All Episodes
Jan. 28, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:47
2309 Freedomain Radio Listener Emails - January 2013
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stephen Molyneux from Freedom In Radio.
A couple of questions come in, as always, from brilliant, perceptive-wise, and probably quite curvaceous listeners.
So the first came from a doctor who said, how would prescriptions be handled in a free society or in a stateless society?
And prescriptions are kind of like a new thing, right?
It was only after the Second World War that Congress gave American doctors, in particular the right, to have an exclusive monopoly on prescriptions.
The dispensation of medication.
So, it's not a big mystery as to how it would be handled.
It would be handled the way it was handled in the past, you know, long before this sort of came about.
And in particular, his concern was the problem.
So, medical-resistant gonorrhea has shown up in the U.S. and in Canada, where, of course, the standard antibiotics don't work.
And it's a big problem.
People then have to take IV antibiotics that are just wretched for the system in many ways to get rid of it and so on.
So that's of concern.
Antibiotics as a whole tend to be, as far as I understand it, kind of over-prescribed.
And as a result, they tend to provoke bacteria into developing resistant strains naturally.
Which are a huge problem, because not a whole lot of arrows left in that quiver.
So we don't want to go back to the Middle Ages, as far as that goes.
So, how would we deal with this?
Well, and I don't impugn the ethics of the good doctor in this, but again, as usual, the question, how will it be dealt with in a free society, indicates or contains within it The buried implicit premise that it is somehow being dealt with in the present.
Well, it's not being dealt with in the present.
A monopoly of prescription power is not solving the problem of prescriptions.
Prescription deaths are in the hundreds of thousands of people yearly.
People are on like three, five, seven, nine medications.
There was a young man on the Dr.
Phil show the other day Who had been on 23 psychoactive medications and he was, I think, 14.
There is an over-prescription of antibiotics and so on.
So it's a big mess as it is right now.
So it would be my hope that a free society would not recreate such a big, ugly, ridiculous mess as we have now.
So, in a free society, you really have to I think you have to assume, and I think there's good reasons to assume, I think you have to assume that what is economically optimal is morally beneficial in the long run.
So, if you give somebody antibiotics to clear up A minor throat infection that will probably clear up in a week or two.
And it clears up in a couple of days.
Clearly that's beneficial.
I mean, you know, sore throats are no fun.
So it's beneficial in the short run.
But if you say to that person, what you're trading is a couple of days extra of a sore throat for the possibility that you will get an infection that will be resistant to this antibiotic.
Right.
Now, each individual can't necessarily make that decision, right?
So, like the gonorrhea-resistant thing, I mean, what do I care?
I'm in a monogamous marriage, right?
So, that's fine for me, but of course it's not fine for other people.
So, individuals can't necessarily make the decision about what is optimal for society in the long run, but neither can governments.
One of the fundamental problems with governments...
It's that when you have a sales tax, then the government makes money from there being economic transactions, which means it has, of course, a huge incentive to promote economic transactions.
The government gets money from the pharmaceutical industries, it gets money from the doctor lobbying groups, and so the pharmaceutical industries want to create situations in which There are as many prescription fill-outs as humanly possible, and politicians have no particular interest in diminishing that, in controlling that, in managing that.
That's truly a recipe for disaster.
The people who make money in the pharmaceutical industry are generally compensated for this year's profit, this year's stock price.
And because of the supercharged stock market, which I've talked about before, there's a huge amount of profits to be made out of stuffing the pipe, out of getting a lot of sales now at the expense of profits in the future.
So the politicians, of course, will either be out of office or, you know, too rich to care or have too much power to care or simply switch to some other Or make money out of staying in the same area by the time the prescription of medication has its inevitable effect on the resistance of whatever you're trying to kill with your prescription.
So right now, one of the things that drives materialism, one of the things like, why is the culture so, let's go to the mall and shop?
Well, of course there are profits of the stores, but that's always been the case.
But what has changed over the past hundred years is The fact that the government makes a huge amount of money off people buying and selling stuff.
And so, guess what the government generally promotes?
Buying and selling stuff.
That's not too shocking.
People always talk about materialism and they never talk about the agency that profits the most Right, so in Canada, you buy and sell stuff.
It's like 14%, 15%, 16%.
I mean, it's way more than the profits of almost all of the companies involved.
