Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 3, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

03:43:40

3013 Babies Are Racist - Call In Show - June 27th, 2015

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Rolini from Freedom Radio.
	Hope you're doing well.
	I hope you'll go and check out Gene Wars Part 1, uploading as we speak.
	It is, I think, a very interesting presentation about the degree to which biological selection has an effect, not only in the natural kingdom, but in the unnatural kingdom of human kingdoms.
	So, I hope you will check out Gene Wars Part 1 is out, and we are working at finishing up The truth about marriage, which is also the truth about divorce or how to have your own testicles filleted and served to you on a fine platter of lawyerly slicing.
	So I hope you check these things out.
	Of course, please go and subscribe if you can at freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show, help spread the word, and let's move straight on to the callers.
	Alright, well up first today is Jonathan.
	He wrote in and said, I just watched the recent What is Property episode and I think I understand what the caller was trying to get at, although he did so in a painfully confusing way.
	Maybe a better question would be, what is the difference between a government and a landlord?
	Let me elaborate.
	Suppose that in a free society I buy a track of land and develop a farm, and through my success I am able to expand and purchase land around my farm.
	I then need to hire laborers to help work the land, and this process continues and my workforce becomes large enough that a town develops on my land for my workers.
	I contract out an apartment complex, doctor, restaurants, etc.
	But I am careful that in all these agreements, I am still the ultimate owner of the land.
	How is what I have done fundamentally different from a government?
	That's from Jonathan.
	Hey, Jonathan.
	Hi, this is Evan.
	So, I'm trying to...
	Fundamental.
	So first of all, I'm trying to understand what the question is, and then I'd like to understand why it's important before I take a swing at answering it, if that's all right?
	Sure.
	So I'm a guy.
	Let's just say I don't even buy it.
	I enclose some land.
	I start producing crops or whatever, right?
	And I'm very good at it.
	And so then I hire people to work on my land, and they then build houses nearby.
	Is that right?
	Yes, or you allow houses to be developed on the land that you own and still stay the owner.
	So you basically have houses for your workers.
	I would lease the land out to the workers?
	Yes.
	Why would they want that?
	I mean, I wouldn't want to build a house on someone else's land.
	Because that person could then sort of turn around tomorrow and say, that's it, you're off my land.
	You know, like, I don't know why anyone would do that.
	Well, farms and ranches do tend to provide, like, houses as a benefit for workers.
	So it may not say, hey, you own this house, but...
	But they're like hotels or like hostels or something like that, right?
	They're like temporary housing for when you're working there that's not your house that you own, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, so I'm not sure.
	I guess what I was...
	So say I, rather than build my own house, I say to some real estate developer, hey, you can come build this, you can keep 90% of the profits, and I still say the owner, but I'm leasing this to you indefinitely.
	Wait, leasing indefinitely?
	What does that mean?
	Well, so I'm leasing you this area of land to go and build an apartment complex on.
	In exchange for you giving...
	Oh, no, no, I understand.
	I understand the building part.
	Hang on, hang on, Jonathan.
	I understand the building part.
	What does leasing indefinitely mean?
	Like, does that mean leasing for a million years?
	Does that mean leasing until the end of the universe?
	What does that mean?
	Well, yeah, so leasing, as long as you keep giving me 10% of the profits, you can keep owning or keep control and keep, you know, your...
	Prerogative over what the apartment complex does.
	And that would be in perpetuity?
	Yes.
	But why would anyone want that deal?
	I mean, why would I want to pay 10% of my ownership or I guess of my rent or the sale of the house or something in perpetuity?
	And would that be transferable?
	Could I buy and sell that to someone else?
	If I decided to sell the house to the person who was in it, would they then be subject to the same restrictions?
	Again, I'm just trying to understand why somebody would want that deal.
	Well, I'll say I've got quite a few workers and they need a place to live.
	I want to provide them a place to live and so...
	I open up to bidding, so you can have...
	I mean, it could theoretically be a profitable venture for the apartment complex developer.
	You know, they could make a tidy profit off of it, but I would still be the ultimate owner of...
	No, because if you're a real estate developer, then you have the choice to make houses wherever you want, right?
	Why would you want to make houses where you didn't end up owning the land and were subject to an infinite tax of 10%?
	Like you could go build anywhere in the world.
	We're talking about a free society, right?
	So you could go build anywhere in the world.
	Why would you want to build where you didn't end up with clear ownership of the land?
	Because it would really reduce the value of your house, right?
	So let's say it's going to cost you a million dollars to build these accommodations.
	Well...
	You're going to have to pay, I don't know, like, what, $20,000 a year or $30,000 a year.
	You don't have clear ownership.
	You can't buy and sell it.
	So the value of what you've created is diminished by having to pay this 10% in perpetuity.
	In perpetuity.
	Which means that over 10 years, that's 100%.
	Every 10 years, you're just giving away a full year of income.
	And so given that you can build anywhere...
	Why would you want to get involved in this kind of lease arrangement when you could go and build something and have the land free and clear or pay a sort of upfront cost and have the land free and clear?
	Well, because that's where the workers are, or that's where the people are.
	Well...
	I understand that, but you can build anywhere in the world and have free and clear ownership, a clear title transfer, no legal complications, no one who...
	I assume that in these kinds of deals there's revocation clauses, right?
	And what if the guy who signs the deal dies?
	Or what if the corporation changes hands?
	Or what if the corporation goes bankrupt?
	There's a huge amount of uncertainty.
	In these kinds of deals wherein you might end up in court for years trying to figure out who actually owns this and who has title for it.
	It seems like a huge quagmire and I can't quite figure out why someone would want to get involved in it if they could just go build anywhere.
	Well, I guess if I had an enticing enough workforce that was looking for housing, And say I gave you a monopoly over all of the housing within the nearest 30 miles or so.
	I mean, let's say an entrepreneur finds that as an enticing enough opportunity.
	I give them...
	Say I only charge them 1% of their profits and it was transferable.
	I ultimately owned the land, but as long as I get my...
	1% cut of their profit, that they can build whatever they want, they can transfer it to other people.
	Fundamentally, I guess, I see that as a similar situation to what a city government does.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay, okay.
	You're just sidestepping what I'm talking about in terms of the legal complications, number one.
	Number two, if you're the land developer, like if you own the land and you want to build housing on your land, generally you just hire people to do it and pay them and then keep the land and the profits yourself, right?
	I mean, if I want a garden shed...
	I don't come up with some complicated leasing arrangement with the landscaping company, right?
	I'll just get them to build it and pay it or go to the store and pick up some prefab wooden shed and put it up myself.
	These kinds of complicated lease arrangements would be in a free society.
	I mean, they're engaged into now for various tax reasons and for various, you know, 99-year lease from the government arrangements and so on, but Generally, if you wanted to build housing on your land, you just hire someone to build the housing on your land.
	And if you didn't want to do that, I as the entrepreneur would say, well, wait a minute.
	Why do you want me to get involved in some complicated legal arrangement with you if you're so confident that there's so much profit in this?
	Why aren't you doing it yourself?
	Like many years ago when I was first in business, I got the phone call.
	I don't know how these weasels find you, but they do.
	I got this phone call, and it was, you know, the sleazy guy at the stockbroker company.
	Hey, man, we've got a stock that's about to hit the roof, and you're some anonymous guy I got from a phone book.
	I want to share my great good fortune with you.
	And it's like, what?
	If you're absolutely certain the stock is going to go through the roof...
	Why are you telling me?
	Because I'm just going to buy it and drive the price up.
	Why don't you just buy it yourself?
	I mean, that doesn't make any sense at all.
	She's the hottest woman around.
	She's totally easy, totally brilliant, and will be with you for life.
	I want you to date her.
	So, what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense in a free society economically.
	And so, from that standpoint, it seems extremely unlikely that anybody with any business experience would get involved in this.
	My other question is, why would you even have the land?
	Like, you have to have enclosed and worked the land in order to have possession of the land.
	What that means is that you've planted crops or you've built houses there or built roads or done something to transform the land so that it produces something.
	So, if you've already enclosed and worked the land, why would you want to get rid of everything you've invested in that land, whether it's clearing the land and turning the soil and fertilizing it and setting up your irrigation systems and all the stuff that you need for crops or whatever, right?
	Why would you then want to tear that up and put down houses?
	So you don't just sort of snap your fingers and get a hundred acres in a free society, you have to enclose it, you have to do something to transform it, otherwise it reverts back to common ownership, if the common law approaches what would make sense, and I think it is.
	So you've already built this land.
	You've already worked this land.
	That's how you own it.
	So why on earth would you then rip up everything you've built in order to create some complicated lease arrangement with someone else who could make much more money in a much more stable and secure way by building the same house, say, 500 feet over where you haven't, where you don't own the land, right?
	So let's say you've created and you've enclosed 100 acres and you're employing 200 people, let's say.
	Well, the best place to build those houses would not be in your 200 acres.
	It would be 201, right?
	Just beyond where your fences are and when your claim of ownership is, that's where you would build the houses, right?
	Because what you're saying to a building developer, a land developer, is you're saying, okay, you can build your house inside My land.
	Now, you have to clear away all of these crops and all this kind of stuff first.
	Got to test the soil because we've been using, I don't know, fertilizers and chemicals and insecticides and so on and you don't want to build your houses for people where kids play in the yard and eat the dirt kind of thing.
	So, I want you to build inside my 200 acres the houses for my workers.
	And it's going to be a complicated lease arrangement that if anything ever happens to me or the corporation or you or the corporation, nobody's going to know who owns what for years and years and it's going to cost you tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to try and sort this out.
	It's going to be tied up for years.
	Who knows, right?
	Or you can build...
	Just outside my property where you don't have to pay me a penny for the land.
	There's no complicated lease arrangements and you can have clear and title ownership which is transferable and is not mixed in with anybody else's ownership.
	So what I'm saying is why on earth would somebody build inside the 200 acres when they could build just outside the 200 acres with much less cost, much less expense, much less lost labor and investment in the existing land and with clear and transferable title of ownership without any complications.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, subcontracting out or contracting out is a common business practice, right?
	So if I may say I'm Apple, I don't want to get in the manufacturing or the actual semiconductor manufacturing business.
	I want to let the people who are good at that Do that.
	And I'll design the chips.
	I'll let them manufacture the chips.
	And I'll just buy them from them.
	I'll tell them what I want and I'll buy it.
	And so being able to say, hey, I want to provide housing for my workers.
	And then saying, hey, I'm a farmer.
	I'm a rancher.
	No, no, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Hang on.
	Okay, so we're going into a big area here, which I'm certainly no expert in.
	And Mike, if you can maybe look this up as we go along, that'd be great.
	First of all, they're not Apple's workers if they're subcontracted, right?
	It means that there's some other place that's building something and then delivering stuff to Apple.
	And sometimes it's called just-in-time, like when I reach for it, I want it to be there, not sooner, not later.
	I don't want it sooner because then I have to pay to store it.
	I don't want it later because it slows down my production.
	It's called just-in-time manufacturing.
	There's a variety of other ways of...
	Of setting it up.
	But if you subcontract, you don't enter into complicated legal arrangements, usually, unless there's some weird laws that you have to satisfy on the part of the government.
	But if you're Apple and you want other people to make the screens for your iPhones, let's say, then you say to the people, okay, we'll take bids for how much it's going to cost you to produce these screens for the iPhones, and then we're going to choose.
	I've been involved in Lord knows how many of these kinds of bids, so...
	And you put in what's called an RFP, you put out a call for an RFP, a request for proposal.
	People then say, here's what I'm going to do, and so on.
	And then you choose the winning person, and then they go and build the thing, and they deliver it to you.
	In the same way, you know, you're subcontracting out Amazon, and whoever's on Amazon, go make this thing, or get it for me and send it to me.
	But you don't enter into complicated legal arrangements.
	You don't say, okay, well, I want you to make...
	This Gorilla Glass for my iPhone.
	So I'm gonna buy this tract of land.
	I'm gonna build a bunch of stuff on it.
	Then I want you to come in and knock all the stuff I've built on it down.
	Then I want you to build the plant, but I'm still gonna own the land.
	So when you build the plant, which might be a 10 billion dollar plant for all I know, I'm still gonna own the land and things could change.
	There may be bailout clauses that are gonna be really complicated.
	So your entire 10 billion dollar investment might turn to nothing if there's some legal problem with the ownership of the land.
	And then I'm going to charge you 5% of your gross profits and keep hold of the land while you manufacture.
	Like, this doesn't happen in the business world.
	It's like, you give me how much it's going to cost me per Gorilla Glass for my iPhone, and then if I choose you, you just hand it to me when I want to slap one on an iPhone.
	But there's not these complicated subleasing arrangements as far as I know.
	Okay, well, then back up a step.
	What if, instead of trying to do some complicated leasing agreement, I just do kind of like a homeowner's association thing where you own the land, I will rent you this land, and I want to be 10% partner in your business or in the business of contracting out housing.
	I'm sorry, I don't know what we're talking about.
	Are we still talking about a guy with a farm?
	Yeah, so say I take this farm and I say, hey, I'll sell you five acres to put an apartment complex on With the agreement that I get to be 10% partner in this venture.
	So I decide it's worthwhile and a developer decides it's worthwhile to supply this demand of worker housing.
	It's not worthwhile.
	It's not.
	Listen, I mean, I assume you've not run a business or anything like that, right?
	No, not yet.
