Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 8, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:39:17

2789 How NOT to Fight Evil - Saturday Call In Show September 6th, 2014

The power of moral condemnation, the danger of confusing aesthetics for ethics, setting fire to the future through cowardice, universal preferable behavior, non-aggression principle hypocrisy, finding somebody to love, connection over propaganda stories, how dishonesty and betrayal strangles love and connection.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Rolini from Freedom Made Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	Sorry for the late start.
	FDRURL.com slash donate if you would like to help out.
	We were having a bit of a dip from last month, so if you'd like to help shore up the finances of the world's greatest philosophy conversation, we would massively, massively appreciate it.
	FDRURL.com slash donate.
	We're not asking for a tithe.
	We're not asking for 10% of your income today.
	50 cents a show, really, I don't think it's a massive amount to ask for.
	And I hope that you will see your way clear to helping us out.
	You know it's the right thing to do.
	You know you need to do it.
	You know we need it.
	And so I hope that you will go to FDRURL.com slash donate and help a brother out if you can.
	All right, Mike, who have we got up with the firstness?
	All right, up first is Brian.
	And Brian wrote in and said, Please consider the following ethical egoist statement.
	UPB exists, but you should only adhere to UPB if slash when doing so is in your individual self-interest.
	To my mind, this statement doesn't self-detonate, like the nihilist statement on ethics.
	And thus, the ethical egoist position seems to be a logically consistent ethical position.
	What do you think?
	Have I missed something?
	No, no, no.
	It fails on every conceivable lever except grammar.
	So it's a valiant effort to attempt to resurrect rational egoism, but it doesn't work.
	Would you like me to go into why, or is there something else you might want to modify before I do?
	Well, excuse me.
	So have you ever heard of a philosopher by the name of Max Stirner?
	Yes.
	Yeah, so this is basically my inspiration for this position.
	Basically the position that, well, morality, it can exist.
	You don't have to deny it.
	You don't have to deny truth.
	You don't have to deny morality exists.
	But the question is, what do you do when presented with it?
	And Max Stirner would say, don't do anything if doing so harms your self-interest, because why?
	Yeah, I mean, basically that is a set of ethics that a fucking amoeba could follow.
	So excuse me if I think that Max Stirner should have been slightly Stirner with his own rigor.
	And look, I mean, whether he states it with more elegance or more rigor than that, I don't know.
	I'm just sort of going by what you're saying.
	But let me sort of...
	Mike, if you could put that in the Skype window, then...
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Okay, so you said UPB exists.
	So in the first two words, we already have a problem, right?
	Have you read the book?
	Yes, I did.
	Okay, so do you remember the part in the book, and this is approximately 12,000 times in the book, where I say that ethics do not exist?
	Ethics do not exist.
	Oh, well, you said they don't exist like a rock or a horse or whatever.
	They're more conceptual.
	Yeah.
	Well, they're not more conceptual than Iraq.
	They are conceptual.
	It's not more conceptual than Iraq.
	So UPP, for those who don't know, is universally preferred behavior.
	It's my rational proof of secular ethics.
	And I wrote it, I don't know, five or six years ago.
	And there have been, I guess, a fairly countless number of people who've tried to challenge it in this show and have not succeeded.
	And so I think it's holding firm pretty well.
	So...
	The scientific method does not exist.
	Logic does not exist.
	There are patterns of thinking.
	They don't exist objectively in the real world.
	So ethics does not exist in the real world.
	But there's a reason why people want to use the word exists rather than what I would say is valid.
	UPB is valid.
	Because something that exists, you can kind of...
	Step around, right?
	You can step from one side or to the other.
	You can burrow under it.
	You can close your eyes and ignore it, right?
	Like if I close my eyes when being driven through a forest and I don't see any of the trees, in a kind of subjective way, those trees don't exist for me, right?
	Like if you've ever been on a road trip, I'm sure you have, and you sleep through a town and you're never going back.
	You're never going to see that town.
	You have no memory of it in the consciousness.
	In a way, you can pretend like it doesn't exist.
	So people like to use the word Existence rather than valid, right?
	Because if we change it to universally preferable behavior is an objective and rational framework for ethics, but you should only adhere to rational and objective ethics when it's in your individual self-interest.
	Does that statement raise any red flags for you?
	Well, actually, just for argument's sake at the moment, I would be comfortable with that statement as well.
	Really?
	Okay.
	All right.
	You understand that individual self-interest cannot be universalized, right?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	So ethics is universally preferable behavior.
	Uh-huh.
	So if it can't be universalized, which subjective and individual self-interest cannot be universalized, then it cannot possibly be in the realm of ethics because ethics is universal.
	So I would say I wouldn't put it within the realm of ethics.
	I would put it within the realm of kind of technology.
	It's like, well, everyone wants to pursue their self-interest, so you should listen to my statement because it helps you in doing so.
	No, no, no, no.
	My God, it's like people have never read these.
	It's not consequentialist, right?
	Listen to me.
	Two and two make four.
	Does that make your life better or worse?
	Two and two make four, does that...
	Well, it's a useful truth for me, so absolutely, yeah.
	I don't think it's really a question.
	For some people, it makes your life better.
	For other people, mathematical literacy is a problem.
	So, for instance, if you're very good at understanding loan agreements, then you're not likely to get suckered into some subprime thing that jumps in interest rates down the road, right?
	Okay.
	Mathematical literacy is a problem for others, right?
	So people who want to kind of bamboozle them into something or whatever it is, right?
	There's people who say, well, I bought these sneakers for $50 and I'm paying off the minimum on my visa each month.
	And they don't realize they're going to end up spending $400 on those sneakers when all is said and done, right?
	So for you, two and two make four or mathematical literacy is a benefit.
	people into bad deals, really, I mean, maybe not illegal, but because maybe it's all there in the fine print, but bad deals, then mathematical illiteracy is not my friend, right?
	Right.
	So it can't be, like, two and two make four is not valid or invalid based upon its utility to people.
	Well, If nobody liked it, it would still be true, right?
	Absolutely, but I wouldn't deny that.
	Okay, good.
	So, the validity of universally preferable behavior as a framework of ethics cannot be judged by its consequences.
	It cannot be judged by By whether people like it or don't like it.
	Whether they find it useful or whether they find it not useful.
	That's like arguing atheism by appealing to the self-interest of priests.
	Well, priests do not have any particular interest in atheism.
	In fact, atheism harms their self-interest in that if atheism is accepted in society, they actually have to go and get real jobs rather than regurgitating evil fairy tales down the mouths of pinned and helpless children.
	So the consequences of any particular idea are in no way, shape, or form a way to judge those ideas.
	So, you know, I was on Joe Rogan's show recently, and he, like other people, have had problems with the ethical argument I make called the against me argument, which is that if people support the state, they're supporting the use of force against you.
	And people say, well, that's bad for some families.
	So?
	So what?
	What does that have to do with anything?
	Should I refrain from making rational moral arguments because they're inconvenient to some people?
	I guess we should all go back to having slaves then, right?
	Because those rational arguments against slavery were inconvenient to quite a few people in the ancient world.
	So this idea that you look and say, well, some people are unhappy with, or some people are happy with, or some people like, or they don't like, it's basically turning philosophy into approximately grade 7 gossip, you know?
	I mean, he told me that he really likes you, but she says that you didn't like that.
	And then he's all saying this, and you're all saying that.
	It's like, who cares?
	You look at the argument itself.
	You look at its logical consistency, and you can shore it up with appeals to empirical evidence.
	But the idea that you should adhere to UPB if and when it serves your own personal interest is really identical to saying you should...
	Accept the validity of universals subjectively.
	But you can't do that because if something is universal and something is objective, then judging it according to subjective standards like your own personal self-interest is like praying for science.
	It just doesn't work.
	But I think my question is really not whether UPB is valid or not.
	I would absolutely say, sure, it's valid, it's logical, it's universal, it's great.
	But the question is, given this framework, why should people follow it?
	I mean, so in religion, they had a stupid answer, which was, follow our ethics because God will send you to hell if you don't.
	For UPB, that kind of sanction doesn't really exist anymore.
	And so I just have a hard time...
	Wait, wait, sorry, sorry.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	So your question is why should people accept and follow universally preferable behavior?
	Yes.
	Okay, but you understand that has nothing to do with the validity of the theory, right?
	Yes, absolutely.
	I didn't want to dispute the validity of the theory.
	I just wanted to ask why people should change their actions based on the theory.
	But you see, I wouldn't have any interest, and I'm not speaking about you directly, I would have no interest whatsoever in discussing philosophy and ethics with someone who had no preference for truth.
	Right, so the reason that people should follow and accept UPB is because it's true, because it's valid, because it's objective, because it's universal, and because it cracks the ancient dinosaur egg of what is virtue without appeals to gods, without appeals to governments and prisons and so on.
	Now, if someone has no preference for truth over falsehood, that person is insane.
	Like truly, deeply insane.
	Now, they may be functional in the world, but morally, they're about as corrupt as a rotting corpse in a warm drum of viscous liquid and Ebola cocktails lying in a desert for a couple of years could possibly be.
	So if someone says, well, why should I follow...
	UPP. And I say, well, it's true and it's valid.
	And they say, I don't care about that.
	Then I say, I'm sorry, I'm talking to the wrong person.
	Because if you have no preference for truth at all, then philosophy is nowhere near anywhere you should be, right?
	So, I guess one thing that's confused me is when I think about truth, I think about kind of true causal relations within the world.
	I don't really have a concept of truth that doesn't involve causal relations, and so that's why I have trouble with the UPB, because it's not, if you violate the UPB, then this will happen.
	It's just UPV is valid.
	But most of the truth I'm acquainted with, such as if you jump off a cliff because of gravity, you'll probably die, that's very causal, and everyone has an interest in conforming to that particular truth if they don't want to die.
	Well, if they don't want to die, yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And so kind of these causal truths are very useful to people, and hence the people will be very interested in ascertaining them.
	Whereas a different kind of truth that doesn't involve these kind of concrete causal relations, it's less clear to me why people really want to conform their actions to it.
	Yeah, I'm not sure what it is that you're saying.
	So if I say there's no such thing as a square circle, what causal effect does that have in the world?
	There's no such thing.
	Well, if someone tried to find a square circle, they'd be wasting their time.
	Again, then I don't know what you mean by causal relationship.
	Something is valid or it's invalid.
	Now, something like ethics is the most essential.
	Aspect of human thought, because it is the aspect of human thought from which all other virtues derive.
	If you don't have ethics, you don't have anything.
	Like fidelity to the scientific method has to do with honesty and humility and lots of other virtues and so on, sometimes courage.
	So the idea that an ethical system doesn't have causal effects in the world, is that true?
	Or is it that you're saying most people are good because otherwise they go to hell or they go to jail and there's no hell and there's no jail in UPB? Yeah, and that kind of presents a challenge to a lot of people because then if they have an opportunity, it's like, oh, well, I can just, you know, violate this little principle and, you know, it'll make me some money and all this stuff.
	Like, what do you say to those kinds of people?
	Yeah.
	I mean, you could tell them, it's valid, it's true, but then they say, so what, it's $100,000.
	So, I win.
	So, I don't know, just what would you say to those kinds of people?
	Well, let me ask you this.
	Let me ask you this.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	Have you ever had, and forget about you, PB, for a second.
	Have you ever had a conversation with someone about a moral issue wherein you condemn them?
	Where I condemn them.
	Well, since reading Max Stirner, not really.
	I guess beforehand I was more prone to throwing around words like evil and such.
	Have you never known anyone who's acted immorally in your life?
	Well, so I would change the terminology a little to say I find certain actions repugnant Just like I find, you know, eating rotten eggs to be repugnant.
	But repugnant is different from immoral, if you see what I'm saying.
	So you actually have no interest in ethics then, fundamentally?
	It's just personal taste?
	Well, I would have an interest in ethics if I could kind of satisfy this objection.
	Okay, okay.
	Well, let's have them rubber meet the road a little bit more then.
	So have you ever known anyone who cheats on a boyfriend or a girlfriend or a husband or a wife who's cheated on that person?
	Not personally, but I mean, I've heard of such people, obviously.
	And if you had a friend who was lying to his girlfriend and cheating on her, what would you do?
	Am I talking to the friend?
	No.
	What would you do?
	What would I do?
	Well, I guess it depends how well I know the girl.
	I mean, if the girl was also my friend, I'd probably tell her so that she could save herself from a lot of nonsense.
	Would you consider what the man was doing to be immoral?
	I would consider what the man was doing to be repugnant, like, you know, not in accordance with my values.
	And by values, I just mean strong personal preferences.
	But I'm just not sure what it would mean if I told him...
	So it would be kind of like if he didn't like a band that you thought was really great?
	Well, same ballpark, but very different magnitude.
	Right.
	Or if he liked food that you thought was pretty gross.
	Well, again, I mean, the magnitude is pretty low, Dan, on the scale on those ones.
	But it's the same continuum, is what you're saying.
	It's a matter of aesthetics, personal aesthetics.
	Yeah, but like strong versus weak aesthetics.
	So what we would call...
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Don't give me that bullshit.
