All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
52:39
2735 Sex, Lies and Imaginary Friends
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
Thank you, of course, for your continued interest and support in this, the biggest philosophy conversation in the world.
70 million downloads, probably over a quarter million children, no longer being hit as a result of your support.
Our combined and collective efforts.
We're a little bit lower this month than we were last month for donations, so I'm going to ask you, just as it is the end of the month, please go to FDRURL.com slash donate.
Please help out the show.
I mean, a $20 a month subscription, what is that, 70 or 80 cents a day?
You can probably find that.
in between your couch cushions or under your car seat so if you could really help out that would be much appreciated.
We're looking at finishing up the studio so it doesn't look like I'm broadcasting from the inside of a ping-pong ball and also we are looking to hire employee number three who will be a full-time researcher for the show.
He's fantastic at what he does.
And all of that costs money.
And we're looking to gear up to finish the documentary.
Sorry for its inevitable delay or interminable delay, I should say.
But we are going to finish it up.
And again, all of that takes some coin.
So I generally request 50 cents a show.
So, of course, if you watched 100 shows, I bet you can do the math.
You people are so smart.
So fdrurl.com slash donate.
Please, please, please help out the show.
This is the biggest philosophy conversation the world has ever seen.
I think it's the greatest chance for philosophy to push back the tide of darkness that tends to be the slow encroaching, creeping concrete of modern eye-blinding culture.
But I think we have a pretty good shot, certainly a better shot than philosophy has ever had before.
But we need your help.
FDRURL.com slash donate.
Thank you, my brain-spanked beauties.
I appreciate it.
So these are listener questions from you, the fine listeners.
The first question is...
Oh Steph, I was wondering how appropriate it is to RTR That I wrote available on my website about the philosophy of love and interactions.
It means just being extremely honest, totally honest with someone, sharing your thoughts and feelings in the moment, and steadfastly refusing to jump to conclusions, i.e.
what you said really annoyed me, but I don't know why.
What do you think?
And staying open in the conversation to exploring what's happening rather than, I'm angry because you hurt, right?
Which is sort of a religious jumping to conclusions.
We don't know where the universe came from.
It ain't God.
I don't know where this emotion comes from, therefore I can't say that it's you.
So it's just being honest about your feelings and the limitations of your self-knowledge, which we all have in the moment.
To RTR with someone who you've been talking to for like five minutes and may likely never see again.
Or maybe it's important to do so that I know for sure I will never see them again.
And is it appropriate at the workplace with co-workers?
Well, one of the limitations of Being encased in the skull prison of our own identities is that we never know what the ripple effect is going to be of just being really open and honest with someone.
We don't know how much that is going to trigger a potential avalanche of self-knowledge, you know, where the snows of illusion fall away from the mountain of self-knowledge and expose us all to the platonic sunlight of truth, reason, clarity, and virtue.
Most people have what's called a fixed way of being, which is they're just broken records.
They're repeating their histories.
They're repeating their histories.
They're normalizing whatever happened to them in the past, however dysfunctional it may have been.
They're normalizing it through seeking out the same kinds of interactions again.
If you go to another country and they don't speak your language, you're likely going to seek out other people who speak your language and create a little cultural enclave or an expat community.
Well, most people are traveling to the future, which is a foreign country, and they're finding people who speak their language, and there's usually an expat community of repetitive trauma that is occurring in various Places around the world.
And you don't know.
To speak to someone in a different kind of language, even if it's just a few minutes, they may suddenly break out of a particular pattern.
For those who are old, you just had to knock the needle on the record.
Knock the needle on the record!
And it would move to another part of the song and continue playing if it got stuck.
So you don't know.
I used to listen to the Harry Brown show.
I guess many moons ago.
And he said, well, you know, you should really talk to people about these issues.
He was a libertarian.
Because you just never know what kind of talent you're going to unearth, what kind of resources or abilities is going to be out there that you're going to plug into.
And from there, you just don't know what's going to happen.
The next multimillionaire genius savant, incredible communicator, is going to be triggered by something that you say.
Start looking into these things and move everything forward in a great way.
I used to sit in bed when I was...
Perry, it's me!
It's me!
But I'm certainly doing my best.
Now, as far as co-workers go, that's tricky, right?
Because where there's financial rewards and incentives involved, things can get quite tricky.
You're certainly not obligated.
If people are talking about, we should go back to Iraq, you're certainly not obligated to go and do that.
You're not obligated to immolate yourself On the altar of truth and reason, like some infant sacrifice in an Aztec mountaintop, the truth is not a sword to be drawn at all costs.
You count your enemies, you count your chances, and you intelligently plan your strategy.
So I certainly would not recommend pursuing the truth until you're Living under a bridge on a steady diet of government cheese.
So you have to balance, right?
You have to balance your opportunities.
Like everybody engaged in combat, you don't fight where you cannot win.
