Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 28, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:19:38

2680 Racism = Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy? What They're Not Telling You!

Stefan Molyneux takes to the radio airwaves as the guest host of the Peter Schiff radio show to talk about Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling, race and racism in America.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
	One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next boom.
	Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your bentley.
	Are you with me?
	The revolution starts now.
	Starts now.
	We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
	Turn those machines back on!
	You are about to enter The Peter Schiff Show.
	If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
	This is the last stand on earth.
	The Peter Schiff Show is on.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
	Your money.
	Your stories.
	Your freedom.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom In Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're doing very well this morning.
	Peter sends his regrets.
	Sorry he can't make his show this morning.
	Again, in another strange turn of events, he has applied for a job as a water boy to the Bilderberger Group.
	So, Peter, good luck and be sure to keep those warm warmongers well hydrated.
	You can't murder the planet when you're feeling thirsty.
	I hope you're doing well.
	I just got back from Amsterdam, which is a beautiful city that as far as I understand it is pretty much Like the Tour de France in that it's a whole bunch of people on bicycles, on drugs.
	So I hope that you're having a wonderful, wonderful morning, and we're going to talk a little bit about race, because I like to reserve the most controversial topics for shows that aren't mine.
	So, as you may have heard, of course, there's been this whole rancher standoff, which I guess currently is in Death Star orbit limbo at the moment.
	This is Clive and Bundy.
	In Nevada, who is refusing or has for many years refused to pay what are called grazing fees in the law and what in morality is called a mafia-style shakedown from the federal government, which currently owns over 80% of Nevada and Utah and so on.
	And people dug up an interview and selectively quoted, as they are wont to do, his words to paint him as a racist.
	A racist!
	Ah!
	The radioactive cannon blast of the worst word in the American vocabulary fully centered on his 48-gallon hat.
	So, the one thing I think that's kind of fundamental when talking about race is to understand that facts cannot be racist.
	Facts cannot be racist.
	And anybody who is presented with facts, who cries racism...
	Without repudiating the facts is a racist.
	Let me say that again.
	It's really, really important to understand in public discourse.
	When somebody presents facts and is called a racist without a repudiation of those facts, then that person who's rejecting the argument is using an ad hominem and is using the most powerful ad hominem available in the...
	American media.
	I guess slightly above being a member of Al-Qaeda.
	And I would submit that that person is a racist.
	So I won't get into the details.
	You can Google it.
	But basically, there was an interview where Cliven Bundy was praising Mexicans and Hispanics as being really hardworking.
	He's worked alongside them his whole life.
	He's got great friends with black people and so on.
	But he mourned the destruction Of the black family in America.
	And this is something that is simply not talked about certainly much in the liberal media.
	So, of course, we'll talk about it here.
	Let's look at some facts about the black family, shall we?
	In 1950, and I think it's kind of hard to argue that in 1950, blacks faced less racism and a more all-embracing and inclusive society that they face in 2014.
	In 1950, only 17% of black children lived in a home with their mother, but not their father.
	Only 17%.
	This is within a couple of decades of the Jim Crow laws.
	This is within a century or less of the end of slavery.
	17% of black children lived in a home with their mother, but not their father.
	Being ripped from their homeland, being shipped across the ocean in tuberculosis-ridden cabins below decks, being bought and sold.
	In conditions that would be less bad than those provided cattle, or worse than those provided cattle, being part of a civil war, that did not do as much damage as what came after.
	In 1950, 17% of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father.
	By 2010, that had increased to 50%.
	1965, only 8% of childbirths in the black community occurred out of wedlock.
	2010, that figure was 41%.
	And today, 72% out of wedlock births in the black community.
	1965, 8%.
	This year of our Lord, 2014, 72%.
	The number of black women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53% in 1950.
	By 2010, it had dropped to 25%.
	So that is pretty bad.
	Now, of course, there are a lot of people out there that say, well, you know, single mom family is just an alternative lifestyle.
	Except it's not.
	Except it's not.
	Again, facts can neither be racist nor can they be sexist.
	And the reality is that children born to single moms or in a single mother household fare statistically significantly worse than children who are in two-parent households or even who are adopted into two-parent households and so on.
	And being from a single mom household is worlds away from being a dual income or dual parent household.
	I am currently a stay-at-home dad with a wonderful wife to a lovely daughter, and we are a two-parent family, and I grew up in a one-parent family, a single-mom family, and most of my friends were single-mom family kids.
	It's night and day.
	You're always broke when you come from a single-mother family.
	Your mom is always busy because she's working, and then she's got laundry, she's got banking, she's got groceries, she's got cleaning, she's got you name it.
	So you never have any time with your parents and you never have any money to do stuff.
	One summer, I guess I was 13, I think it was.
	I was a really good swimmer, 8th fastest in Ontario.
	But of course in Ontario we train with sharks because we're tough.
	And I wanted to join a swim team and it was $7 to join.
	Checked under the couch.
	Checked in the pockets of old jeans.
	No money to be had.
	Not true for all, of course, blah, blah, blah, right?
	But for the most part, it's pretty tragic.
	So the numbers beginning in 1974 show disproportionate numbers of African-American men being sent to prison.
	In 1974, it was 9% of black men compared to 1% of white men were sent to prison by 2010.
	That had risen to 16% of black men and 3% of white men.
	In 1930, these statistics drive me mad with the shredded possibility of minority opportunities.
	In 1930, black unemployment was lower than whites and thus lower than the national average.
	Let me repeat that!
	In 1930, black unemployment was lower than whites and lower than the national average.
	And what happened?
	Oh, the white, friendly to minorities union leaders, clamored and lobbied and prayed and begged and inflicted upon society.
	The minority curse called the minimum wage?
	Oh my God!
	The black men are accepting wages for less than we want to!
	Let's introduce the minimum wage!
	And then, when the minimum wage was raised, it cut off, at the knees, black opportunities to advance to the middle class.
	We're going to talk more about this.
	I really, really want to hear your thoughts about race.
	Remember, it's anonymous on the radio, 855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	Give me a call, brothers and sisters.
	Let's get the facts out into the open.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	We'll be right back.
	You're a shining star, no matter who you are.
	Shine bright to see What you can truly be What you can truly be
	You're now enrolling in the Peter Schiff School of Advanced Economics
	Twice the education of a Harvard MBA.
	For one one hundred sixty-eight thousandth the cost.
	Good morning everybody.
	It's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom in Radio.
	Hope you're doing very well.
	We are talking about some facts about race.
	The question of affirmative action we're going to talk about in a little bit, which is racial quotas.
	Isn't it nice to be moving to a post-racial society where you really have to ask everyone about their race and measure who's present and who is not?
	Cliven Bundy was exoriated by the media for his racism, for putting forward the hypothesis that the black family in America was doing a lot better in the past than it is now.
	My God!
	What a racist!
	Pointing out facts, trends, realities, statistical and demographic absolutes.
	How racist is reality?
	You know what else I find really racist?
	Gravity.