So, ah, you see these materialists, they really want you to buy and sell stuff.
And these greedy corporations just want you to buy and sell.
And they promote all this materialism.
It's like, dude...
They are nothing compared to how much profit the government makes from materialism, which is why the government promotes materialism in a variety of ways.
I don't know.
People always look at the private sector.
And I guess that's what people interact with, is the storekeeper, right?
And they don't interact with the government, really.
And so that's just a big problem.
Government profits from buying and selling stuff.
So guess what?
The government promotes buying and selling.
Shocking!
Shocking, I know.
But what incentive does the government have to reduce the prevalence, say, of antibiotic prescriptions?
What?
Well, because in 10 or 20 years, resistant strains might develop or whatever.
Well, yeah, that's going to be a problem for sure.
But what the hell does the government care about?
I mean, if the government cared about future liabilities, there wouldn't be future liabilities in the tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars just for the U.S. There wouldn't be a national debt.
I mean, there wouldn't be unfunded liabilities for pensions.
The government doesn't care about the future.
The government is all about gaining power here and now by telling you whatever pushes your emotional buttons to get you to comply with giving them resources, whether that's money, time, energy, or your children.
So, in a free society, a DRO is going to, like an insurance company, is going to have to take care of you for your entire life.
And you really want to sign up for your entire life.
If you only sign up for the short term, then they're not going to care if you eat a lot of candy, because they don't have to pay for your diabetes.
You want somebody who's going to be with you for the long run, because then they're going to have a financial interest in your long-term health rather than your short-term health, which of course is what tends to go on at the moment.
Actually, this was posted on the message board.
And thanks again to everyone who posts on the message board.
Very helpful for me.
Steph, I haven't heard much about this topic in your videos much, except for the part in Why You Were So Alone, around the taboo of discussing this subject.
Taboos are the north star of the philosopher.
That's what we aim for.
I'm curious what your analysis is of common responses when the topic of childhood is brought up and one discloses an abusive childhood to a friend.
I'm sure you've heard these.
I will start with the most common ones I've experienced.
I don't want to get into the details of the actual trauma in this first post.
Let's just say I scored 8 out of 10 in the Kaiser Adverse Childhood Experiences online study you talked about in one episode.
One, the most common response is, but you seem so normal, along with confused, astonished expressions on their face.
Then some try to minimize it.
You must be exaggerating.
You're being dramatic.
Disbelief.
You're kidding.
Some try to turn it into something good, saying, it benefited me, made me smarter, tougher.
Look at how good my life is, so I should be grateful for having hardships that challenged me and made me who I am.
Two.
One I hate the most is immediate empathy and sympathy for abusers, but none for me, and instructing me to feel bad for the abusers and make excuses for their behaviors.
Examples.
You must have been very difficult.
Gosh, what did you do to them?
Imagine what kind of horrible childhood they must have had.
Imagine if you had to schlep around kids all the time, right now.
Well, why should your older siblings like the responsibility of looking after you?
Three.
The ones that seem like...
Okay friends who afterwards treat me with disgust and lose respect for me.
They act like there's an axe murderer in me waiting to come out anytime with the proper trigger.
These reactions made me avoid the topic for many years, or lie that my childhood was happy and wonderful.
I don't want people suspecting on some level that I was a horribly deranged, damaged, or unworthy person that's going to turn into Norman Bates.
Some would joke about it, start talking to me in harsh, abusive, or condescending manner that they did not before.
If I called them on it, they'd sneer and say something like, I think you should be used to that by now, or that's because you're so messed up.
There are more, but I'm stopping at three.
Well, of course, you are into the darkest secret of society, and the reason fundamentally, the main reason fundamentally why society is the way that it is.
And I'm sorry, I'm incredibly sorry that you're getting the reactions that you get.
And there are lots of reasons for it, in my opinion, and I'll go into some of them.
But people really don't like to look at child abuse, obviously.
They don't like to think of its prevalence.
They don't like to think that in a recent study, three-quarters of women and over 60% of men said that sometimes children deserve a good, hard spanking.
The courage of these people who are willing to hit children, and yet will probably grovel before a police officer who stops them for speeding.
So why do people have such a tough time saying, that is so terrible, I'm so sorry for what happened to you.
It breaks my heart, I can't imagine.