This is very important.
This is why you don't take on the state.
So philosophy is not an order.
This is really, really fundamental to understand.
This is why I don't tell people what to do.
Philosophy is not an order.
It's so essential to understand that philosophy is the process of self-knowledge, self-care, and the pursuit of truth and reason and evidence where it is justified, where there is fertile ground, or at least not massive opposition.
So, I mean, you know, if you're crossing the border and you're an anarchist, well, do you say this is an imaginary line, I'm not stopping for you?
Well, of course not.
You're going to go to jail and get detained, right?
There's not an order.
There's no order that philosophy is supposed to give you.
Philosophy is about freedom.
And if you're taking orders from philosophy, you've missed the point.
You've missed the point.
Like, if you want to lose weight, I think that the best way to do it is to continue to pursue self-knowledge, figure out why, what are the secondary gains or the unconscious benefits of being overweight, deal with whatever trauma has caused you to overeat, and then you will find losing weight very easy.
The same thing with all other addictions, smoking and so on, you know, why are you low on the stimulants in your brain that smoking replaces?
Well, because of a difficult childhood, most likely go deal with that, and you'll find quitting smoking enormously easy.
But if you just willpower and white knuckle it, then it's not going to be sustainable, which is why like two or three percent of people who lose weight actually keep it off.
Like I lost like 20 or 30 pounds five or six years ago and I kept it off because that resulted from a rigorous pursuit of self-knowledge and the degree to which I was self-medicating through food.
So you can find that out.
I don't find it hard to keep the weight off and So, philosophy is not taking orders.
Taking orders, you don't want to turn philosophy into some sort of Gestapo commandant who's barking at you, act with integrity, live virtuously, do the right thing, no matter what the cost.
You don't want to be a computer that philosophy is programming, where you then don't have choice, don't have free will, and can't analyze whatever cost benefits there are in the moment, and come up with an intelligent strategy.
People always want, like, we all grow up with authority, as gods or parents or Priests or teachers or people who just tell us what to do.
When you take the authority out of someone's personality, there's a power vacuum.
This is why everyone says, well, if you get rid of the government, people will just put another authority in its place.
Well, that's people without self-knowledge.
We'll do that, right?
And so, I mean, I grew up, you know, being told what to do.
I was in boarding school.
I just boarded and bossed around my whole childhood.
And then I've been on my own.
I'm pretty self-sufficient since about the age of 15.
And I've steadfastly tried, I did it with objectivism for a while, but I've steadfastly tried to remove an obligatory authority from my personality so that I can think clearly in the moment.
And you'll notice this.
So people who, like in the 19th century, there was a great deal of skepticism around God.
So a lot of people stopped believing in God, which created a power vacuum.
What rushed in to fill that power vacuum?
Communism and fascism and national socialism and the democratic government, welfare, statism, military, industrial complex.
If you take away one authority, Then another authority is generally going to rush in because that's the fixed way of being, right?
That's the broken record.
Have to be told what to do.
Have to be told what to do.
Thinking for myself makes me anxious.
Oh, no God?
Great, let's create a communist state and have the same religion but with the state where God used to be.
This is why the 20th century was such a disaster and this is why...
Opposing authority without promoting self-knowledge and particularly an understanding of the cause and effect of childhood to adult addictions, whether the addiction is to, as I mentioned, food or smoking, or the addiction is to authority, to the self-limiting constriction.
Of being told what to do.
If your personality feels like it's made of water, then you're going to need to put it into a container to feel like it has shape.
And that container, generally, is being told what to do.
By the state, by a god, by culture, by your family, by a priest, you name it.
So we have to recognize that we are formless, we have to develop the containers of reason and evidence, and that way we can be fluid water walking.
We can be like those metal guys in Terminator 2.
So, that's my general goal.
Really, really steadfastly avoid being told what to do.
Like, oh, I have this new philosophy.
Should I do this or should I do that?
Do I have to do this?
Do I have to do that?
You don't.
You don't.
That is not the purpose of philosophy, is to tell you what to do.
The purpose of philosophy is to be a map and a compass, not a baton deathmatch, marching order, Of prisoner of war columns.
It's a map and it's a compass.
And philosophy says, not go here, not don't go here.
Philosophy says, where do you want to go today?
And then it gives you a blue screen of death and you have to reboot.
Alright.
Another question.
If dreams are such an important part of our subconscious and a source of information for us, why do we not remember them mostly?
And why are they so hard to decode by yourself?
I don't know, but I have an idea.
So this is not philosophy, this is just some arguments or perspective, right?
This is not analytical, synthetic, or synthetic reasoning.
But I believe that dreams are a story that we tell to ourself that is true, but we almost dare not believe.
Right, so dreams are a way of identifying A massive problem or a massive opportunity in our lives.
Now, if we then take the time to think, analyze, and pursue their meaning, then they meet us, right?