	Okay, assume you're not sort of big on real estate law or contract law.
	But it's not worthwhile because we already talked, I already talked about, and if you want to rebut it, that's fine, but you can't pretend I didn't say it, right?
	We've got 200 acres.
	Why on earth would you buy already owned and developed land to build the houses when you could build them right outside these 200 acres and have it yours free and clear?
	Well, that could be owned by a farm right next to mine.
	I mean, it's not necessarily uninhabitable land right outside of mine.
	It could be other farms.
	Oh, so all of the land around this farm is also owned?
	Yeah, so it's not necessarily just uninhabited area, and I'm just right in the middle of it.
	Say I've got neighboring farms all around it, and so...
	Instead of it just being free, you can put a fence around an area and build an apartment complex wherever you want.
	There's a limited supply of available land.
	Wait, limited or none?
	Because you said it's all around.
	Okay, so the only other available land, if this guy wants to develop a...
	Or if this guy wants to develop anything, is other farms around mine.
	So it's not necessarily free.
	How far do these farms extend?
	Let's say we've got one in the middle for 200 acres.
	How many farms are there around?
	I'll say it's, I don't know, 30 miles.
	So enough distance that it's worthwhile for the workers to want to, like they would choose to live on the farm if I provide housing.
	Fantastic.
	So you would then provide housing for them.
	You would get someone to come in and build some houses on your land for your workers.
	But still, there would be no, but here's the lease and you can own 10% or I'm a partner.
	I mean, you just get someone to come in and build it for you.
	I mean, why wouldn't you?
	It's your land.
	Why would you want to sort of divvy it up and give it to someone else on some perpetual lease and share in the profits and put all of your risk of complications from a legal ownership standpoint and just...
	Build the houses and deduct the cost of it from your workers' wages, knowing that they're going to spend less living on the land and going to work there than if they had to drive for 30 miles and rent somewhere else.
	So it's still better for them to get housing where the cost of the housing is deducted from their wages than it is for them to live off-site.
	I mean, that's nice and easy, isn't it?
	I don't see why you wouldn't do that.
	Okay.
	Well, I guess I was thinking more of the perspective of I'm a farmer.
	I don't want to get involved in trying to be a housing developer also.
	Of course not.
	That's why you pay people to do it for you.
	I don't want to be a dentist, so I go to a dentist and pay the dentist to clean my teeth.
	I'm a farmer.
	I can have a real estate developer come and make this stuff for me.
	Yep, he comes and builds the houses.
	Absolutely.
	Maybe build and manage it, but it's your houses on your land, right?
	The same way that the superintendent doesn't own the building, right?
	So you would hire someone to come in and build the houses on your land, but it's still your land and it's your houses, right?
	Okay.
	Yeah, sure, that makes sense.
	And then that kind of leads into my second question, or kind of Hang on.
	How do we just end the first question?
	I'm not sure what the resolution of the theory is.
	I guess that wouldn't necessarily be a realistic situation.
	I'll accept your reasoning that that wouldn't be a realistic situation.
	In a free society, again, you know, when you have weird corporate taxes and write-offs, I mean, there can be some weird stuff that happens in terms of, you know, well, we'll get this shell company to own this.
	But in a free society, economic efficiency would virtually dictate that you would not, nobody want to build where they don't have clear ownership.
	And you don't get clear ownership by commingling stuff with complicated contracts.
	Okay, good.
	So second question.
	Alright, second question is about initiation of force for property rights.
	So here I guess the example that I kind of have in mind is, let's say I'm kind of related.
	So I am an apartment complex owner.
	I do clearly own the apartment complex.
	And this family or one of the families stops paying their rent.
	And, you know, they're not violently doing anything wrong.
	They just stopped paying their rent, and they refused to leave.
	Then, since they haven't...
	Have they initiated force against me?
	What would...
	Yeah, look, no, because they're using your property without your consent.
	So, for instance, if I have a vagina and I invite some man into my vagina to make the beast with two backs with me, that's called lovemaking.
	But if he is within my vagina without my consent, that's called rape.
	So the use of someone else's property without their consent, no consent can be given after the fact and so on, but the use of somebody's property without their consent is an act of aggression.
	Whether it's their body or their apartment or whatever, I mean, because if they're paying $1,000 a month and that's what they agreed to, and then they stop paying the $1,000 a month, then they're stealing $1,000 a month.
	And if I lease a car and I agree to pay, I don't know, $200 a month for the car, and then I stop paying the lease but I keep the car, I'm a car thief.
	And that's very aggressive, of course.
	Okay, but then would I be, would I as the...
	The landowner be justified in initiating or using retaliatory force to kick them out of the apartment.
	Well, does a woman have the right to use force against a potential rapist?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Why?
	Because the potential rapist is using her property without her consent, which is an act of aggression.
	Okay.
	Right, that makes sense.
	Okay, and then kind of still related, so say I buy a home in an area that has a housing or homeowners association that part of the I guess part of the contracts for buying the house I'm sorry, sorry, just before you get to the next question.
	In a free society the The initiation of force that is not in direct, immediate self-defense would be highly, highly, highly discouraged by any dispute resolution organizations, right?
	So if you have a situation where people have signed a contract to, let's say, stay in an apartment and...
	They stop paying their rent, right?
	They're in breach of their contract and they're now illegally in the apartment and they're stealing the rent from the property owner.
	I can guarantee you that there is no dispute resolution organization in the world that would say, job one, SWAT team with big guns in through the window.
	Flash bombs into the baby's crib.
	Oh wait, that's the American police.
	Headshot.
	They wouldn't do anything like that.
	And what they would do is they'd wait till the people were out and they'd change the locks.
	Or they would shut off the water and shut off the heat.
	They would do something and they would say, listen, we've got this halfway house that we could take you and so on, right?
	They would not use force.
	They would use everything except that because that is so volatile and so dangerous and such an escalation.
	That immediate self-defense, yeah, some guy's coming to rape you, blow his head off.
	I mean, I don't mind if there's one headless rapist in the world.
	I, in fact, could do a little Irish jig on that.
	But when it comes to things like, I leased a car and I'm not paying my lease, I mean, the repo guys wait until you're asleep, right?
	They wait until the car is, they follow you until the car is unattended and they whisk it away.
	They steal it back.
	Yeah, kind of like an office space where the worker who had been fired like five years ago and due to a glitch in the payroll system was still getting paid.
	Like, well, what are you going to do to resolve it?
	Well, we fixed the glitch.
	Yeah, now you may try and get that money back because the man was fired and so on.
	But the government is like, guns!
	Guns first!
	You know, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
	And so in a free society, I would not want a heavily armed dispute resolution organization.
	I mean, and imagine you're in charge of this dispute resolution organization.
	The problem with violence is shit happens.
	And random shit happens all the time.
	So you've triple-checked the address of the place you're supposed to go in and get people out of the apartment at gunpoint.
	Oh!
	GPS glitch!
	You went to the wrong place.
	It happens to the police all the time.
	All the time!
	They're going into the wrong house with their flashbangs and their SWAT teams and all that kind of stuff.
	It happens all the time.
	And...
	So you wouldn't want that kind of stuff.
	Plus, SWAT teams are very expensive.
	Plus, what if someone has a heart attack when you come in through the window or pound through the door or something and then you've got a dead person on your hand?
	How's that gonna look for things?
	Suppose somebody is insane in there, like it's just some crazy old, you know, Mr.
	Butterworth up there who's, you know, regularly nibbling the ears off rats and sharpening his scimitar and this happened in New York.
	Some years ago where this crazy woman, the cops went in and she just lunged at them with a giant butcher knife.
	You just don't want those kinds of situations.
	They're very expensive to maintain.
	Incredibly bad publicity.
	Lord knows how many lawsuits in a free society might be launched against you.
	Generally bad reputation.
	If you see...
	Two flyers.
	You move to some new neighborhood and like DROA puts a flyer in your mailbox.
	DROB puts a flyer in your mailbox.
	DROA says, hey, do you know that DROB killed nine customers last year?
	And DROB is, hey, man, we killed nine customers last year.
	I mean, who are you going to go with?
	I think the not dead customer DRO would probably be the way to go.
	So there's so many, many, many, many options.
	To deal with Property crimes that do not involve anybody taking the safety off a revolver.
	That it's only because we associate these property violations with the government now that we have all these kinds of problems.
	But you cannot have people breaching contracts in a free society.
	I mean, you can't.
	I mean, that's not how a civilized society works.
	You make a commitment.
	You've got to stick with it.
	But there's not going to be guys doing...
	Ninja head rolls heavily armed in through the windows.
	There's so many, many, many ways that you can deal with those situations that are going to resolve at no problem.
	And what's the cost of a, you know, of a SWAT team, you know, keeping them trained and armed and ready to go?
	It's millions of dollars a year.
	You know, we're talking about $1,000 a month apartment.
	There's so many different ways that you can deal with this stuff that don't involve...
	But of course, we're so used to the government that that's all we can sort of...
	Not you, but most people, that's all they can think of.
	Oh, you're going to shoot people for staying?
	No!
	Of course not!
	There's so many better ways to deal with it.
	Okay, and then for like a homeowners association type thing, you know, what...
	What recourse would, in a free society, would a homeowner's association say that collects $100 a month for each house in the neighborhood?
	What recourse would they have if one of the houses just stops paying?
	I don't know.
	So I'm trying to think of a free society.
	What homeowner's association would that involve?
	I don't know much about homeowners associations, so I don't know.
	What are they providing that people want to pay $100 a month for?
	Say like a neighborhood pool or whatever.
	I guess would the recourse be...
	Sort of like a condo fee?
	Yeah.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	So you mean if somebody doesn't pay?
	Yeah, I guess what recourse?
	Because then that would be a case where they wouldn't have the right since I still own...
	The house.
	You know, somebody wouldn't have the right to just come up and change my locks, would they?
	I wouldn't think so.
	Well, I don't know, because I wouldn't know how the contract would have been written.
	But, you know, the first thing that people would do is come over in a friendly way and say, you know, hey, what's going on?
	I mean, are you out of money?
	I mean, we don't, because everything's so confrontational in a state of society, we don't know just how friendly people can be.
	Maybe the guy's sick.
	In which case, gosh, I'm, you know, people know him in the neighborhood, right?
	So, you know, maybe he's let the kids play with the fire hydrant in front of his house, or, you know, maybe he returns Frisbees.
	Maybe he's not like some scary-ass boo-radley in a tree somewhere.
	He's like a nice guy in the neighborhood, and he's not paid his homeowner's bill, so people go over, knock on his door, and say, what's the matter?
	And he's like, oh, I've been sick, right?
	And then what do people do?
	They say, oh, man, don't pay till you get better, right?
	And they chip in.
	They'll help them out.
	They'll like, yeah, okay, we'll pay your Honos Association.
	It's not like you're using the pool because you're sick.
	So, you know, and let's come and mow your lawn and let's paint your house and let's drive you to the hospital.
	This is what nice people in a civilized society do with each other.
	So the idea that, well, he hasn't paid...
	Change the locks and throw the...
	Multiple sclerosis victim out into the street.
	I just don't think that's how a civilized society would occur.
	There would have to be...
	I mean, so if he was...
	Let's just say he was just some random jerk.
	I mean, that's sort of weird, right?
	Because you would have a vetting process before you...
	Before you sell a place to people, right?
	Because you wouldn't want any riffraff moving in here.
	What, what?
	So if you've got some enclosed area, then you want a vetting process.
	And of course, in a free society, you have a vetting process.
	And so people will have reputations that they've built up and cultivated for many years in a free society.
	You know, we pay our bills on time.
	We've spent 30 years being nice.
	We have a niceness rating or whatever it is from our previous neighbors and so on.
	And so you're going to get people in who've got the money and who are nice and conscientious, right?
	Now, if something terrible happens to someone, they lose their money in some strange asteroid mining incident or something, then because they're conscientious, Then they will immediately come forward and say, something's happened.
	I really have to...
	I can't pay this month.
	I'm aware that I'm now in breach of contract.
	Here's my plan.
	Like, I don't know about you, I've bounced a check or two in my day.
	Which means, you know, here's a check for X amount of dollars.
	Don't have enough money in the account.
	Then, you know, or, you know, I've written a date.
	It's called stale dated where I wrote accidentally the year before, you know, those January checks or whatever, right?
	And so you call the people up and, oh, I'm so sorry.
	Here's what I'm going to do.
	Like I did this once after I broke up with a girlfriend.
	I was renting a little room in a guy's place.
	And I bounced a check on him.
	I had the money.
	I just bounced a check on him.
	And I was like, I'm so sorry.
	I mean, how much did it cost you?
	What was your time?
	Okay, I'm going to add that.
	I'm going to go and get this check.
	I'm going to get it certified.
	In other words, the money is taken out of my account.
	It becomes a money order.
	I promise this will not happen again.
	I've made it up to you.
	And he was perfectly fine with it.
	I mean, appreciated that.
	And that's what you do when you're a decent human being, right?
	So...
	The idea that someone just stops paying and how do we escalate from here?
	Well, first of all, you get people in who are going to be responsible.
	So they're going to pay if they have the money.
	If for some weird reason they don't have the money, they're going to come and sit down with you ahead of time and say, here's my problem.
	And if people like you in the neighborhood, they'll help you out.
	They'll support you.
	They'll chip in, you know, if there's 20 houses in the neighborhood, right?
