite a few of them.
So if there are all of these...
Predators and hunters around, these sociopaths who control things, who run things, and, you know, one in 25, there's probably one in your extended family, certainly a couple in your workplace, and they're probably fairly high up in the organization.
Well, why aren't they better understood and more known?
Well, I would argue it's because they've designed culture and society to hide them.
I would argue that most of what's in your head is a methodology developed by sociopaths so that you can't see sociopathy.
This is really important.
If a lion can convince the herd of gazelle that the lion is a gazelle, then they won't run away.
And it's a lot easier if everyone thinks that you're a gazelle and not a lion.
You can just say, hey, little gazelle, let's go for a walk.
And then you go off and you bite its head off and eat its innards and then you run back.
You wash your face and you run back and you say, My God!
We were both set upon by lions!
I just made it out and unfortunately so-and-so got killed and everyone would be like, Oh my gosh, that's so terrible.
How awful of you.
I mean, how awful for you.
That must have been just so traumatic and so on, right?
And then, you know, a week or two later it'll happen again and, Oh my God, there are all these lions.
Of course, a lion is among them but everyone thinks it's a gazelle so the lion can operate with impunity.
So, how do sociopaths blind us to sociopathy?
It's a great camouflage, and I'm sure they quite enjoy it, that when people say, hey, look, there's a sociopath, and everyone says, oh my goodness, don't be silly, that's nonsense.
You've jumped into conclusions, you don't understand.
Have empathy, understand.
Oh, he had a tough child, whatever, right?
Oh yeah, it reminds me.
Someone talked very briefly about nature versus nurture.
So, there do seem to be some genetic predispositions towards sociopathy, but of course the epigenetics argument is that genes determine nothing.
Genes plus environment plus some choice determine nothing.
The arguments that it's environmental are very strong.
Very strong.
So, for instance...
Sociopathy 4% in the West, and it's been rising.
Actually, it's doubled from 1975 to 1990.
Sociopathy doubled during a time, of course, of enormous family upheaval, divorce rate increased 300% and so on.
So, that's probably not entirely accidental.
And there's just no way that if there was a genetic component that the genes would have doubled.
In 15 years.
That's not going to happen.
So, that's sort of one argument against it.
The other argument is that it's culture-specific.
So, it's high in the West.
In places like Taiwan, it ranges from like 0.3% to 0.035% or 0.03%.
So, many, many, many times lower in certain cultures than it is in other cultures.
And some arguments are made that it's not specifically parenting, but it's largely cultural.
So, let's say you have a predisposition towards sociopathy and you have bad parents, but you live in a Buddhist, we are one kind of culture, then you might have to tamp down your sociopathy a lot more than you would have to otherwise.
And so, you still are, but you don't manifest and so on, right?
I would also argue that where there's less...
Freedom, there's less sociopathy in some ways, or you could say the sociopaths are resolutely in charge.
And that's simply because if there's less freedom, then there's less of a hierarchy in terms of economics and politics, there's less capacity to dominate others, and so there's less...
There's less motive for the sociopath to really act out.
So it's culturally specific, and it doubled in 15 years, and so the argument that it's genetic and so on is, well, I think it's largely nonsense.
But there do seem to be some genetic markers, but so what?
I mean, some people have genetic markers for lung cancer, but if they don't smoke, they're fine.
So anyway...
So, how do the sociopaths hide themselves?
Well, let me make a...
I'm telling you what I would do if I were a sociopath and wanted to operate with impunity in society, in fact, with praise and envy and all that kind of stuff.
I'll tell you what I would do.
The first thing I would do is I would make the case that everyone has a conscience and Since sociopathy is fundamentally not having a conscience and not being troubled by an absence of conscience, then the first thing that I'd want to convince everyone is that everyone has a conscience, and therefore there can't be sociopaths.
And the way that I would do that is I would invent a concept called the soul.
Which everyone has, which can't be removed from the personality, and, you know, which is the eternal essence carved off from the mind of an all-loving, eternal, virtuous God, and so on.