They speak in code because to speak fluently will put us in danger, and so dreams need to know whether we are in a position in society to change our environment.
And if we are, then we will pursue therapy, we will pursue self-knowledge, we will view them, as Sigmund Freud did, as the royal roads to the unconscious.
You can't really be intelligent or live well without harnessing the power of the unconscious.
The unconscious has been proven to be six or seven thousand times faster and more comprehensive than the conscious mind.
If you're navigating in the wood, waving a laser pointer isn't going to do you much good.
That's the conscious mind.
It's like a laser pointer.
It can focus and illuminate incredibly precisely.
The unconscious is a softer and more gentle light.
I view it sort of as a full moon in a starry sky.
You can navigate through a countryside in a full moon.
With a full moon above you, you cannot navigate with no light above you and only in a pitch black environment with only a laser pointer.
At least not very well.
So to harness the power of the unconscious is essential, I think, in living a happy and fulfilled life where you don't have to overheat your brain, your frontal lobes, by doing the wrong thing with them, which is trying to understand everything unconsciously or in a generic way around your environment.
Another way to look at it is, if you've ever had a powerful telescope, I used to, when I was a teenager, I bought a telescope, I used to record sunspots on pieces of paper.
A telescope will zoom in, you know, really precisely to something and give you a great view of it, but you cannot navigate the world with one eye closed and a telescope, right?
It's great for seeing the lips of the craters of the Moon or the rings of Saturn, but you cannot walk around A city with a telescope to your eye.
The unconscious is two eyes, peripheral vision, all the visual-spatial processing, and the conscious mind is the zoom-in telescope.
and you don't want to try and observe the moon by squinting at it, and you also don't want to walk around a busy and dangerous city with your eye glued to a telescope, right?
So, to harness the power of the unconscious, and the unconscious is generally brutalized by culture, by religion, by nationalism, by sports fever, by all of the petty tribal idolatries by sports fever, by all of the petty tribal idolatries that are so infected on us for fun and profit by those in charge.
the unconscious is very skeptical.
And the unconscious does not believe this stuff, which is why we have to overcompensate with this rah-rah, paint your face, blue, ridiculous, let's do a wave fervor that you see.
If you look at the Nuremberg trials, this is everybody denying the skepticism of their unconscious and attempting to believe in a collective that does not exist.
So the dreams are saying to us, is it safe to be honest?
Is it safe to be true?
And they speak to us metaphorically in the same way that spies speak in code and leave packages under park benches and so on, because we need to know whether it's safe to be honest, to be true.
And if you will meet the unconscious, if you will attempt to work with your dreams and understand them, then your unconscious assumes or accepts that it's safe To be truthful and to be honest and to really pursue self-knowledge and then we'll start to give you more and more dreams and we'll shout its truth down the prison hallways of our histories.
So, I hope that helps.
Question, why do you say that we're only five years away from a peaceful society if everyone raises their kids peacefully for those first five years?
Why five years?
Why not ten years?
Wouldn't there be issues between those children raised peacefully and those who have been raised through aggression and further broken by culture?
A fine question.
Scientifically, 90% of a child's personality is developed through the child's experiences in the first five years of life.
So there's a law of diminishing returns going forward.
My daughter is now five and a half.
Most of my parenting is already done.
Most of my parenting.
Now it's time to reap the rewards.
Not that I haven't.
I mean, I've enjoyed the whole process of being home with her for five and a half years.
But now it's just a matter of reaping the rewards and we have like a free and easy exchange of thoughts and ideas.
We have very little conflict.
We have one like significant conflict maybe every six months and we usually work it out the same day and it's usually during a time of transition where she's developing new skills and abilities and we need to revisit our negotiations.
So the first five years are the essential years.
Now, of course it's true that when you raise your children well, they are going to have problems with those who are traumatized or the children who are abusive because they've been abused, for which I feel incredibly sorry, which is the universal tragedy from which all other tragedies are derived or domino out.
So, yeah, my daughter is not going to get along well with traumatized, difficult and abusive children.
That's the point.
That's the point.
I want her expat community to be healthy people who know how to communicate, who have their mirror neurons implanted, who have empathy, who have sympathy, who have strength in the fight against immorality and evil.
So, you know, if I want to, if she's going to move to China and the future is China and I want her to speak With English people, English-speaking people, then I just don't teach her Mandarin.
And she's going to be drawn towards the people who speak the language that she speaks.
And she's not going to have much to do with the people who don't.
So I teach her one language, which is peace and voluntarism and negotiation.
For those who don't know...
She's never been yelled at.
She's never been hit.
She's never been really punished.
And everything is negotiation.
And it's worked even better than I anticipated.
I mean, I was lecturing and being an annoying gadfly to parents even before I had a child.
In the anticipation of it working out this way, it's worked out far better even than I anticipated.