	And gravity is really obesist as well, because it tends to pull harder on those who are bigger.
	Ah, horrendous.
	The idea that facts are racist is one of the great tragedies of the modern world.
	But it is also the degree to which people respond to the accusation of racism that drives the accusation of racism.
	I mean, I've been called every name in the book, and some I didn't even know until I studied Sanskrit evil to a sufficient degree to understand the degree.
	But the reality is that facts cannot be racist.
	Let's plow on with some more.
	In 2010, blacks who were approximately 13% of the U.S. population accounted for almost 50% of all arrests for homicide.
	Almost 32% of arrests for forcible rape, over 33% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery.
	As of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4%, about three times higher than the white rate, means 11.5 million blacks in the US are living in poverty.
	Now, the results of welfare policies discouraging marriage And family were dramatic, and out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the United States, but most notably among African Americans.
	In the mid-1960s, out-of-wedlock birth rates were not even 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and just over 24% among blacks.
	By 1976, right?
	In a little over 10 years, a little over 10 years, which in the evolution of marriage is not even a time slice in the Hobbit movie, which seems to go on forever and ever.
	Just over 10 years, you have a tripling of out-of-wedlock birth rates for whites, from 3% to nearly 10%.
	And from blacks, it rose from 24.5% to 50.3%.
	In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women.
	And this recently, I believe, has occurred for white women under 30 as well.
	The majority of kids have been born out of wedlock.
	And...
	That is a massive tragedy.
	It is a silent demographic and social explosion that is like a neutron bomb.
	It disturbs nothing in the present, but it radiates the future.
	Marriage, as an institution, is not state-based, not based upon the state.
	Because we're this freaky, weird species that...
	It has this unbelievably elongated developmental requirement.
	A horse can walk within a day or two of being born.
	Human beings take almost a year to learn how to walk.
	We are born ridiculously prematurely.
	Basically, our brains, our head is the big thing, right?
	So the fact that we walk upright is why we have such a giant brain.
	Because when you walk on all fours, more of your back is exposed to the sun and you use more of the water in your body to cool yourself down.
	But when you walk upright, you expose less of your skin to the sun and your water can be reserved for the creation and maintenance of this giant brain that is our fundamental distinguishing characteristics and pretty much the only reason why you and I are talking over the internet or over the radio rather than knocking coconuts together creating rap music or something like that.
	And...
	We are born ridiculously early.
	We are basically born about three seconds before our head gets too big to fit through a woman's birth canal.
	And then we have this crazy dependency.
	It's called the fourth trimester, this crazy dependency.
	And the fact that cats can have kittens and basically do a soft chew number within a couple of days, but human beings, we are incredibly dependent on our parents for years.
	Breastfeeding is supposed to go on according to the World Health Organization for optimal baby development, brain development, and development of the immune system.
	Breastfeeding is supposed to go on for at least 18 months.
	Two to three years.
	Now, you have a couple of kids in a row because infant mortality was very high in the past.
	You have a couple of kids in a row.
	As a woman, you're basically disabled for, at best, five to seven years and probably longer.
	They were basically just baby conveyor belts in the past, you know?
	Because breastfeeding would suppress fertility, but then as soon as you stop breastfeeding, nature's like, hey, let's get another one going, because I hear there's this little thing called tuberculosis, whooping cough, falling rocks, saber-toothed tigers, you name it, that will take out too many of the young.
	And so human females are incredibly dependent Upon others, because we have this giant brain and crazy developmental delays relative to other species.
	So women are incredibly dependent.
	So marriage was the institution whereby men said, I will get you resources for about a decade.
	The man only needs 10 to 20% of the resources that he needs if he's single than if he has a family.
	So we sort of turn into these womb-feeding hunter-gatherer slaves as men.
	There's nothing wrong with it.
	It's just the way nature is.
	And the woman wanted to make sure the man was going to stick around for the incredible amount of time and resources needed for her to raise her children, so you have a marriage.
	Monogamy marriage, a single partner marriage, you're of course raised by a tribe and all of that, but single pair bonding marriage because of the resource requirements.
	If you mess with that, if you mess with that, social corruption and decay is the inevitable result.
	And the welfare state Messed with that fundamentally in that a woman could rely on the infinite alpha faceless state for her resources and therefore could choose lower quality men or no quality men.
	She could follow lust rather than having the sensible womb requirement of a resource provider being who she mates with.
	She could get her resources from the state.
	This means that men don't have to be good.
	It means that women don't have to be as responsible.
	And who pays the price?
	As always.
	As always.
	It is the young.
	It is the children who don't vote about what kind of families they're going to be born into.
	It's more than that.
	It's more than that.
	We're going to keep unpacking this.
	We've got a call right after the break.
	855-472-4433.
	Talk to me brothers and sisters.
	Let's get our brains a-rubbing together.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	We now return to the Peter Schiff show.
	Call in now.
	855-4-SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	It's DeFan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're having a wonderful, wonderful morning.
	We are talking about Clive and Bundy's comments about black families facing worse statistics and worse outcomes than they did even in the 1950s and even in the 1930s.
	In the 1930s, black unemployment was less than that.
	of white unemployment.
	We have some callers on the line.
	Ooh, I've got more facts for you a little later in the show, but we've got some callers on the line right now.
	So I wonder if we can talk to Tony from Denver.
	Are you on the line, my brother?
	I'm here.
	All right.
	What's on your mind?
	I'm an anarchist, Def, and I'm wondering what you think the black race, what would happen to it if their EBT cards stopped working?
	Well, I think that it would happen not in particular to blacks, but it would happen to everyone.
	There, hopefully, is going to be a soft landing to the fundamentally mathematically unsustainable It's a socio-economic course that we're on, where working Americans or Americans who are going to end up with a job are born into $1.4 million worth of debt, government debt, national debts, local debts, unfunded liabilities.
	And it is, of course, the hope, and it may be a vain hope, but it's certainly a hope worth struggling for.
	It is our hope that we can convince people that the problem is the growth of state power, or as I just talked to 40,000 people in Amsterdam about the problem is fiat currency is the fundamental corrupting nature or program of the state.
	So I hope that we can have a soft landing.
	Either way, we're hitting the ground.
	I hope it's going to be flaps up and wheels down and not, hey, the ground!
	Pow!
	Which would be a little bit less gentle.
	But yeah, there'll be riots.
	People try massive amounts of manipulation and anger and threats when faced with the end of an addiction.
	And we do have this addiction to fiat currency.
	We have this addiction to democratic bribery.
	When that runs out, if it runs out hard, EBT cards, these are the benefit cards you get from the welfare state, which you can use to shop at Walmart and other places, to get food and essentials and so on.
	So if they stop working, there's going to be riots.
	And people are going to strain themselves to the max to try and get their benefits back.
	And if the treasury is truly empty, then they will realize that no amount of screaming and throwing bricks is going to work.
	And they'll simply join together as a community again and do the sensible stuff that needs to be done to get out of poverty.