Please tell me more.
Why is simple, human, sympathy and empathy not only impossible, but...
It's incomprehensible to people.
And in fact, when you ask someone to help you with a wound, why do they end up, frankly, pissing their own psychic vomit into your wound, thus making it worse?
Why do they punish you for having had a bad childhood?
Well, there are lots of answers, so I'll just talk about them as they come to me.
I'm sure there are others, and maybe these aren't even correct, but these are the ones that I think are the case.
First of all, people mistake their circumstances for their virtues all the time.
Oh my goodness.
People mistake their circumstances for their virtues all the time.
They mistake accidents for integrity.
They mistake happenstance for happiness.
And that is one of the greatest tragedies.
The vanity of...
Coincidence is something that people have such an enormous amount of difficulty giving up on.
Right, so, I mean, we all know the rich kids, you know, maybe you knew them when you were growing up.
The rich kids who show up, you know, on their 16th or 17th birthday with a nice shiny red sports car to school, and they take exotic trips to Peruvian mountaintops, and they have the flashiest clothes and the best haircuts, and All of that kind of stuff.
And everybody looks at this as if they're better, as opposed to just lucky.
People do this with the religions that they're brought up in.
I've accepted Jesus Christ.
Well, you've only heard of Jesus Christ because you happen to be born where you're born in the age that you're in and so on, right?
You probably couldn't name me off a couple of dozen Hindu gods now, could you?
So people say, well, and this is true also with, you know, why do so many religions have such problems with homosexuality?
Well, certainly in Christianity it's because the history of priestly rape would have made people rather aggressive towards homosexuality because they would mistake pedophilia for homosexuality, which of course it's not.
And also because the genetic basis for a personality is...
Runs completely counter to the idea of a divine soul.
Right?
So, if you are genetically homosexual, then it can't be evil because God made you that way or that is just the way you are.
And so, homosexuals could not be evil, yet God calls them evil.
Right?
So, everybody's soul has to be equal.
Therefore, the genetic basis of the personality or innate personality Pluses or minuses in the personality simply don't accord with the idea of the soul.
So somebody who's dumber can't really be that dumb deep down because they have God's soul in him, the eternal, perfect, whatever, right?
And somebody who is a child who lacks concentration, he has concentration in there, you've just got to dig in and find it because it's there, because God put it there.
It can't be removed and so on.
So, The material basis of the personality is something that is deeply counter to the idea of a divine eternal core to the personality.
So, people don't like to look at accidents of birth because accidents of birth counter what goes on in the divine framework of we're all perfect, God has a plan for all of us, God works in mysterious ways and so on.
God can't give you burdens greater than you can carry and so on.
So, the idea that you're part of some master-minded morality play where everything happens for a reason and everything is instructional for the best, you know, makes people turn cyclones into storm gods of eternal virtue.
And this is all kind of nonsensical.
And so, the idea that people are horribly disadvantaged Due to a bad childhood, and other people are supremely advantaged due to very good childhoods, is deeply troubling to the egalitarian nature of religiosity.
In religion, we're all equal because we all have souls.
The idea that one person's brain is going to develop really well because they're in a stimulating, loving, peaceful, negotiation-based, intimate environment, and another Child's physiology and brain is going to permanently change because they were brought up in a lonely, impoverished, brutal or neglected environment is something that's incredibly troubling to people.
The egalitarianism that is so core to human society, to collectivism, to socialism, to fascism, to nationalism, right?
We're all better because we're in this group.
This is kind of an egalitarianism that's geographical, to religiosity, to socialism, to the welfare state, and so on.
It's all, I think, is fundamentally traceable back to this concept of the soul, which is still so Embedded in our consciousness and in our culture.
And of course, physical beauty is another one of these things.
Beautiful people are just better.
They're worth more.
They make more.
They get more promotions.
They get more respect.
They get greater social ease.
And it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Everyone thinks they're better and defers to them.
And therefore, what do you know?
They are better and deferred to.
Which is one of the reasons why beautiful people are just so generally insane.
That people don't tend to contradict them very much because they want to maintain access to To the physical attractiveness.
And this is why so many beautiful women, in my experience, believe a lot of really, really nutty things.
People don't want to contradict them.
What is it Nietzsche said?
There are three things, great power, great money, great beauty, that permanently distort everyone around them.