So, yay.
that's good.
All right.
So the realm of philosophy is a tension between rationality and projection.
Why, at the time, projection is so important, since it always has been damned to sort of escape from reality?
Okay, so, I mean, that's a bit of an incomprehensible question for people who don't know the history of that conversation.
When people are raised in a crazy way, and most people in the world are raised to be crazy, right?
To believe in things that aren't true, to believe in countries, to believe in gods, to believe in the importance of sports teams, to bow down to authority while calling that authority virtuous.
I mean, all kinds of insane things are taught to people.
We are basically bald apes stuffing our children's throats with delusions in the hopes of profiting from their submission.
And so when you start to try to become sane, when you start to really think for yourself, to reason from first principles and to steadfastly bring every opinion and thought to the altar of reason and put it through the ringer, well, this makes people feel insane, right?
If you start to become sane, Then other people around you will start to become, start to feel insane.
Like when you ask them those basic, you know, red pill questions.
I mean, is taxation force?
Is spanking aggression?
I mean, you sort of go on and on.
But when you basically ask people those basic questions, is it moral to indebt the unborn through national debts?
Is democracy simply not mob rule with a centralized coercive agency?
How is war not mass murder?
People say mass murders are on the decrease, right?
School shootings are on the decrease.
Well, I guess mass murders in the U.S. are on the decrease, one of the reasons being that they have offloaded their sociopaths to go murder foreigners in other countries.
So when you start to ask people the basic red pill questions, they start to feel insane.
And Literally, they will mostly view you as attempting to inject them with a brain-destroying drug.
They will view you as aggressing against them because their formerly functioning brains are revealed as broken and vicious, sword-gripping tentacle-armed inflictors of brain-shredding propaganda on others.
They are revealed as broken and breaking people when you become sane, when you strive for sanity.
And so their craziness, which they begin to feel as you become sane, like if everyone in your village is 400 pounds and you start to lose weight, they suddenly start to feel fat, right?
And I don't feel like, you know, let's say I have a lifespan of 90 years, I don't feel like I'm going to die young if I die at 90.
But then if I find out that everyone else is living to 500 years, suddenly I start to feel unwell kind of thing, right?
So as you become sane, other people will start to feel insane.
Or rather, their insanity will be revealed to them.
And they will then strive to project their insanity onto you.
They will call you crazy.
They will call you deranged.
They will call you unstable.
They will call you dangerous.
And that is a natural phenomenon.
It's something that makes it hard.
For humanity to progress morally, which is why it takes thousands of years to get rid of slavery.
It took thousands of years to develop the principles of free market voluntary trade, which are now completely undermined.
This is why the same cycle keeps occurring again and again, right?
Why empires fall, why money gets debased, why debt always swallows civilizations because rulers want to bribe people with other people's money to buy votes.
This always happens the same way, and the reason it happens the same way is that we start to become sane and we all get attacked.
Because most people would rather die than become sane.
This is a basic fact of reality that I'm not even going to pretend is subjective.
Most people would rather die than become sane.
If people are drafted into a war, the vast majority of people will go.
Rather than question the morality of military enslavement, rather than question the legitimacy of centralized oligarchical violent hierarchies, rather than get a white feather from a young lady which might signify cowardice, most people would rather die than become sane.
And that's just one of these biological things that has evolved from humanity.
There's no way around it.
The purpose of our biology, the purpose of our brains, is not to be philosophical, not to be rational.
It is to reproduce, right?
Sperm, one egg.
That's your mantra.
That's the reason why your heartbeat runs.
One egg, one egg, one egg.
Your toe is just this tiny little lever that's waving you around in the hopes of making another toe.
And so if there is a tribal...
Irrational belief that the women hold, then the men have to pretend to have that belief, which is why religions generally target women and say, only have sex with men who share this irrational belief, and then the men, even if they don't, will share the irrational belief to get access to the women's eggs, because anyone who stood on philosophy and offended the tribe either would be abandoned by the tribe or killed by the tribe,
or at the very least would be Put up with by the tribe but would not have access to the woman's ex because the women would be appalled and shocked and horrified that the man did not believe in the gods of the city or the tribe or did not believe in particular rituals or wouldn't circumcise and openly said so or something like that.
And so all the genes which said philosophy over illusion would not reproduce in general.
Because women put out for delusion, and they're trained to do that, and this is not to blame women, this is just the mechanics of how delusion reproduces.
So most people would rather die Then become rational.
Because your genes will die.
Historically, your genes would die if you became rational.
And your genes don't want to do that.
So they'll say, not so much with the rationality, more with the nodding, smiling, and getting access to the women's eggs.
So that's really an important thing to understand.
We're not designed for voluntary...
For a large voluntary tribe, we are designed to survive in a closed tribal system where conformity is the only way to reproduce.