	Okay.
	It's either aesthetics or it's ethics.
	Don't give me strong aesthetics like it's somehow the same as ethics.
	Okay, no, no.
	Because you're saying it's all subjective personal preference, right?
	Okay, yeah, sure.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Okay, so it is the equivalent of a different taste in music or food.
	Sure, yeah.
	Well, no, don't say, sure, like I'm cornering you.
	This is what you're saying.
	Yeah, but I mean, what I would say is if I saw my friend eating olives, which I find disgusting, I wouldn't be like, oh, you revolt me.
	I don't want to talk to you ever again.
	But if I saw the guy killing someone or enslaving someone or robbing someone, then I'd be like, well, that really sickens me a heck of a lot more than you eating olives.
	And hence, I don't want to associate you.
	But it's the same thing.
	It's not fundamentally different.
	It's just a bigger fucking olive, right?
	Yeah.
	No, seriously.
	If you're not willing to cross the line from aesthetics to ethics, then we're just talking about taste, right?
	Yes, yes.
	So whether he's killing someone, that's the same as not liking a food you find repulsive.
	Murder is the same as not having the same taste in food.
	It's just more of it.
	It's really big food, right?
	Yeah, and it's something like Because I don't really care if people like food that I don't like.
	I don't really care about that.
	It doesn't offend my values or anything.
	But if people kill others, then it's different.
	No, no, it's not different.
	No, you're telling me it's not different.
	It's on the continuum of aesthetics.
	Well, but I'm just telling you on an emotional level, my emotional reaction would be different.
	So that's just a fact.
	No, no, no.
	But I'm not talking about your emotional reaction.
	Okay.
	We're talking about philosophy here, not your feelings, right?
	Okay.
	And I'm not trying to be harsh.
	I really want to understand where your line is here.
	So let's say that you knew someone and you found out that that person was a serial raper of children.
	You know, he had the windowless van, he had the free candy sign, and he would rape children.
	Yep.
	Is that along the same lines of aesthetics or does that cross over into ethics at all?
	That is aesthetics for which I would want to kill the guy over.
	I mean, aesthetics doesn't mean you don't react, right?
	Right, because you laughed about that, right?
	Sorry?
	You just laughed about that, right?
	Laughed about what, sorry?
	Well, I asked about a serial child rapist.
	Yeah.
	And you said, well, you know, I feel very strongly about his aesthetic choice to the point where I want to kill him.
	Ha ha ha ha, right?
	Well, I mean, I wasn't really laughing at the actual fact that there's a serial rapist.
	It was just the kind of extreme hypothetical, which was, you know, interesting.
	So your study of ethics has led you to a place where you can't Even call someone morally wrong for raping children?
	Does this trouble you at all?
	Or do you think that's fine?
	I'm just not sure what you mean by, if I say they're morally wrong, what exactly have I changed?
	Versus saying...
	You accepted UPB! This is what I find so confusing!
	You accepted UPB, right?
	You said it's true, it's valid, right?
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Wait, don't say okay like I'm calling you.
	Did you say that?
	Did I say that UPB is true and valid?
	Yes, you did.
	Yeah.
	You said you accept that when I brought that up.
	So if you accept UPB, then violations of personhood, violations of property are immoral, according to UPB. Okay.
	So, yeah, sure, I could call someone immoral, but what would they care?
	I'm just labeling them with a different word.
	No, no.
	This is what I'm talking about.
	You're trying to figure out what power moral condemnation has in the world when you, in fact, have never exercised moral condemnation against anyone.
	I've never exercised moral condemnation.
	I asked you, has anyone you've done done anything particularly immoral, and have you confronted that person on the immorality of what he or her is doing?
	And you said no.
	Right.
	And I would say, well, especially since reading the UPB book, I never have, actually.
	So I could say, what you're doing violates UPB. So I'll tell you this.
	Rather than us going through some theoretical thing, which...
	I don't really have the taste for, given your perspective at the moment.
	Try this.
	Since you accept UPB, then go forth and morally condemn evildoers.
	What you're doing is immoral.
	What you're doing is wrong.
	If, now that you have the knowledge, if you cannot oppose what I'm saying logically or empirically, if you continue in your course of action, thou becometh evil!
	Try that.
	Now, if you try that, I think you'll be really interested in how powerful and what an effect moral condemnation has in society.
	Well, so this is actually the kind of points I was looking for, because now you're talking about the consequences of calling someone immoral, which is great.
	That's very true.
	The only problem is if you run into someone who's also Red Max Stirner or something or an egoist, they'll say, you can call me immoral all you want.
	I don't really care.
	I'm just going to carry on.
	And that's an empirical question, right?
	But so what?
	Look, so what?
	Those people are quite rare, right?
	Like sociopaths, like 2% of the population, even now, right?
	Even when childhood is so screwed up.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So the fact that there are people out there without a conscience is exactly why we need UPB, right?
	So let's put it this way.
	Let's say that there are only 2% religious people in the world.
	But those people who are religious are constantly striving to gain power over everyone else, right?
	Yeah.
	Why would you launch atheism into that society?
	Why would you attempt to arm people with atheism in that society?
	Well, to help other people defend against the crazy religious people.
	Exactly!
	So you don't bring ethics fixed to evil people in the hopes of changing evil people.
	You bring ethics to everyone else so they can see the evil people and dissociate from them.
	Right.
	So, okay, so you're saying like...
	You don't bring a gun into the jungle because you want to arm the tigers.
	You bring it to shoot the tigers, right?
	Yeah.
	And the fact that the tigers can't be talked out of eating you is why you have the gun!
	Right.
	Okay, so...
	But I'm just—what if other people kind of just decide, oh, well, these sociopaths actually have something going, you know?
	Like, they can just ignore all these ethical condemnations, and their conscience is fine, and, well, there's no religion or anything, so why don't we just— Wait, wait, wait.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Wait, wait.
	Sorry to interrupt, but are you talking about in a free society, a future society, where people understand and accept UPB? No, not particularly, considering current society.
	Well, okay, but this is begging the question, because if UPB is accepted, evildoers lose power.
	They lose their power, they lose their authority, which is a case I've made so many times, I'm never going to make it here again.
	So if everyone in the world except the sociopaths, if everyone in the world except the sociopaths accepted UPB, There'd be no state, there'd be no religion, right?
	And the people who tried to counsel people into evil would be as obvious as tigers in a daycare.
	That would be very useful, absolutely.
	So this is why we spread ethics.
	It's not to convert the evildoers, it's to arm the people with the capacity to fight the evildoers.
	To give them the weapons of moral condemnation and moral clarity.
	If you're sending commandos in, you want night vision, you want airstrikes, GPS, you want to give them the best technology to fight with, especially if they're outnumbered, right?
	And so we want to give the best ethical technology to people who have the capacity to fight evil.
	Because right now, You're on the surface of the dark side because you won't talk about ethical clarity or arm anybody with ethics at all, right?
	You're turning everything subjective, which is exactly what evil people want from you.
	But I think, as you pointed out in another podcast, the biggest evil is not really no ethics, it's false ethics.
	Which is what you have.
	You're calling your ethics aesthetics.
	Which, if I were religious, I would call a sin against philosophy.
	But I would...
	You won't even take a stand, except some whatever emotional stand, against a child rapist, for God's sakes.
	Well, I think you'd dismiss...
	How are you doing any harm to any evildoer in the world?
	In fact, you put it forward as this false maturity, this, well, you know, it's all aesthetics, it's all subjective, it's just my particular preference.
	I may have repugnance against it, but that's just my personal preference.
	I mean, how the hell are you disturbing one hair on the height of one evil person in the world?
	Well, I mean, I would say if you spread that message, then people become less prone to false morality, like the state is moral, whatever the priest says is moral, all of these false moralities, they crumble.
	No, no, no.
	That's like trying to combat religion with nihilism.
	Or like, you know, calling it an airstrike on the planet because there are a few bad people around, right?
	Right.
	Because you're saying, there's no such thing as ethics, and that's how I fight people with bad ethics.
	But that's like curing a migraine with a decapitation.
	Yeah.
	Just quickly, why do you think people, this kind of universal ethics argument, it's so strong with people?
	Do you think it's an evolutionary thing based on sympathy or just something in the human psyche?
	And why would it not work for a sociopath?
	I don't know about that last part, but why do people get angry about universal ethics or the fact that I seem to have solved the problem of secular ethics?
	Because it puts a giant fucking lever under their asses and gets them off the couch of procrastination.
	Oh no, sorry, I just meant why do you think so many people, if you tell them that their conduct is immoral, they're going to instantly change.
	So why do they do that?
	Wait, what are you talking about?
	What do you mean they're going to instantly change?
	Well, you were saying that a lot of people, if you tell them their actions are immoral, they're going to change their actions.
	I never said that.
	When did I say that?
	Sorry, I guess it was an implication that I misconstrued.
	But you were saying that UPB is a very powerful tool you can use to fight against evil.
	But if people didn't care about the ideas, it wouldn't be a very powerful tool.
	So I'm just wondering why people do care about these ideas.
	Just...
	I don't know, is it because of...
	Because moral condemnation leads to ostracism, and ostracism is not survivable for a tribal species.
	Right.
	Ostracism, you know, people, when they're ostracized, they experience the same pain as being physically tortured.
	Because we're a clusterfrag, Borg-brained social animal, right?
	And so moral condemnation is ostracism, right?
	Yeah.
	And so there's this battle in the world between free-domain radio people and the opposite of free-domain radio people, between UPB people, and I hope not people like you, but keep going down this ride, and we're certainly going to be on opposite sides of the trenches.
	And it is who ostracizes who, right?
	Yeah.
	So people call me all kinds of terrible names hoping to get me ostracized.
	Oh, he's a bad guy.
	He's a terrible guy.
	He hates women.
	He hates minorities.
	He hates families.
	He's a terrible guy.
	You should have nothing to do with him, right?
	And then they get really upset when I talk about ostracizing evildoers.
	I mean, that's the kind of hypocrisy that is the only thing that gets evil people out of bed in the morning.
	So the fact that that happens is so completely ridiculous and insane.
	Like Anna Kasparian says, Oh, I can't believe!
	Steph says that you might want to ostracize evildoers if you spent years trying to convince them to not be evil and they still are committed to having you thrown in jail and being evil.
	It's terrible to want to ostracize those people.
	I'm never talking to that guy.
	Ever!
	Like...
	What?
	I mean, do you even listen to yourself, people?
	Is there a capacity to use both your mouth and your ears at the same time?
	Well, apparently, not so much.
	So, yeah.
	Look, it's ostracism.
	When I say ostracize evildoers, what do the evildoers say?
	They know the power of it, and they say, ostracize this Steph guy.
	He's a bad guy.
	He's terrible.
	He's intolerant.
	Right?
	He has cooties.
	Right.
	And so, I mean, they get the power of ostracism.
	That's exactly the power that evil people use.
	They spread slander and they spread lies and they try to make yourself attack and they'll do anything other than actually address your argument.
	So even the bad guys, the bad men and the bad women, the child abusers and the verbal abusers and the just shit-eating assholes of the planet are all putting forth the argument, oh, that staff, ostracize him!
	Because he says, ostracize evildoers, and he's an evildoer, so ostracize him.
	I can't believe he says ostracize evildoers.
	Can you imagine that?
	Ostracize him!
	Right?
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's mad.
	So this is ostracism war.
	Which is, society either ostracizes the evil people, or it ostracizes the good people.
	There is no fucking in-between at all, and this is why I'm spending energy on this conversation, my friend.
	Yeah, um...
	I think that's a great point.
	Actually, you have helped me a lot, so thank you.
	I hope you didn't think I was trying to attack you or anything.
	I really was just curious about what your answer would be.
	Do you think that my concern is with me in this conversation?
	No, no, absolutely not.
	Where do you think my concern is?
	Well, I think you don't want people like me misleading, you know, up-and-coming libertarians or such, because you think that approach will be, you know, less effective at combating evil.
	And combating evil is your thing.
	Do you know why I can talk about ostracizing evildoers?
	Why?
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, it makes most people incredibly uncomfortable, right?
	Yeah, especially if it's people that's close to them or in proximity with them for a long time.
	Absolutely.
	Right, so I don't have evildoers in my life.
	Yeah, so that makes it easier for sure.
	Well, it makes it easier afterwards, not doers.
	Yeah, it makes it easier afterwards.
	So, do you know what you're confessing to me throughout this entire conversation?
	No, I'm not sure.
	I think you do know that.
	Oh, if you think...
	I don't really want to get into the whole corrupt parents and stuff right now, but actually my parents were pretty decent.
	I never said parents.
	I never said parents.
	Well, you're implying that there's someone in my life that I would probably ostracize if I accepted UPB, and hence I don't want to, or something along those lines.
	Well, ostracism is not something that I believe is the go-to place, right?
	So, in the video from 2008, which everyone, whether Ron Paul versus Personal Freedom Part 3 or something like that, if you believe in a particular virtue,
	the non-aggression principle, And you have striven mightily for many years to bring people to virtue and away from their support of rank and murderous evildoing.