And in this way, I'm saying everyone is a gazelle.
Everyone has a conscience.
So the idea of a soul is the idea that everyone has a conscience, that everyone has an eternal essence, a divine spark of virtue within them, and that is a fantastic camouflage.
Fantastic camouflage.
Because the idea of the soul, of course, is that you're troubled by wrongdoing.
The idea of the conscience is that you are unhappy if you do evil.
And therefore, people who aren't unhappy can't be doing evil.
People who are untroubled can't be doing evil.
Because if you have a soul and you do evil, then you're Macbeth, right?
Not the Macbeth who goes and slaughters all the king's enemies without losing any sleep, but the guy who listens to his wife and kills the king.
And so, if people are untroubled, they must have a good conscience, because everyone has a conscience, and if you have a conscience and you do bad things, then you'll be troubled.
But the scientific reality appears to be, very concisively, or very conclusively, that sociopaths are not troubled by the wrongs that they do at all.
And they don't exhibit the kind of chaos, and they're not as prone to addiction as borderlines, but They don't have a conscience.
They don't miss a conscience.
They don't want a conscience.
And so, the first thing that you'd want to do is say, everyone has a conscience.
If you do wrong, your conscience troubles you.
And that way, they can sail through life with everyone thinking that they're not bad people because they don't exhibit any remorse or negative things.
Therefore, they kind of done something wrong.
The idea that there are the soulless among us Is relegated to mythology, to fantasy, right?
To vampires and zombies and other forms of undead.
Well, the undead are ways of reminding us of the reality of a sociopathy without actually having to act on it, right?
How many sociopaths around teenage girls?
Well, look at the popularity of the Twilight series.
A vampire can't see in the mirror, does no reflection, can change shape at will, and feasts off others, lives off others.
Sociopaths don't farm, other than farming people.
So, that's the first thing that I would do is try to convince everyone, and of course this has been enormously successful, convince everyone that everyone has a soul.
That's my first camouflage.
Now, the second thing that I would do is I would create categories of virtue or categories of competence that I could inhabit without actually having to achieve Whatever virtue or competence is being portrayed or is necessary.
So, if I wanted to dominate people intellectually, what I would do is I would create a PhD system or doctorate system, I would create Ivy League colleges, and then I could inhabit those categories called, he's got a PhD in philosophy from Harvard, and that way I could dominate people without actually having to be virtuous and wise.
And, of course, interestingly enough, I would generally study and hail those great philosophers, people who did not even remotely achieve what I portray as necessary to achieve.
Certainly, Socrates had no PhD from Harvard.
And so, creating these categories would be an essential step in dominating people without having to actually achieve the virtue.
So, I create a category called doctor, where I'm now a competent doctor, because I have achieved a piece of paper, and that would give me, of course, monopoly power, but it would also give people the illusion that I was competent because I had studied...
And so, when you look at the sort of the titles and the pieces of paper and the embossed crap on the walls and so on, these are all camouflages.
I mean, the way that you would be judged a wise and virtuous man is through consistent wise and virtuous actions.
And you wouldn't need a piece of paper to prove that you are wise and virtuous.
I can't go and print out a good husband's certificate, give that to my wife and say, well, now you have to be happy because I've got a good husband's certificate.
No, I'm a good husband because I do loving, supportive, positive, helpful things on a consistent basis and that's how I am a good husband.
Similar to This show, I must show wisdom and intelligence and compassion and strength and conviction and so on in order to be of value to my listeners.
I mean, if I went off and got a PhD from Harvard in philosophy, would that make my show better?
Well, no.
In fact, it would make it worse because I'd be spending more time jumping through those hoops than actually thinking and learning about the world and finding out how better to communicate things to people as a whole.
So, these categories that are set up in society, and the categories include things like president, prime minister, congressman, congresswoman, senator, right?
Then a senator walks in the room, and it's the label, it's the category that is walking into the room, which conveys authority and dominance, right?
I've never said to anyone, I'm right because I've studied.