And therefore the genes for conformity are the ones that we have, right?
And so we are just designed to cleave to our parents, we are designed to cleave to our tribal illusions, and that's...
but so what?
So what?
We're designed to pursue and eat as much sugar as we want and we're told not to do that.
We're designed to enjoy nicotine.
We're designed to enjoy cocaine and we're told not to do all of that.
Some people are designed to enjoy bullying and we're told not to do that.
Some people like to steal and become politicians, which is really being the professional thief.
Anyway, so the fact that it's not what we're designed for is not particularly relevant because we're all told not to pursue our base instincts but to live a life of virtue.
So that's, of course, what we should do.
And if women started putting out for reason and stopped putting out for delusion, then delusion would be gone in a generation.
This is why I focus on the ladies, because I am...
Rational.
Naivete.
Somebody writes, I was always and still am called naive, which is Evian backwards.
I was very shy about it.
I was generally very, very shy.
But now I think it was only sort of mistuning with the world.
I didn't or couldn't accept fundamental lies underlying our culture.
Yeah, the only syllable about cult that means anything is the first four letters.
Culture.
Should we keep our naivete?
Should we differentiate between healthy and unhealthy or real naivete?
So naivete is an interesting ad hominem.
And it is an ad hominem.
It's not an actual rejection or repudiation of any reason and evidence that you're putting forward.
It's just a stupid ad hominem that is triggered by emotional defenses.
People swallow illusion and then believe that it's truth.
And with a force-fed illusion, frankly, and then...
To protect themselves from the trauma of being aggressively lied to and bullied into believing false things, they then pretend that the false things are true.
It's just elemental.
It's elemental.
And when you then come with real questions, real comments, real evidence, reasoning and so on, Then people will say that you're naive.
And it's an ad hominem, but it's an ad hominem with a grain of truth, which is kind of why it sticks in a very significant way to a lot of people.
Naive simply means that you are not really accepting the depth and the truth of things.
You're sort of skating on the surface and you're not really understanding the underlying motives.
And it's kind of true, right?
So if you're in there trying to reason with people, And they call you naive.
You kind of are because you're trying to reason with people and most people are murderous towards reason.
Historically this has been the case.
The people who bring reason to the tribe generally are killed.
Most people have murderous feelings towards the truth because the truth has been killed in them.
In order to murder you must yourself have been killed emotionally as a child.
In order to steal you must have had your childhood stolen from you.
In order to bully you must have been bullied.
And if the truth has been murdered in you, through threats of hell, through threats of punishment, through psychotropic drugs, through spanking or hitting or beating or childhood rape, if the truth has been killed within you, then when the truth-teller comes, the corpse of truth will, through that person's arms, try to kill you.
It's just a reality.
I mean, just ask Socrates what his last drink was.
It was not a latte.
So, truth-tellers are targeted by all of the corpses of truth that litter the animated bodies of those slaughtered deep and early by lies.
So, are you naive to try and reanimate the dead?
You know, this is cliché.
In medical dramas, you know, the guy really wants to save the body on the table, and the person's dead, but he keeps, you know, with the breath thing and thumping the chest, and then suddenly the nurse has to, you know, he's dead, Jimmy, pull him off you, and all that kind of stuff.
Well, because the man is avoiding the pain, Of the patient dying.
The doctor is avoiding the pain of the patient dying by pretending the patient can be resuscitated.
Now, if it's three days later and the corpse is bloated and funky and, you know, worms are crawling out of the eyeballs and he's still, right?
Come on!
Come on!
Come back!
Well, this would be kind of crazy, right?
So, yeah, I mean, float the reason balloons in front of people and if they sniper them down, they're telling you everything you need to know.
I mean, most things are just lies, right?
Most things are just lies.
I was at a men's conference giving a speech on Saturday and a woman said, I was talking about mothers' aggressions against children and provided the evidence and the documentation and the facts and the studies.
And then a woman said, but don't, you know, basically can't we excuse mothers for hitting their children because the mothers are stressed, right?
And I said, well, There's no stress test for a man hitting his wife.
He can't say, you can't get upset with me because I was stressed at work and that's why I hit my wife.
And then a reporter in the audience published this as, Stefan Molyneux bemoans the lack of a stress test for wife abuse.
I mean, it's not at all.
It's completely opposite of what I was saying.
It's just pointing out the double standard.
But suddenly now I desperately desire for men to be able to excuse hitting their wives because they're stressed.
When what I was doing is saying it's not legitimate for women to claim that they can Hit their children because they're stressed, so they should be excused for that because, you know, and that was just a quick example.
Anyway, so, I mean, this is just natural.
I mean, there's no media output that has anything to do with the truth, and the media is fundamentally conservative, right?
The mainstream media, their job is not to deliver truth to the masses, but to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, which means appeal to people's prejudices and profit thereby.
They are Parasites are untruth.