	I don't believe that ostracism is your go-to place.
	I think that the approach that you've taken, which is I'm just going to pretend there's no such thing as ethics so I don't have to confront the people around me.
	That's fine.
	That's perfectly fine with me.
	Not that anyone should care what's fine with me or not.
	But to me, if you accept a virtue, you are responsible to that virtue.
	You are responsible for that virtue.
	That virtue has now become your child.
	And you owe it care, custody, and support.
	Now, if you say, well, you know, I don't really want to act in an ethical manner.
	I prefer the comfort of historical or accidental or environmental or job-related or it's a small town or I just prefer those relationships.
	Fine.
	Fantastic.
	You're not going to shit, so get off the pot.
	That's always been my argument.
	So when you say, well, my parents and ostracism, that's not my argument.
	If you had really virtuous people around you, they would care enough for your very soul, my friend, to challenge you on the liquefying, brain-eating goop of moral relativism that seems to have swallowed you whole.
	They would challenge you and fight you on that, as I'm doing.
	Uh-huh.
	Because without virtue, you don't get love.
	Without virtue, you do not get pride.
	Without virtue, you do not fundamentally get happiness because you have nothing to fight for, nothing to stand for, and nothing through which the exercise of your breathing can exhale virtue and make the world a better place.
	Well, I think it's a bit of an unfair characterization of virtue.
	Because I am, you know, a libertarian and an anarchist.
	It's not!
	No, no, no.
	You told me you have never confronted anyone morally.
	I am not mischaracterizing you.
	I'm holding a mirror up to what you're saying to me.
	I said I never confronted anyone morally, but I said I confronted people on actions that I find repugnant.
	Which, you know...
	Right!
	Not morally!
	You're just saying the same thing I just said!
	Okay, but that's fine.
	But I don't just see why...
	You don't like their sushi!
	Sorry?
	You don't like their sushi!
	You don't like their sea cucumber, you don't like their snake soup, you find that stuff gross.
	Yeah, but it just...
	Produces strong enough emotional reactions to actually make me take what would appear to be a principled and moral stand, but in fact, I don't justify it that way.
	I'm sorry, I don't know what you just said.
	What provokes a strong enough moral reaction?
	Do you mean if you criticize people's moral choices?
	No, no.
	know, if I see a child rapist in a van or whatever, or a politician ordering the death of a million Iraqis or any other thing that, you know, I think we both agree are repugnant and you would say immoral.
	I don't know if necessarily moralists necessarily will be stronger in their condemnation of these people than I will be.
	Because a lot of people that claim to be moralists might not have as strong a reaction as I do.
	I think it's...
	Who cares about your reaction?
	What does that have to do with philosophy?
	Look, some people have a reaction to torture, which is a hard-on.
	No, seriously, some people have reaction to a corpse, which is a hard-on.
	Necrophiliacs, right?
	Some people have a reaction to a scenario involving child rape, which is giggling.
	What the hell does your reaction have to do with anything?
	You're trying to hang your ethics on some involuntary emotional response.
	What does involuntary emotional response have to do with philosophy in any way, shape or form?
	It doesn't have to do with philosophy, but it has to do with me confronting evildoers, which is what we were talking about.
	We aren't talking about me philosophizing with people.
	There's no such thing as evildoers.
	Sorry?
	You said there's no such thing as evildoers.
	I asked you this earlier.
	You can amend it if you want, but I'm not going to pretend we didn't already have this conversation.
	Out of care for you, not out of any sort of desire for dominance.
	But you said it's just a bigger olive, basically, right?
	Right, so I should have been more careful with my language, because the moralistic language is everywhere, so I slip sometimes, too.
	I should have said people whose actions I find incredibly disgusting in the place of evildoers, but it's a bit more cumbersome, you know?
	No, it's not the same at all.
	This is not a synonym at all, because you're talking about an emotional reaction, and UPB doesn't say, if you dislike stuff, it's moral.
	What kind of fucking ridiculous book would that be?
	Well, it would be a ridiculous book.
	But that's what you're saying.
	It's the same as ethics, that UPB is the same as your negative emotional reaction.
	UPB is the same as my...
	Well, no, I wouldn't say UPB is anything.
	I would just say I happen to have emotional reactions to certain things, and hence I react in certain ways.
	That's just a factual statement.
	But that has nothing to do with ethics.
	And nothing to do with philosophy and nothing to do with virtue.
	I understand that.
	Because if you were constituted to have opposite emotional reactions, you'd call those ethics.
	No, I wouldn't call any of them ethics.
	I wouldn't even use the term.
	Okay, so then stop talking about evildoers and trying to get on the bandwagon of moral virtue when everything's just a different sized olive to you.
	Well...
	Like, stop using the terms.
	I'm saying, you don't fight evildoers.
	And you say, well, but I'm a libertarian.
	And I say, yes, but you told me you didn't fight evildoers.
	And you're like, well, but I do confront people that evildoers.
	I say, but you don't believe in evil.
	You say, well, but it's the same when I have a negative...
	No.
	No.
	You are not a moralist.
	You are not a philosopher.
	You have negative emotional reactions in the same way, frankly, that Hitler had negative emotional reactions to Jews and called his Holocaust self-defense.
	And I'm not saying you're Hitler, but what I'm saying is that negative emotional reactions have nothing to do with philosophy.
	And don't try and pretend to me or to anyone else, but most of all to yourself, that your negative emotional reactions have anything to do with virtue.
	And so when I say you are not fighting any evildoers in your life, I am correct.
	Because you've told me that.
	Now, when I say that to you, you don't like it.
	Right?
	When I say to you that there are consequences to studying virtue, as you claim to be a libertarian, which means you're against the initiation of force, I assume, there are consequences to studying virtue.
	Which is, when you study virtue, you now become a superhero of ethics.
	You are an ethical superhero.
	You now have the power.
	You now have the power to fight evil.
	And if you say, well, you know, I just, I kind of like reading blogs and I find the intellectual superiority that I get from arguing the Misesian position against socialism and bureaucracy to be really cool.
	No, that is using ethics to serve your own ego.
	When you study ethics, you are now in the service of virtue.
	Like if you study medicine, you are in the service of health and your enemy is illness, right?
	That's what studying medicine is.
	Now, if you've studied medicine and you don't do any of that stuff, basically you've just taken up space from someone else who could have done it.
	And if you go around saying, well, I've studied medicine and I know all about medicine and this and that and the other, and you never lift a finger to help anyone who's ill.
	Or to promote any health whatsoever, you're not a doctor.
	You're not a doctor.
	A doctor is not someone who studies, a doctor is someone who does, with knowledge.
	The action is the key, not the study.
	Now, if you study and your conclusion is, if your study of ethics is, and your conclusion to your study of ethics is, there's no such thing as good and evil, then it's like you just spent 10 years studying medicine, came out and said there's no such thing as As health or illness.
	Well, thank goodness I didn't put in 10 years then.
	Health is an olive this size and illness is an olive this size, but they're both just olives and there's no difference between them fundamentally whatsoever.
	Well, if you studied medicine for 10 years and you came out and you made the case that there's no such thing as health or illness, what would people think of you?
	No such thing as health or illness.
	Well, they'd think you're a pretty rubbish doctor.
	Yeah, like what the hell?
	What kind of scam are you pulling?
	Yeah, but I think here's the difference.
	I don't say I'm an ethicist and whatever I say is ethics.
	I say I find the concept of ethics not overly useful when trying to convince people to change their ways.
	Okay, so I'm a doctor and whatever I say is healthy is healthy and I don't find the concept of health or illness to be overly helpful in helping people be healthy.
	What would you say to someone who said that?
	Well, but this is different because health is a causal relation.
	So it's if I operate and take out this cancerous tumor, you won't die.
	And that applies to everyone because that's a fact of reality.
	Whereas in ethics, it's just not the same, right?
	There's no cancerous tumor.
	It is the same.
	It is the same.
	It is exactly the same and more immediate.
	If I believe that I have the right to punch you in the face, do I not injure you?
	Yes, you do.
	Well, wait, hold on.
	Not if you just believe it, if you actually do it.
	It's for people to not use violence to get what they want.
	Do you not reduce the amount of ill health in society far more, far more effectively than if you just tell people to stop smoking?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So there is, if you can convince people to be virtuous and to accept the non-aggression principle, you end up with many fewer bullets through people's heads.
	You end up with many fewer shivs through people's sides.
	You end up with almost infinitely less rape, child-beating, molestation.
	If you convince people to not pursue violence to achieve their goals, you are the best non-metaphorical physical doctor the world has ever known.
	The most dangerous disease is immorality.
	Not just mentally, it is a physical virus that acts through weaponry to disassemble human beings, human families, human societies, human history.
	We are not metaphorical doctors.
	I believe philosophers are the only real doctors.
	Because the human virus of assault, rape, theft and murder is the most dangerous virus in the world and it spreads and acts on irrational anti-thinking.
	I mean, boy, people think sewers And sewage systems ended up saving millions of lives.
	They're right.
	Philosophy can do far more than that.
	A lack of philosophy is why circumcision occurs.
	Female and male genital mutilation occurs.
	A lack of philosophy is why countries occur, why wars occur, both religious and secular.
	A lack of philosophy is why prisons occur, why childbeating occurs, while racial, religious, and sectarian tensions the world over regularly erupt into violence.
	Do you think the guy sawing off the head of a Western journalist is a good moral philosopher?
	I would question that.
	Is it cancer that killed him?
	No.
	Anti-philosophy is the great murderous shadow of the world.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But...
	It still doesn't quite answer the question of if you come out with this and people say, well, that's just moral absolutism.
	I prefer some more flexible moral standard.
	Dude, that's you!
	What do you mean these other people?
	This is what you're saying.
	Okay, it's what I'm...
	Don't talk about, I have a friend who has a problem with erectile function.
	Right?
	It's you.
	Okay, it's me.
	But if I can do it, then couldn't other people do it?
	And then...
	Absolutely.
	And I'm only having this conversation with you because other people are listening.
	Fair enough.
	Right?
	Do you think that I believe I'm going to get through to you with the importance of what you could be doing with your life?
	The importance of what I could be doing with my life?
	Well, you think my life would be, I guess, more important if I accepted ethics and started condemning people?
	If you fought for virtue and fought evil?
	Of course.
	It's like, again, you're like a doctor saying to me, wait a minute, are you saying that my life as a doctor would be more meaningful if I helped heal the sick?
	It's like, of course it would be!
	But aren't you kind of assuming that I'm not doing – because I do try to convince people of libertarian positions, and I'll use a number of approaches, mostly economic.
	I'll sometimes bring up, well, if you believe in universal ethics, then you should – then, yeah, the UPB thing.
	I just don't go – I just don't use that one particular tool.
	You've got to stop.
	You've got to stop.
	No, you've got to stop because I'm not having that conversation again about whether you're fighting for virtue.
	What has your emotional state been during this conversation?
	My emotional state?
	Well, kind of excited, actually.
	I got a bit of adrenaline.
	It's good.
	Because you seem to me to have no particular emotional depth in this conversation.
	Like, I'm being pretty challenging, right?
	Yeah.
	Well, I'm treating it as an intellectual debate, really.
	I don't know.
	Should I be more emotional about it?
	Haven't I just made a very long case that is not an intellectual debate?
	The one we're having?
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	I thought it was.
	Well, what do you think it is?
	Well, I just talked about the degree to which good philosophy can vastly reduce the amount of violence in the world.
	Yeah.
	Let's put it this way.
	Let's say you had a vial in your hand that cured cancer, right?
	And I was saying, you should release that into the world.
	And you were saying, well, I don't really believe there's any such thing as cancer or health, right?
	And I was saying, no, there are millions and millions and millions of people dying from cancer.
	You should really release this cure for cancer so that people don't die horrible, painful, brutal deaths.
	Yeah.
	And you said, well, I assumed we would just...
	And I say, you seem pretty unemotional about all these people who were dying because you refused to release your cancer cure.
	And you said, oh, well, I thought we were just having an intellectual discussion.
	But, you know, it is an intellectual matter of whether your approach is actually more effective than the economic approach.
	That's actually an empirical and intellectual conversation.
	All right.
	How long has the economic approach...
	Yeah, I mean, that's very true, but...
	How long has the economic approach been taken?
	Let's say, let's say Adam Smith.
	What, 350 years?
	Right.
	Do we have a bigger government or a smaller government than when it started?
	Yeah, I've heard all your stuff on this.
	It's much bigger, obviously, yeah.
	So why are you telling me that there's some economic argument if you've already heard this stuff?
	Well, what do you mean?
	But I've yet to see evidence that the philosophical approach has ever worked either.
	So we're kind of both in a no-evidence situation.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	First of all, I've been doing what I do for six or seven years, let's say, right?
	So you're comparing 350 years to six or seven years, right?
	No, I'm just saying we have no proof either way.
	I'm not saying...
	No, we do.
	If you'd actually listen or ask me a question rather than defend your position, you might actually find out.
	Okay.
	So...
	I am now, in terms of searches, second only to Ron Paul in libertarian circles.
	Yeah, and...
	That's great.
	I cheer you on.