	The welfare state is kind of a drug for the poor, and we're going to talk a little bit later about whites and the military-industrial complex, because relative to the welfare state, the military-industrial complex is far more toxic, far more dangerous, far more destructive.
	But yeah, there'll be riots.
	They'll kick and scream.
	Everyone who's dependent on these benefits will kick and scream if they run out.
	And then, within a couple of days, they'll say, well, I guess the kicking and screaming isn't causing food to magically materialize in my belly, so communities will get together and help each other and sort things out.
	Why?
	What are your thoughts?
	Well, I disagree with you.
	I think when the dollar collapses, it's going to become the zombie apocalypse.
	Go on.
	I feel that that's the opening salvo in a statement that could go on longer.
	Well, that's why I'm personally getting prepared with Bitcoin and other things and maybe move out of the inner city.
	Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
	You know, the one thing that is very true in the West, and it's true of all late statist civilizations, in other words, government-centered civilization where the governments rely upon the approval of the people and buy the approval of the people by giving them resources which it has stolen or counterfeited because the government has no money of its own.
	And one thing that is very true of all of these late statist societies, end of the empire societies, is everyone has completely forgotten, completely forgotten how dependent cities are on a stable currency or any kind of predictable currency.
	And cities are the results of free trade and a stable currency.
	When Rome debased its currency to the 95th to 99th percentile by putting junk metal in with the gold and silver in their coins, debased the currency to about the same degree, although it did take longer, to about the same degree that the Federal Reserve has debased the U.S. currency to the tune of about 98% in 100 odd years, the population of Rome went from 1.5 million to 17,000.
	Very quickly when the currency collapsed.
	And I think it's probably good to get a few wilderness skills.
	I think it's probably good to have a little bit of food sitting around because you'll be amazed at how quickly cities run out of food.
	This has happened historically, repeatedly throughout history.
	You will be amazed at how quickly cities run out of food when the currency undergoes, let's say, a significant transition.
	This has happened throughout history, and the only people who it will surprise will be people who've never cracked a history book, because history's boring.
	Now history is a map of the future.
	As I said in Amsterdam, when you study history, it's basically watching the same damn movie over and over and over and over again.
	Oh, but different costumes!
	It's togas versus suits!
	It's conquistador outfits versus military greens.
	But it's still the same movie over and over again.
	So yeah, get some food, get some gold, get some bitcoins, get some skills, and know your neighbors!
	You know, we live in this splendid isolation of massively overfunded fiat currency drugged out stupor and we have lost our communities.
	We have allowed the state to replace our neighborhoods and our extended families and our communities and we now live for ourselves and our 9 million inch plasma TVs and our internet.
	Well, that's okay.
	You can live for the internet because that's where I do most of my talking.
	So is there anything else you wanted to add to that?
	Well, I love Freedom Maine Radio, and thanks for taking my call today.
	It's my pleasure.
	Now, Jack, you have a question about black families.
	Let's wrap, he said in a British accent.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Okay, I have two questions.
	My first question, how is it possible, I hear people say in the 18th, like, when we had slavery back, black families were more intact.
	I don't understand how that's possible.
	And my other question is, how is it that in 1801 we had a farm where basically everybody farms, how is it possible that now in the 21st century, a colony that's far more specialized, how is somebody staying home and taking care of the children?
	Wouldn't that be even more revered than it was in, let's say, the 19th century?
	Well, you have a lot of questions packed into one there, and I'll do my best.
	If we have to go to a break, just hang around and we'll keep the conversation going.
	Okay, so farming, as you know, has become largely mechanized.
	So at the turn of the last century, 1900, about 80% of Americans were involved in farming.
	Now it's 2% or so of Americans are involved in farming.
	How is that possible?
	Well, it's possible through energy and through machinery.
	Those are the two basic methods by which it occurs, and they're two sides of the same coin.
	So you've got massive combine harvesters.
	You have trucks, of course, delivering the food.
	You have all kinds of machinery used to pick and process the food.
	And so human population has skyrocketed over the last hundred years because of the availability of relatively cheap energy.
	And the degree to which that continuation of energy can be sustained is kind of a question that we should be very interested in, because if that energy cannot be sustained, then literally billions of human lives also cannot be sustained.
	So there's been this massive amount of cheap energy that has been used.
	And of course, we all know it's chiefly oil, right?
	I mean, when 80% of Americans were involved in farming, pretty much the last thing you wanted to find was Under your soil was oil, because it was a big waste.
	It could be toxic if you plant there, so it was like, oh man, we struck oil!
	That sucks!
	And then, of course, once the internal combustion engine came in, the cars came in, and the machinery came in that relied on that engine, oil turned from a waste product or a waste resource or non-resource to something incredibly valuable that spawns really cheesy southern Clichés in TV shows like the Beverly Hillbillies.
	Texas tea.
	And the production and consumption of that oil has been fundamental in allowing the wealth growth.
	Now, it's not the oil fund, it's the free market fundamentally that is doing all of this, but the free market is like an inverted pyramid resting upon the availability of cheap energy.
	Now, I have talked to people, actually I even had Chris Martinson on this show, to talk about peak oil.
	I don't think that peak oil is fundamentally the issue.
	So they say, well, you know, we can't get any more oil, there's going to be a crash in energy, massive increases in energy prices, massive human die-offs, and I don't believe that to be true fundamentally.
	There's an old economic argument that says if you are in a giant airplane hangar full of peanuts and you're eating peanuts every day, you're never really going to run out of peanuts because every time you eat a peanut, you throw the shell in the same place and the peanuts get harder to find.
	So you're never going to find that last peanut.
	You're just going to kind of slowly run out of peanuts because it costs you more energy to look for them than the energy you get out of the peanuts.
	Now, there's crazy cool stuff going on in the finding of oil these days.
	You know, they're doing this down and then sideways drilling.
	They have these sort of flexible drills.
	You know, those bendy straws.
	They have the flexible drills that can drill around stuff, underneath stuff.
	I mean, this stuff is like, you know, Rudolph Valentino's fingers on a first date.
	Oh!
	There's a joke for the older among us.
	Fundamentally, why we have so few farmers and so much food is because of energy.
	I think that's going to continue.
	I think that human life is too valuable to allow that to go to waste.
	The only reason that won't continue is because the government is going to interfere with the free market to the point where it can't do its job of delivering energy to keep the masses alive.
	Now, as to why the black family was doing better, now, my statistics were from the 1950s, which obviously is way post-slavery, so I can't compare current situations to situations in slavery.
	Slavery, of course, it goes without saying, an abominable and evil institution, but you have to remember, slaves were the price of a car, and a good car, back in the day.
	Now, there are some people, I remember, there's an old funny John Cleese show called Fawlty Towers, which you should really look up.
	At one point, he gets really angry at his car and starts hitting it with a tree.
	I think we've all been there.
	But when you invested in something as expensive as a car, you tended to try and protect it.
	And that had something to do with how the families went in slavery.
	We'll talk about more of this along with another caller after the break.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	show.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Nine out of ten historians agree.