	I mean, I'm sure that people can come up with just a little bit of money to help, five bucks a month or whatever, right?
	To help you out.
	So that is the way that things work in a free society.
	If there's someone who just suddenly wakes up and becomes a jerk, which I think is quite unlikely, personality is remarkably inert in people as a whole, even people who strive to change.
	But let's say someone just wakes up and is a jerk.
	Well, you will have how you deal with it in the contract.
	And what I would assume is that they still get to own their house.
	They just don't have any access to the common resources that like the pool or the playground or whatever it is that his dues are paying for.
	There may be some free rider benefits.
	Maybe there's security that you can't sort of deny the guy or whatever.
	But, and other things you can do.
	I mean, there may be stipulations like, okay, no water, no heat, whatever it is, right, until you sort it out.
	But, you know, in my experience, I mean, I've, you know, there's that old song, I'm gonna love you like nobody's loved you.
	And there's a great line in it where it says, days may be cloudy or sunny.
	We're in or we're out of the money, which is, to me, this is kind of Vegas thing, you know, like, hey, we got money this month.
	Oh, man, we're broke this month.
	And that kind of stuff, when people are in and out of the money and they're reasonable people and they're decent people, they'll come with a plan.
	I can't pay.
	I know I can't pay.
	I'm so sorry I said I would pay.
	But be proactive.
	Call up.
	Sit down.
	Have a face-to-face.
	Say what the plan is going to be.
	And most likely everybody will be fine.
	Okay.
	Great.
	That makes sense.
	Thank you, Seth.
	Thanks, man.
	Up next is Paul.
	Paul wrote in and said, This would force nations to quickly create great living and working conditions for their citizens.
	If they don't, mass exodus would occur, and the nation would lose its tax base and be forced to become absorbed by a more prosperous and equitable nation.
	This way, all nations will improve themselves through competition.
	My theory is that ultimately the number of countries would probably drop, but a more equitable united world would emerge.
	So my question is, why isn't this done currently?
	That's from Paul.
	Why isn't there the right of free motion and mobility across the world?
	Hey, Stefan, how's it going?
	Good, Paul.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	So, yeah, it's a random thought.
	I mean, it's not something that I could say I have experience in.
	I've done some traveling.
	It was something, you know, I have this habit of always coming up with random ideas and sharing them with people.
	And the only criticism I got to this one was like, well, what would you do about brain drain?
	You know, what would you do about like essentially kind of what happened with the U.S. in the early 20th century when we had a lot of great minds sort of moving to the United States because conditions were terrible in their country and the U.S. was like, well, come here.
	At least that's a simplified version of it.
	And some argue that it's through this visa system that the U.S. has become such a great and prosperous place to live in.
	And so I wonder why do we limit mobility?
	A great and prosperous place to live in?
	I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand.
	Was this Americans who were telling you that America is a great and prosperous place to live in?
	Have they not been around, say, for the last six years?
	Well, I think in terms of innovation and advancements in technology and living conditions, things of that nature.
	Obviously, we still have a long way to go.
	Wait, no, hang on.
	I mean, America lost like 40% of its wealth in the last crash.
	And has only stayed afloat by massive amounts of money printing and buying up of its own treasuries and stuff.
	No, no, no.
	Totally agree.
	So, I'm not sure where America is.
	Nothing but prosperous.
	It's like, well, you know, it's like calling the coke addict nothing but happy.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Until...
	No, I agree.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So, the question is, why doesn't this happen or why shouldn't it happen?
	I don't know why it doesn't happen.
	I mean, I can't possibly know that.
	The question is, is it a good idea?
	Should it happen?
	Would that be a positive?
	They're great questions.
	Let me just ask you a couple of questions.
	So, I think America has taken in, let's put it as nicely as possible, America has taken in 25% of the entire population of Mexico.
	Right?
	Do you think this has an effect on American culture and American politics?
	Absolutely.
	And what do you think that effect has been, or effects?
	More than one, I guess.
	Well, I've listened to a lot of your podcasts and videos, Stefan, so I have a pretty good sense, at least from what you've explained, that a lot of the immigration policy is To a large extent, politically driven.
	You know, it's something Democrats are fond of because it gains them votes.
	But also, it's had a huge impact on, you know, the available workforce that is willing to take on work that doesn't provide conditions, at least as the media would put it, most Americans would want to accept, you know, such as farming and things of that sort.
	And so, consequently, what that has done is it's put sort of an entire segment of our population out of work.
	You've been much more eloquent than I have just now in explaining how this all works, so I won't go into detail, but I think that's essentially some of the negatives that you could say have come out of that sort of mass exodus from Mexico.
	Do you think that Mexico has cultural specifics that are widely different from, say, traditional English cultures?
	It sounds like you're asking if their culture is different.
	Of course it is, yeah.
	And in what ways would you say traditional British cultures?
	I mean, England now, whites are a minority in London, the city that I grew up in, so I'm sort of talking about sort of more traditional Anglo-Saxon, WASP, Protestant-y kind of stuff.
	In what way would you say that Mexican culture, as it stands now, is divergent?
	This is tough questions.
	I don't have all the answers.
	I'm just curious what you think.
	In what ways do you think that Mexican culture is different from Anglo-Saxon culture?
	Well, I'm originally from South America, so I can speak from some bit of experience, although I'm not from Mexico.
	But one of the things I admire about South American cultures in general is there is a much stronger appreciation of the family unit.
	That is a really important part of the culture, which is completely...
	And I guess I'm giving you this answer in terms of what are things that are contrasting from the North American culture.
	And that would be the first thing that sticks out.
	No, no, sorry.
	We were talking about British.
	North American culture is a challenge because of the melting pot stuff.
	I'm talking about more traditional homogenous Anglo-Saxon culture.
	So Europe versus U.S.? Western Europe, British.
	I mean, until 1965, like 96, 95, 96% of Americans were...
	Western European, you know, the vast majority of them were Protestants and so on, right?
	So America has radically changed over the past 50 years.
	So that's why I'm sort of talking about more traditional Anglo-Saxon culture.
	What are the differences?
	Hmm.
	I... The differences that I've observed, at least within people that I know, because I have a lot of friends that are immigrants from different parts of the world.
	Some friends even just from Canada have moved to the US. Some friends from Europe.
	And friends from South America.
	And the cultural differences in my view, at least just from personal experience, are very minor.
	Obviously there's language differences, even if you're both speaking English, there's different slang and accents and an appreciation for different kinds of activities that you might not even be familiar with or not appreciate a whole lot, whereas they might appreciate those kinds of activities.
	All in all, it's small stuff in my view.
	I haven't yet perceived something that is really a big difference.
	Really?
	Okay.
	That could be just my lack of travel.
	No, I don't think it would be.
	And I don't have the answers to this either, but when you look at the list of significant contributions to World science, world literature, world philosophy, and so on.
	on, why do you think it is so concentrated on Western Europe?
	I think a lot of our history that we know of has to do with the history that's been recorded.
	So, while most recorded history seems to be concentrated there, I don't completely assume that that's where all history has taken place.
	False dichotomy.
	No, that's equivocation.
	Listen, you've got to do better than that if we can have this conversation.
	You understand I'm in no way arguing that outside of Western Europe there's no space-time continuum and no history and no time, right?
	Sure.
	We've got to do better than that, right?
	Let's step it up a little bit, okay?
	Okay.
	Sorry, you're not talking to your average muggle, right?
	Let's move it up a little, right?
	MBA time, baby!
	Okay.
	When you say that it's just stuff that was recorded, do you think that in other places in the world, there were these elaborate civilizations that left no record?
	Yeah, I think it's possible.
	I mean, I don't think a lot about it, but...
	Okay, and how would we know whether that would be true or not?
	We'd have to find evidence.
	I mean, there's no null hypothesis there, right?
	Because it's like, well, there are these civilizations that left no evidence.
	How do we know?
	They left no evidence.
	How is that different from there's not being a civilization that left no evidence?
	There's no null hypothesis to that, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I agree that it's...
	But it's unlikely.
	It's very unlikely that there would be these giant civilizations that produced Shakespeare's and Dickens and Beethoven's and Francis Bacon's and, you know, all these...
	Aristotle and so on.
	Yeah.
	But left no trace.
	Although, haven't you thought about...
	I mean, I think...
	I thought we had...
	So, haven't you thought about, for example, you know, when the Greeks were having this conflict with the Persian Empire...
	Why is it that we have so much more, I don't know if we have more recorded or if it's just been disseminated more, more history about the Greek side of the story more than the Persian side of the story?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I have no idea whatsoever.
	But...
	I'm trying to think of great advances in civilization that were put forward by the Persians.
	It could just be Eurocentric bias.
	I don't know.
	But none sort of popped to mind.
	If you know any, I'm certainly happy to hear them.
	Yeah.
	Well, as far as I know, they were the first to create massive irrigation systems and also aqueducts that would transport water from kingdom to kingdom.
	I don't know if they're called kingdoms, but from realm to realm under the ground.
	I mean, they were desert dwellers, so they needed to figure out how to deal with the water problem, and they did.
	They had these major aqueducts that transported water from across many, many miles.
	Yeah, no, I get it.
	And beavers build dams.
	That's not what I'm talking about, right?
	I mean, that's not what I'm talking about.
	Giant structures, the pyramids were not marks of civilization, but of despotism.
	I'm talking about incredibly powerful, fantastic, world-changing, civilization-advancing, humanity-saving ideas.
	Like philosophy, like logic, like empiricism, like the scientific method, like double-blind medical testing, like the free market, you know, like republics and so on, right?
	Separation of church and state and so on, right?
	These are the kinds of things that I'm talking about.
	Not, they had big bridges that carried water, which is nice, and all but not...
	Really foundationally part of what I would call massive contributions to the moral and civilized and economic progress of the species.
	Yeah, philosophy.
	I'm sure they had their own set of contributors there.
	I know that mathematics was a big thing.
	But I agree with your earlier point that this is not really the point we're trying to get at anyway.
	I'm trying to remember your original question.
	No, I think it is for me.
	No, it is for me.
	Maybe it's not the point you're trying to get at.
	What was the question?
	Well, the question – because you're saying, well, why aren't all countries – well, should all countries be open to everyone?
	And we were talking about cultural differences between Mexico and traditional Anglo-Saxon culture.
	And the contributions of Anglo-Saxon culture to the world, to my knowledge, are unmatched by any other culture.
	And it's not even like there's a close second.
	And the reasons for that, I could speculate, I'm no expert, but those are the facts as far as I've been able to understand it.
	And it's not just because, well, I grew up in that culture and every culture thinks there's the best, right?
	From a space alien perspective...
	In terms of the moral progress of the species and the economic progress of the species, the scientific progress of the species, and so on, it is the sort of Western European, Anglo-Saxon culture.
	I mean, Anglo-Saxon is a bit localized, right?
	Obviously, the Greeks did a huge amount as well.
	I have a theory.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	I know that when you study early civilizations, and right about that time when we switched sort of from tribe to city-state kind of paradigm shift, there was obviously a lot of fighting and a lot of...
	The history of China is really well recorded.
	In fact, it's probably the oldest recorded history that we have access to.
	And it really reflects this sort of time period when we're kind of making that transition from tribal community to civilized community, for lack of a better term.
	And I know that people who study this observe that these tribes, they wouldn't just take over a tribe and kill everybody.
	That would sort of defeat the point.
	You want to absorb their resources, right, and grow your tribe in a way.
	But in the process of doing this, they would also not only acquire tangible physical resources, the people, the raw materials they had, but they would also acquire their technology.
	And so, it's almost like kind of like breeding but in terms of culture.
	So, tribes would just invade and fight and there was all this warring going on.
	These tribes would eventually coalesce into larger tribes.
	We'd get into civilizations and civilizations would fight with each other and the same pattern would repeat itself.
	You would destroy the other guy's army.
	You would take over a lot of their resources and a lot of their technology.
	And so, you know, maybe the Anglo-Saxon race just happened to be the strongest.
	You know, maybe they just happened to be...
	Wait, are you saying that the contributions of the Anglo-Saxon race have been violence?
	No, no, no.
	Don't put words in my mouth.
	You said strongest and you're talking about conquest.
	I don't think that's through chess, right?
	So, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
	I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
	I'm sort of explaining this in terms of principles of selection.
	But violence?
	Well, I mean, you can't deny that there was a lot of violence in history, even today.
	The cultures are fighting each other all the time.
	Okay, again, we have to step up our game here, Paul, a little.
	Of course, I'm not going to deny there was violence in history, but you're basically saying that the Anglo-Saxons had the most impact because they were the most violent.
	I mean, that's a thesis.
	I'm not offended by it.
	I mean, I don't represent the Anglo-Saxon race or anything.
	No, no, no.
	Because when two civilizations war against each other, we can start by the assumption that they're both being equally violent.
	We don't know who started it.
	We don't know who's defending, who's attacked, who's the aggressor.
	So let's just assume for now that if two civilizations are fighting, their level of violence is equal to each other.
	But nothing that I talked about in terms of contributions of Western Europe to world culture, none of them had anything to do with violence.
	In fact, they were generally the opposite of violence, right?
	The free market is the opposite.
	of conquest.
	Absolutely.
	And the scientific method is the opposite of religious warfare.
	And philosophy is the opposite of combat, right?
	And so what I'm talking about is the contributions are specifically those that tend to diminish violence.
	I mean, Western Europe ended the slave trade around the world.