	I think your stuff's great.
	Okay, so it's growing incredibly rapidly, right?
	Ron Paul's been involved in politics for 30 or 40 years, I think, right?
	Yeah.
	And I've climbed in just over half a decade from complete obscurity to number two.
	Yeah, very impressive.
	So that's pretty good, right?
	That's great, yeah.
	Millions and millions of people have listened to these conversations, and millions and millions and millions more are going to listen to these conversations, right?
	Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, based on rough calculations, have stopped hitting their children as a result of this show.
	Well, and that's great.
	Excellent.
	You don't understand why I'm saying this.
	No, I... Because you have no connection to any of this shit.
	No, I do absolutely understand.
	But actually, I think...
	Okay, then, if you understand, why am I saying this?
	Just a moment.
	I was just going to say, I think you bringing psychology into the conversation was your most innovative.
	No, I'm not bringing psychology into the conversation.
	No, no, no.
	I mean your general conversation.
	No, I'm not bringing psychology.
	I'm not a psychologist.
	I don't bring psychology into the conversation.
	I bring philosophy.
	Into the conversation.
	How many people have reduced...
	have reduced interpersonal violence as a result of libertarianism?
	You're talking about mainstream libertarianism here?
	Sure.
	Reduced violence.
	Well...
	To be fair, you could say the classical liberals in Britain did an okay job for a little while before it went all to hell.
	So, you know, there was a few people there.
	Yeah, so I'm asking you about libertarianism.
	Now you're talking about classical liberals.
	My God, it's like grabbing a bar of soap with you.
	Okay, so you're talking about since the 70s libertarians.
	Okay, yeah, probably not very many.
	Okay, so let's say, for instance, that somebody puts forward an argument about half a decade ago that says hitting children is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	Does this become a big topic among libertarians?
	Yeah, judging by the amount of people that listen to you, yeah.
	No, no, no, no.
	No.
	In libertarianism, not in my philosophy.
	Oh, sorry.
	Okay, no.
	In other words, I've been to libertarian conferences where this subject is hotly debated.
	Where this is something that people are talking about.
	No, not really.
	The mainstream libertarians try to avoid the child.
	Absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	They don't want to talk about parenting at all, right?
	That's true.
	The most prevalent violence in the entire world is the hitting of children.
	Very few people are murderers.
	Very few people are rapists.
	Very few people are thieves.
	80 to 90 percent of Americans hit their children.
	The most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle is the hitting of children.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Do you agree with that?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Okay, so people who are very committed, fundamentally committed, To the non-aggression principle, I provide them a methodology for reducing the most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle in the world.
	And it's like I never said a word.
	Right?
	Are they committed to the non-aggression principle?
	Of course not.
	They're committed to talking about the non-aggression principle.
	They're committed to reading about it and blogging about it and talking about it and making little videos about it.
	They're not committed to doing anything about it.
	Because I've said to them and I've given ample proof and brought experts in and stats and charts and statistics and facts to say...
	Spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	Spanking is the most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle.
	And spanking is something we can all do something about.
	Right?
	And what do Librarians say?
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	Thank you.
	Nothing!
	So, through my show, at a conservative minimum, hundreds of thousands of people have stopped hitting their children.
	Tangible reduction in the amount of present and future violence in the world.
	Those children who are not being hit are going to grow up far less violent, far less aggressive, and far more skeptical of the might-makes-right bullshit that passes for authority in the world.
	You say there's no proof either way.
	And I say there is proof.
	Proof!
	Sorry to interject, but wouldn't you say that a lot of the success of that argument came because of the psychological studies that you brought to bear, rather than saying, hitting children's violence is non-negotiable.
	That's great, but...
	Look, man, I've taken this from every angle.
	I've taken it from pure philosophy, with no...
	I've taken it from physiology, from medicine, from mental health effects.
	I've brought countless experts in.
	I've republished countless articles.
	I've allied myself with other people against banking, regardless of their political.
	I've written entire books, an entire book or most of it called The Origins of War and Child Abuse by Lloyd DeMoss.
	So this is about as established as anything can be.
	Yeah.
	In the world.
	And it has been established for decades and decades and decades.
	Now imagine if libertarians had stopped whacking off over campaign posters and said to themselves, okay, we wish to reduce the amount of aggression in the world.
	So let's find them.
	Okay, so there's two things.
	We need to find the most prevalent.
	Form of aggression.
	And we also need to find the one that we can do the most about.
	These two overlapping spheres is where any intelligent and committed person, which committed means despite discomfort, in the face of discomfort, sometimes even because of discomfort.
	So what you do is you sweep everything aside to get any goddamn thing done in the world.
	You sweep everything aside.
	You start a complete blank slate.
	You say, non-aggression principle.
	I'm there.
	I'm down with it.
	I accept it.
	Let's say they don't have UPP. Who gives a shit?
	It's the non-aggression principle.
	Everybody accept it.
	Who's not in the current throes of some Van de Graaff generator epileptic propaganda attack.
	You start with a blank slate, like right behind me in the video, a blank wall.
	And you say to that blank wall, non-aggression principle, there's two things we need to fight the non-aggression principle, fight violations.
	What's the most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle?
	That we can do the most about.
	Those two things.
	If you want to make the world healthier, you say, what is the greatest disease?
	That we can do something about, right?
	Now, anybody who starts objectively We'd say, okay, well, it wouldn't take you long to say, well, hitting children is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	It's not self-defense, right?
	Hitting children is a violation of the self-defense principle.
	Sorry, hitting children's violation non-aggression principle.
	And boy, can we do something about that.
	Because we all know someone.
	We all have parents.
	We all have people who are parents in our lives, friends, relatives.
	We all may become parents if we're not parents yet at some point.
	And we can do a hell of a lot about that.
	And that's what you do if you actually care about the fucking cause, rather than your own ego, your own bullshit, your own trauma, your own narcissistic crap.
	What you actually do is say, how can I be of service to the non-aggression principle in the most effective way?
	Actionable manner possible.
	You say, ah, yes, well, you see, but the Federal Reserve policy is even worse than spanking.
	Yes, maybe.
	Maybe I don't know.
	But we can't do anything about it.
	So sorry, that's off the wall!
	Right?
	So that's what you do when you are actually in service of an ideal.
	You say, How can I have the most effect?
	And that means the greatest prevalence of whatever violates your standard, which is the most actionable, that is child abuse.
	And the science backs it up to the hilt.
	Now imagine if libertarians, let's forget the classical liberals a couple of hundred years ago, if libertarians in 1971 had gotten together and said, all right, friends, we've got choices ahead of us.
	We all are going to be.
	Committed, we are going to channel our lives, our energies towards the non-aggression principle.
	Now, it's true the government does some pretty horrible things.
	What can we do about that?
	We can't do anything about that.
	Because anyone with any brains knows that you don't get to be in power unless you've already sold your soul to those who are going to benefit from your power, which libertarians really don't want to do, right?
	So, I mean, just look at all the Tea Party guys.
	They go to the federal government or they go to Congress or whatever, and they're a trillion dollars deep, and their nose is in the pig trough their very first term.
	So, politics is tempting.
	You know, a lot of sound and fury, but we're not going to get anywhere in politics.
	And politics has been tried for about the last 250 or 300 years.
	Or 2,500 if you count the fact that the democracy voted to kill Socrates, and you say, well, not really going to work, right?
	So, what else can we do?
	Gosh, what else can we do?
	Well, there's spousal abuse, but that's pretty unwell understood by the 70s to be bad.
	Feminists have been working on that for a while.
	More power to them.
	Could have focused a little bit more on the male victims, but hey, let's give some credit where credit is due.
	And then...
	They'd say, what about the kids?
	Let's look up how prevalent spanking is.
	Ooh, 95%.
	Wow, 90%.
	That's pretty damn high.
	Is that a violation of the non-aggression principle?
	Well, of course it is.
	But it doesn't take really much thought to figure that one out.
	Can we do something about it?
	Well, yeah, we just had the example of feminists.
	Feminists bring in spousal abuse.
	Wife beating to the forefront.
	They tripled the divorce rate throughout the 1970s.
	So, we already have that model, we know it works, we know it's powerful, we know it's effective, and no one is speaking for the kids.
	Because the kids have no economic power in society, and so nobody serves their interests.
	The only economic power they have is whining for their parents to buy them stuff, which is why every Disney movie pretends that the kids are smarter than the adults.
	So, imagine if they had done that 43 years ago.
	And they had expended as much time, money, energy and resources at the promotion of peaceful parenting.
	Imagine what a different world we'd be living in right now.
	The opportunity costs of pursuing bullshit academia, education and politics about economics is incalculable.
	It is an abscess in the throat of the entire planet that libertarians chose to waste.
	They're precious resources on politics rather than child raising.
	It was narcissistic, superficial, lazy, self-indulgent, and wrong.
	Because if they were in the service of the ideal, it means bowing all your bullshit to reason and evidence.
	That's what it means to actually be committed to an ideal.
	I don't care if it's difficult.
	I don't care if it makes people uncomfortable.
	We're following the reason.
	We're following the evidence.
	We're following the philosophy.
	And it clearly leads to peaceful parenting.
	And in the future, it will be looked as a horrible, horrible, horrible, catastrophic, self-indulgent decision.
	The lust for power overcame the power of love.
	The power of peace, the power of action.
	That which is actionable.
	And for people so well studied in the non-aggression principle, it was shameful.
	Because they knew better.
	And they know better.
	And I've been making this case for years.
	It's nothing new.
	And I talked for five or six years to people obsessed with and committed to the non-aggression principle about applying it to the family And to provide all the evidence in the known universe.
	Nobody has put forward, I think in history, a better case for the better treatment of children with all the scientists and the experts and the graphs and the charts and the facts and the ethics.
	And you hear nothing about it.
	But then, oh my god, somebody at Free Domain Radio made a copyright claim!
	Oh my god, let's talk about that forever!
	So we don't have to talk about the other shit which we could have done that would have done something but we chickened out of and pretend didn't exist.
	That is contemptible.
	That is contemptible.
	And if we had, hmm...
	Imagine, imagine if this conversation had the propellant of the money being pissed away into the sewage of democratic politics from libertarians.
	Imagine if this conversation Had those resources.
	That's why I keep fighting for the money.
	That's why I keep saying go to FDRURL.com slash donate.
	Is it because I want gold underpants?
	No!
	At least not more of them.
	It's because we could get the message out to actually change the world with a principled application of the non-aggression principle.
	And everybody who sends money into politics Might as well set fire to the future.
	I don't fundamentally care if you send the money to me or if you do the work yourself or if you promote it yourself, but for the sake of all that is holy and all that this planet can be and all that the future of humanity can be, do something to promote peaceful parenting for the love of all that's holy, for the sake of Lord Grok Almighty.
	For the flying spaghetti monster or whatever you call a deity.
	For the love of God himself.
	Do something to promote peaceful parenting.
	Talk to people with children.
	Convince them not to hit.
	Convince them not to yell.
	Convince them not to abuse.
	That you can act on.
	That will change the world.
	Guaranteed.
	Politics...
	It's worse than a waste of time and money because more and more children and more and more of the future get hurt because of our irrational fetish for self-indulgent politics rather than what science, reason, ethics and evidence clearly show and tell us will actually change the world.
	So don't tell me that my approach is theoretical.
	Just like politics.
	And I'm sorry for that rant, but I feel strongly about it.
	No, that's fine.
	I don't think I disagree with anything you said, besides thinking that a lot of it had to do with psychology rather than ethics.
	But that's...
	Anyway, listen, I appreciate your call.
	I hope it's been helpful.
	I hope you'll get a chance to listen to it again.
	And maybe we can move on to that.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks a lot, Steph.
	Thanks for having me on the show.
	Thank you, Steph.
	Thank you.
	Up next.
	No more coffee!
	Okay, up next is Mara.
	She wrote in and said, Why do I not feel loved by my spouse when I logically know my husband loves me?
	She also had the follow-up.
	What is an appropriate way to handle my anger issues?
	And her husband is also available for this call.
	So, go ahead, Mara.
	Hello.
	Hello, hello.
	Thank you for your patience.
	I'm sorry that was such a long call.
	Oh, it's not a problem.
	Tell me more.
	Um, well...
	I have a really troubled childhood, I guess.
	Sorry, I'm nervous.
	But could you just maybe ask me some questions?
	Otherwise, I'll probably ramble.
	Why do you think you married your husband?
	He was the exact opposite of my father.
	Okay.
	In what way?
	Everything positive, basically.
	I'm trying to think of something specific.
	My husband generally showed that he cared for me.
	I don't know.
	I'm trying to think of specific things and now I'm having trouble.
	I don't know.
	Could you maybe ask me some more questions?
	I'm sorry.
	When did the attraction to your husband first start?
	As soon as I met him, it was definitely like his appearance really attracted me.
	Luckily, it worked out great because we really love each other now.
	And we, I mean, we did.
	Well, no, no, hang on, hang on.
	Aren't you calling because there's a problem with you feeling love?
	Yes, but I don't think it's anything that he's doing.