	If Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were alive today, both would be Schiff Radio premium members.
	Somewhere up there, Thomas Jefferson is looking down with great pride.
	Schiff Radio continues right now.
	Good morning, brothers and sisters.
	Depend on you from Pre-Domain Radio.
	Sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're doing well.
	So, yeah, next hour we're going to talk about the 80-year-old crustacean known as Sterling and his comments about his younger girlfriend and her habit of posting pictures of her posing with black men to Instagram.
	We'll talk a little bit more about that, but...
	I really want to torture you right now because I feel as a minor radio personality that it's important.
	There is no safe word for this next monologue, so the torture will have no end.
	And what I want to torture you with is opportunity costs.
	You know, opportunity costs are the economic term for massive regrets if you see them and invisible parasites if you don't.
	So, opportunity costs are like, you know, the government spends, as it tends to, about a billion dollars to create a thousand temporary jobs.
	Then everyone who gets those jobs says, wow, government spending is fantastic!
	There's a visible benefit to this.
	And the 10,000 permanent jobs that would have been created if the money hadn't been stolen from the productive, well, people don't really see that and it takes a higher order level of thinking to look for the hidden costs rather than the visible benefits.
	That's really the basis and trick.
	of economic thinking.
	But I would like to torture you with something even more fundamental than that.
	So Lyndon Johnson in the mid-60s put in the Great Society, which was, you know, massive welfare programs, fundamentally.
	This is during the middle of a war in Vietnam, which ground on for, what, almost another decade.
	So massive social spending along with an imperial war that really didn't need to be fought.
	Huh, what does that sound like?
	In the First World War, a war that didn't really need to be fought, European governments had to go off the gold standard because they didn't want to cancel their massive social programs at the same time as fighting a war.
	Ooh, what does that sound like?
	2003, massive social programs, George Bush, I guess, had...
	It was contemplating that recently put in a massive expansion in prescription drug subsidies for the elderly, and they fought a war, and there were no tax increases, and so on.
	And so how many people can say, well, I'm unemployed and don't have a house because the government printed so much money that it didn't have to raise taxes because it didn't want me to choose between social programs and war?
	As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half what it had been 15 years earlier.
	I really, really want that to simmer like a brand on your forehead.
	When you look at the totality of human history and you look at the incomes, Throughout human history, it's a black death line that rarely bumps above the Y curve ever.
	Ever.
	And in 15 years of a relatively free market and say whatever you want about the Second World War, yes, it killed 40 million people, but it did dismantle the socialism in America and Europe.
	Well, for about 20 years or so.
	And In that 15-year period, poverty declined by 15%.
	Throughout history, this is absolutely unprecedented.
	Now, when poverty declines, the need for government declines, which is why expecting government to solve poverty is like expecting a tobacco company to mount an aggressive anti-tobacco campaign.
	It's not where their Benjamins are, babies.
	And so if poverty declines, then a crime generally tends to decline.
	Families tend to remain more stable and better off.
	There's less stress in the population.
	With less criminal activity and with fewer traumatized children, you don't have as many people wanting to join the military, particularly when there are better opportunities elsewhere.
	Kind of run out of people to run the prison industrial complex, to wage war overseas, to have the 700 plus military bases that the U.S. has currently thrown like darts into the eyeballs of the planet.
	And so when poverty goes down, governments go, ooh, I believe the demand for our services might decline as well.
	I know.
	Let's go help those poor people.
	Also, when poverty goes down, poverty becomes more visible.
	When everyone's poor, blah, blah, blah, right?
	You may not feel too tall until you visit Japan.
	And then you might feel fairly tall.
	Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level had decreased massively.
	The black poverty rate had been cut in half almost between 1940 and 1960.
	The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960.
	That's only 20 years to cut half the black poverty rate.
	Wasn't that amazing?
	In various skilled trades during the period of 1936 to 1959, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled.
	More than doubled!
	The representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.
	See, it's really not that hard to help the black community.
	All you have to do is look back two generations and see, wow, they were doing great!
	They were doing fantastically!
	All we have to do is stop trying to help them with the government.
	That's all we have to do is let free association, the market, and a lack of government interference, and they rise in freedom.
	Wasn't that the dream of Martin Luther King Jr.?
	To be judged not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character.
	When the government steps in to help the poor, it creates a massive bureaucracy that profits from the existence of poverty.
	It creates a voting-dependent base of the least competent and least mature elements of that poverty demographic.
	It creates a media storm of sympathy and manipulation around, those poor people, they need our help!
	Somehow this is not considered paternalistic when applied to the black community.
	I don't think the black community needs our help.
	In fact, I think they're drowning in our help and dying in our help.
	Although, help is pretty insulting to call government forced redistribution of income help.
	But we have a perfect example in history of how to help the black community.
	It's give them economic freedom.
	Get rid of the minimum wage.
	Get rid of union restrictions.
	Get rid of the poverty programs, which truly are poverty programs run by the state.
	Let charity, opportunity, voluntarism, free trade...
	And the efficiency of uncoerced economic interactions free the blacks, the Hispanics, the Mexicans, the whites, the world!
	We already know how to do it.
	It's just...
	Everybody who suggests it is suddenly called a racist because we're looking at facts and looking at reality and looking at empirical data and trying to help the world in reality rather than in sophistry.
	We will be right back after the break.
	855-407-24433.
	Let's talk!
	Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
	One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next boom.
	Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your bentley.
	Are you with me?
	The revolution starts now.
	Starts now.
	We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
	Turn those machines back on!
	You are about to enter The Peter Schiff Show.
	If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
	This is the last stand on earth.
	The Peter Schiff Show is on.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
	Your money.
	Your stories.
	Your freedom.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	It's Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	And now, my friends, we turn to one Mr.
	Sterling, who is the new Mr.
	Burns of racism.
	So he's the owner of a basketball team.
	And where did he get the money to own this basketball team?
	Well, he owned a bunch of housing in L.A. where...
	He had, I think, the largest discrimination lawsuit around, in that it was charged that he refused to rent his units, his apartment units, to blacks, Hispanics, people with families, I don't know if that's some subset of the other, and it ended with a massive, almost $3 million settlement, although Sterling admitted to no wrongdoing.
	And...
	So people are saying it's confusing, right?
	Okay, so I'm not going to go over the whole thing.
	It's obviously fairly stomach-turning, although he is 80 and would have had his beliefs formed in a fairly earlier time.
	I'm not saying that as an excuse.
	I'm just saying that as a reality.
	Look, my mom still refers to a CD player as a gramophone.
	What can I tell you?
	I hope that that doesn't happen to me like there's some time where I simply refuse to integrate.
	My brain is like, that's it.
	We're done.
	We're hardened.
	It's turned from a massive amount of data massaging to a frozen, Rodin-based fingerprints of nothing moving at all.
	We don't have any new information.
	That's it.
	We're full.
	We're done.
	And it does seem to happen with older people that they don't fluidly integrate newer social paradigms into their pre-existing...
	Structures, let's say.