	And so every example that I pointed out was...
	Yeah.
	And I'm like, we have a disconnect here because you can certainly reject my thesis, naturally, of course, right?
	But you can't ignore it.
	This is the constant thing I have to say to people, right?
	I put forward an argument and then you said – which was basically the primary contributions, right?
	I didn't put any military commanders, like – Pat and Achilles, and these were the guys, the real contributions.
	It was Francis Bacon and Schopenhauer, I don't think I mentioned, but philosophers and Aristotle and all these people.
	These were not military people.
	They were thinkers, philosophers, and so on.
	And so I put forward a thesis which says that the major contributions are peaceful, and you said, well, maybe it's because Anglo-Saxons are so violent.
	And it's like, well...
	No, no, no.
	I didn't say that.
	I didn't say they were violent.
	I said they won the wars.
	Well, you don't win wars by being peaceful, if I remember the end of the Second World War in particular.
	It was not...
	No Buddhist monks flying over Germany.
	And you were talking about rape and, I mean, this war.
	You're saying that war, you're saying, well, Anglo-Saxons are the best at war.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	So let me finish my thought.
	So I guess I'm just...
	Wait, no, you can't just say no, no, no, no.
	I mean, Mike, did I completely misunderstand?
	Maybe I misunderstood something.
	You did say that...
	The dominant culture will rape and absorb the technology from cultures that it essentially pillages, which involves a lot of violence.
	Yeah, so there's war, and the winner absorbs and expands the culture, right?
	So that's spreading through violence, right?
	It's not spreading through trade.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And so what you're saying, they weren't the most violent, but they were the most successful at using violence.
	Well, here's what I'm trying to get at.
	You're asking a question that can't be answered because you're essentially saying, your question was, why are most of these great advances coming from the Anglo-Saxon race?
	Whereas the way I see it is that contributions don't come from a race.
	I never said race.
	I said culture.
	You mentioned the Anglo-Saxon white.
	That's a race.
	I don't remember saying white.
	I remember saying Western European.
	Because, of course, there were lots of great people who've contributed to Anglo-Saxon culture who are not white.
	But anyway, let's just say culture.
	I think it's a little easier because there are far more people who are white who've not contributed anything, in fact, have detracted from Anglo-Saxon cultural achievements.
	And lots of non-whites who've done fantastically in that realm.
	So let's just say culture, I'd say.
	Okay.
	So, yeah, I guess I don't believe that we could attribute the successes that the culture has had, and you obviously agree with this, to a particular race.
	But what I was trying to contribute is the observation that in early times, and even today, There is still a lot of conflict between nations.
	And by the way, the most successful of these nations are the ones that after taking ownership or possession of that rule will not impose their cultural mandates on them.
	They essentially embrace the culture, the religion, and it's almost like, you know, Coca-Cola buying another soda brand or soda flavor and not changing the name to Coca-Cola.
	You know, it's called Fant or whatever.
	I'm sorry, I don't know what we're talking about at the moment.
	The question is, what were the differences between, say, Mexican culture and Anglo-Saxon culture?
	I don't know why we're talking about pop.
	When I get lost, I want to stop.
	Not because I want to interrupt or annoy you, but because I don't want to pretend that I know what you're talking about.
	It could be entirely my failure.
	This is great, Stefan.
	I've been looking forward to the day that I get schooled by the great Stefan Molyneux.
	So, thank you.
	Let's see.
	So, I'm trying to answer your question, which was, you were saying, why are most of the, I don't know what you said, cultural advances, modern cultural advances coming from the Western culture?
	That's your question, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And the answer I'm trying to get at is that the question is implying a falsehood.
	Which is that your question is implying that, in fact, most of the advances have come from Western civilization.
	And what I'm trying to get at is that that is not the case if you study history and the nature with which...
	If you study history, now you're getting very passive-aggressive, right?
	Right, because you're saying, well, Steph, if you study history, like, you know, I have a graduate degree in history, right?
	It's kind of annoying to be lectured to as, you know, well, Steph, you would never have this perspective if you'd studied history.
	That's even more passive-aggressive than saying Anglo-Saxons are successful because they're violent.
	No, no, no.
	I meant it in, like, the sort of, if anybody were to study history, not you, Stefan.
	Okay, well, then tell me all of the great ideas that come from non-European cultures.
	And I don't mean that there's none, right?
	But give me, let's say, something great philosophically that's come out of Mexico.
	It's not a subject that I'm...
	I'm particularly well-versed, and I don't know Mexican culture very well, but I'm sure that if you were to ask somebody from Mexico that question, they could give you plenty of examples.
	Okay, which country were you from?
	You don't have to tell me.
	So, you're from South America.
	So, tell me a great South American philosopher.
	I think most philosophers that I know of in South America have sort of taken on the embodiment of poet.
	So I don't know if you would qualify that as a philosopher or not.
	I would not.
	Because we already have the word poet.
	Yeah, I'm not a student of philosopher in general.
	Can you tell me of, let's say, a Greek philosopher?
	Well, sure.
	Socrates.
	Okay.
	See, you don't have to study philosophy to know some of the basics.
	Can you, say, think of a philosopher who came from Germany?
	Ayn Rand.
	Did I get that right?
	No, she's from Russia originally.
	But you've heard of Friedrich Nietzsche, right?
	Yes.
	Immanuel Kant, I think, was German.
	I think Hegel.
	I don't know the origins of all these guys, but I think that they were Germanic philosophers.
	Could you think of a philosopher who came out of France?
	Voltaire?
	See, France?
	Yeah, French, Sartre, Jacques Deradier, Descartes, right?
	So these are people that you would know, and the question is, can you think of philosophers who come from, can you think of a great philosopher who came out of Africa?
	No, but couldn't that just be part of my, the indoctrination that I've gone through?
	Wait, so are you saying that in South America you're indoctrinated according to Anglo-Saxon standards?
	I mean, good lord.
	We get everywhere.
	We're in the water.
	We're in the air.
	Global warming?
	No.
	It's all of the out-breath from all the propaganda spewed forth by Western Europeans.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Well, let's assume that you're right.
	Let's assume that, in fact, these were the greatest and only greatest philosophers.
	No, never said only greatest.
	I'm just saying proportionately.
	Right?
	I'm not saying exclusively.
	I'm saying proportionately.
	How would we even know?
	How would we even get close to knowing that?
	I mean, proportionally, yes, in terms of what we know.
	Yeah, yeah.
	In terms of what we know, compared to what?
	Things we don't know?
	Sure.
	That's my whole point, is that we don't know.
	Yeah.
	Well, anyway, what's your point, though?
	What are you getting at?
	Well, the first point is we can't argue for The intermingling of all cultures until we know why some cultures are more successful than other cultures.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	I mean, I don't know the answer.
	I have some theories, but I don't think anyone knows the answer.
	But we cannot counsel for all cultures to mingle until we know, A, whether all cultures are equally successful.
	And I think if we look around the world, I think we can look at some cultures that are not very successful.
	I don't think that a lot of people want ISIS fighters come swarming into their neighborhood, right?
	Is that a reasonable thing to say?
	Well, that's why I said that it would have to be nations that are part of the UN, and you're not going to let someone who's not in good standing come to your country, and you're not going to give that person a visa.
	So it would be a citizen in good standing from a country that's part of the UN, because we can clearly travel freely from country to country, right?
	No, no, no.
	We're not talking about the methodology of implementation.
	We're talking about, because what the hell, it's a philosophy show, right?
	I mean, I think I'd fall asleep trying to figure out how visa requirements should work in a country.
	I think so would my listeners.
	But I mean, it's a more fundamental question.
	Which is, first of all, we are not correct if we think that all cultures are equal.
	I agree.
	Right?
	We're just simply not.
	And until we know why some cultures are better than others and why some cultures are worse than others, we can't say, let's everybody mix.
	Right?
	So, for instance, I don't know, let's just make up a culture.
	Right?
	Thing-fangdom, right?
	Now, thing-fangdom culture is unbelievably toxic, right?
	They marry their cousins, they circumplise their children, they corporal punish, they view little girls as sexual concubines, particularly those little girls of other races and so on.
	Like, they're just really toxic, nasty.
	It's a toxic and nasty culture.
	Superstitious and violent and female oppressing or whatever, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	If we don't know why they are that way, then of course the great risk is like, let's open our gates to all these thing-thang-doms, right?
	The people from thing-thang, right?
	And they all come swarming in, and instead of the better culture making them better, they make the better culture worse.
	No, because they just go all to jail, because all their activities are illegal in the country.
	No, they don't!
	They don't go to jail!
	My God, have you not heard what's been going on with the Middle Eastern sex-grooming gangs in England?
	These guys operated for a decade!
	Yeah, well, that's absurd.
	I mean, that's a...
	It's not absurd!
	It's not that rare!
	This is not what happens.
	So we would have to operate from the assumption that our legal and enforcement system would just not work.
	No, no.
	I'm sorry to be annoying, Paul.
	We're going back to how would it work.
	What I'm saying is much more fundamentally, before we even think about how it works, we need to ask and answer the question, why are some cultures more successful than others?
	Now, unfortunately, No one's allowed to ask that question and no one's allowed to do any empirical research into that question because of political correctness and because of the multicultural emphasis on the word cult, the multicultural religion that is in the West.
	All cultures are equal and so on, right?
	But this is not true.
	I mean, all you have to do is look at the fucking footprints in the world and you know that not all cultures are equal.
	Not a lot of people from Albany, New York trying to get into Syria.
	And until we are actually allowed to ask these questions and do the empirical and objective research as to why some cultures are successful and why some cultures are not successful, the idea of mingling cultures is profoundly irresponsible.
	I mean, it's like...
	There was a guy I worked with up north who was too tough.
	He was too tough for water purification tablets.
	He didn't need them.
	The guy would take a straw and drink out of moose tracks.
	And it's like, naturally, he spent half his life, you know, throwing up.
	Anyway.
	So...
	This is...
	This question of, like, if you mix...
	Grossed up water with clear water.
	The grossed up water doesn't become clear.
	All that happens is you get the clear water is now grossed up.
	Until we can have historians, ethicists, Geneticists, biologists, cultural anthropologists, until we have an open arena to ask and answer these questions about the superiority and inferiority of various cultures around the world.
	Until that is an honest and open area of scientific exploration, Then the idea of who should move where and what should...
	To me, it doesn't...
	I mean, should you mix this water with that water?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	So, I don't agree.
	Can I explain why?
	Please?
	The idea of that sort of study, for us to engage in that sort of study, it just sounds dreadful.
	To me.
	Because...
	Oh, God.
	I mean, just even looking at what the scientific community is doing now and how, you know, anything that you pour money into can become dogmatic pretty quickly.
	And the more you invest into something, the harder it is to dispute any observations that that particular group has made.
	Well, no, no, but we do science, right?
	So, for instance, let's just say, let's look at the races.
	There are more successful races and there are less successful races.
	I don't know.
	Empirically, I'm not saying the why and I'm not saying it's because of race, but there are more successful races and there are less successful races.
	At the moment, in general, overall, tons of exceptions within each race, but I'm talking in general.
	Yeah, it's just so hard to talk about race that way.
	I know!
	No, no, no.
	I know!
	But what I mean is that nobody is really a particular race.
	I mean, we've mixed for thousands and thousands of years.
	Like, I'm part this, I'm part that, I'm part this.
	Wait, are you saying that an Australian outback can give birth to a Swedish kid?
	No, no, no.
	What I'm saying is that...
	That pygmies can give birth to an Asian kid?
	No, what I'm saying is that we're too mixed to label people as any particular race.
	No, that's not true.
	I would just use human.
	No, no, no.
	You've got to deal with the facts here.
	That's not true at all.
	So there's ways of genetically measuring race that are very clear.
	And the average person, they've done these experiments where they get the genetics of the races, and the races do differ genetically.
	And they figure out which race.
	Of course there's mixed races.
	Of course I understand that, right?
	And, you know, with dogs, there are mongrels, right?
	That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a particular race or another species or subspecies of dog.
	So they do these tests where they test the genetics of the race.
	And then what they do is they have the average person look at photographs and say, what race do you think this is?
	And it's like 96, 97, 98% of the time, the observations of the people match the genetics of the race perfectly accurately.
	And so the idea that race is like we're all just so into bread is not valid.
	There are genetic differences between the races and people are very good at figuring out.
	I mean, I just looked up this study today because somebody asked me a question.
	And, you know, three-month-old babies recognize and prefer their own races.
	And, you know, I don't know how much social conditioning they've had in three months.
	I don't know.
	But the idea that we're all one race is not true.
	I mean, it's not even close to true.
	And the idea that we can't figure out which race is which is also not true.
	Yeah, there's some gray areas, so to speak.
	But for the vast majority of cases, it's pretty clear.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So I think this is just an area where you and I... No, no.
	I've given you studies and data.
	You can disagree with the data, but don't pretend it's me you're disagreeing.
	No, no, no.
	I don't disagree with data.
	Obviously, we're different genetically, and a lot of that has to do with where our ancestors lived on the planet, right?
	A lot of it has to do with geographic location, weather conditions, climate, those sort of things.
	I'm correct in saying that, right?
	I'm sorry, can you say why the races would have diverged genetically?
	No, what I'm saying is this observation that we have about people looking different that we refer to as race is a product of the ancestors of that particular person and where they came from geographically on planet Earth.
	They didn't come from another planet, in other words.