	I think it's maybe my subconscious or something, but I don't know how to tap into that.
	Alright.
	Alright, so when did you feel more than a physical attraction to him?
	Probably...
	I've never really thought about that.
	Um...
	I want to say shortly...
	It was very quickly.
	I want to say that I was almost desperate and needy to put my love towards someone.
	Because things were really bad.
	When I met my husband...
	It was a really rough time.
	I was 18 when I met my husband and I had an incident with my father that was the worst that it was ever going to happen.
	I thought he was going to kill me.
	He basically tried.
	I ended up having to get a restraining order on him.
	My mom watched the whole thing happen.
	I met my husband two months before that incident with my father happened.
	So, I mean, it was, I was coming from a place of so, um, sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	No, no, don't apologize.
	My God, you're talking about being attacked by your father.
	It's horrendous.
	If you didn't get emotional, I'd be freaking out.
	Sorry, I thought I would be able to hold it together.
	But, um...
	What are you holding together?
	I want to be able to...
	You wanted to have an important and intimate conversation without any emotion?
	No, I just...
	No!
	Feel, feel.
	That's fine.
	That's good.
	I just wanted to be able to actually talk and not sound like an idiot crying.
	I don't know.
	Okay, so basically...
	Okay, hang on, hang on.
	Hang on.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Okay, I think I just talked to your dad for a sec.
	I'm glad you pointed that out because I didn't catch that.
	Yeah, because you just verbally abused yourself, right?
	Yeah.
	Right, so the sequence is that you talk about your father's attack upon you, you cry, and then you attack yourself, which means he's back, right?
	In your head.
	Okay, so I just, I don't want to talk to your dad.
	So be gentle with yourself.
	At least while you're talking to me, okay?
	I don't want to talk to your dad because I've read your adverse childhood experience score.
	I don't want him to be part of our conversation.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry.
	And I mean that with genuine affection towards you, but I don't want to talk to that guy.
	Yeah, me neither.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So if you're emotional, that is not...
	Being idiotic, that is not holding things together, that is the bedrock upon which you want to build your future, is your genuine, honest and passionate experiences, right?
	So could you ask me the question again?
	I'm sorry, I forgot.
	How long did it take before your attraction towards your current husband was more than physical?
	I want to say a couple months after we started dating because I felt this...
	I wasn't feeling loved for a long time in my family and I almost felt this...
	No, no, no.
	Listen, I've read your ACE score.
	It was more than not feeling loved, right?
	I mean, weren't you hated and assaulted?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so let's not...
	You don't have to gloss anything over here.
	Well, what I was trying to say is that I feel like as a child, you almost want to love somebody, whether it's family.
	Obviously, when you're younger, you don't feel that emotional need to connect with a lover or something.
	But I think I was missing that for a long time.
	So I was always looking to connect with someone.
	And my husband just happened to be...
	Someone who was giving me that, or at the time it was my boyfriend, he was giving me that attention, positive attention, and he was nice to me.
	And so I think I attached really quickly, and that's what made me fall apart.
	And love with him.
	Because I think I ended up telling him I loved him, I want to say, within a couple months.
	It was really fast.
	And he was like, you know, he had to think about it before he could say it to me.
	And I don't remember when he said it back to me.
	But that made me respect him for that.
	Right.
	So, I think you touched on something very important that I think...
	People don't know if they didn't have this kind of childhood, which is that one of the great tragedies of being victimized as a child by caregivers, by parents, is that you are robbed of somebody to love.
	You are robbed of somebody to love.
	And the hole in your heart is not just the crater of the stony, moon-like fist of the abuser, but it is the hollowness that remains when love has no object.
	I definitely can relate to that.
	And it's...
	My favorite song in the whole wide world is Queen's Somebody to Love.
	And I love it because the song is not, can anybody find me someone to love me?
	That's not, he says, each morning I get up, I cry a little, can barely stand on my feet.
	Take a look in the mirror, cry, Lord, what you're doing to me?
	I spent all my years in believing you, but I just can't get no relief.
	His agony...
	It's not that he's not loved.
	His agony, our agony, I would argue, is we have all light and all paint and no canvas.
	No place to put the art of our heart.
	No place For the helicopters and parachutists of our highest affections, no place for them to land.
	They just splash into the ocean and vanish.
	And that's what I love about that song.
	Can I find someone that I can love?
	And it's that chant at the end.
	Find me somebody to love.
	Find me somebody to love.
	It's the chant.
	It becomes your heartbeat.
	God, can I find someone I can bestow the gifts of my existence on?
	Can I find someone to fall into and surrender to and merge with?
	And finally get the sweet nectar of communion that we as a tribal species thirst for like air.
	And that hunger for somebody to love is natural but challenging, right?
	Because we can throw love Vastly ahead of judgment.
	I'm not saying this is the case with you, but it is a risk, right?
	Definitely.
	Looking back now, my husband and I were really lucky that it turned out well because I jokingly say that I probably would have married anyone that treated me the way he did and he could have turned out to be a murderer, rapist.
	I mean, I just had really poor judgment because I was so...
	That sounds really bad.
	I meant that I... No, no.
	No, no.
	Say it all plain.
	Don't worry about how it sounds.
	Fuck how it sounds.
	We're connecting, which means you and I talk to each other.
	Forget how it sounds.
	Forget the audience.
	You and I talk to each other.
	Well...
	Look, you know from your childhood, I assume that you know, I don't want to tell you your experience, but you know, Mara, that isolation is...
	The chilling, interstellar, fiery moat of an abused childhood.
	And we're not cats.
	We're not amoeba.
	We thirst and hunger and yearn and live for connection.
	Babies who are not cuddled, they die.
	I remember growing up as a kid, how many times in my heart did I say to my mom, stop sucking.
	So bad.
	Because I really, really need somebody to love.
	I'm not asking for perfection.
	Just don't be terrible at it.
	Give me some scrap, something to connect with, something to hold on to, something to shoot any kind of grappling hook into and pull myself up to the heights of love.
	Stop sucking and give me a chance to love you.
	And this is why...
	Abuse victims as children are so perpetually disappointed because we really, really want to love.
	And abuse continues to shred that hand that reaches out from our heart to connect.
	You know, it's like there's a mousetrap.
	With the cheese of love and we just keep reaching for it and reaching for it and reaching for it and it doesn't matter how many goddamn times that bar comes down on our knuckles.
	We've just got to keep doing it.
	That's what we do as a species.
	We are tribal.
	And the withholding of connection is the instilling of a vampiric hunger.
	Vampires are the metaphor for that kind of isolation as childhood.
	They can't see themselves in the mirror.
	They're no reflection.
	They can't stand the light of day.
	They operate in darkness.
	They manipulate.
	They're physically attractive.
	And they live by feeding off others.
	I'm not putting you in this category at all.
	I'm simply pointing out that everybody looks at how harmed the child is.
	But I think people miss most often what can in many ways harm the child the most, which is just not having a chance to love someone.
	Which is In many ways, the greatest height of human happiness.
	To love someone or something.
	I love the non-aggression principle.
	I love philosophy.
	I love ethics.
	I love the participants in this conversation.
	I love my family.
	I love my friends.
	What has been the greatest gift for me, which I will never take for granted, is that I have the capacity to now Have honorable receptacles for the love I could find no landing place for as a child.
	God, find us somebody to love.
	This is why people turn to religion too.
	You can love Jesus.
	It is an outlet for thwarted love to turn it into the supernatural, to love ghosts and imagination and stories as if they're real.
	This is why people take refuge in comic books and superheroes.
	There's someone you can love, someone you can admire, someone you can respect.
	And the degree to which people around you are untrustworthy and abusive and difficult and dangerous and selfish and hurtful is the degree to which your thwarted love will pour into other things, dangerous things, nations and armies and sports, fetishes.
	The yearning to connect if thwarted at home pours into so many pyramids and receptacles essential to the power lust of the greatest abusers.
	So I just...
	That hunger, that hunger, oh God, find me somebody to love.
	I understand it.
	So, um...
	What are the virtues, Mara, that...
	What drew you to your husband beyond the physical?
	That he genuinely cared about me.
	I mean, like, when he would ask me or talk to me, he actually, you know, looked at me in the eyes, wasn't...
	What's the word?
	Like, he wasn't critical.
	So whatever I... I could just be myself around him.
	Whatever I said...
	wouldn't be used against me later, which is something my dad would do, do a lot.
	Um, I just think his attention towards me was something that I, that's not virtuous.
	Sorry.
	Um, I don't know.
	I'm having a hard time thinking about that.
	Thinking about...
	I don't know.
	Just everything attracted me to him.
	There was not one thing that I didn't like for about a year.
	I mean, I couldn't find anything that I didn't like about him.
	I thought he was too good to be true.
	Right.
	And you met him when you were 17 or 18?
	And you had gone through...
	One of the worst childhoods I've heard about.
	I mean, it was pretty terrible, right?
	We don't have to get into details, but it was rough as hell, right?
	Yeah, but what's weird now is I guess I've just accepted it that when I hear other people on the call-in shows or, I don't know, just in general, I guess I normalized my childhood and it doesn't seem that bad to me anymore now.
	But obviously going through it, it was hell.
	And I definitely don't want to relive it.
	Do you mind if I read off the ACE? Do you mind if I read off the ACE score?
	I don't want to violate your privacy or anything.
	Oh, go for it.
	Okay, so you have an ACE Adverse Childhood Experience score of 10.
	Verbal abuse and threats.
	Physical abuse, not just spanking.
	Molestation, sex or rape, no family love or support.
	Neglect, not enough food, dirty clothes, no protections or medical treatment.
	Parents divorced.
	Physical abuse towards female adults.
	Lived with alcoholic or drug user.
	Household member, depressed, mentally ill or suicide attempt.
	Household member in prison.
	Do not normalize that.
	God Almighty, do not normalize that.
	Do you want me to clarify any of the ACE stuff since it's somewhat generalized or gives a couple options?
	In our precious time together, I'm not sure I want to do that.
	If there's anything you want to clarify, but I'd rather deal with the marriage stuff.
	Because I don't know that there's any clarity that can make any of that better.
	I'm sure it's only going to make it worse, and it's as bad as I can think it is.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, if it comes up, let's.
	But if you don't mind, I want to sort of keep planning for it.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	Your husband's background.
	What was that like?
	Honestly, every time he would tell me about it, I almost didn't believe him because it sounded too good to be true.
	So then when we were dating, I became friends with his mom and I would ask her, you know, basically to either tell me certain stories that he had mentioned or something.
	And it was all true.
	And it seemed...
	He grew up with a really good childhood in comparison to mine.
	I mean, I think he was spanked.
	I'm almost positive that he was spanked.
	But other than that, everything else...
	And he maybe got some threats.
	I'm trying to think of the ACA score.
	But other than that, I think it was pretty normal.
	All right.
	So let me ask you a tough question.
	How old was your husband when you met him?
	21.
	Right.
	Given where you came from, you say his ACE is maybe one or two, or zero, I don't know, right?
	But it's low, right?
	So given where you came from, and given where he came from, What was his in-common-ness with you?
	I didn't tell him really anything about my past.
	I mean, I would give bare minimum details.
	No, no, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Now we're going to manipulation of perception, right?
	So you don't have to tell someone you've had a terrible childhood experience.
	Because you said he paid a lot of attention to you.
	He listened to you.
	He didn't judge you at all, right?
	Do you think that your terrible childhood was invisible to others?
	Do you think that there's no way they could have known, even if you didn't tell them?
	That's how everyone acted, that it was invisible.
	All my neighbors, friends.
	No, no, no.
	Look, I'm sorry.
	But that's why I differentiated your, I guess, then boyfriend or friend, that he asked you lots of questions and he didn't judge, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, we were long distance, dating long distance for a year.
	So...
	Why was he interested in you to begin with?
	He thought it was pretty.
	So it started as a physical attraction.
	And again, lust is why we're here.
	If amoebas didn't find amoebas hot, there wouldn't be a whole lot of neofrontal cortexes roaming around the world trying to be consistent, right?
	So...
	How long were you dating before he discovered some of the bare facts about your childhood?
	I don't think I really opened up to him until after we were married.
	How long did you date for?
	A year.
	But didn't he ask about your family?
	I mean, yeah, he would, but my family's really good at putting on a front, as I call it, or, like, they're good actors, so he didn't really see it.
	Wait, wait, but you were saying, sorry to interrupt, but when were you asking his mother whether these childhood stories are actually true and all?
	About him.
	What do you mean when I was asking that with her?
	While we were dating.
	Yeah, was that...
	Okay, so while you were dating, you're going to his mom and saying, it can't possibly be true that all these fun things and good things happened.
	What's your take on it, right?
	So that's a sign, right?
	Oh, it wasn't obvious to me.
	No, no, it's obvious.
	Look, if some kid came to my house and said, your daughter says that she's never yelled at or spanked, that can't possibly be true.
	What would I see immediately?
	That that's not her normal, so whatever that person's normal is, it's definitely worse than that.
	Well, the opposite, right?
	And you say that he paid attention to you, listened to you, didn't judge, told you about his childhood, and you could not believe his childhood to the point where you went to his mom and said, No way.