	So he's 80, and not too bad, not overly cryptkeeper in his appearance, although you never know how much that hair dye sinks into the neofrontal cortex and turns it into something a tad more primitive and lizard-based.
	But his girlfriend is biracial, black, Hispanic, I don't know, something like that, some sort of multicultural frappuccino of infinite hotness, and she's gorgeous.
	And people are saying, well, if he's so racist, why is he dating a biracial woman?
	I can tell you!
	She's very, very hot.
	Very hot.
	I don't know many racists who would say, Halle Berry, good heavens, I wouldn't even touch her with your junk.
	No.
	Hot trumps racism almost every time.
	So she's, I would imagine, a gold digger since he doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of sit-ups in his 80 years on the planet.
	And so what he said, apparently, she recorded him.
	Mmm, what a fine, fine evidence of a beautiful, harmonious Hallmark-style Photoshop Kodachrome moment relationship.
	She recorded him, and apparently some say goaded him into this racist rant, whatever that means.
	So he says, I'm just saying in your lousy effing Instagrams, you don't have to have yourself with walking with black people.
	You can sleep with them.
	You can bring them in your car.
	You can do whatever you want.
	The little I ask you is not to promote it on that and not to bring them to my games.
	Don't bring those black people to my games.
	Well, of course, if he didn't bring black people to his games, he'd be out 78% of his players.
	See, heart trumps racism, and money trumps racism, because if he was so racist, he would just refuse to hire black basketball players, but that would seriously harm the value of his holdings as a sports team owner.
	78% of NBA players are black.
	Good.
	More power to them.
	It probably has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of these kids come from poorer neighborhoods, and in poorer neighborhoods you can have a great game going with one $20 ball.
	Not a lot of regatta rowing and cricket playing in Harlem, I say.
	So to me, the lesson to be learned is that if you want to diminish the effects of racism...
	Look, people's private beliefs about races and cultures and so on, it's not unimportant.
	I mean, this is his character, his personality.
	It's who he is.
	It's not unimportant.
	But it's relatively unimportant compared to things like economic opportunities.
	So if you want to fight the practical effects of racism, which I think is a great thing to do, then there's two things that you can appeal to.
	Only one of which we really have much control over, at least most of us.
	So, if you want to overturn someone's practical racism, then you need to shake your biracial boobies in their face.
	And they really should be globular, curved, I don't know, whatever he likes.
	Be astonishingly hot.
	And then, people will find that their hormones are like a tsunami knocking down The Thailandish village of their racism.
	I think I'm trying to think of anyone who that metaphor wouldn't offend.
	Tsunamis don't have feelings, so I don't think they'll be writing in.
	But anyway, so if you're incredibly hot, then you can overcome people's racism.
	Halle Berry had this great speech at the Oscars where she said, Hollywood is finally open to black people!
	I think she's biracial.
	So amazingly, Gorgeous women with perfect breasts.
	Hollywood has finally opened the door to them.
	Isn't that amazing?
	So you can be super hot.
	And I remember years ago seeing an HR training film when I was in the business world.
	And one of the instructors was saying, you know, that they tried to create this HR training film by putting up this experiment, but everyone kept hiring the black guy, which kind of scotched their, everything is racist.
	And they couldn't figure out, and they couldn't figure it out why, until they asked women, and they said, well, the black guy's gorgeous.
	So hotness trumps racism, and economic opportunity trumps racism.
	So this guy, who seems to be against blacks, according to the recording, is hiring majority blacks for his basketball team because he wants to make money.
	So when you erect economic barriers to free trade, you are promoting the promotion of private racism to public economic choice.
	And that is a great tragedy.
	The more you knock down barriers to free trade, the more you knock down barriers between the races.
	And this is something that is not very well understood.
	The people who, like a cat getting their butt caught in a mousetrap, scream out hysterically racism every time they see a disparity are just noisemakers.
	It's like putting up a giant wind turbine and attaching it to absolutely nothing.
	All you do is slaughter a bunch of words, disrupt the wind, and not generate anything of value.
	If you want to oppose racism, knock down economic barriers.
	We can't really control our hotness that much, but we can control our advocacy for knocking down economic barriers.
	Understanding that the minimum wage was racist in its origins, it was meant to shield whites from the competition of blacks who had lower income requirements and therefore could work for less money, but were increasing their income as a result.
	It was doubling in the post-war period.
	We can do things to end racism, but it's a lot more involved and requires a little bit more intelligence than screaming racist at the top of your lungs until somebody gives you a lollipop.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for the Peter Schiff Radio Show.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	The fire, the fire.
	There's something in your heart and it's in your eyes.
	It's the fire inside of you.
	Let it burn.
	You don't say good luck.
	You say don't give up.
	It's the fire inside of you.
	Let it burn.
	Yeah, and if I'm ever at the...
	You've heard of Karl Marx, right?
	Well now, meet his worst nightmare.
	This is The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Just in the last segment, if you can hang around, I'm going to tell you about my YouTube incident, which I think is quite salacious and certainly helps me to understand that I'm on the right path.
	When Google takes a negative view of you, things may be going okay.
	All right.
	So on the line, we have Robert from Long Island.
	Thank you for your patience, my friend.
	What's on your mind?
	Thank you, Stephan.
	Thank you so much for taking my call.
	I want to talk about the Donald Sterling situation.
	And just before you had mentioned, you had said government is the biggest adversary to the black community.
	And I would challenge that by saying that I think a lot of their role models are the biggest adversary.
	For example, the other day I was listening to a sports talk radio station And for some reason, they had as a caller, Spike Lee came on, and he was talking about the situation.
	I'm sure sensibly and rationally, as he is wont to do, right?
	Yes, naturally.
	And he was drawing an analogy between Southern-style 19th century slavery with Sterling's basketball team.
	I thought it was the most outrageous thing I've ever heard in my entire life, to compare Slavery, where people are taking from their, you know, involuntary, you know, against their will, to comparing that to, you know, paying somebody millions of dollars to dribble basketball.
	And this is the worst part.
	The host of the show, this gentleman, I don't even want to call him gentleman, I shouldn't even say that.
	I'm being too nice.
	Man, his name is Stephen A. Smith.
	He was saying that, this is where the big disconnect is.
	He was saying that, It's not possible for black people to be racist.
	He was saying it's only a one-way street because that question was brought up.
	And I was thinking, how outrageous is that to think that only somebody who's white can be racist?
	Yeah.
	And this is something that postmodernists and modern academics talk about.
	There's no such thing as race, which biologically is simply not true and according to all studies is simply not true.
	And also that disadvantaged groups cannot have negative biases, right?
	A woman can't be sexist and blacks can't be racist and so on, which is, I mean, relativistic nonsense.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Well, he actually answered that question, and that's what got me crazy.
	Because he says, because he mentioned, he says, black people can't be racist.
	And then, naturally, I'm sure most of the listeners or people say, well, that's outrageous.
	But then he went on to say that, well, they can be bigots, but now he's somehow trying to draw a distinction between being a bigot and a racist, like there's any practical difference.