	They came from planet Earth.
	I mean, the three major races, right?
	The...
	The whites, blacks, and Asians, for want of a better delineation, split off genetically, I think, about 50,000 years ago in general.
	And, of course, the whites went to Northwest Europe, and the Asians went up to Siberia, and the blacks stayed, of course, in Africa.
	And these are obviously very big, broad generalizations.
	But, yeah, they were about 50,000 years' worth of adaptation to specific geographical locales that were enormously different.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	In just about every conceivable way.
	And my understanding, this is all off the top of my head, so this could be erroneous to some degree, but my understanding is that races differ about 15% of the genes that differentiate race, separate but my understanding is that races differ about 15% of the genes And I think for dogs, about 30%, which is why dogs are just so freakily different that sometimes I don't even think that they're dogs.
	So yeah, there was about 50,000 years of evolution that produced about a 15% genetic difference between the races.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So, essentially, we all came from the same place, but we split.
	We developed different cultural habits, which probably led to different breeding preferences.
	And we gradually, over time, because some had more exposure to sun, some had less, etc., we physically developed different attributes.
	But I think it's an erroneous approach to somehow assume that those differences that are merely physical are worth measuring in terms of better or worse.
	Well, no.
	I mean, in terms of adaptation, there's no such thing as a better or worse race, right?
	There's no race that's superior to any other race.
	I've said this before on the show.
	It's like saying that the brown fur of a brown bear is superior to the white fur of a polar bear.
	Well, it's not.
	They're just adaptations to their environment, and there's no superiority or inferiority for those things.
	So, I mean, more successful or less successful cultures, I think you can sort of measure in terms of longevity and wealth and infant mortality and stability, rule of law, and so on, right?
	But you – but for this to be irrelevant – Oh, hang on.
	Mike has a...
	Oh my god, Mike.
	Facts?
	I know.
	Wait!
	Mike, he's breaking up!
	He's breaking up!
	Oh no!
	Seems like you were pretty right about the 15% from memory.
	Oh, wow.
	Good for me.
	Mm-hmm.
	In 1972, Richard Lewontin – sounds like a racist to me – performed an FST statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins.
	He found that the majority of genetic differences between humans, 85.4%, were found within a population, 8.3% were found between populations within a race, and 6.3% were found to differentiate races, Caucasian, African, Mongoloids, South Asian, Aboriginals, Amerinds, Oceanians.
	Oh, Aquaman!
	And Australian Aborigines in his study.
	Since then, other analyses have found FSC values of 6-10% between continental human groups, 5-15% between different populations on the same continent, and 75-85% within populations.
	Okay, so there are genetic differences, and I don't know whether these genetic differences are relevant to the success or failure of various cultures and races.
	I don't know.
	And One of the reasons I don't know is people who want to try and find out any facts about this are just screamed down as bigots and racists or whatever, right?
	And I think that's a shame.
	I think that's a shame because why would people be afraid of knowledge?
	Why would people be afraid of facts, right?
	We had this guy, Dr.
	Kevin Beaver on, and we were talking about the standard deviation difference in IQ between Whites in America and blacks in America, standard deviation difference in IQ. There's a difference between an IQ average of 100 for whites and an IQ average of 85 for blacks.
	Kevin Beaver was on talking about it.
	We had Professor Flynn on talking about it.
	He said right on the show, he said, no, you can't research.
	You cannot research it.
	Look what happened with Charles Murray and the late Richard Bernstein.
	Who put out the bell curve in the 90s, screamed down as racist and this and that and the other, right?
	So, I mean, I don't know why.
	If there are no differences that have to do with intelligence that are biological, let's eliminate that.
	Let's take it off.
	Let's explore it.
	Let's examine it.
	Let's eliminate it.
	Of course, that would be the responsible thing to do.
	That would be the responsible thing to do.
	And the idea that somehow the human brain is immune from evolutionary pressures seems to me entirely anti-scientific.
	You know, like every time I put out these videos that point out some reason to have some doubts about some of the data behind global warming, I'd be, oh, Steph's so anti-scientific!
	It's like, well, no, I think skepticism is sort of the point of science and I've never said it's not happening or it's not real or anything like that, but, you know, There's some shaky stuff that's supporting it, and I think it's worth pointing it out.
	And liberals are often complaining that, I'm not a conservative, but, you know, the conservatives are anti-science and so on.
	But when it comes to studying genetics and race or genetics and the brain and so on, you can't do it.
	But why?
	I mean, let's do it.
	Let's eliminate it.
	Because if, look, this is a huge challenge to evolution.
	If the brains of the races are identical, If the brains of the different races are identical, I am going to become religious.
	Because that would be such a staggering blow against evolution.
	That the most expensive organ that human beings possess, the one that consumes the most resources in our body, that that most expensive organ It's immune from evolutionary pressure such that a 50,000 year split, and they've shown in the people who live in Tibet, just within a couple of thousand years, there have been significant adaptations to high altitude living.
	Jewish intelligence began to really climb the roof just a couple of hundred years ago.
	And so there's genetic changes occurring even within a few thousand years.
	If wildly divergent environments, all the way from the unbelievable snows and endless winters of Siberia, all the way to the hot tropical jungles of Africa, if the human brain has had no change in 50,000 years with wildly divergent environments, I'm going to become a priest.
	Because that's just like, wow, then evolution makes no sense.
	And look, if there is no difference, that should be very easy to ascertain.
	Very easy to ascertain.
	Just MRI scans of a variety of different races and see if the brain sizes are different.
	And for people who want to look up those studies, they've all been done and You can go and look up the information yourself.
	The 50 or 60 significant differences between the races, nobody can talk about.
	Nobody can talk about.
	And this is tragic.
	And that's so racist to me.
	It's incredibly racist to say we can't study the races.
	Because what you're saying is we can't study the races because we're afraid of what we might find.
	And it's like, no.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No.
	We cannot be afraid of knowledge.
	That is superstitious.
	That is medieval.
	It's worse than medieval.
	I mean, there were scholastics in the Middle Ages.
	Why would we be afraid of knowledge?
	Why would we be afraid of studying things that are very, very important in a particular group and in a particular group of society that's trying to live together?
	I'm curious, for you in particular, since this obviously does make you uncomfortable, why does it make you?
	Yeah, well, I'll tell you what.
	I don't think there's anything wrong with studying races, but I think what's wrong is for the thesis of your study to measure who's better at this versus IQ points.
	You mentioned IQ points, so who has more IQ points?
	I don't think that's useful.
	At all.
	And there's, I think, a number of reasons, but one of them, I think, is one of the fundamental flaws that I see in a lot of studies done in general, which is that, you know, if you're going to use...
	A metric ruler to measure something, your result is going to be centimeters.
	In other words, my point there is that what you measure is really going to depend on the tool that you're using to measure it.
	And I think this is sort of the fundamental It's a flaw that science has that scientists are really blind to.
	And they assume that everything that they've measured somehow has some sort of absolute value or meaning.
	I realize this is more philosophical than scientific.
	No, but sorry.
	I'm sorry because, again, I'm not sure what we're talking about again.
	So let's just talk about the IQ test.
	Are you saying that the IQ test is unfair?
	Or is it culturally biased?
	I think it's really easy for something like that to fall into error.
	Because, first of all, the methodology that is used to measure something as ambiguous as IQ... I'm sorry, why is IQ ambiguous?
	Well, IQ is a fabrication.
	How would you define IQ? IQ is the number you get from taking an IQ test.
	It's the number you get from taking a random IQ test that somebody created.
	Hang on.
	What do you mean random IQ test?
	Well, it's somebody created the test, right?
	A human being created the test to measure what they believe to be intellectual coefficients.
	I'm assuming that's what IQ means.
	Well, it's designed to measure intelligence, obviously, right?
	Well, how can you say that measures intelligence?
	That seems like a really limited understanding of intelligence.
	A very limited understanding of intelligence.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	But you'd know the IQ test was not valid if it had no correlation to success in life.
	So for instance, if high IQ people didn't get into college and low IQ people did and high IQ people ended up making less money than low IQ people and high IQ people and low IQ – if high IQ people had shorter lifespans and made poorer choices in life than low IQ people and all, then you'd say, well, this test is terrible.
	It's like negative correlations or whatever.
	Maybe you just reverse the test or something.
	But IQ does.
	IQ tests obviously don't measure the whole person.
	No question of that, right?
	But IQ is very predictive of life success.
	And it's relatively stable, in fact, significantly stable throughout life.
	And so it is measuring something that is important.
	Like I shared the other day this chart.
	And the chart is like IQ and income.
	And...
	It's crazy how linear it is.
	The higher your IQ, the higher your income.
	And so IQ is measuring something.
	It's not just a random grab bag.
	Can I give you my argument as to why I think you're wrong?
	Well, why the data is wrong?
	I'm reporting data and you keep trying to personalize it.
	I'm sorry.
	I hope you don't mind me.
	No, I love this chat.
	I'm really enjoying myself, so I hope you're enjoying it.
	Me too.
	This is not really related, but I'd like to use it as an analogy.
	People talk about karma.
	Yeah, you've heard about karma.
	And if you do good things, good things will happen.
	In fact, the new Microsoft CEO got into really big trouble telling people that you should just work on doing good things because good karma will eventually lead to getting a raise and not ask your manager for a raise.
	You should just work on your karma.
	So something like that.
	And he got into a lot of trouble.
	I haven't heard about that.
	Anyway.
	The whole karma thing really upsets me because essentially I feel like I can...
	Are we drifting a little here?
	I'm trying to figure out why we're talking about karma.
	No, no, no.
	Okay, so people say...
	You know the concept of karma, right?
	Yeah, the idea that you do good things and good things like there's an implicit reciprocity that happens in the universe that you do good things.
	Yeah, and so if that were true, wouldn't I be able to tell that person, okay, so the top 0.01% most successful people in the world that own most of the world's wealth, they must be really moral people.
	They must have really great karma, right?
	Which is probably not...
	I don't know.
	Maybe it's the case.
	I don't know if that's been studied.
	I don't know if morality has been studied among the wealthy.
	But it's usually the case that that is not the case.
	And so I guess what I'm trying to say is...
	No, but if there was an MQ, morality quotient, right?
	If there was an MQ and it almost perfectly correlated with increased income, then we could say that there's a very strong correlation between MQ and income, between one's morality and one's income.
	Now, clearly, that's not the case in the world as it stands.
	But intelligence and income are very highly correlated.
	And they're not...
	Specific to socioeconomic status, right?
	Because you could say, well, you know, the thing is, you see, like, there are high IQ parents and they have children of average IQ, but they're so good at getting them contacts and telling them how to negotiate the business world and so on, like Bill Gates, right, when he's negotiating with IBM. Fucking dad is a patent lawyer who's on the phone with him in the next room.
	That's quite helpful, right?
	And so there's this idea that, you know, they're having average IQ kids, but it's not the case because high IQ children from very poor socioeconomic status environments do vastly better than low IQ children from higher socioeconomic status environments.
	So the Good Will Hunting, right?
	The genius in the trailer park ends up doing vastly better than the person of average or below average IQ who's born in the Hamptons.
	Yeah, and I think that could be possibly because we've devised a system that rewards a certain kind of intelligence.
	I don't know.
	I mean, that might be a stretch.
	Well, the system is called customers in general, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, would you rather have a very intelligent surgeon or a surgeon with an IQ of 90?
	Absolutely.
	Right?
	Would you rather have a very intelligent lawyer defending you against a criminal charge or would you rather have a not intelligent lawyer?
	I mean, it's not just a system, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, you wouldn't be listening to this show if I had an IQ of 98, right?
	You probably have a much higher IQ if it were measured correctly.
	um But my question is, though, and again, I appreciate you.
	I know this is uncomfortable stuff for some people, and I appreciate that.
	And I'll tell you why I think it's important outside of this sort of mixing of countries and so on in a sec.
	But you have a pushback against this, and my question is why.
	And I'm not saying you could be right.
	Maybe, I mean, the idea that IQs are culturally biased, which I know you haven't brought up, is way incorrect.
	I mean, for instance, as you probably know, Asians score higher than whites.
	I don't think they're Rachel Dolezal-type whites who were just pretending to be white but were actually Asian with the contacts in blonde wigs or something like that.
	Google got in trouble for being not multicultural, not diverse enough and so on, right?
	But they only did that because they counted Asians as whites because Asians proportionately vastly outstrip whites at Google, right?
	Because Asians have, on average, 105 to 106 in IQ. And one of the reasons that that's guessed at, or, you know, I don't know if it's ever been proven or not, is because they lived in the harshest environment where less intelligent behavior was more savagely punished genetically.
	And so, as things got colder, the intelligence requirement to survive was higher, where there was still agriculture and that possible.
	And...
	So Asians do better on, quote, white IQ tests than whites do, and there are plenty of IQ tests that require no language at all, mere symbols.
	And the other thing, too, is that IQ tests also correlate to reaction times, right?
	To simple, like, measuring the basic reaction time of the brain, where it's like...
	Push a button when this happens, that kind of stuff, right?
	IQ is quite strongly correlated with reaction times in the brain, so IQ is measuring some particular kind of brain capacity.
	We would assume that the faster the brain, to some degree, the greater the capacity for intelligence, and that does seem to work out.