I will debate anyone.
On the Sunday shows, I'm happy to debate anyone.
And I never say, I'm right because I've studied.
It's the quality of my arguments in the moment.
It's the quality of my interaction in the moment that matters.
And so, when you look at who wins...
In conflicts, particularly intellectual conflicts, who wins?
Generally, we defer to the person who has a categorization.
The person who has the piece of paper, the person who has whatever, right?
Like...
Imagine being on TV and someone comes on the television as a pundit or somebody who's going to say something intelligent about things.
Someone comes on the television and it says, Joe Blow.
It doesn't say anything underneath it.
You know, president of Ex-Policymaker Institute, past professor of law at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, a.k.a.
he has had to take way too many pain medications and bang your secretaries by the pool at lunchtime when you swim naked, you freak.
Anyway, imagine it was just so-and-so.
Well, you say, well, why should I listen to this guy?
You see?
Well, you would listen to him because when he would open his mouth, he would say intelligent, insightful, valuable things.
But no, you have to give people a reason why somebody is worth listening to, a reason why you should pay attention to them.
That's all designed by sociopaths, guaranteed.
Because if you actually have something of value to say, Then you just say it and you do your thing.
But if you need something external to yourself, something to advertise that you have something of value to say, well, I think it was that Marlon Brando took only one acting class from Stella Adler back in the day.
And he didn't need a whole lot of pieces of paper because he actually brought that kind of competence.
Did Freddie Mercury have to go to singing school?
No.
Right?
Did Russell Crowe have to graduate from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts?
No.
So they don't need the categories because they have the thing, the thing itself.
So wherever you see a proliferation of categories that convey dominance and authority, you are looking at the hiding place as a sociopath, because they can pursue all...
So how is it that somebody would be deemed wise?
Well, I think the way that you would be deemed wise is...
You would learn wisdom from a wise man or woman, and that wise man or woman would introduce you to the world as somebody who was wise and put their reputation on the line, right?
But some anonymous institution conveying upon you a diploma or a degree or a doctorate or whatever, I mean, what does that tell you?
Right?
Getting a PhD in philosophy from Harvard tells everyone a bunch of things that have nothing to do with philosophy.
It tells people that you are good at getting a PhD called philosophy from Harvard.
It doesn't tell anyone that you're good at philosophy itself.
It just tells people that you're good at jumping through the hoops necessary to get a piece of paper with the word philosophy written on it.
I am not a good philosopher because I did a master's in history We're the focus on the history of philosophy at an Ivy League university in Canada.
All that tells you is that I was able to achieve that piece of paper.
paper doesn't tell you anything about whether I'm good at the thing itself.
So the pursuit of the piece of paper tells you two things.
It tells you, A, that the person is really good at doing whatever is necessary to achieve that piece of paper.
And B, it tells you that they think it's really important for them to have that piece of paper.
It tells you that it's really important for them to have that piece of paper.
Why is it really important for them to have that piece of paper?
Why?
Why?
Because they want dominance without actually manifesting the qualities of superiority in a rational and empirical way.
So that's really important as well.
Now, the other thing is that sociopathy is all win-lose.
To have a win-win negotiation, you need to have empathy for another person.
To figure out, to be creative, to figure out how you can have a win-win interaction requires that you have empathy for the other person, or at least recognize that the other people have emotional needs equal to and as important as yours, so that you can design some sort of win-win thing.
Now, if you don't have any empathy, if you don't have a conscience, you don't have any empathy, you can't have win-win.
It's always win-lose.
And yet you cannot portray it as win-lose.
Because that's revealing that you have no empathy.
So the other thing that you have to do is you have to invent a whole load of analytical abstract bullshit that covers up the reality of the win-lose interaction.
And you know that other people are, in general, sentimental idiots with patriotic tapioca where their critical reasoning sentence should be.
And so you will create a whole load of kumbaya bullshit To cover up the win-lose nature of the society that you're in.
And so, you will talk about how government investment creates jobs.
Looking at the win side.