	Right.
	Yeah, of course, when things are obviously crazy, then you have to start word splicing and hope that nobody notices that you're creating synonyms and pretending that they're antonyms.
	But look, I like Spike Lee a lot.
	I think some of his films are great.
	I really thought his first film, She's Gotta Have It, was incredibly funny.
	But I think, and I don't know the man, and I haven't followed him.
	I just see him erupting from time to time with some of this stuff about white racism and black innocence.
	Look, one of the main jobs of any public intellectual is to reject excuses where action is possible.
	This is very fundamental.
	There are two kinds of people in the world who do any kind of public intellectualizing or any kind of public speaking.
	Number one are people who will feed the thirst for excuses in their audience.
	And the others are those who will challenge the need for excuses in their audience.
	I am in the latter because I actually really care about the audience.
	I don't care to hand them the drug of excuses.
	The black community is pretty freaking disastrous in America.
	It is pretty freaking disastrous relative to other communities.
	And what blacks are so often told is...
	You could be everything that whites are, except that whites are evil, troll, racist bastards who continually hold you down.
	And given the disasters in the black community, if you were told over and over and over again that the disasters within your community were all the results of a group outside your community oppressing you, then two things would happen.
	Rage would develop and impotence would develop.
	Rage, anger, is a very healthy emotion as long as you're directing it against the right things.
	As Aristotle said, any idiot can get angry.
	But to get angry in the right way, about the right things, with the right effect, promoting the right actions, well, that's hard.
	So Spike Lee and other intellectuals, he's an artist, but I would consider him an intellectual in that he speaks on these matters.
	Have one or two choices.
	They can either go to the black community or they can say, you people are perfect.
	You do nothing wrong.
	There's nothing that you can do internally to improve your culture, your society, your family life, your economic opportunities, your education, your commitment to law and order, or anything like that.
	You people are perfect.
	The only problem is the rat bastard whitey.
	And there will be...
	Cracked up people in the black community, he will grab at that like a drowning man grabs at a log.
	Doesn't even care if it floats that much, just gotta grab because he's drowning.
	Now to push back and say, yeah, look, there is racism.
	There's racism in the black community, there's racism in the white community.
	How do we know there's racism in the black community?
	Because like 98% of blacks voted for Obama.
	And if there was a giant political race and there was only one white guy and tons of black guys in the race and 95 or 98% of whites voted for the white guy, we'd say, well, that's pretty racist.
	They're only voting for him because he's white.
	So, of course, blacks are capable of racism.
	My word, of course they are.
	To say that they're not is to strip them of moral responsibility and I don't hate any group in society enough to take away their moral responsibility and to deny them the effect of objective facts.
	So is there other things that the black community could do to improve their situations?
	Of course there are.
	Of course there are.
	Stop turning to government every time you have a problem.
	I'm speaking in generalities, right?
	I'm very, very aware that there are great black intellectuals who promote the free market, right?
	Sowell, Sowell, sorry, and other great black economists and intellectuals who promote the free market.
	But in general, there's a kind of got a problem, go to the state mentality, which given that the state was responsible for slavery, slavery was not a private institution.
	Slavery was a government institution.
	Going to the same institution that repressed you for a couple of hundred years might not be the very best solution.
	The promotion of victimization diminishes our capacity for productive social shaming.
	Stop having children with thugs.
	That might be a good thing for the black community to do.
	Oh, I've got another one.
	Oh, I've got a great one.
	Stop hitting your children so hard, so often.
	I did one of my biggest videos was about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
	And like over a million people watched it and I was thrilled about that, not because I care that much about the trial, because more than a million people, a lot of whom were black, got exposed to a very strong anti-spanking message.
	Yay!
	Spanking has been shown in repeated studies to shave three to five IQ points off someone.
	Now, if you are a disadvantaged group, I've got a great idea!
	Stop doing the stuff that shaves IQ points off your children!
	That would be great!
	I would love that!
	Wouldn't that be wonderful?
	To be smarter than whites if you do all of that stuff.
	Yay!
	That's great!
	So, stop having children out of wedlock.
	Stop relying on government.
	Stop turning to government.
	And get angry at racism, but stop saying that the only problems in the black community are coming from this ring of white KKK members outside the community.
	There's tons of stuff that can be done internally.
	Does that mean there's no racism?
	Of course not.
	But we focus, if we are rational and we really care about ourselves and our community and our children, we focus on the damn things we can change.
	You cannot make a committed racist a non-racist.
	You can stop hitting your children.
	You can stop yelling at your children.
	You can stop having children out of wedlock.
	That's possible.
	That's achievable.
	That's what we should be talking about.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	We've got another caller on the line.
	and then, as promised, the YouTube incident.
	We now return to The Peter Schiff Show.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	We are talking about how to create harmony and unicorn rainbows and virtual hugs and panda bear dances between the races.
	Andrew, from Corona, you have some thoughts.
	What would they be?
	Yeah, yeah.
	How's it going, Stefan?
	Well, thank you.
	Sorry about your channel, and I'm glad that it's back up.
	I have a few comments about Donald Sterling as well as Cliven Bundy, the rancher...
	In the conflict with the BLM, they're both portrayed as racist, and they're condemned and persecuted in the public spotlight.
	But in reality, they kind of share the same, like, methods or sentences, right?
	Like, Cliven Bundy is on the positive side.
	He's saying, government, through the education systems, has created a slave class which is flying to race.
	And then on Donald Sterling's side, we have the slave class voluntarily participating and being exploited by, you know, continuing to play basketball for the guy that is allegedly racist.
	Now, the only reason why they would do such a thing is because they don't know any better, I think.
	Well, no, I think I would argue that they do it because he's going to pay them millions of dollars.
	You know, you can hold your nose and deal with a racist if you're going to make millions of dollars, right?
	I mean, these basketball players are extremely well paid.
	So he may dislike them and they may dislike him, but together they can make a lot of money from...
	chance screaming sports fans who like cheering a bunch of people uh who aren't doing anything of virtue but have a lot of physical skill so um i think it's more economics than it is ignorance i think that they're probably very aware that he's a racist uh or appears to be a racist or seems to And he's very aware, I'm sure, that they are not exactly from Norway.
	But together they can make a lot of money, and I think that's probably what it's more about, which is why economics trumps race, and which is why we want to break down barriers to economic transactions so people can dislike each other as much to mutual profit as possible.
	I definitely agree with you on that.
	However, I think it's pretty safe to assume that there are plenty of entrepreneurs that would Raise a basketball team which would employ, you know, these people that were betrayed by Donald Sterling, right?
	The Clippers players.
	But instead, you know, there are talks about protests.
	The game is still going to happen.
	They're still going to make his team a bunch of money.
	They're still going to build his brand.
	And for what?
	A slice of the pie?
	I mean, to betray your morals or money, that's just...
	That seems a little bit ridiculous, don't you?
	Well, I think to betray your morals for money is pretty much the human condition.