This is why it's so hard for these people to gain access to the truth.
And of course, once they found themselves on falsehoods, they then reject anyone who might have the temerity to offer them the truth.
So, people who weren't abused have a great deal of difficulty processing just how freaking lucky they were.
And how much of what they consider their virtues...
Results from the accident of their proximity to peaceful and rational parents as a child.
They didn't earn the family they were born into.
You didn't earn the bad family or the good family or the indifferent family that you were born into.
It's a mere accident.
And people don't like the idea that their own personal strengths are entirely coincidental and that they no more earned Their virtues than they did their eye color or their height.
That is bizarre for them.
And it's really hard.
We mistake the effects of our environment for our virtues and our vices.
And our vices.
It works both ways, right?
So, if you were brought up in an abusive household and you're physically...
Timorous and socially anxious and constantly wrestling with depression and anxiety and so on, then I'm insecure.
People always say this to me on the show.
I'm insecure.
I have this problem.
And I always keep telling them, no, no, no, no, no.
Insecurity was inflicted upon you.
Right?
There's a difference between a mole and a stab wound.
I have a mole.
I was stabbed.
I have a wound.
I did not create the wound.
The wound is not innate to me.
It's resulted from somebody else's immorality, from somebody else's evil.
And if you have psychological or physical wounds that arise from an abusive childhood, then they are scars that were inflicted upon you through evil.
You were attacked, you were assaulted, you were beaten, you were ignored, you were verbally or physically or socially, sexually or emotionally abused.
And You didn't earn the social, emotional, psychological problems that result from that any more than a rich kid, given a Ferrari, earned his Ferrari.
He just was given it.
So you were given your, quote, vices, and you were given your, quote, virtues, and the gap between those two and mistaking those for some sort of essential identity or some sort of thing that was earned?
No, no, no, no.
Look, most of the personality, 90% of the personality is formed in the first few years of life.
And you sure as shit don't earn or not earn things in the first couple of years in your life.
They simply should be provided for you.
So 90% of who you are was blessed or cursed upon you before you could...
Count to thirty or read two words or anything like that.
Probably before you could remember anything.
This is why it's so easy to mistake the accidents of history for the personality.
Because there is no soul, there is no original potential Unaltered brain to go back to to compare with who you are.
Who you are is largely composed of how you were treated in the womb and for the first few years after you were born.
That's who you are.
That's your identity.
That's your personality.
That's your essence.
That's your being.
That's your everything.
And so we can't go back and say, well, but this is different from who I would have been if I'd been treated differently because there is no who I would have been if I was treated differently to compare to.
So people...
Eternally mistake their personalities for their virtues.
They confuse for the sake of vanity or for the sake of self-attack in the differentiation between virtues and quote vices.
They mistake the environment for the essence.
They mistake how they were acted upon for who they actually are.
And that is deeply tragic.
So when you say, I had a bad childhood, and this has had a very powerful effect on who I am, well, people get so heavily ego-invested in what they call their personality, that to talk about the environmental factors that shape the personality is very tough.
It's very tough for people.
It's deeply disturbing for people.
It's deeply disturbing for people.
Because you're saying you are who you are because of where you were.
Right?
This is really disturbing for people.
You are a Christian because of where you were born.
You are not a Muslim, or you are a Muslim.
Because of where you were born, right?
And that's really tough for people to process.
It's really tough for people to process, right?
It's like you're taking away who they are and who they understand themselves to be.
To be proud to be American, well, you're American because you happen to be born in America.
How much of their entire being and their social circle and their family values and everything is dependent, right?
So I go...
To my family at Thanksgiving, and we watch football.
And we cheer for this team, not that team.
Well, how much of this is accidental?
Your family is accidental.
Thanksgiving is an arbitrary, quote, holiday, or whatever you want to call it, invented, and the tradition of going to family.
We eat turkey.
Why do you eat turkey?
Because, you know, this is what everyone says.
It's just, you know, if you were somewhere else, you'd be doing something completely and totally different.
But people can only, in a sense, sustain this nonsense by pretending that there's something essential to it.
That it's not just happenstance and accident and so on.
People who get frustrated at other people in their country who don't speak their language as well.
How nutty is that?
You only happen to speak this language well.
go to Turkey, try to learn Turkish for God's sakes.