	This can be, right?
	At some level.
	level.
	I'm not saying you said those right words, right?
	What emotional challenges did your childhood leave you with?
	Extreme low self-esteem, like just not liking who I am, not being confident in who I am.
	Always questioning everything I was doing, whether I was smart, whether I was a good person.
	Because growing up, everyone always acted like I was the crazy one.
	When in reality, it was my dad who was the crazy one.
	I mean, just so many things proved that I was the problem and all that stuff.
	So growing up, I believed that I was literally crazy until I went to therapy and all that and found out.
	I mean, my dad went to therapy too, and I found out that, nope, I wasn't.
	Up until that moment, that was in high school when I found out, hey, I'm not a psycho.
	So that really affected...
	How old were you when you went to therapy?
	I went, I think, for the first time when I was 14, but I didn't go regularly because the therapist told me, you just need to get out of that household.
	He told my mom, I mean, he said, like, I can't do anything for you.
	It's just too toxic.
	You need to get out.
	And then, of course, my mom didn't.
	Wait, so he basically, the therapist suggested that you defoe?
	Yeah, like he, yeah, basically.
	Right, okay.
	The great secret continues.
	All right.
	But I guess that didn't happen, right?
	And that's one reason why I'm really angry with my mom.
	Because she...
	Married into and kept you in a viciously destructive environment.
	Yes.
	It was 100% her choice.
	Her mother, so my grandmother, offered that we could live with them.
	I mean, my grandparents had a big house.
	You know, we ended up did living with them for a year because my dad was in the military while he was away on an assignment.
	But, you know, it's just my mom...
	He was defending your freedoms, remember?
	Yeah.
	Alright, so I don't want to go off on the mother, at least not yet, but why did you hide all of this from your boyfriend?
	Because I wanted him to like me.
	I didn't want him to leave me.
	So you kind of, I mean, I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing it out, but you're kind of living a life.
	Yes, definitely.
	At the time, I was a good actor as well.
	I did not tap into my emotions.
	I only wanted to be happy.
	I avoided every other emotion at all costs.
	And so, I mean, I was definitely manipulative, not really consciously aware of it, because that's what I had to do to survive in my household.
	Wait, wait, wait, hang on, hang on.
	When you say that you weren't consciously aware of it, you knew you were hiding your past from your boyfriend.
	Yes, but I wasn't deliberately like, oh, I'm going to lie to him about this, or I'm going to avoid this conversation.
	I just...
	But when he would ask you things, what would you say?
	I mean, it didn't really come up too much, him asking me.
	And I think that's because I always tried to be in control of the conversations.
	Well, I thought he was very curious about you and wanted to get to know you.
	But if you're in control of the conversation, that can't happen too much, right?
	And I'm not trying to nitpick.
	I'm just trying to put this all together.
	I should explain his personality a little bit because then that will make more sense.
	He's very quiet.
	So, I mean, when he does ask questions, you listen and you pay attention, you know, because when someone doesn't speak a lot, you try to pay attention.
	But, I mean, I was...
	Queen of interrupting him, the few times he would talk.
	So, I mean, he didn't really ask too many questions about me, but he would, you can tell when someone's, like, just they pay attention to you, and that's what really drew me to him, or just stuff like that.
	So maybe he didn't give me that much attention as, like, wanting to get to know me, but in other ways.
	Can you put him up?
	Yes, we have a headphone set, so I'm going to switch real quick with him.
	Good.
	Well, we'll talk about you.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Hold on one second.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	I'm sorry to drag you in.
	I hope this isn't too freaky, but I appreciate you having a brief chat.
	It's good to talk to you.
	How long have you guys been married?
	I think three and a half years now.
	Right.
	And I'll try not to interrupt you, but what first drew you two, Mara?
	Well, like it was said, it was definitely a physical attraction at first.
	But she was always a very...
	On the outside, she was a very happy person to be around.
	She still is always excited to do new things and experience different stuff.
	She's a very loving person.
	She definitely put on that front when you're dating, but that's actually who she is.
	I think if she didn't have the past that she did, that front that she put on would be her.
	Sorry if that didn't make sense.
	No, that's alright.
	Did you get any sense in the year before you got married?
	How long were you guys long distance for?
	It was a little over a year, I think.
	A year or two months.
	Well, hang on.
	But didn't you get married a year after you met?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	It took a couple months for her to move, though.
	We weren't living together.
	Wait, sorry.
	How long were you long distance over that year before you got married?
	The whole year.
	The whole year was long distance?
	Right.
	And then you got married?
	And what did your mother think of that?
	I'm sure she had her concerns, but...
	Did she not mention any of them to you?
	I don't remember.
	I don't...
	Well, I think you'd remember if your mother said, what do you mean, you're marrying a girl you've been long distance with, right?
	I don't remember my mom talking about me possibly getting married until she saw my bank account and she's on my bank account.
	She saw where I'm about to ring for her.
	Oh, you did?
	Wait, hang on.
	Did you not tell...
	Your parents are still together, is that right?
	And did you not tell your parents that you wanted to marry the woman?
	No, I didn't tell them.
	Why do you think?
	I honestly don't know.
	Ah.
	I mean, do you know why I'm asking these questions?
	No way.
	Well, because Amara was talking about your family being great, wonderful, right?
	Yeah.
	Way above average.
	I think she kind of...
	You didn't talk with your parents about getting married and they didn't talk with you about any concerns that they as more experienced adults might have with the idea that you would get married to a woman you'd never actually been in the same city with for any particular length of time.
	I think she kind of romanticizes my relationship with my parents.
	Okay, so what is the parts that she's not seeing as much?
	I want to say it's probably just there was a lack of connection between me and my parents.
	I'm not sure why that was.
	I'm getting that sense.
	Yeah, I'm definitely getting that sense.
	My dad was always at work.
	He still works six days a week at minimum.
	My mom...
	I remember when I was growing up, my mom would...
	She was always very strict with us.
	Me and my brother, very stern.
	And I don't want to say that they were bad parents, because they definitely were not.
	Yeah.
	But I think that's probably why I don't have the connection with them today.
	And when you say that your mother was stern, what does that mean?
	Like, she was verbally stern, or I think that Mara said you'd been spanked occasionally?
	Yeah, I was spanked occasionally.
	She was verbally stern.
	I couldn't give you a number.
	I know you ask your listeners that question all the time.
	I honestly don't remember.
	It wasn't a lot.
	And verbally stern how?
	I mean, would she raise her voice, or was she...
	Yeah.
	If she'd raise her voice?
	And what sort of stuff would she say?
	I mean, she would probably just repeat whatever she told us to do, you know, the first time that we were listening to her.
	Thank you.
	Oh, right.
	But she wouldn't call names or, like, stupid or lazy or idiot or anything.
	Okay.
	She just escalated, I guess, but without going into name-calling.
	Okay.
	And, um, so you didn't I guess at the age of 21 when you first met her, sorry, Mara, you didn't have really much experience with emotional intimacy, right?
	Because, you know, you're kind of supposed to get that from your family, right?
	Yeah, and that was a huge problem in our marriage for the first year, year and a half.
	Right.
	Because the way she talked about it, and it is always interesting, it's like this Rashomon situation.
	It's a famous Japanese play, I think, about a bandit in the woods and everyone's remembering of it.
	Because, I mean, you sounded like this really connected and together and emotionally astute and all this kind of stuff.
	And hearing your side of things and your history, it seems like these wouldn't be skills that you'd be particularly robust in.
	Does that make any sense?
	Definitely, yeah.
	Right.
	Have you guys done work since then to try to address your lack of emotional relations skills?
	Yeah.
	It started probably a year ago, around the time I started listening to your show.
	And how's that been working out?
	Our marriages drastically improved over this past year.
	Okay.
	And so her issue is...
	When was it after you got married that you found out about her family?
	The truth.
	It was pretty soon.
	When we got married, she moved out of her parents' house and moved in with me.
	And a few months after that was when she started going to therapy.
	And And that's when things kind of started to break down a little bit.
	So did you, sorry, did you experience that she had withheld information from you before you got married?
	There were a couple of stories that I hadn't heard before.
	Like, dude, she's got an adverse childhood experience score of 10.
	What do you mean there's a couple of stories you hadn't heard before?
	Let me go through the list and let me ask you what you knew before you got married and what you didn't.
	Okay.
	Okay, so did you know before you got married that she'd experienced verbal abuse and threats as a child?
	She told you that.
	What about the physical abuse, which is not spanking but actual beatings?
	Yeah, I was told about that.
	So she told you about that before you got married?
	And did your parents know?
	Okay.
	Molestation, sex, or rape?
	No, I didn't find out.
	That's the story I didn't find out about until recently.
	How recently?
	Five, six months ago.
	Right.
	Okay, so like four years after you knew her.
	No family, lover, or support.
	Were you aware of that before you married her?
	Yeah, I mean, I could definitely prove that.
	A neglect, not enough food, dirty clothes, no protection or medical treatment?
	I would have to ask her.
	Not that all of those are true, that's just a category.
	Yeah, I'm not sure which one of those applied to her, so that's another idea.
	So that may be knowledge yet to come.
	You knew her parents had divorced, right?
	They weren't divorced, they were separated for a few months.
	Okay, but there was obviously significant problems in the marriage.
	And that she witnessed physical abuse towards a female adult.
	That's the one sexist question in the ACE. And that she lived with an alcoholic or drug user.
	And she knew that her household, there was someone in the household depressed, mentally ill, or attempted suicide.
	And that she had a household member in prison.
	So you knew a good chunk of this, most of it I would say, before you got married, right?
	And did any of that raise any alarm bells for you?
	No, not really, because I had no idea what I was doing when I was 21.
	No.
	The appearance that she put on fooled me.
	I knew she had a rough childhood.
	However, the way she acted made it seem that she was over it.
	And you met her when she was 18, which was prior to when she had to take out the restraining order against her highly dangerous father, right?
	She did that like a month or two after we met, yeah.
	Okay, so you meet her.
	A month or two afterwards, she takes out a restraining order against her violent father.
	And your theory is that she's over it.
	I'm not saying at that time that I thought she was over it.
	I mean, she would call me crying on the phone and stuff like that.
	I mean, obviously I knew something was wrong, but...
	Wait, she would call you crying on the phone about the assaults from her father?
	No, not from being assaulted.
	She didn't call me after that.
	Or from being scared, right?
	Whatever led to the restraining order, right?
	I'm saying that when...
	And did she say specifically why she was crying on the phone?
	Yeah, I mean, I can't remember any specific time she called me, but when...
	She would just call me after being emotionally upset about being yelled at or having a disagreement with her parents, but she never called me after being physically abused or anything.
	Alright, let me try again.
	So, after I said about the restraining order for her father, against her father, you said she would call you crying.
	Is that about the restraining order or about what led up to it?
	No.
	Those things are separate.
	Okay, but were you aware of the restraining order?
	So, there's an 18-year-old, I guess, woman, right?
	There's an 18-year-old woman, but Mentally, she'd probably be younger because of the incredibly difficult childhood that she'd faced.
	So, an 18-year-old woman has just taken out a restraining order against her father, and you know at least seven of the ten adverse childhood experiences that she went through.
	But your theory was that, at what point was your theory that she was over it?
	Before you got married?
	I assume so, right?
	Yeah, after we've been dating for a while.
	I knew she wasn't comfortable living in that home with them, and I wasn't comfortable with it either.
	But the way that she put up her front was that once she got out of there, she would be fine.
	So she said that basically when I get away from home, I'll be like it never happened.
	She didn't say that, but that's just what I assumed because I didn't ask her any questions.
	Critical questions.
	Right.
	Well, just by the by, right, I mean, obviously it's the barn door after the horse has left, but by the by, in general, before you get married, people, please talk about each other's childhoods.
	Please talk about everything that happened.
	Don't hold anything back.
	Be completely open about everything that happened and everything that you've done to deal with it or not so that people can make a more rational decision.
	And so that's important.
	Now, are you still happy that you married her, given what you know about everything she went through now?
	Yeah, definitely.
	Okay, good.
	All right, so if you could put Mara back on, thanks for your patience.
	I appreciate that.
	Hello?
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Alright, so your experience is that your husband, you don't experience that he loves you?
	No, I know he loves me, but I have a hard time feeling it.
	You know, like I know if I was stranded on the side of a road or something, I could count on him.
	I just know he loves me, he looks out for me, he would do anything for me.
	That's not love, that's...
	That's an automobile association, but okay.
	Right.
	I mean, look, people who are like, it's interesting that when we first started talking about love here, what's the first thing you brought up was a rescue scenario.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Why do you think that is?
	I guess just because I wanted someone to save me.
	I don't know.
	Take me away from that horrible living situation I had.
	I... Right.
	I mean, because at 18, I mean, what were you going to do?
	Go get a job flipping boogers, right?
	It's not like after 13 years in government schools were useful to anyone.
	Oh, no.
	I mean, I had three jobs at one time and had a bunch of money saved up to specifically move out.
	And that's when my dad threatened my mom and I. This is another incident.
	He basically threatened our lives.