	IQ also seems to correlate with brain size.
	not insignificantly either and again it's not 100 percent or anything like that but they've they're pretty good at measure these double way brains after people were dead right and cut them out and all that but now they can of course measure the size of brains with them MRIs and other scanning devices and lo and behold IQ is also correlated to to brain size so IQ is not just some mad if the ass if statisticians number
	It does seem to be measuring a very real capacity that correlates with a variety of other measures, income, educational achievement.
	Marital stability, longevity, brain reaction time, size of brain, complexity of brain structure, these all correlate together.
	It is not just a made up culturally obtuse number.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	I want to make sure that you know that I agree with that.
	And I agree with those observations and the scientific results from those tests and the correlations that are being concluded.
	What I'm saying is that an IQ test isn't necessarily a complete value of someone's intelligence.
	Why do you keep pushing back on this?
	This is what I need to understand because, of course, I just told you already why you have this emotional pushback.
	That's what I want to understand.
	I'm not saying you shouldn't.
	Maybe I should.
	I'll answer that question.
	I've already said, of course, it's not a complete measure of the person.
	Now you're saying, well, I agree with all that, but I want to make sure you understand it's not a complete...
	Why is there this pushback?
	No, no, because it sounded like you understood that I was saying that I didn't agree that IQ was a measure of anything.
	But I do.
	I agree that it is.
	But then you have to say but.
	But it doesn't...
	Like, why is there the pushback, right?
	If I said height is used to measure someone's height and you say, well, yes, but it's not used to measure someone's weight directly, that would be like, well, why?
	Let me explain why.
	So why is it making you uncomfortable?
	Let me explain why, because these things are true that you're saying.
	The problem, and this is going to help me answer the question that you originally asked, which is why I'm uncomfortable with this, is that you're associating value with You're attributing value, as in valuable, as in a person can be seen as being a better contributor to their community, better this, better that, and overall a better human being because...
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Better human being?
	No, no.
	I know you didn't say these things.
	When did I say any of that?
	No, no, no.
	You're attributing value in the statements that you're making.
	No, no.
	I said they make more money.
	I'm not attributing economic value.
	I'm passing along to you the information that higher IQ people make more money.
	Okay, okay, you're right.
	You're not stating these things.
	But the problem, this is going to help me answer the question that you asked, which is that these measurements can lead to people associating value with different people from different backgrounds.
	And so if this information were to just kind of get thrown out there, let's say somebody conducts a study with all the flaws that we would assume any human-made study could have, And sure, it defines this race as having more IQ than this other race.
	When you look at the current state of at least the United States has with regards to race and the number of people in the country that are aggressively racist, right?
	We know that this exists, that there is an aggressive There's a segment of the society that is aggressively racist, and this is on both sides, you know, or three sides or four sides.
	I mean, there's a small minority of people who are racist and they can be aggressive.
	And so I think the reason you want to tread lightly when you're conducting these studies is, number one, my point was these studies aren't complete in my view.
	They can't really measure the full value and intelligence of somebody, but let's assume that they've measured a sizable amount of intelligence accurately.
	And you do.
	Someone has a percentage more than...
	Let's say it's 0.1% more.
	This person is 0.1% more than that person over there.
	And that could have been some sort of rounding error in the study.
	These people that hate and these people that have an aggressive racism toward a particular race will use that.
	Will use that to help fuel and justify their actions.
	So I think this is why...
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Okay, hang on.
	Oh my God.
	I think what you're saying is great, right?
	So I'm not in exasperation telling you to hang on.
	But I don't think you see the problem with what you're saying.
	And I agree with you.
	This could happen.
	This could happen.
	But I don't think that...
	The alternative is not...
	A non-racist society.
	The alternative is an even more racist society.
	The alternative to facts is an even more racist society.
	Do you want to know how?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Let's say, this is pure speculation, let's say that black IQ differentials are largely genetic.
	It's just a hypothesis.
	I'd love to eliminate that possibility.
	I'd love for it to be studied.
	I'd love for it to be dismissed.
	I'd love for it to be completely eliminated.
	And it pisses me off that people won't just let that happen.
	Because there's lots of people out there.
	Trust me, I do these videos on race.
	I mean, I see some of the comments.
	There are lots of people out there who think this is the case beyond the shadow of a doubt.
	And because nobody's allowed to study it, it feeds into it.
	Those beliefs.
	Right?
	There are countless people out there who believe that blacks are inferior intellectually, genetically.
	And because nobody's allowed to study this, we don't have the data to say, you bigots, you're wrong!
	So avoiding the information does not solve the problem.
	What it does is it says to the racists who believe it's all genetic, Well, of course, you're not allowed to study it because everybody knows it's true and they don't want to confirm it.
	It doesn't solve the problem, right?
	That's number one.
	Number two, let's say, and this is a heartbreaking scenario, and I'm not saying it's true, but let's say they do the research, and they find out, oh my goodness, wow, you know?
	Compared to Asians, you know, the brains of black people have a cup-sized difference and like all these problems or whatever, right?
	And let's say that they find genetic differences or whatever, right?
	It could be testosterone-based.
	I don't know, right?
	And let's say that they do find out that there's strengths and weaknesses in all the races, right?
	I mean, again, it's completely ridiculous and absolutely ridiculous.
	Wrong, anti-scientific, and as damn close to immoral as you could say, imagine, to say that any one race is superior to any other race.
	I think that's absolutely wrong, immoral, and totally unjustified to state.
	Because there is no such thing when it comes to adaptation as superior or inferior.
	The fact that blacks dominate short-distance running It's not an argument for black racial superiority.
	It just doesn't make any sense, right?
	The fact that there are lots of blacks in the NBA. The fact that there aren't many black Olympic swimmers in no way argues for any kind of inferiority or superiority.
	I just want to put that out, right?
	Very, very clear.
	I agree.
	Okay.
	So, but let's say that they look at intellectual capacity and they find out that blacks, you know, they got some benefits.
	This is not one of them, right, in terms of the evolutionary split.
	Well, if that is true, and like everyone, I hope to hell it's not, but if that is true, then that goes a long way towards explaining why blacks are doing badly.
	Now, and again, overall, in general, right?
	I mean, I've been hugely influenced by black intellectuals, and, you know, quality is quality no matter what it's wrapped in, right?
	But...
	My daughter is going to grow up into a world where she's going to be called part of a racist structure.
	Right?
	She's going to be accused of having white privilege, and she's going to be called part of a racist power structure that oppresses blacks.
	Right?
	Now, if it turns out to be true, and again, I hope it doesn't, but if it does turn out to be true, that blacks have a deficiency in aggregate, a deficiency in capacity intellectually, then that would explain to a large degree why they're not doing as well.
	If that is true but nobody's allowed to talk about it, what is the only other explanation as to why blacks are doing badly?
	The only other explanation as to why blacks are doing badly Is white racism.
	You see, you don't solve the problem of racism by not studying the facts.
	All you do is you shift it and make it worse.
	It's like, if there is, and again, Charles Murray has got these arguments, he's got a great debate with Professor Flynn online, and I don't pretend to know what the hell the answer is.
	I'm a podcaster, right?
	But it is important because white people and white societies get blamed for black deficiencies.
	And there's potential evidence, which nobody's allowed to study, that says this may not be the entire answer.
	Now, if it is not the entire answer, if white racism isn't the entire answer, but there are genetic differences between the races that have an effect on success, if there are genetic differences that aren't understood and explored and explained, then what happens is white people get screened at for being racist for things that white people have no control over whatsoever.
	Not a lot of Asians in the NBA. Is that because of racism?
	No, it's because Asians in general are short.
	Doesn't mean you can't have Asian people in the NBA, it just means in aggregate.
	But if everyone were to scream at the NBA owners for being anti-Asian, what would they say?
	Yeah, I agree.
	I'm not anti-Asian, but it all helps, right?
	And so if brain structures are different between the races, for better or for worse, and everything is a cost and a benefit, right?
	Everything is a cost and a benefit.
	And my problem is that I don't want myself, my friends, my daughter, I don't want my entire culture and history and race.
	Being called racist if the problems are beyond our control.
	That is racist in and of itself.
	It is absolutely unfair to scream racism at NBA owners because they don't hire enough Asians.
	And it is absolutely wrong if they turn out to be genetic differences.
	It is absolutely wrong to scream racism at white people For facts of reality that are beyond anybody's control.
	You end up being horribly racist against white people and accusing them of all these terrible things when it may be, hope it isn't, but it may be the case.
	And it's not white people's fault!
	You bring up something really important, which is there is this disparity in wealth, social economic status, and you can correlate that to race, right?
	No, no, no, no.
	You can't correlate that to race.
	This is what I'm saying.
	You can correlate it to IQ. So an Asian with an IQ of 85 makes about as much money as a white person with an IQ of 85 makes about as much money as a black person with an IQ of 85.
	A black person with an IQ, I don't know what Tom Sowell's IQ is.
	I just put a little infinity symbol next to the guy because he's just brilliant.
	You ask him any question, he'll come up with an answer that will just blow your mind wide open, right?
	I don't know.
	Does Tom Sowell, for those who don't know, he's a black economist.
	I think he teaches at Harvard.
	I mean, the guy's got to have an IQ of, I don't know, 150, 160.
	I don't know.
	Maybe more.
	Who knows, right?
	Maybe he knows.
	I don't know.
	But Tom Sowell, a black man with an IQ of 160, makes about as much money as an Asian man with an IQ of 160, makes about as much money as a white man with an IQ of 160.
	Right?
	In other words, you can't say that the NBA is segregated by race.
	No.
	Is segregated by height and other physical characteristics which we don't really have to bore everyone with, right?
	And so it's not race that is the differentiator when it comes to social success, but it seems to be.
	IQ is one of the primary ones.
	I see.
	Yeah.
	And I think it's a good problem to study, but if you're going to study it, IQ doesn't seem like a good place to start.
	Well, I guess I don't know.
	You're driving me crazy here.
	Do you have anything except a butt?
	We're the baby.
	I mean, because you're like, I've made a very strong case.
	Is it air-clad?
	No.
	Is it iron-clad, airtight?
	No.
	But it's a strong case as to why IQ is important, because how do we know that, say, blacks are doing worse?
	Because Asians do better than whites.
	In white countries, those racist bastards are Asiatic overlords about to take over, right?
	And Asians test very well In spatial intelligence, which is why the Asian engineer is not, right?
	I mean, so I've made a pretty strong case, and now you're just telling me, I don't think we should study it, because...
	No, no, no.
	I mean, but you can't just say that.
	The way that you have a debate is you tell me how I'm wrong.
	You don't just say that I'm wrong.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So you're...
	And I think it's totally valid to study IQ in the way that you're describing.
	But earlier on, you were...
	You were explaining that there's value in studying IQ as it pertains to race.
	Just earlier now, you were saying, okay, someone that's from Asia and has an 80% IQ and someone that's from North America.
	If you take all these different races and they all have the same IQ, then it leads to the same results, then that's great.
	You're basically studying IQ irrespective of race.
	I think that's a fine study.
	Wait, hang on.
	To study IQ irrespective of race, you'd have to only study the IQ within one race, which would be racist.
	What I mean is the study isn't trying to...
	Can't have any blacks, can't have any Asians, only white people.
	I want to see blue eyes and I want to see a complete inability to dance.
	Then we'll study you, right?
	I mean, that wouldn't be...
	No, no, that's not what I meant.
	That wouldn't be the way you'd want to approach it, right?
	What I meant is you're studying IQ across the races, but you're not taking 10 people from this race and 10 people from that race, doing an IQ test on the 10 of each group and saying, oh, this one got more points, therefore that race tends to have a better IQ. That's the thing that...
	Hang on, but why couldn't you study that?
	Well, that's the thing I'm objecting to, right?
	I'm not objecting to the study of IQ and how it relates to success and wealth and blah, blah, blah, all those things.
	I'm sure there's a lot of value to that.
	And I think what would be more valuable, actually, once that study has been done is to...
	And you've done some videos about this, which is the degree to which one can impact one's own IQ, whether it's through the upbringing of our children...
	The things we read, the things we study, the activities that we engage in.
	I think that would be part, for me, that would be the part two of that study.
	And rather than saying, okay, let's take 10 from this race and 10 from that race and see how they fare.
	No, no.
	These studies are already done.
	No, I know.
	No, no.
	I don't think you do because you're saying, well, we shouldn't do this.
	It's been done for over 100 years, starting, I think it was in 1908.
	The American army did IQ tests to figure out not only who could be in the army, but whether they should be put in an officer track or general infantry track or whatever, right?
	So, from 1908...
	Well, intelligence tests were done long before that, but I think it was 1908.
	So there's more than 100 years of IQ data, wildly and widely cross-racial.
	Millions and millions of people of various races have had IQ tests, and those IQ tests have then been correlated with success in the military, right?
	So what they're trying to do is figure out, well, where should we aim to have this person end up, right?
	And so you don't want to say to somebody who tests IQ 90, We're going to aim to get you to be, you know, major general, right?
	Because it's not likely to happen, right?
	At the same time, you don't want to say to somebody who's got an IQ of 120, you know, we're going to make you a runner at the front or something like that, right?
	You want to use your resources, even in the military, God help them, you want to use your resources as intelligently as possible.
	And so they have tried to, they've done these intelligence tests, and they have studied the results.
	Because they don't want to make mistakes, because they don't want to misuse their resources, right?
	And so they do these IQ tests, and then they see where people end up.
	And then they tweak the IQ tests a little bit, and this has to be done because of rising IQs in general.