They are the eclipse of the light of reason.
They are almost universal, deep-veined, boot-of-power-licking scumbaggery of the highest order, or the lowest order, used to say.
So, yeah, it is.
I mean, that's why I don't ever talk to the media.
I mean, it would be insane.
So, yeah, you are naive.
If you're continuing to try and reason with people who have shown themselves to be resolutely opposed to rationality, then, you know, the idea that you should keep doing it is naive.
So they're kind of right if you keep trying to reason with them and they call you naive.
Let's see.
Does Izzy, sorry for that, but she seems to be the only healthy child in the world I've ever heard of, have or have had imaginary friends?
For me, when I think about my childhood, it was always sort of natural.
I reply to imaginary stories of my caregivers.
They tell me some funny stories.
So do I. Again, sorry for some of this word salad.
No, Isabella has never had imaginary friends because she has real human contact.
We certainly role play, right?
We role play stories and all that.
And every time, like right now, We occasionally play an Xbox game called Rayman where there's a guy she calls Meany and so we have lots of conversations where I pretend to be Meany and she's one of the heroines from Rayman and she tries to debate Meany into being a good person.
And Meanie, when I play Meanie, I try to get her to come into my mean gang, and she tries to get me into her good gang.
And she's very creative in her arguments.
You'll be happier, you'll have more friends, you won't be worried about people attacking you all the time, and so on, right?
So, you know, she says, I'm nice to the nice and I'm mean to the mean, which I never taught her, but she just kind of, I think, understands that.
So, we have imaginary dialogues.
We basically have, like, these amazing Socratic dialogues about a virtue and about whether you should be good because if it's practical effects or you should be good on principle and why you should be good and how you could change someone from being mean to being good and so on.
And I try to give her all of the reasons to be mean and then she'll try to counter and we have this.
This is a game we're playing over and over again every day these days, which I find...
Again, mind-blowing and fascinating.
But she's never had imaginary friends.
I believe that imaginary friends, they come out of isolation and loneliness.
And so she's not experienced that.
So why would she have that?
Frequently you talk about how easy and inexpensive it would be in a stateless society to scan kids' brains to determine or detect damage caused by abuse and trauma.
And therefore, this would allow caregivers to take corrective measures.
This sounds like taking kids to the dentist every six months to get their teeth checked and catch cavities before they get bad.
I agree.
I think that's what it's like.
Therefore, we don't need to wait until governments quit or fail in the future to engage in the brain scanning practice.
However, somehow the free market has not proven its value because it appears it is not a widespread practice yet.
How would you explain this?
Well, because the prevalence of child abuse is so widespread that parents would steadfastly oppose and reject any objective medical measure to determine the extent of child abuse the child had experienced.
Also, generally you would get a norm, right?
So you would scan, I don't know, 10,000 kids and you'd get a baseline and then you would notice deviations from the baseline.
But the baseline for humanity at the moment is trauma.
It's trauma.
It's like getting 10,000 people with broken legs and saying, well, this is what legs should look like.
Well, no, it's not, right?
So you would need to find really, really healthy children, children raised peacefully, negotiation, not exposed to religion, not exposed to government schools, not exposed to, you know, all the stuff that is just wretched, not drugged and so on, with stay-at-home parents who've been breastfed for at least the 18 to 24 months recommended and so on, right?
Where would you find these kids?
They're rare, to say the least.
That would be your baseline.
And then you would notice deviations from that.
Well, 90% of North American parents hit their children.
80% of British mothers hit their children before the children are even one year of age.
Mothers, even middle-class, relatively comfortable moms hit seven-month-old children to three years of age an average of 932 times a year.
So, at least, at least 80 to 90 percent of children would show significant markers of child abuse.
Because that's what they're experiencing.
This doesn't even count yelling, verbal abuse.
It doesn't count neglect.
It doesn't count abandonment.
It doesn't count things which most people believe are not child abuse, i.e.
telling a child that he or she is going to burn in hell if they don't agree with the scrolling sky ghost notes of commandments.
So, how many children would be revealed as healthy?
Which social agency would want children?
To pursue this.
How many votes would be cast by a government that found the healthiest children, created a baseline, and then started suggesting testing for the other kids?
Right.
I mean, if everyone is a thief, who wants security cameras?
Right?
How much do counterfeiters want a counterfeit detection machine, or something which can trace their bills with perfect accuracy?
The criminals don't want to be caught.
Violators of essential human rights don't want to be caught.
I mean, the whole point of evil is to get away with it.
I mean, if you said to a guy about to rob a bank he's going to be caught for sure, he wouldn't do it.
The whole point is to try and get away with the crime.
And so, what government would possibly want to do this?
Which Insurance company would suggest this.
I mean, just from a cost-benefit standpoint.
Of course it's massively profitable to society if children are not traumatized, but it's emotionally costly to the abusers to recognize that they are abusers when they think they're being good parents.