	I mean, how many people do you know who will take a significant economic hit for the sake of principle?
	Almost none.
	You know, I agree with you.
	I mean, look at the show Fear Factor with your friend, actually, Joe Rogan.
	I appreciate your guys' talk, by the way.
	It's the epitome of self-degradation for monetary gain, you know?
	Yeah, wasn't that some guy who sent his kid up in a balloon and lied about it because he wanted to get on TV? I mean, yeah, but politics is the betrayal of any kind of rational principle for the sake of money.
	In fact, I argue that principles are only usually spoken about by people who are using them as a cover for economic exploitation.
	Look, if people find this man's racism abhorrent, pretty easy to fix.
	You stop going to his games.
	Stop watching his games.
	Every time you see his team on the TV or on the radio or on the internet, you just turn it off.
	And advertisers will desert him and they will quickly fire him and find a new replacement.
	Because the value of his team will be declining rapidly, so he will sell it and somebody else will come in.
	So, I mean, I don't really...
	So call him a racist, whatever.
	I mean, but if it's not going to change your actions, I don't care what you're saying if it's not going to change your actions.
	I simply don't care.
	It's like going to a stadium to see U2 and they don't plug in any of their instruments or their microphones.
	I mean, they may be making some sound off in the distance, but who cares?
	I can't hear anything.
	So, I don't want people to talk about racism.
	I don't want people to change your actions or don't.
	If the players want to stay, then they're going to accept racism for money.
	If the fans want to continue watching this, then they're going to accept the racist owner of the team for money.
	So, fine.
	Or for their entertainment or whatever.
	So, fine.
	Then don't talk about racism.
	I would rather people didn't say anything.
	And simply stop tuning in.
	That to me would be like, don't talk to me about how virtuous you're going to be.
	I don't care.
	Don't talk to me about how much you're dieting.
	I want to see your gut diminish.
	That's all.
	Don't talk to me about what a nice, trustworthy guy you are.
	Just be nice and trustworthy.
	Let me figure that out for myself, if you don't mind.
	I find people who talk a lot about all their virtues and all their outrage and so on complete nonsense.
	Just stop tuning in to the guy if you find his actions apparent.
	Quit the team if you find him a racist.
	And if you don't, then you're going to fundamentally admit that economics trumps racism.
	And so let's recognize that racism isn't that big a deal.
	People would rather make the Benjamins than get outraged against a bigot.
	I mean, should the players quit the team?
	Should someone accept a paycheck from a racist?
	It's a personal choice.
	I wouldn't initiate force against anyone who's paid by a racist.
	Racism is aesthetically unpleasant and morally inconsistent, but it is not force.
	It is not evil.
	There's nobody sticking a knife in anyone.
	So it is something that is an ugly aspect of certain people's belief systems, but it is not the initiation of force.
	It is not the violation of property rights to be a racist.
	And in a free market, racists pay for their own bigotry.
	So if I am running a basketball team and I'm such a racist that I won't hire any blacks, well, guess who doesn't make it very far because I'm denying myself access to a huge pool of talent.
	And so in a free market, racists will pay for their own bigotry.
	If I'm managing a software team, a software company, as I did, If I said, well, I'm not going to hire any Hispanics.
	I'm not going to hire any redheaded people.
	I'm not going to hire any women.
	I'm not going to hire any blacks.
	I'm not going to hire any French Canadians.
	Well, okay.
	I'm just kidding.
	Well, then I'm going to pay because I'm going to limit myself to like 3% of the applicants or 5% of the applicants and somebody who's not bigoted who's going to go on quality alone is going to get a far higher quality workforce.
	And so if people say racism is the worst thing, racism is despicable, then yes, they can get mad at this guy.
	Sure.
	But shouldn't they also get mad at the black people on his team for cashing their paychecks from an outed racist?
	And really, I mean, everybody knew where this guy got his money from and the lawsuits that he was subjected to.
	While again, he admitted no wrongdoing, still paid off $3 million.
	So, it's just funny how some old white guy appears to be racist, and everyone's piling on the old white guy, and not the blacks who take his money.
	Or the fans who go to his shows.
	Or the woman who was only in him, into him for the money.
	Oh wait, Gold Digger?
	That's another...
	That's a whole other class.
	So, again, I just go with, I don't care what people say, racism, this, that, and the other.
	I'm an empiricist.
	I only care what people do.
	Sorry, I'm chewing up your whole time.
	Is there anything you wanted to add?
	Is he still on?
	Did I put him to sleep?
	Are you still on?
	Oh, he's gone.
	All right.
	So, yeah, I mean, with society, these pitchforks and firebrands and people are out there saying, oh, racism is the worst thing ever.
	I mean, you can target this guy with all the lasers that you want, but he is merely a symptom of people's acceptance of racism for purposes of economic profit.
	And entertainment profit.
	Like, they want to go and see these great players play this great game because it's easier than trying to be a good person in your own life.
	Get to go cheer something rather than try to achieve virtue.
	I don't hate sports.
	I just hate statist sports because they train people for cheering military.
	Hey!
	The uniforms of the people closest to me are the best!
	You know, teach kids that for approximately 3,000 years, and next thing you know, they're cheering people, dropping white phosphorus in Fallujah.
	So, yes, I think that it is a problem in its current incarnation.
	I love sports.
	I'm very sporty.
	I like to play sports, but status-funded sports is a big problem.
	You look at my...
	YouTube channel, which we'll get to in a sec, youtube.com forward slash freedomainradio.
	One example I have is called The Truth About the NFL, which talks about the degree to which people profit from government monopolies and government subsidies and government protections.
	And it's pretty gross.
	Sports in the current sphere, particularly in America, are a function of the state.
	They are not a function of the free market.
	I'd be fascinated to see what they look like In the free market, but state is an age-old way of training people to cheer warriors and accept war.
	And I certainly do have a problem with war, as I'm sure every decent person does.
	So, let us return, my friends, to some facts.
	Let's go back to the facts, shall we?
	The marriage penalties embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job.
	When a couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income causes thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost.
	What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty, marriage and work, are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.
	The calamitous breakdown of the black family It's relatively recent and has coincided with the rise of the welfare state.
	Throughout the epoch of slavery, into the early decades of the 20th century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
	Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their 40s had been together for at least 20 years.
	In southern urban areas, around 1880, nearly three-quarters of black households were husband or father present.
	In southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%.
	Stable family, right?
	There's three things you need to do to get out of poverty.
	Get a job and keep it for a year.
	Don't have children out of wedlock.
	And get married.
	And stay married.
	This is how you get out of poverty.
	All of these things are fundamentally opposed by the welfare state.
	As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams put it, he's black if you care, the welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do, and that is To destroy the black family, a very influential economist for me,
	who for Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs, the black family which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
	To a way of life.
	It's not true biologically, but it's a great metaphor, which is the frog in the pot.
	You put a frog in a pot of cold water and you heat it up slowly.
	He doesn't jump out, but he just dies.
	Where if you put him in a pot of hot water, he jumps out immediately.