Now, of course, economics, in its essence, is about not just the win, but the lose, right?
I mean, Austrian economics really focuses praxeologically on the win-win negotiations, which is great, but economics is looking at the hidden costs of things, not just the visible benefits.
Not just the jobs that the government creates, but the jobs that are not created or destroyed because the government has taken things from elsewhere.
Now, the sociopath will only focus on the win side and will completely Avoid, ignore, downplay, mock or attack anyone who talks about the lose side, because the sociopath wants to create the illusion that it's win-win, when in fact it's win-lose.
Because if the win-lose aspect is created, then the predatory nature of the sociopath is very clear.
And this is why they invent words like taxes and patriotism and army and war and so on, rather than, you know, theft, tax livestock farm, armed gang, and organized mass murder.
If you reframe...
Right, so sociopaths live in language because you can manipulate language.
You really can't manipulate reality.
But you can manipulate language.
And so sociopaths will...
I mean, the PhD thing, I have a doctorate in philosophy from Yale.
That is all a manipulation of language.
And therefore I'm right.
And therefore I have additional weight in this.
How can you go against somebody who has a doctorate in economics from the Chicago School of...
Well, because the sociopath wants to create a language, because you can manipulate language, you can dominate through language while pretending that you're not dominating...
And all of this is really, really important.
The media is entirely full of, I mean the mainstream media is entirely full of verbally abusive sociopaths.
Because they simply can't bring truth and reality to you.
In particular, the truth and reality of the violence of the system.
And anybody who's hiding the violence of the system is sociopathic.
In my estimation.
You realize I can't diagnose.
I mean, this is my formulation.
Because they're portraying something as they're avoiding the reality of win-lose.
And anybody who avoids the reality of win-lose is trying to avoid the reality of predation.
And anybody who avoids the reality of predation is involved in that predation and therefore is sociopathic.
So this is why you can't see pictures of dead Iraqis in the American media.
What is it?
It was an Onion article, I think it was.
General Petraeus sex scandal.
Americans shocked to still learn that we're still in Afghanistan.
Well...
This is all monstrous.
Our sociopaths will...
Call the forced caging and indoctrination of children education, molding people into a good citizen.
Well, it means clipping their wings and hobbling them intellectually in the way that they used to hobble slaves to prevent them from running away.
But it's called the exact opposite of what it is.
And this is why sociopaths are so anti-philosopher, right?
Because, I mean, good philosophers who truthfully identify the reality of the situation and call things, as is called for, calls things by their proper names.
So I'd like to make the case for you, there's a lot here to talk about, I don't want to see if people are interested in this topic, but I'd like to make the case for you that you live inside the predatory defenses of sociopathy.
Why does a priest have value?
Because he calls himself father.
It's a complete emotional manipulation.
And because he claims to have access to a piece of paper called a deity, which confers upon him even more authority than a PhD in discipline X from Harvard or Yale or whoever.
I talk to God.
God told me this, and therefore you must obey me.
Well, that's win-lose.
It's non-negotiation.
Wherever you're in a situation where there's not a negotiation and you're in win-lose, you're in the realm of...
Because you can only have win-lose if you lack empathy.
You can only have win, lose and live with yourself if you have no conscience.
And so, I mean, in the realm of religion, it's everywhere.
Of course, in the portrayal of the soul.
And if you look at, I mean, the degree to which...
And child abuse scandals are covered up for years and in the Boy Scouts and in the church and In athletic departments, in universities and so on, this is because, I mean, the viciousness of the sociopath comes out when you recognize and confront the reality of the sociopath.
I mean, they don't want to be visible.
And this is where you get these pumping out of slander and innuendo and hate sites on the internet.
All of this stuff gets pouring out when sociopaths Get anywhere close to being identified by anyone where the awareness of the mental sociopath-protecting cage of culture begins in any way, shape or form to be exposed for what it is.
The matrix is the mind of the sociopath and that's where we live.