So let's say you're the head of an insurance company and you say, yeah, let's get this program going.
We're going to offer, you know, 50% discount on insurance and medical costs For the child's entire life, which would be conservative, because children who've experienced a lot of child abuse have about 20 years lower life expectancy and massive problems that are incredibly expensive to society and to them personally.
So let's say you're an insurance company, and you say, hey, you know, if kids come in for these brain scans every year or two, then we will offer the parents 50% discount on the insurance for the kid, and the kid then gets that discount for the rest of his or her life, right?
And, oh, we found, you know, 500 truly healthy kids around the world and we have found the baseline, right?
So then parents bring their kids in and the kids are found to be way below the baseline of health.
So who wants to do that?
Are you going to make money off that?
Of course not.
People are going to be shocked, appalled, horrified.
They're going to find out the actual physical damage caused by Physical, verbal, emotional, sexual abuse.
They're going to realize how far they are from the norm.
They're going to realize that instead of being good parents, they are historically justified photocopy of hell monstrous, and they're going to abandon and reject, and the media will be in an uproar, and the company will fold, and these supposed savings will never materialize, and basically you would just be detonating your own Business model, right?
You have to appeal to people's prejudices if you're not a philosopher relying on voluntary donations.
So, what governments would do this?
I mean, the government, whatever government or politician proposed this would be voted out of office and would probably be lynched in the streets, right?
People, obviously people don't want to know that they're monstrous.
Which means that the monsters have to be the truth-tellers.
I don't think that's how it's going to fundamentally or functionally occur.
Okay, last one.
It seems that people have uncovered a darker side to female sexuality, where the vanity, greed, and overall unsavory and immoral nature of some women is brought to the forefront, manifested in the fields such as the divorce, economy, law, education, and economics.
So, having set up the background for fear of appearing nihilistic, my question is this.
Is human intimacy dead, or at least close to being so?
I understand a general question such as this has many exceptions, notably those with a happy relationship, but out of curiosity and as a result of watching these men going their own way thinkers and videos and the overall way the culture appears to be going, it had me wondering about that.
So men going their own way are men who, and there are female equivalents to this as well, men who are saying, look, it's simply too risky to engage in long-term relationships with a woman because When you get involved with a woman, and particularly when you cross the threshold into common law or get married, then you invite the state into your relationships, and the state is too dangerous an entity to be the threesome in the bed.
So is intimacy dead?
I don't...
I don't think so.
I think that given the fact that we're having this conversation, myself, the listeners, and the world, I think we have a great capacity for human intimacy now.
The further you can cast your net, The better your chances of getting the magical tuna of intimacy.
Well, that's a great name for a band.
So, we have the world to choose from.
All the people who speak our language, both at the shallow and deeper sense of the word.
So, we have a greater capacity for Intimacy.
Finding people that you can really connect with is the proverbial needle in the haystack, which is why I give everyone a metal detector.
The important thing when you're looking for something rare is to discard where it's not as quickly as possible.
I mean, if you're looking for something rare, knowing where not to look is the most important thing.
And this is why I want to get them in touch with their unconscious, teach them to pursue self-knowledge.
I know within 10 to 20 seconds of meeting someone, usually, whether they are open to Truth and reason or not.
And that is very important.
It's very, very important.
If you're looking for a needle in a haystack and you have to carefully test each piece of hay to see if it's a needle, you're never getting there.
You need to glance and move, glance and move, glance and move.
Triage, triage, triage is the name of the game if you want to connect with people.
Which is why I say be honest and then people who then attack you for honesty are like, hey, thanks for the information, move on, right?
Thanks for the information, move on.
Thanks for the information, move on.
So it's not dead, but in all late decaying empire societies, which the West basically is, people are stuffed full of more and more lies because the society is becoming less and less sustainable.
And when people are stuffed with more and more lies, their capacity to connect with each other diminishes proportional to the lies.
When you believe, like a superstition song, when you believe in things that you don't understand, you will suffer.
And if you are full of lies, and I don't mean like you know, if you're full of things that aren't true, then you will instinctively seek out other people who believe the same lies so that you can pretend that through a shared delusion you can create a tangible reality.
Those suffering from terminal falsehood seek out each other like a drunk seeks out a wall so he doesn't fall down.
Or as Dean Martin used to say, you're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
So tribes that profit from delusion need to stuff people with delusions so that those delusion-addicted people will remain addicted to the tribe and thereby pay for the cure of Illusory proximity, both the illusion of proximity and the proximity of illusion.
So if you make money from curing a disease, then you have an incentive to infect people with that disease.
And we recognize that this is completely wrong in the medical field.
We don't understand how wrong it is in the cultural field, in the religious field, in the fields of nationalism, in the fields of flag waving, saluting the corpses, all kinds of stuff, right?