	But they do these IQ tests and they tweak this data and they do the IQ test and they tweak the data and so on.
	And this is just one of literally thousands of IQ studies that have already been done across a variety of cultures and a variety of races.
	There's probably as much data, if not more data, with regards to IQ and race, IQ and country, IQ and culture, IQ and gender.
	It's about as much, because it's a pretty easy test to administer it.
	And it doesn't rely on self-reporting, which is like the bane, you know, do you love your kids?
	Yes, say all the parents, right?
	And so it is probably one of the areas in the social sciences where there is the most data possible.
	And so the idea that we should or shouldn't do these tests, I think, is kind of irrelevant because, you know, you're standing in front of a city saying, well, I'm not sure whether we should build this city, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And when you attributed value to these studies, you had suggested that it would help somehow the debate on race because white people wouldn't just be called racist or something like that.
	Is that the only outcome that you see coming out of this information?
	I'm trying to figure out what is the value In ascertaining this information, because I'm trying to flip the tables around and just pretend, let's say, that everything was reversed in the United States.
	That it was the white Caucasian population that was...
	In poverty and in social conditions similar to what the African-American population is going through right now.
	And those who are dominant would be the African-American population.
	And they conducted a study that said that, yeah, sure enough, my Caucasian IQ is just not that high and that's why I'm stuck, you know, in these conditions.
	First of all, how does that help me?
	Because ultimately what we're trying to solve is to make sure that everybody is...
	Well, I don't know.
	I don't know what we're trying to solve, I guess, with this.
	What we're trying to solve is to make sure we have a problem that can be solved.
	What is the problem in your view?
	Lack underachievement.
	Because if it's all white racism, culture, of course you can't call it white racism because that doesn't explain why certain black populations do quite well and it also doesn't explain why Asians do better than whites in supposedly white countries, right?
	So it's not just saying white racism is...
	Dare I say it, a whitewash, right?
	Because we're really bad racists towards Orientals.
	We seem to have gotten this racism thing figured out with blacks, but just, boy, we're just really terrible at being racist with Asians.
	That's just wretched, right?
	But we need to know because...
	If there are genetic components to it, maybe there are genetic therapies for it.
	Maybe there are things that can be done.
	You know how people get tests before they're born to look for genetic problems and so on.
	I don't know.
	I'm purely theorizing, right?
	Maybe there's something that can be done to improve it.
	Maybe there's some kind of intervention that can do some kind of gene therapy.
	I don't know what.
	Maybe there's something epigenetically That can be done to work on the problem.
	But if everyone is simply screaming white racism, if the problem turns out to have a somewhat significant genetic component, and I don't know what the answer is, but the evidence does not preclude that, that I've read.
	And again, what do I know?
	I'm no expert, right?
	But there's very smart people who say we can't rule it out.
	Again, I know that's an argument from authority, but But because nobody's allowed to study it, it's really annoying because we can't seem to get any answers.
	So if there are genetic components to black underachievement, let's figure that out so that we can figure out the best things to do.
	I mean, the suggestions that I've put out, I've always said from the very beginning, let's work as if there are no genetic components to it.
	But screaming white racism is not going to prevent black kids from getting hit a lot more than white kids.
	I agree.
	Screaming white racism is not going to magically make black families intact the way that they were in the 1950s relative to now.
	You're right.
	It does the opposite, in fact.
	It does the opposite, right?
	And screaming white racism makes people very angry at whites.
	I mean, in a lot of places in America, it's pretty dangerous to To be walking about while white.
	Right, right, right.
	Because there's lots of people screaming that white people are just evil, sadistic oppressors.
	And, you know, they're telling the blacks that white people, like, we wake up in the morning, and before we piss and brush our teeth, we're just figuring out how we can keep...
	Black people down.
	That's our fucking mission in life.
	That's what we wake up.
	We don't have dentist appointments.
	We don't have to pay our taxes.
	We just got this secret cabal handshake of keeping down one particular section of the population.
	And if you say to a particular section of the population, those evil bastards are oppressing you and you repeat it and you repeat it and you repeat it and you repeat it, well...
	You get some pretty fucking ugly blowback.
	Totally agree.
	As we saw recently, right?
	And furthermore, the problem with victimhood in general is you get this story put in your head that you can't do anything about your circumstances.
	And essentially, you dispower the person from the ability to make a choice.
	Especially if white racism isn't the problem, or at least not a significant problem, then you end up saying you've got to go deal with this imaginary problem rather than...
	Work on improving your parenting, work on staying together, right, and all that.
	Sorry, Grant.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, I agree.
	And I like what you said a few sentences earlier about it's better to start from the premise that let's assume it's not genetic and that we're going to other things that would help solve these problems.
	But...
	But still study it, because nobody can confirm that it's not.
	It would be ridiculous to say that it's not.
	Some people say that it is, and there's also varying degrees.
	Nobody's saying it's 100%.
	I don't know anyone who absolutely confirms that it's 0% genetic.
	We shouldn't be afraid of information.
	Obviously, it's some combination, right?
	And we should work on the things, you know, God grant me the wisdom, right?
	God grant me the courage to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	It's not a bad prayer.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And we just—the fact that nobody's allowed to study it without being screamed at racist is— It means that racism has become a kind of religion that is terrified of the truth.
	The race industry has become a cult that is radically hostile towards any encroachments of science.
	It's not that ridiculously complicated to do.
	You measure brain size, you measure reaction times, you measure IQ, you correlate socioeconomic status, and you look for, you know, we've got the genome project going along.
	You also look for things like testosterone.
	Are there testosterone production differences between the races?
	Well, apparently there are.
	Does that have a factor in impulsivity and so on?
	You look at, and that's just on the genetic side.
	Are there any other biological factors that may have something to do with success or lack of success, economically speaking, within particular environments?
	And again, white people suck at being Africans.
	I mean, before modern medicine, right?
	I mean, you know, a white person walks into an African jungle and, you know, like 4,000 different viruses, bugs, and animals are like, yo, tasty pale meat for breakfast, right?
	So, it's not a matter of superior or inferior or anything like that, but this stuff would be that, and you would look for any genetic markers that may have anything to do with intelligence, right?
	And once you've got the IQ differential, you look for genetic markers in Asians, you look for genetic markers in whites, you look for genetic markers in blacks and other groups, and you look for various prevalences.
	Now, most of this work has already been done and is regularly discussed in the professional literature.
	In the magazines or the newsletters or the journals.
	Sorry, the journals is what I'm thinking of.
	It's not like you get them on your iPad.
	But the journals are all talking about this stuff between and among the academics.
	And nobody, nobody should be afraid of a rational examination of these issues.
	Because if we are foundationally focusing on On a red herring, we are going to fail.
	We are going to fail as a society.
	And that is, you know, how can we say that it doesn't matter the degree to which various racial differences may be genetic?
	Of course it matters because we make massive, massive social, legal, economic, and political decisions.
	Based on the premise that it's all white racism.
	Well, excuse me if I find that just a little bit fucking offensive.
	That my entire culture and history is damned as racist.
	And I'm not supposed to say, whoa, can we at least study some facts here?
	No!
	Because facts could be racist as well.
	It's like, that's not...
	You're not playing fair, right?
	That's not how knowledge and progress works, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And just to be clear, I didn't say that studying it would be racist.
	It's just my concern is how racists could use this study.
	But I agree.
	Racists are using the lack of studies.
	Racists on blacks are using the lack of studies to say it's all white racism.
	And white racists are using the lack of studies to say, well, you see, they're not studying it because they know it's true and nobody wants to say it.
	Right.
	Right.
	Pretending that it's not there doesn't solve the problem.
	Yeah.
	This giant thing, growth on my back, I'll just wear a shirt and pretend it.
	Like, how well is that going to work?
	Yeah.
	I also thought there might be another concern to the resistance to these studies.
	I mean, I don't know that there isn't...
	The only reason I know of there being a resistance to the studies is because you brought it up.
	So I don't know if...
	To what degree people are resistant to these studies.
	But if in fact there is, it could also be because of people's, I don't know, there was this, what was the movie where everybody was tested genetically ahead of time from birth and that sort of determined where you were going to be placed in society.
	Oh, Gattaca, wasn't it?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, the two brothers.
	No, but we already have a sorting mechanism called the free market.
	It does it without any government intervention, right?
	Yeah, well, you've pointed out the free market is in a lot of trouble.
	With a lot of how the government is controlling quotas for this, quotas for that, laws for this, laws for that, and even the monetary system isn't really indicative of… But partly that's to do with race issues, right?
	So a huge factor… In the American housing crash, which triggered massive, massive trillions of dollars' destruction of wealth around the world, and as we mentioned earlier, the destruction of 40% of America's wealth.
	A lot of that had to do with racial issues.
	So there was a study that came out that said that blacks were discriminated against by banks in housing loans.
	And it turned out that the study was completely wrong.
	Completely wrong.
	And even the studies authors admitted that later on when people said, well, you didn't control for credit history, you didn't control for job stability, you didn't control for level of education and all that.
	And once these things were controlled for, actually the banks were slightly pro-black in their lending practices.
	Another indication that banks are not racist is that black banks, black-owned, black-run banks, Lend to blacks at a lower rate than white-owned banks do.
	So what happened was there was this massive hysteria and paranoia because, aha, you see, we found the ever-elusive white whale of institutional white racism was found.
	It's in the banking industry.
	The banks are discriminating against blacks.
	So what did the government do?
	The government said to the banks, you have to lend to minorities.
	You have to lend to minorities.
	You have to throw out your standards.
	Now, this, of course, indicates that even the government knew it wasn't racism because in the moment you say you've got to throw out your standards, you're saying it's the standards can't be racist if they're universally applied.
	So they say you have to lower your standards and you have to accept no money down and you have to accept no income and you have to accept welfare as part of the income.
	You have to, like, all of these things.
	You have to change your standards to get minorities into houses, right?
	Well, I mean, what happens when standards developed over decades designed to protect the capital of banks from defaulting?
	What happens is you get massive extra building of houses because lo and behold, you've just lowered your standards for minorities.
	And, you know, I'm sure non-minorities, whites benefited as well and maybe some Asians as well.
	But in general, it was targeted towards getting minorities into houses.
	And...
	First of all, you get a massive explosion in the number of houses being built because look, the banks have lowered their standards and there's now tons of people buying houses who weren't buying houses before so let's build the living shit out of houses.
	Then the banks have to find a way to spread this risk out because a lot of them knew what the hell was going to happen but they were being forced by the government.
	To do these lending practices, all to solve an imaginary problem called institutionalized white banking racism, which didn't even exist, right?
	And because the moment somebody says there's a disparity between blacks and whites, the answer is always white racism!
	Always, always, always.
	That is so fucking racist, I can't even tell you how offensive that is.
	Because nobody ever asks white people, what do they matter, right?
	Because, you know, they're oppressors, so you don't ask them, right?
	Well, the government never wants to take any responsibility for anything.
	And so the easiest thing for them to do is to create tensions and stoke rivalries that are there so that they become even louder and have people fight amongst themselves rather than turn to the government and say, hey, you're doing some bad stuff.
	Well, no, it's not.
	I mean, I think there's that as well.
	But, I mean, you know that white people don't have any power left in society or in the culture because white people could push.
	If there really was this massive oppressive white institution or institutions, then when people said, hey, blacks are being discriminated against, I mean, then the data would have come back or people would have examined the data and said, no, they just – they have less stable jobs.
	They have lower incomes.
	They have fewer savings.
	They, you know, whatever, right?
	And then they'd say, well, so, no, it's not racism.
	It's, you know, whatever, right?
	But, of course, nobody ever wants to bring facts to bear on race issues if they're not hysterically anti-white because everyone gets racism, right?
	Racism.
	I mean, this is the race war, and the race war is against whites, and it is horrendous.
	People don't generally know if they're not on the receiving end of it, but I mean, you see this kind of stuff all over the place.
	It's just white racism, white racism everywhere, everywhere.
	And so, of course, the banks, because they had all of these subprime loans out there that the government was forcing them to make to minorities, well, the banks had to try and get rid of these toxic mortgages that they knew were going to blow up because they developed these standards over decades or hundreds of years and they were just being forced to violate the banks had to try and get rid of these toxic mortgages that they knew So they knew this ship was all going to blow up.
	So what they do is they bundle them into other financial securities and start selling them around the world and they pressure people to give them higher ratings than they other would have like Moody's and other people.
	And they just – they get all of this shit out of the banks as much as possible and into the portfolios of other people.
	And you can say, oh, well, this is all unethical and so on.
	Yeah, of course it is.
	But, I mean, they were forced to take on self-destructive lending practices.
	And so they just, like everyone, are struggling to survive in a coercive environment.
	And so, of course, you get an eventual crash in the housing market because people can't pay the loans which they never should have had in the first place.
	And then this ripples all the way through Wall Street.
	It ripples all the way through Main Street.
	10% of the U.S. housing stock ends up completely empty.
	And it ripples all throughout the world as all of these toxic mortgages bundled into other financial instruments all unravel.
	And you get this massive recession that drags on and on, which is unbelievably destructive in particular for black people.
	I mean, how wretched this imaginary racism has now produced real, tangible harm to everyone, and in particular to black people.
	So how the fuck has this helped black people at all?
	They got into these homes.
	They blew up their credit rating.
	They got kicked out of their homes.