	The soft corrosion.
	Of economic disincentives to get out of poverty is the real racism in society.
	I mean, it's classism, but since blacks generally tended to be poorer than whites when the welfare state went in, they tended to remain frozen in that realm of poverty relative to whites.
	It is the greatest racism, and it is something we can do something about.
	Help spread the word, inform people.
	Right back after the break, I will be talking about my YouTube ban.
	We'll be right back.
	I should've seen.
	Leading to you.
	To treat me mean.
	Every promise.
	We'll just run around.
	I should've known it Yeah, you're gonna let me down And it's over now, you see This is the last time
	You're now enrolling in the Peter Schiff School of Advanced Economics.
	Twice the education of a Harvard MBA. For one one hundred sixty-eight thousandth the cost.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	It's our last segment.
	I can't believe I have to say goodbye to you lovely people so early in the day.
	But I believe the next Peter Schiff show, we're going to go 19 hours straight.
	I believe that everybody has committed to that and nobody's heard about it.
	Ha, ha, ha.
	So, as promised, we're just going to mention a little bit about the white welfare state, also known as the military industrial complex, which the government actually spends a little bit more on than the entire social security slash welfare apparatus.
	In 2011, the 100 largest contractors.
	Sold $410 billion in arms and military services.
	Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion, and that's quite important, right?
	So we're not just talking about the welfare state and its effect upon the black family, which is significant, but it's also important to mention that the white welfare state, unlike the black welfare state, Does damage to people overseas in significant ways as well.
	So I wanted to mention that.
	One story I simply can't resist before we get to my last little bit about YouTube.
	Notorious KKK leader was recently caught doing rather salacious things with a black male prostitute in the backseat of a car.
	And this is something that the federal prosecutor is not comfortable saying out loud.
	I don't know what kind of she-goats and watermelons and electrical tape and some safe word that sounds like a Welsh village as pronounced by an Aztec deity.
	Safe word they had going on there, but it's pretty rough.
	And...
	In a phone call with the Southern Poverty Law Center, the 73-year-old claimed last year that he had lured the prostitute to the meeting with the intention of beating him.
	Then, one thing led to another.
	How often does that happen?
	Where you say to someone, hey, come meet me because I want to strangle you, and then you end up kissing them ferociously.
	Oh, if I had a dime for every time that occurred to me.
	I think that's just one word missing.
	So he'd lured him, prostitute to the meeting with the intention of beating him.
	I guess the missing word is off.
	You know, it's amazing what one tiny syllable can do to change the nature of a social interaction to the point where the rom-com string orchestra starts churning up its insipid music.
	So I did a speech on Friday in Amsterdam to over 40,000 people.
	A pretty passionate speech.
	I think a very good speech.
	You can find it at youtube.com forward slash free domain radio, although you couldn't yesterday because my YouTube channel was entirely disabled by Google.
	YouTube channel, Gmail, Google +, Google Docs, you name it.
	All gone.
	Not even a nuclear shadow, just a message saying, this guy has violated community standards, or he did some copyright thing, or he gave a speech in Amsterdam.
	So it was a pretty powerful speech, certainly my biggest speech to date.
	It felt like a real rock star.
	You know, giant screens on either side of me, lasers, I think they were going to shoot some rockets out of a confetti can and something like that.
	And I was railing against political corruption and fiat currency, you know, all the usual tropes for those of us interested in restraining the ever-growing power of the state.
	And a speech was very well received, or at least as well received as you can be from a Dutch audience who are notoriously unresponsive.
	But they did respond after I started shooting out my fingertip tasers.
	Then they did respond quite a bit with electrical arcs and spontaneous spasmodic clapping.
	Yay!
	But, yeah, so basically I spent the weekend in Amsterdam, which usually leads to an entirely different kind of story, probably involving a black prostitute in a car, and a KKK member, for those who are seriously kinky.
	And then I flew back, and then, yeah, the first business day, whole YouTube presence, whole Google presence vanished from the web.
	Was it related to the speech?
	Who knows?
	I don't know.
	Why do I not know?
	Because they don't tell me.
	It's gone, baby, gone.
	Your whole eight-year...
	Labor of love and intellect putting up, creating 1,500 videos and interviewing people like Peter here and Noam Chomsky, though not in the same room, for fear of a WWF-style smackdown, and other great luminaries of the intellectual movement, and eight years, 1,500 videos, gone!
	The first business day after I did that speech in Amsterdam.
	To the credit of the freedom-loving community, memes were created, contacts were made, people who knew people at Google made ferocious phone calls, petitions were created, a fund was set up to resurrect the channel if need be, and within a couple of hours, we were back.
	And they said, hey, you're back.
	And we said, what did we do?
	And they said, we don't have to answer that because we're Google.
	So yeah, okay, we're going to have a backup channel and all this kind of stuff, but it was quite exciting.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what happened.
	Was it related to the speech?
	I kind of hope so.
	Because when people in power act against what you're doing, that's a great signal to do it more.
	You know, you want to get flack when you're over the target, right?
	If you're flying a plane with bombs.
	So the degree to which I meet resistance from those in power is the north star by which I will sail the ship of philosophy.
	Because you want to annoy evil people.
	You know, look, if you're a cancer researcher, you want your treatment to really annoy the cancer cells.
	You want them to not like you at all!
	And if you are...
	Creating something which gets rid of cavities, you want that to annoy dentists, or at least annoy the bacteria which produce the cavity.
	So when you're in a fight against immorality, you want to be disliked by the immoral.
	That's really foundational.
	As Churchill said, you have enemies?
	Good, good, good.
	That means you have stood up for something, somewhere, sometime.
	If you want to create virtue in the world, and nobody's acting against you, and nobody's bothered by you, and you don't have any hate sites, and nobody dislikes you, I can promise you, my friends, you're not actually doing any good.
	If the cancer cells say, hey, cancer treatment, ah, we don't care.
	It doesn't threaten our interests at all.
	It's not a very good treatment.
	So, pursue hatred.
	That's what I'm going to try.
	And tell you, pursue hatred.
	Pursue the hatred of evil people and you will end up doing the world a great service.
	Whether the YouTube deactivation for a couple of hours, it was pretty quick the way it came back.
	That's what makes me sort of suspicious.
	I think the show is too big to be taken down easily now.
	My show, we got over 65 million downloads by this point.
	So I think we're too big to be taken out.
	If you want to hear more about it, freedomainradio.com.
	But it's an important thing.
	You know, we have a natural tendency to recoil from people's dislike of us, but over the years I've learned to really relish that as the wasabi to my intellectual sushi.
	Something which gives it a special extra tang, but which you do not want to regularly insert up your nose.
	Again, unless you're with a black man and a KKK leader in the backseat of a car.
	This is Stefan Molyneux saying thank you for listening.
	Thank you to Peter for turning over the show to me again.
	We will be back when we will be back.
	Look forward to Peter tomorrow.
	We are signing out.
	Have yourselves a fantastic day.

▲