There is a disease called an illusion that is incredibly profitable and makes people addicted to proximity with other Victims of the same delusion and is highly profitable.
People will pay for the reduction of anxiety.
They do it through therapy, they do it through drugs, they do it through collusion with other addicts of the same delusions.
Once you can infect people with something that is not true, then the truth becomes very anxiety provoking to them and you get a perpetual addict to paying you to diminish the symptoms of that delusion.
Reality is always crowding out.
Delusion.
Jesus said when he was close to the end, he said, there are those among you who will not taste death before I come again.
He ain't back.
Every day he's not back is a little tougher to believe in the divine wisdom of what he said.
So reality is constantly chipping away at delusion, which is why people constantly need to return to the druggy drip of the delusion mongers, to get reinforcement for that, which is not true.
I don't keep needing to go to gravity school to reaffirm my belief in gravity, because it's a true belief, it's a valid belief, and it's reinforced every waking moment.
Not in the dreams where I fly, but I know that they're dreams.
Illusion is an illness that is inflicted upon people, which they will pay to relieve the anxiety-provoked symptoms of.
As reality constantly washes away their sandcastles, they have to pay other people to rebuild them on a constant basis.
So, the more lies you believe, the less you can actually be interested in someone else.
A heroin addict who desperately needs a fix may engage in small talk with the heroin dealer, but only because he wants the heroin dealer's good opinion of him and maybe a reduction in price or maybe a break or whatever, maybe the good stuff.
But the heroin addict who needs a fix cannot be intimate with the heroin dealer.
Because everything he does is manipulative because of his bottomless need for the drug.
So they can't connect.
There's nothing real about their interactions.
They're not interested in each other.
The dealer is interested in the money and the addict is interested in the drug.
They're not connected.
They're not able to be honest, right?
Because for the drug addict to be honest, he would jump on the guy's chest and scream at him to give him the goddamn drug and stop screwing around with small talk, right?
And so that's really, really important to understand, that anxiety management is the root of most people's proximity, right?
Because reality is constantly undermining our illusions, and therefore we need to cling to other people who share those same illusions in the hope of substituting agreement for truth.
So that intimacy is impossible in that environment.
And therefore the way that you have to become intimate with people is to remove illusions from your own mind.
Right?
To attack illusions and to understand their source with sympathy, but to attack their effects.
To attack illusions as a disease within your body.
Right?
I mean, I had cancer last year.
I want my immune system to find those cancer cells from here to the end of time and, you know, kill them.
Like, not negotiate.
Just kill them, kill them, kill them.
Right?
That means, you know, living healthy and exercising and eating well and so on.
But that basic reality is essential, that illusions are profitable cysts of identity destruction that are implanted in us for profit.
And we have to attack them as the soul-destroying illusions that they are, soul-destroying fantasies that they are, and intimacy and love and identity and security and happiness.
And then we need to stay the hell away from people who want to reinfect us because they only feel sick when we are well.
You cannot maintain your health.
When I was going through chemotherapy, my immune system was suppressed.
I obviously was very susceptible.
I could not take my daughter to play centers.
I could not go on trips with lots of kids.
I just couldn't because I couldn't afford to get sick.
I was immunosuppressed.
Now, when you deal with your own illusions, then you are even more susceptible to other people's illusions, because the old aches and pains of your own illusions are still there.
And the more healthy you are, the more other people want to dump their illusions into you, because otherwise they have to feel the horror of having been lied to.
So this is why I argue that if you are going to pursue health, You must also avoid unhealth.
And that doesn't mean just cutting everyone out of your life.
It means having conversations with them and, you know, there's a process and you don't expect it to happen overnight.
Is it a matter of years?
No.
Is it a matter of days?
No.
Somewhere in between, I would argue, that you really cannot achieve sustainable commitments to truth when other people are constantly Trying to pour their lies into you through manipulation.
It literally is like trying to do a math problem with people screaming random numbers in your ear.
You simply can't get it done.
So, thank you everyone so much for your time, attention and concentration as usual.
I wish you the very best.
Lilacs springing up under every footstep on your road to truth.
And again, please do help out the conversation.
I think you know there's no talk and no interaction and no conversation like this anywhere else on the planet.
So please do help.
All the very best to everyone.
I hope you have a great week.
And remember, you can always call in to the call-in shows, which happen Wednesday nights, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
And Saturday nights, 8 p.m.
Eastern, you can email Mike.
Operations at freedommaderadio.com.
We're still a couple of months out, queued up.
But some people don't show up, so you never know when you can get in.
But I hope that you will call in if you have questions, criticisms, or problems.
And again, as always, if you have great issues or any issues with something that I say, you always move to the front of the queue.
We really want to give a voice to those who disagree.
There's nothing more productive than being disagreed with intelligently.
So have yourselves a great week, everyone.
▲
Export Selection