You know, I mean, right?
It's all coincidence.
Transcription by CastingWords But, of course, the moment we found our identity on accidents, on language, on imagination, on stories, well, we're controllable.
Because people can threaten to take those stories away or alter those stories.
And we can be set against each other by having opposing stories, right?
The left-wing story versus the right-wing story or whatever.
The black story versus the white story.
The rich versus the poor.
The male story versus the female story.
Big classic one, right?
The moment we set our identities on accidents and language and coincidence and geography, I mean, then we're completely...
I mean, if we found our identity on philosophy, then we're not open to manipulation.
Not open to manipulation, right?
You can't manipulate E equals MC squared.
You can't manipulate gases expand when heated.
You can't manipulate metal shrinks in the cold.
Because those are facts, right?
It's reality.
So, all of this stuff is a fundamental reason why when you bring up child abuse, if people had good childhoods, they have generally, not always, but have generally mistaken the personal strengths and competencies and virtues that they have Been truly, coincidentally blessed to receive as a result of those, they don't want to see just how lucky they are.
Because you get, once you see how lucky you are, that is an obligation to help.
That's not a moral commandment to help, but it's an obligation to help.
Because if you get that you're just lucky, you're just lucky, then the phrase, the less fortunate, begins to have real meaning.
And the first way you would have sympathy for the less fortunate is to get that it was just luck and coincidence.
So I don't want to point that out.
And so that's why they say, well, but you seem so fine!
Right?
Well, there's partly guilt in that, right?
Because one of the reasons why they say, you seem so fine, of course, is because they haven't asked you or noticed the signs or haven't processed the degree to which we are surrounded by the walking wounded.
Victims of child abuse, right?
So they feel kind of guilty and bad about that.
So the second one, though, I think is more important, which is when they immediately switch to sympathy for the abuser at the expense of the victim.
Well, the science is pretty clear on this, that the best way to avoid repeating abuse that you received is to get, frankly, fucking angry at having been abused and at your abusers.
And rightly so.
Of course.
Of course we do.
We don't ask the victim of a rape to understand the rapist's bad childhood and to sympathize for him.
I mean, I guess some people do, whatever, right?
But it's all crazy.
That's nonsense.
We certainly don't ask society to do that.
We throw his ass in jail.
Right?
And the various injustices which were heaped upon blacks and women and other minorities, not women or minorities, and so on throughout history, we expect them to get angry, to bring forth the righteous rage, to remedy.
Right?
We change that which we get.
Angry is the important energy.
It's the motive power for change.
And if you don't get angry at something, then you're never going to be interested in changing it fundamentally.
Or even if you're interested, you're never going to have the energy to do it.
So when people say that you need to sympathize with your abusers, they're setting up this paradigm wherein you are immature for not sympathizing with your abusers.
Right?
It's an immature reaction to get angry at people who beat or rape or kicked or ignored or verbally abused you and so on.
Treated you like less than a Dog.
It's immature to get angry at that, and the wise and mature thing is to be Zen and to sympathize and to understand and to realize where they were coming from and all this funky stuff, right?
They were doing the best they can and the best they could with the knowledge that they had.
And to get angry is fundamentally immature.
Well, of course, what they're setting up is a repetition of abuse.
These are enablers of abuse.
They are aiders and abettors of abusers because they're ensuring that the abuse is going to continue by thwarting and mocking and calling immature and fundamentally humiliating the just and righteous anger of the victim, which is the only thing that is going to get them off the roundabout Most likely, of repeating the abuse against others.
Anger is the antidote to the cycle of violence.
So they're putting you back on the roundabout.
You're trying to get off the roundabout of violence.
These people are putting you right back on, saying, only very strong wise people continue to create conditions which ensure, or most likely ensure, the repetition of abuse against children.
So they are the Praetorian guard of the abusers, and why would people want for the cycle of abuse to continue?
Well, for two reasons.
Either A, they're abusers, or B, they really want to be abusers.
They want to be abusers because it's easier to screw up your own children in the short run than it is to deal with your own childhood.
Abusers aren't idiots.
They're not random.
They are, in the very short run, performing a rational, amoral calculation of pain versus pleasure.
Rather than deal with the humiliation and abuse that you experienced as a child, if you did, it is easier to normalize that, to say that that's good parenting, and therefore to act it out against your own children.