	And then my mom was like...
	We need to move out.
	And I was like, yeah, I agree.
	And she was like, I don't have any money saved up.
	And I was like, well, you can use my money.
	And we used it to pay first and last month's rent at a place.
	And that's why they got separated.
	Because he threatened.
	I don't remember what he threatened.
	But basically, we were in danger.
	And he told us to get the F out, basically.
	And if we didn't...
	Now, do you know what you're doing to me now?
	So I started talking about a rescue scenario, right?
	And you immediately set up a victim scenario, which is legitimate, but is giving me the impetus to move into a protector role.
	I wasn't aware that I did that.
	I'm sorry.
	Oh, I'm not saying you're aware.
	I'm not saying you're aware that it's happening.
	Right?
	But I start talking about you and your relationship to rescuers and And then you start talking about how dangerous your dad was and what a victim you were, which you were, right?
	Completely accept that.
	But that's not really what I asked.
	Which is, when we started talking about love, you went to a rescue scenario.
	That you wanted to be rescued from your home life, right?
	When you were 18?
	I guess you got married when you were 19 or 20, is that right?
	19, right?
	Was it a case of any port in a storm?
	At the time, no.
	I did not purposely think that I was just looking for somebody to take me away because I planned on doing that myself.
	I planned on moving out and getting out of that situation.
	But at the same time, one of my friends pulled me aside After we, my husband and I got engaged, and she was like, hey, you know, are you just going to marry him because you want somebody to get you out of your parents' situation?
	And that was the first time that it was even brought up to my situation, you know, I was confronted with it, and I really had to think about it.
	And, I mean, I think it was the easy way out, like, but I wasn't purposely doing that, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, but I mean, you keep bringing this up like it's important, right?
	With regards to self-knowledge, intention is largely irrelevant, right?
	Like, self-knowledge is just honestly assessing the choices and decisions that you make.
	And it seems to me that there's a certain defensiveness that comes around like it wasn't conscious, right?
	Yeah.
	And that's to avoid being attacked.
	I'm not going to attack you.
	I mean, I have nothing but massive sympathy for you, Mara.
	I'm not going to attack you.
	Right?
	But I said, look, you just manipulated me into a rescue role.
	And you're like, well, I didn't do that consciously.
	But that's a defensive attitude rather than a, I wonder if that's true.
	Or what was I feeling?
	You know what I mean?
	Like you're...
	It's moving into a position of defensiveness rather than a position of openness.
	Does that make sense?
	Again, don't apologize because I'm not attacking you for it.
	I'm simply pointing out that it makes it harder to communicate if you're performing these jiu-jitsu moves while we're trying to dance.
	Yeah, and I'm really glad you're pointing that stuff out because this is why I called you.
	This is such a habit for me to do this.
	I really need to break it.
	Well, and God, there's every reason in the known universe as to why you'd have this habit.
	Yeah.
	You know, if you keep getting hit with fry pans, when you see someone pick up a fry pan, you twitch, right?
	I mean, you grew up being relentlessly attacked, abused, ignored, neglected.
	So then when I say something that you did may have been problematic, you immediately wish to defend yourself from an imminent attack, right?
	Yeah.
	And that's not a criticism in any way, shape or form.
	I completely understand why that would be happening, right?
	But I'm not sure the degree to which you're conscious of that, if that makes sense.
	And what did you guys live on when you got married?
	My husband's in the military, so we had that.
	Didn't you just tell me at the very beginning of this conversation, young lady, that he was the complete opposite of your dad?
	Yeah, that's the one thing he had in common.
	That's not really a little thing.
	It's not like they both have a mole on their elbow.
	Yeah.
	But at the same time, when my dad was in the military, he got out when I was four.
	So after 12 years.
	So of my memory of him in the military, I don't have bad memories except for him being gone.
	No, no, no.
	See, now you're saying that it's not conscious or it's not responsible.
	The question isn't when someone goes out of the military.
	The question is, why did they go into the military?
	Yes, my dad definitely grew up in a dysfunctional household, and he joined the military to get away from his family and to be able to support himself.
	You don't have to put him on, but just ask him what his parents' thoughts were about him joining the military.
	tell his parents before he just did it.
	And they were not, they were definitely not happy that he didn't tell them and he just kind of did it.
	But now since they're very Republican, they're very patriotic and they, they basically support him for that.
	And is he still in the military?
	And what do you think of that?
	We both agreed, because we didn't start, I didn't start listening to your show until about, since May, so it's been a couple months, but he started listening to it maybe a year ago, and ever since we really started listening to your show, we both agree that we don't want to be a part of this system anymore, the military system anymore, but as of right now, we still have, I think, three years left on a contract, so there's, we're just kind of writing it out, I guess.
	So did you work after you got married?
	You said you had three jobs before.
	Yeah, when I was in high school, I worked all the time to be out of my house, but also to have money.
	Right, but after you got married?
	The first year, no, because the first two years, no.
	But the third year, yes.
	Currently, I have a job.
	Right, so the first two years you were living on your husband's income?
	Yes.
	Right.
	So you did kind of find a soft place to land emotionally and economically, right?
	A hundred percent, yeah.
	And was your husband okay with you not working?
	Yeah, the first year I was going to school online and actively looking for a job, but I refused to work at fast food joints, so it was pretty hard because I moved to a new state.
	And then we moved to Europe and So, the second year, the way it works in the military in Europe is you have to work on the military installation, and it's very competitive, and I just, I mean, I was constantly applying, but I never got anything.
	Right, right.
	I mean, I was a tour guide in Europe.
	So, I mean, I didn't get paid in money.
	I got paid in going on the trips for free.
	So, I mean, I did do stuff with my time.
	It's not like I was just staying at home all day, every day.
	Right, right.
	No, again, I'm just trying to get a map of the land.
	I'm just curious.
	I refuse to work at fast food joints.
	I don't know.
	I worked at fast food joints.
	It's not the end of the world.
	But anyway.
	What are the virtues that excite you about your husband?
	Now?
	His virtues.
	Are you asking now?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I just love his honesty, loyalty, His, the way he genuinely cares about others, not just me, his family, you know, how he looks out for other people.
	He's just...
	Wait, wait, wait, hang on.
	He just told me he was emotionally disconnected from his family.
	But he would do anything to, like, protect them or provide for them.
	So he gives stuff to them.
	He provides resources to them.
	But it's not the same as being emotionally connected, right?
	Correct.
	Yeah, you're right.
	So he gives resources to people he feels obligated to.
	Which is something that he has in common with his dad.
	I almost wonder if that's a learned habit from him.
	Yeah.
	Alright.
	Okay, good resource provider when he feels obligated.
	What else?
	Man, I'm really on the spot right now.
	Do you know why I'm asking this?
	Maybe you're questioning my love for him now?
	Oh.
	Not at all.
	But my definition of love is it's our involuntary response to virtue if you're virtuous.
	Yes, definitely.
	Right, so if you are not feeling loved, if you're not feeling loved, it's because one of you is deficient in virtue.
	I have to disagree with that.
	That doesn't mean it's impossible to be loved.
	It just means, you know, if I'm feeling tired, it's maybe because I'm not getting enough protein, so get some more protein kind of thing, right?
	I mean, I respect everything about him.
	I've already made up my mind that I want him to be like the father of my children.
	He's such a good person that I agree that it's my...
	Okay.
	He lied to his parents about going into the military...
	And he hid from his parents that he was going to propose to you.
	He didn't lie about going into the military.
	He just didn't tell them.
	And then afterward...
	No, no, no.
	Hey, hey, don't play sophist with me.
	Don't play sophist with me.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Your parents raise you.
	They feed you.
	They take care of you.
	They sit up when you're sick.
	If you decide suddenly to enter into a potentially life-ending occupation, and you don't tell your parents, that is about as big a falsehood as can be conceived of.
	Now, If his parents were like horrible monsters or whatever, okay, well, right, but you tell me that they're pretty decent people.
	He tells me that they're good people.
	He doesn't want to say anything bad about them.
	So if he would do anything for his parents, why wouldn't he tell them the truth about entering into the death-bought, killing merchant fields of the military?
	I think because he maybe thought that they would stop him or, you know...
	That's not an excuse.
	That's like me saying, well, I didn't tell my wife I was going to go have an affair because I thought she might not like it.
	It's like, that's not the point of honesty.
	Right?
	So what I'm saying is that this stuff doesn't hang together.
	And this doesn't mean that either of you are bad people or undeserving of love or anything.
	I'm just sort of pointing out That I think you're not telling me the truth.
	And I think that's even more dangerous is you're not telling yourself the truth.
	Like you're saying, you're a very convincing person, right?
	I mean, as you say, both you and your family, you already told me this.
	You're good actors, right?
	And that's why I had to talk to him.
	Oh, he had a great family.
	Well, except for the fact that...
	He didn't tell them he was going into the military or marrying me.
	Oh, he'd do anything for his family.
	He's so loyal.
	He's like, bullshit.
	I'm sorry.
	I couldn't call you on it.
	Because you don't want to bullshit me, right?
	Yeah.
	You didn't call me up to bullshit me, right?
	So what are you selling me this story for?
	I'm not trying to do it on purpose.
	There you go again.
	I don't care about that.
	If you're on autopilot, then we need to reschedule the call.
	In other words, if you're just doing what you normally do with everyone else who accepts this nonsense, if you're just going to do that, then you're not ready for this call.
	If you're going to commit to telling me the truth, then we can talk, but I'm not going to enable this acting, right?
	And again, I say this with no hostility, with deep affection and sympathy.
	I know where this comes from, and I deeply sympathize with its source, but I can't have a conversation with propaganda.
	I'll try my...
	Your husband can be deeply deceptive to his family about incredibly important things, like going into the military and getting married, right?
	So don't tell me all this empty stuff about how he'd do anything for people he cares about and he'd do anything for his parents.
	No, I can't listen to that.
	So tell me the virtues that don't contradict half the stuff you've told me already.
	Thank you.
	I don't know.
	What are the virtues in you that he can respect, admire, and love?
	I'm not sure because...
	I don't want to contradict myself now, so I'm trying to really think.
	Good, good.
	Okay, good.
	Now you see, now you're stopping to think about your responses.
	Yay!
	That's what we want, right?
	I don't want autopilot.
	Autopilot is the death of life.
	Autopilot just puts everyone into the ditch in flames.
	I guess I just felt wrong if I said I'm not sure because, you know, he's my husband.
	No, I get that.
	But the circumstances of you guys getting together were not a state of liberty, right?
	It wasn't like, well, you're independent and he's independent and, right?
	I mean, you were fleeing a dangerous father in a terrible childhood and he was in the military.
	So you guys were not in a...
	It's like arranged by history and trauma, right?
	It's not...
	Not quite the same as a liberty marriage, right?
	So if you want him to be the father of your children, then you need to commit to the virtues then you need to commit to the virtues that generate love.
	Yeah.
	You need to commit to the honesty, to the non-acting, the non-selling job, the non-propaganda, the true honesty.
	He needs to accept that if his parents were nice people, he lied and deceptively deceived nice people, which is truly a stain on his honor, right?
	About two of the most important decisions a human being can make.
	Military and marriage, right?
	Ma-ma-ma-ma-ma, right?
	Now, if he knowingly and catastrophically deceived some pretty nice people, that is a stain on his honor, which is gonna be hard to love, right?
	Yeah.
	And hard to trust.
	I might have been talking to this guy.
	And you...
	Sorry, my husband said something in the background.
	I don't believe that it was a stain on his honor.
	I don't.
	I'm just saying, if what I believe, because I think he sold me a bit of a job too, right, with regards to his parents.
	Because if his parents were less than good, then his capacity to deceive them makes more sense, right?
	Yeah.
	Like to take an extreme example, if I tell the concentration camp guard that I'll be right back, I'm just going to go and pee in the bushes, and then I run for it, is anyone going to say, well, you know, he was a concentration camp guard, you should have gone back because you told him you would, right?
	Yeah.
	If I deceive a bad person, that is no stain on my honor.
	In fact, obeying a bad person is a stain on my honor.
	And again, I'm not trying to compare his parents to concentration camps.
	I'm just using that as an extreme example, right?
	My husband wants to say something.
	Is that okay if I put him back on?
	Yeah, yeah, please.
	Yeah, we're talking about him.
	It's only fair.
	Hey, sorry to interrupt.
	No, it's your life we're talking about.
	You're not an interruption.
	Please go ahead.
	I just want to say that I don't believe that I deceived my parents.
	It wasn't...
	My parents don't need to know what I'm doing.
	They don't need to know who I'm marrying.
	They don't even know...
	They don't need to know that you've joined the military and they don't need to know that you're married.
	It's not their life.
	I didn't tell them about the military.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Hang on, hang on.
	You could say that about anyone, right?
	You could say, look, I'm going to go and have an affair on my wife because it's my balls, not hers.
	She doesn't even have balls, right?
	Okay.
	But what you do has an impact on your wife, right?
	And What you do has an impact on your parents, right?
	Yeah.
	And if you decide to go to the military and you get your legs blown off, that's going to have an impact on your parents.