When somebody begins to expose that for what it is, the human farm that we live in, ruled by predators with no conscience, Whenever anybody begins to point out that the, quote, gazelle with the shaggy hair and the big teeth ain't a gazelle, well, this is the person who must be attacked, and it's actually a mark of pride.
If you're not harming the interests of any evil people, then you're not really doing any good.
If you're not being attacked, you're not doing any good at all.
You're just making noise.
And so there's another category, perhaps the most important one, that sociopaths like to claim gives them virtue and authority innately, and that is the parent.
In this formulation, of course, the parent is correct because he or she is the parent, right?
Honor thy mother and thy father.
Well, you see, this is a fundamentally sociopathic statement, because if the mother and the father are honorable, then they don't need that to be said.
I mean, that's particularly kids who grew up in proximity to parents know the parents about as well as any human being can ever know anyone, with the exception of the parents knowing the child even more intimately.
Although the child knows the parent even more deeply, in many ways, even then the parent knows the child, because the child studies the parent much more closely than the parent studies the child.
Although the parent does have the advantage of knowing the child in his infancy.
But...
Honor thy mother and thy father is pure sociopathy because it is the ultimate camouflage.
And this is why we have different standards for parents than we do for other members of society.
It used to be honor thy husband, right?
And then we sort of got rid of that, and it was honor the white man, and we got rid of that, and so on.
But the honor thy mother and thy father, fundamental sociopathy, because it creates a separate moral category.
And people can't, like, when you have these opposing moral categories that no, sometimes it seems no amount of clarity and willpower can drag people across, it's because you're living in the emotional defense, in the camouflage, in the tiger in the grass, in the Defenses of sociopathy.
I mean, so we all understand that if you're married to a conscienceless monster, then you should get out.
But if you are parented by a conscienceless monster or two, then...
Well, honor thy mother and thy father, right?
You don't have those kinds of choices.
It's the same thing with teachers, right?
Teachers, you have to herd kids into public school teachers because the whole system is sociopathic.
Because it is at the expense of children for the benefit of adults.
It's complete win-lose.
And the winning is a pension, which is just some material bullshit.
But the losing is entire childhoods, entire integrities, entire sections of the brain that shut down and go dark never to light again.
But you have to listen because she's your teacher.
You have to respect him because he's your father.
You have to love her because she's your mother.
Anytime you get these kinds of commandments, it's pure sociopathy.
I don't need to say to my daughter every morning, repeat after me, you like your father, repeat after me, you like your father.
You have to obey me because God says so.
You have to respect me because God says so.
You have to honor me because it's a commandment.
But that's just creating another category called father, just like PhD, which means that you have to respect the category because I can't earn the respect as an individual.
So I'm going to crawl into the category and do it that way.
So, I hope that this helps, and it's a very, very important topic for you to understand.
I would certainly recommend the book The Sociopath Next Door, a bunch of other books which I can recommend if you want, but this is where we live.
The Matrix is the defenses of the predators, known as sociopaths.
We used to have an older word for them.
There's a word in Inuit, which basically means he who knows the right thing to do but will not do it, and they mean the people who, the men who won't hunt, who just hang around the igloo village impregnating the women, and their solution is, you know, they recognize it's incurable, and their solution is simply to Take that person out on the ice and push them into the water and not rescue them.
And we used to have an older word for this.
We used to just call it evil, but of course that word has become less popular these days.
Of course, evil people certainly want to downplay the possibility of evil unless they can externalize it and use imaginary and fictitious and made-up enemies overseas to scare you into surrendering your rights to them in the here and now.
But this is the reality, that there are evil who are among us, who are unreformable, irredeemable, can't be fixed, who will prey upon you without a shred of conscience, without a shred of remorse, and don't want to be fixed, enjoy being predators, can't talk a lion into becoming a lamb, and that is the reality of the world that we live in.
If you doubt me, simply look at the science, and this is the enemies that we have, and these are the enemies that we need to expose, and we will never have peace and freedom and liberty, and we will never have a free market until the sunlight that is the best disinfectant is turned upon these vampires.
▲
Export Selection