That which we approve, we become.
That which we reject, we escape.
That which we approve, we become.
Right?
You understand that?
No, of course you do.
So, either they are abusers, and they want to keep the meme going that you must sympathize with and understand your abusers, because that's the club that they're going to use against their own children when their children grow up and become independent moral agencies and come across The few scattered resources that actually recognize and help children against abusers by reminding them that anger is very healthy, the abuse they suffered was absolutely immoral.
You know, all the basics that I was taught by the gracious feminists in the 70s about the evil of abuse against those less powerful than you.
And of course, wives are infinitely more powerful against husbands and infinitely stronger with husbands than children are against any parents.
Wives can leave economic independence and And there's lots of support groups, children can't leave, no economic independence, and so on.
And I don't think, again, I don't recall that the general thought process coming out of feminism and other...
Powerful ideological movements.
I don't believe that a lot of feminists were saying to women being beaten up by their husbands that they need to stay and they need to sympathize with and understand that their husbands probably had difficult childhoods themselves, that their husbands who beat them are doing the best they can with the knowledge that they have.
No, no, no.
They were told to get out and not look back and that the men were pigs and they should report them to the cops and whatever, right?
So, I mean, the general ethic.
People are always shocked when an ethic that they accept in one sphere is consistently applied to another sphere.
Consistency blows people's minds because ethics, of course, are set up for exploitation in general.
And so, when they're actually extended universally, the exploitation diminishes and people are just shocked, deeply shocked.
So, either they are abusers and they need to keep this meme going of forgive your abusers so that they can...
Treat their kids like shit and then continue to have them, you know, bring them presents and cakes on their birthdays and wipe their asses when they're dying and all that sort of stuff.
Of course.
Of course.
And, I mean, this is nothing new.
This is exactly how it was with women before, right?
You made a vow.
You were married.
Reach out to the spirit within him.
You can't leave him because...
It's God's will that you stay together, and you can't go against God's will by leaving your husband.
You understand, this is all the same shit that women used to be told when they were in abusive marriages, that they can't leave, that it's irresponsible.
What about the kids?
They chose to get married.
God has a plan for them, right?
And then women said, basically, screw that, and rightly so.
Good for you.
Ladies, I think that's wonderful.
And now we don't accept that anymore.
And we're just going through the same process with adult kids, right?
Kids who grow up.
And maybe even when they're younger.
I don't know how far back or how far down you can go.
That's, I don't know, not really up to science to say at some point.
But people who are abused by their parents, I mean, so if you're in a 20-year abusive marriage, most people would say, get out.
Or at least you can get out if you want.
But if you've been in a 20-year abusive relationship with your parents...
Which is involuntary, not something that you chose, of course, and wives these days choose to get married to their husbands and so on, could leave any time.
But you didn't choose to get married, born to where you were born.
You certainly didn't choose the parents you were given.
You couldn't leave and so on.
They had infinitely more power over you than any adult does with any adult.
We're just extending the same thing.
All we're doing is saying that abusive relationships, we should remind people of their voluntarism.
And people are deeply shocked by that.
I mean, because, you know, although this has happened to like half a dozen groups already, the fact that it's happening to the children now is completely shocking to people.
And I mean, that's ridiculous, but inevitable.
So they either are abusers or they want to be abusers.
They want to, you know, they're frankly looking forward at some level to being able to discharge their own historical venom on their children.
To exercise their own humiliated futilities on their children in the future or on others.
And so, they either are abusers or they want to be abusers.
And when I say want to be abusers, it's like I'd rather do that than deal with my issues, right?
I mean, it's a decision that people make, right?
Because who we are, at least a decade or two after our childhoods, who we are fundamentally is the result of the decisions we've made since we were children.
You know, what can I blame on my childhood now?
I mean, jeez, I'm 30 years an adult.
There is an expiration date.
Now I'm the result of my choices.
So, anyway, I hope that helps, and I'm very sorry for your reaction.
I guarantee you that will never come from me, this reaction of forgive and all that, because I'm actually concerned with reducing violence, not serving the needs of abusers.
And so, you know, if you want to call in and talk about it further, I think that would be great.
Thanks for the great, great email.
Oh, the great broad post.
freedomainradio.com.
Donate.
If you can, at freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
Export Selection