	If you decide, and I'm not saying you did, but if you decide to marry some complete lunatic that they then have to put up with for the next 40 years, 20 times a year at family gatherings, that has an impact on them, right?
	Yeah.
	It's not just your life.
	I mean, you're interconnected with everyone around you and the decisions that you make, like marriage and military, have massive substantial impacts on those around you, right?
	Which doesn't mean they get the final say.
	But to hide it from them is deceptive, right?
	If you say, if you say that they're decent people and good parents or not bad parents, I think you would owe them that, wouldn't you?
	I don't know.
	It's hard to say.
	It's really not that hard to say.
	Either they were parents that it was moral to deceive, in which case they weren't good parents or decent parents, but if they are decent parents and you hid from them going into the military and you hid from them getting married, then you were being incredibly dishonest and deceptive to decent people, right?
	Which can't be called a virtue, right?
	Right.
	But if I don't feel a connection to them in the first place, what is their opinion have to do with me?
	So if you don't feel a connection to them, then that's not good parenting, is it?
	No, I mean, I'm not saying they're perfect parents at all.
	And I'm not going to try to make excuses for me.
	No, no.
	If you have parents that you don't even want to tell you thinking of going into the military to, and you didn't even want to tell that you're going to propose to a woman, that is a terrible relationship.
	Right?
	All right.
	Thank you.
	I mean, if my daughter decided to marry some guy and didn't even tell me, I can't tell you how devastated I would be.
	If she joined the military and didn't even tell me, or talk to me about it, or ask what I thought, I don't know.
	I couldn't even imagine what that would be like.
	But if you didn't have a connection with your daughter and she went off and did something like that, could you blame her?
	Are they still in your life?
	Then you have a connection with them.
	If my daughter said, I'm never going to see you again or talk to you again, and then I found out she'd gone and joined the military, I'd be devastated about all of that.
	But if your parents are still in your life, do they ever see your wife?
	Yeah.
	Okay, how often do they see her?
	Probably more than they see me.
	Okay, so you brought a woman into your parents' lives that they now have to deal with for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years, right?
	But you didn't even give them a chance to talk about it before you married her, but you brought her into their lives.
	Why wouldn't they get a say?
	They have to deal with her.
	I'm not saying she's terrible to deal with or anything, but she is now a permanent fixture in their lives, and they see her more than they see you, and they didn't get a chance to have a say or ask any questions before you decided to propose?
	All right, I can understand that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And the fact that they wouldn't be upset about this is interesting to me.
	And the fact that you also never seem to be upset about the degree to which, consciously or unconsciously, your girlfriend and fiancé pulled the wool over your eyes with regards to her own family past and history.
	It just seems like the standards are not particularly high for disclosure and trust in this family situation, right?
	Are you...
	Are you saying I should be more emotionally upset?
	Well, I'm telling you, if I was a parent, or as a parent, if my child joined the military without telling me and bought a ring to propose to someone without telling me, I would be devastated.
	I don't even know what I would say.
	I wouldn't sleep.
	I would just be unbelievably devastated.
	It doesn't seem to have Put much of a ripple or problem in your family relationships at all, because everything then would be thrown up into question for me, which is, why on earth would I not be told this by my child?
	And your parents don't seem to notice their mind at all?
	I mean, I have a horrible memory.
	I'm not using that as an excuse to...
	Avoid answers or anything, but I do have a very bad memory.
	But I do remember my parents being upset when I told them I was joining the military and not telling them.
	And my mom was very surprised and demanded that I tell her what's going on when she saw that rain on my bank account.
	So it's not that they were hypothetic to the whole thing.
	All right.
	But nothing in particular has changed, right?
	They didn't say, okay, well, what's going on that this...
	Yeah, nothing has changed.
	Look, and the reason I'm talking about all of this is love can occur between friends as much as it can between lovers, husbands, and wives.
	I don't know what goes on in your marriage, right?
	But I will tell you this.
	If you were my friend...
	And I knew about your capacity to deceive people who were in your life.
	I would not trust you.
	Because I wouldn't know when I would be the next person to be deceived about something unbelievably important that would affect me for 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years that you would pull on me.
	And if you said, well, it's true, I did deceive and hide things from my decent parents, my good parents who are still in my life and who...
	I trust my wife's heart and relationship with.
	I deceived them about two absolutely essential things.
	And if you had no problem with it, and if you justified it by saying, well, it's my life, I would not be able to trust you.
	Because you would have openly confessed to me your capacity and willingness to To not only deceive people who were in your life who were important to you, but to be fine with it.
	I think the reason why I didn't tell my parents was because I didn't value their opinion in those areas.
	Well...
	You were how old when you joined the military?
	And...
	Your father is, what, 25 or 30 years older than you?
	Yeah, about 30.
	Okay, so what you're saying is that your father learned absolutely nothing from the age of 18 to the age of 48.
	No, that's what I believed when I was 18.
	I thought I could make decisions on my own without input.
	Well, you can make decisions on your own.
	Of course you can.
	But what you're saying is that your father had...
	Your father learned...
	his peak of knowledge was somewhere before the age of 18.
	I'm sorry, say that again.
	Okay.
	And you...
	You're saying that your father's peak of knowledge, that you at 18 were wiser than your father.
	And not only would he not have a lot of value to offer, he would have zero value to offer a decision like joining the military.
	That's number one.
	Number two, your parents who've been married for over 30 years have zero capacity to provide you input on marriage.
	Right?
	So 30 plus years of experience have given them zero capacity to I mean, if I'd been a major league baseball player for 30 years, do you think I would have something of value to somebody thinking of, like, to give to someone thinking of getting into the baseball field?
	Right, but that metaphor isn't really...
	Like, my parents might be, you know, professional baseball players, but I'm not trying to play baseball.
	Yes, you are, because you got married.
	Marriage is the metaphor for baseball here.
	They're 30-plus years marriage, they're still together, as far as I understand.
	So they have a 30-plus year successful marriage, at least as far as they're still together, and you were thinking about getting married, and you hid it from them because you felt they would have nothing of value to offer you in the realm of marriage.
	Is that right?
	When I said that, I was referring to more of the military decision I made.
	Oh, come on, man.
	Are you going to talk to me or not?
	Look, you can face enemy fire.
	You can face some tough questions, right?
	I'm trying to answer that question as truthfully as possible.
	No, no, you're dodging now.
	Because you also hit proposing to Mara, too, right?
	Yeah, I mean, not under the...
	I didn't think that it was going to be a complete secret until we got married.
	I knew my mom was going to find out.
	I just didn't value their input.
	Oh my god.
	Okay, listen.
	Were you wrong in hiding these incredibly important decisions from the people who raised you?
	I'm going to say that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	No?
	Okay, then either you or they are bad people in this area, in this area of trust.
	Because if you kept essential information from the people who raised you, it's either because they're bad parents who were going to give you terrible advice and put you in the wrong direction, although how the right direction is the military is beyond me.
	So either they're bad parents or you're a bad son.
	But keeping that kind of information from your parents, nobody gets off scot-free in this situation.
	And look, I get this is all in the past.
	I get this is all in the past, but your wife doesn't feel loved.
	And your wife has to make up virtues for you when I ask her what she loves about you, right?
	I understand that everything I do, every decision I make right now directly affects my wife.
	And I would never do anything like make a huge life decision like, you know, if I wasn't in the army, join the army.
	Without consulting with my wife.
	But my wife, it's not the same as my parents.
	Who was going to take care of you if you got your legs shut out?
	My parents.
	So don't tell me It's got nothing to do with them.
	It has a greater impact on them than it has on your wife.
	Don't tell me that this is just your decision when you know as well as I do who'd be wiping your ass and changing your colostomy bag if you got the shit shot out of you, literally. . literally. . .
	I think you're very angry at your parents, and I think that's why you can't admit any fault with this.
	And I can sympathize with you with that.
	But then you've got to get off telling me that they were decent parents.
	Because right now, what you're saying to your wife and the foundation of your marriage was, I lied to decent people.
	Thank you.
	How is she going to trust you in her heart when you say you love her, when you also say to her, I lied to decent people about essential things?
	I understand that.
	And that's, I think, the level at which you guys have to start working with if you want to bring more love into the marriage.
	is that the stories that you're telling me, both of you, they don't hang together.
	And I think that would be...
	To talk honestly about good and bad decisions in the past, I think if your parents were decent people, I think you owe them a big apology for putting them through the stress and fear, which is going to continue for another three years, of...
	Is my kid going to be alive or dead?
	And also for not giving them the respect of reasonably happy married people to ask them not permission, but thoughts, advice, feedback about the woman you're going to be bringing into their lives for the next 30 or 40 years.
	They have a right to their thoughts about that.
	They have a right to their feedback about that.
	They're going to take care of you if you get injured.
	They have a right to their thoughts and feedback about the military decision.
	If you're bringing a woman into their lives for the next couple of decades, they have a right to their thoughts and opinions about who you're going to marry.
	So if they're decent people, you did them wrong.
	If they're not decent people, then you need to be honest about that with Me, I don't know, we're probably never going to talk again, but with yourself and with your wife.
	Because the more you praise your parents, the more you damn yourself in the eyes of ethics.
	That makes sense.
	So that's sort of my major or main thoughts about how to bring more love, more honest virtue.
	And look, I mean, you know, if you did wrong by your parents because you were angry or upset or whatever, Apologies can do amazing things.
	You know, I mean, if you really get it and you really talk to them about it and you say, look, I was angry or I had these thoughts that I didn't really think through or whatever it is, right?
	You can go and talk to them and apologize.
	That, I think, is honorable and very decent.
	And, you know, if there were medals in philosophy, that would rain you down a bucketful.
	But...
	I think trying to square this circle of they're decent people and I lied to and deceived them about very essential things is not going to bring stability to your marriage, right?
	Because that reveals a character that is contradictory and it's really difficult because love is about consistency and when you have contradictory perspectives or perspectives that jangle against each other then You cannot achieve love, because love is consistent.
	I mean, if I only hit my child once a month, I would pretty much 99.999% of the time be peaceful, but not consistent.
	And consistency is the foundation of love.
	And hatred, in fact, too, but that's not what we're talking about right here.
	So I think trying to iron out these contradictions in the narratives that you both have about your histories and your choices and the foundations of your marriage.
	Look, the marriage, obviously, and the military is pretty much defined your life for the last three and a half years, right?
	I mean, you've been in the military and you've been married to this woman.
	And these were the two things that you deceived your parents about.
	So the marriage and your entire lifestyle is founded on Things which are morally open to question.
	So I think that would be my suggestion about how you could end up with a more consistent set of beliefs and thoughts about your life and your choices that I think would end up with your wife feeling more reassured of your capacity to consistently love her.
	And I think that would also generate more consistent love from her To try and unpretzel these narratives, if that makes any sense.
	I appreciate it.
	All right.
	Is there anything else you guys wanted to add?
	That's mostly what I wanted to say.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Was there anything else that you wanted to add?
	I couldn't hear anything that you were saying.
	I could only hear my husband's response.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	That's what happens when you let go of the mic.
	But no, so I won't keep talking when you guys can have a chance to listen to this or both listen to it on the playback.
	But look, I mean, I just really wanted to end up by saying thanks so much for calling in.
	I hugely appreciate it.
	I mean, the amount of trust that you provide to me is, I consider it a very humbling thing for me, a very humbling experience for me.
	I always try to do the very best I can by callers and apply as much rigor and courage and consistency and empathy as I can.
	And I just wanted to say I'm incredibly sorry for this freak horror show of a childhood that you had.
	I'm unbelievably wretched.
	And basically you were ejected into adulthood like somebody fleeing a burning building that's about to collapse.
	So I am incredibly sorry for all that occurred.
	It doesn't mean that you can't have a happy life, that you can't have a life that has an even deeper and greater love.
	Than the majority.
	But I think that the consistency, and as I talked about with your husband, this sort of ironing out these narratives that don't hang together, I think will create a level of trust that will really begin to generate more and more love for you guys.
	But I think it is around, you know, you can't aim for love, you can aim for virtue.
	And with virtue, you have the necessary but not, sorry, necessary but not sufficient condition for love.
	If you're virtuous, you can be loved, doesn't guarantee it, but it means you can be loved.
	And although you guys have done massive, honorable, amazing, fantastic work over the past while, certainly since you were first doing therapy at 14, began to pursue self-knowledge in listening to this show and other work that you're doing, you're doing amazing, amazing stuff.
	But to aim for the real gold, I think, is just to continue to aim for as great a set of consistency in your virtues as possible.
	And in aiming at virtues, we land in love.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Well, thanks so much for your call.
	Do give us a shout, as always, and let us know how it's going.
	We're keeping our fingers crossed for Body and Soul Together for the next three years for you.
	And I'm sorry again, we...
	We're getting through two calls a night, but very important and very helpful calls.
	Again, I think it's the best show in history with the greatest listenership in history.
	If you agree, FDRURL.com slash donate.
	Put some money where your values are, and I will pledge to continue to do my very best in bringing philosophy to the world in the most engaging, enjoyable, and maybe even occasionally entertaining way possible.
	Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week.

▲