	There was a massive recession, which generally hits the poorer and less educated more and those who are marginally employable, say, if they have criminal histories and so on.
	So blacks have been completely screwed.
	Everyone else gets screwed as well.
	But in particular, blacks have been completely screwed because everyone screamed white racism rather than looking at the data.
	So it does matter what the facts are about race, because we are making enormous decisions based on assumptions of white racism.
	And even if it turns out, let me tell you this as well, even if it does turn out, as we all hope it will, that it's 100% environmental.
	Well, this is Charles Murray's point, right?
	So Charles Murray says, well, even if we assume it's 100% environmental, nobody knows what else we can do.
	We've got the welfare state.
	We've got subsidized housing.
	We've got food stamps.
	We've got social security benefits.
	We've got government schools with cross-funding from richer neighborhoods.
	We have massive transfers from more successful to less successful Americans, which has some racial elements to it.
	We've had the giant Head Start program, which was billions and billions of dollars to produce barely a nudge, a short-term nudge, In student achievement among minorities.
	Like, what the fuck else can we do, even if it's 100% environmental?
	Well, my argument is, okay, let's just cast aside all of this white racist shit and let's focus on how blacks can raise their families peacefully and voluntarily without aggression and so on.
	And let's see how far that can take us.
	I think that would be fantastic.
	More breastfeeding from black moms would be great to help raise IQ. Less spanking or no spanking would be great to raise IQ. And let's see.
	We'll find out.
	At the same time, we do need to be exploring the genetics.
	And the reason we need to be exploring the genetics is because if there are genetic components, then there's going to be a ceiling.
	And then I don't want people screaming white racism at that point.
	We need to figure out if, like, let's say we can, like, so average IQ for American blacks, 85.
	Let's say we can get it up to 94.
	Fantastic.
	Thrilling.
	And let's say there's six points that's genetic.
	Let's say there's four points that, I don't know, right?
	I don't want everyone to say, Okay, we got it to 92 or 94 or whatever it is, but the remaining stuff is all evil white racism.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	We need to find out the facts.
	Now, if there's zero genetic components, then I'm going to become a communist.
	Because if there are zero genetic components, then it doesn't make any sense to me why, for instance...
	Pure blacks, like straight from Africa, have IQs even lower than American blacks, and half blacks, half whites have IQs between, which, you know, even if they're raised in black families, there have been families who've raised kids who thought they were the other race, and there's still significant factors that come out there.
	So, if there is, if it's all environmental, Then it means that culture is stronger than genetics.
	It means that it's like how women complain that they're underpaid, right?
	If there is no IQ difference, sorry, I'm not being very clear.
	If there's no IQ difference, if the IQ 85 and IQ 100 is meaningless, if there's no IQ difference, then it means that blacks are poor because whites don't want cheap labor that's just as good as white labor that's more expensive.
	But that just goes against all economics, completely and totally, right?
	I mean, it makes no sense whatsoever.
	But even if we say it's all environmental, we still at the moment have a tested average IQ of blacks, a standard deviation below that of whites.
	That has an effect.
	Even if it's all environmental and we can fix it over the next 30 years, the way that people are now is this IQ 85 gap.
	So that doesn't mean that That all of the economic effects are simply due to white racism because there is still this deficiency and what I mean by that is let's say Asians just don't eat enough carrots and if they eat enough carrots they'll be as tall as blacks.
	Right?
	So we start feeding Asians carrots like crazy and they end up in a generation they're going to be as tall as blacks.
	That doesn't mean that right now the composition of the NBA is going to change because In 20 years or 30 years, Asians are going to be...
	Now, in 20 or 30 years, yes, the composition of the NBA will change over time, but right now, the composition of the NBA is still going to be Asian deficient because of height or lack of height, right?
	And so even if we can fix this problem going forward, it still doesn't mean that we should expect economic equality now because there is still this IQ gap.
	My concern is, and I'm sorry for such a long thing, I'll shut up after this, but my concern is that the degree to which we've got this magical answer for everything called white racism is the degree to which, as you pointed out, Paul, is the degree to which blacks are disempowered from finding ways to solve the problem.
	Because just, you know, we've got God for physics, we've got government for social organization, and we have white racism for any kind of deficiency in communities.
	And I really hate these magical answers, and I think...
	This, let's avoid the facts because the facts can be misused.
	Oh, man.
	I mean, of course facts can be misused.
	Of course facts can be misused.
	But you know what can be misused even more?
	The lack of facts.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I agree.
	Yeah, I totally agree.
	Yeah, we shouldn't be afraid of the facts.
	It's heartbreaking stuff to look at.
	I mean, I sure as hell wish...
	I mean, I'd feel way better if it was white racism.
	I would.
	I really, really would.
	If it was just like 100% guaranteed it was white racism, that would be great.
	Because then we've got a solvable problem.
	Because, you know, whites are very guilty people.
	Yeah.
	I don't know if it's all like Catholicism or maybe Protestantism or whatever, but whites are very, very guilty as a whole, right?
	Very self-flagellating, right?
	And so if it is white racism, then the problem should be almost solved because whites have been self-flagellating about racism for about 50 years.
	I mean, not that they weren't before, but whites as a whole have been beating themselves fucking senseless about being racists for over 50 years now.
	So the problem should be almost solved.
	Because when pretty much the guiltiest people on the planet start self-flagellating for two generations, well, the problem should be close to being solved.
	But I don't really think that it is, which means I don't think that 51 years of self-flagellating white self-hatred for imaginary racism everywhere, I don't think 51 years is going to do anything but make things worse.
	Yeah.
	I mean, my observation is that racism trickles down.
	It starts from the top and sort of trickles down, unlike money, which does not trickle down, as you pointed out in some of your videos.
	And so, I would – if there was a – Wait, wait.
	I'm sorry.
	If you're moving on, I don't know what it means when you say racism trickles down.
	I think it's institutional.
	It begins in places of authority.
	This could be someone like a priest.
	This could be someone like a police officer.
	This could be someone like a president or ruler of a nation.
	That racism essentially begins from the top.
	And it gets sort of infused in the culture that way.
	Because when we're born, babies aren't racist.
	No, they are.
	No, I just mentioned that there's a study in three months that babies show significant preferences for their own race.
	Well, that's survival.
	I mean, you're a well-educated guy.
	And again, I really do appreciate the conversation.
	And again, I don't pretend to have any answers in this area, but I'm a big one for let's get more facts.
	But you're not a dad, right?
	I am.
	You are?
	Okay, so...
	I'm a brick-at-home dad, so I can relate to you in that sense as well.
	Fantastic, fantastic.
	Okay, so let me be a complete son of a bitch and ask you a question.
	Son or daughter both?
	Son and daughter.
	Son and daughter, okay.
	So let's say, which one's younger?
	Son is youngest.
	Okay.
	So insert lifeboat disaster scenario here.
	You can save your son or you can save the son of a stranger.
	Only one.
	Who are you going to save?
	Right.
	Probably my own son, yeah.
	Well, I would hope it would be your own son.
	Bad dad if you don't, right?
	And for the other person, like, I mean, if this god-awful scenario, I hate to even contemplate, but if this god-awful scenario would have happened and some other dad were to save his son rather than my daughter, I'd say, I can understand that because I would do the same thing in your position, right?
	Right.
	Right, so evolution works because we care about genetic proximity.
	Right.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	There's a natural discrimination that's sort of hardwired in us.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And it goes to – it starts with family.
	It goes to extended family.
	And at the outer edges, it goes to race.
	And now, it's not only race that's a factor, right?
	I mean, if there's a lifeboat going down, I can only save Charles Manson or Tom Sowell – Well, that magnificent black bastard is going to get a big hug from me and I'm going to give a boot to the face of Charles Manson, right?
	Save the black guy.
	It's not only race that counts, right?
	Sure.
	And, you know, I made this argument years and years and years ago when people said, oh, blacks are afraid of whites.
	It's like, nope.
	No, no, because it's social markers way outside of race, right?
	So, you know, you're...
	You're standing at a bus stop in the middle of the night, and you're white, and there's a white guy come from one direction, a black guy come from the other direction, and the white guy is some glue-siffing crackhead or whatever slouching along with his mohawk, and the black guy is in a suit and tie and reading a computer magazine.
	I know who I'm happier to have at the bus stop with me.
	It's nothing to do with race fundamentally.
	But genetic proximity...
	In-group preferences, tribal preferences, that's how evolution works.
	And if we cared for all offspring equally, we'd never have evolved to even have the word race or science or anything like that, right?
	So genetic preferences work.
	We have to be honest about that.
	And I don't think that's a bad thing.
	It's just, it's natural.
	We are a tribal species.
	And part of the tribes, the way they work, is race.
	Now, I... I don't ever really sit there and think, aha, I must find ways to advance the white.
	That's not how my brain works.
	I'm sort of trying to advance the cause of reason to everybody.
	But to say that we don't have a nature that has a preference for genetic proximity is, I think, to be anti-science, to be anti-evolution.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And that doesn't mean that's the only standard.
	I'm not even saying it's a good standard, but it is something we do have to acknowledge, right?
	I mean you're going to save your own kid over a stranger's kid because of genetic proximity.
	Sure.
	Yeah, no, you're absolutely right.
	There's definitely a component there that is hardwired in terms of evolution.
	And blacks do it too.
	I mean, it wasn't like the 98% of black people who voted for Barack Obama did not do it after a careful examination of his policies and those of Mitt Romney, right?
	They're like, I'm voting for the brother.
	Even if he's only a half-brother, I'm voting for the brother, right?
	I mean, and I don't think that the media went, Jesus.
	What a bunch of racists.
	Although you could really make that case, right?
	I mean, if there was a minority of white people in a country and 98% of them voted for the only white candidate, what would everyone say?
	They're racists.
	They're only voting for this guy because he's white.
	But black people do it all the time.
	Not all blacks, but...
	I don't...
	People don't go insane...
	People only go insane when white people do it, right?
	But of course, right?
	Because apparently we have all of this privilege, right?
	But yeah, I mean, black politicians get in power.
	What do they do?
	They openly promote black causes.
	They openly promote blacks.
	They openly try and hire blacks.
	And I don't...
	I mean, is that racist?
	I guess you could make the case that it is.
	But I mean, I don't see how...
	That is something that we can scream about and say we must completely eradicate that from the black population to have any pro-black preferences or, you know, boy, that Japanese association in college, it seems to be advancing Japanese values.
	It's like, well, yeah, because, you know, they're...
	They're Japanese, of course.
	They're like, the feminist group really seems to be advancing women's causes.
	Like, the women's group really – okay, I get it, right?
	I mean, there's a genetic proximity, female to female, male to male, race to race, family to family.
	There's genetic proximity, and we are hardwired to prefer that.
	I mean, we can pretend that only whites should not have that and everyone else should, but I don't see how that is, not being racist against whites.
	Yeah.
	I think the whole conversation on race is very...
	We kind of broke up when I mentioned this, but I started watching your shows maybe a few months ago and it was like hitting an oasis.
	I was getting to this point where I felt like I must be going crazy because the kinds of conversations that people are having, the debates that are taking place on the radio and media and the arguments that are being presented and the The rationale that is being used to justify these conclusions was making me think that either I was going crazy or people's brains or the body snatchers have come in already and they're taking over these bodies and turning people into these idiots
	that I just couldn't comprehend.
	So when I came across your video blog, I was like, oh my gosh, there's someone out there who thinks and someone out there who arrives to reasonable conclusions.
	I really appreciate what you and Michael and everybody else there at Freedom Wayne Radio does.
	I was like three videos into it and I just had to become a subscriber because not only was it that I feel a sort of confirmation in that I wasn't going crazy, but I was getting educated.
	It felt like I was getting an education in history and philosophy and economics and it was really valuable to me.
	So I really appreciate everything that you guys are doing.
	So thank you, Stefan.
	Well, thank you.
	How was this?
	I mean, I know that we traversed some challenging terrain, but how was the conversation for you?
	Oh, this was great.
	Yeah, I think the conclusion is that it's complex.
	I mean, we kind of went away from the visa question and caught into race, which wasn't my intention, but I think a lot of good things came out of it.
	So, yeah, thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	And do you want to make a little pitch for Peaceful Parenting before you, families?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Well, as a parent of two, I remember myself as a kid.
	And I can see myself in my kids, obviously.
	And I can see what a difference it's made to bring up my kids a certain way.
	For the way that I've been, which is peacefully using words, especially early on.
	And I never talked down to my kids from when they were little.
	In other words, I never simplified my words.
	I would always use the words that were best suited to make an argument, and then they would ask questions like, what does that mean?
	And I could explain it.
	And right now, I have a five-year-old and an eight-year-old.
	My eight-year-old reads faster than me.
	She...
	My four-year-old is getting close to being a faster reader than me.
	I'm already seeing them surpass me in areas that I'm not even there now, let alone when I was their age.
	I've had this direct experience with the impact that The way you bring your children has on the results and who they become as people and their abilities.
	So everything that you say about peaceful parenting is absolutely, absolutely important because as soon as you resort to violence, You step away from words.
	You step away from rationality.
	You step away from arguments.
	You step away from explanations.
	And that ends up dumbing down their ability.
	And of course all the other side effects that you've so eloquently explained.
	So yeah, absolutely.
	Peaceful parenting all the way.
	All the way, baby.
	And I appreciate that.
	I'm thrilled.
	And look, I really want to thank you for subscribing.
	That is very, very kind.
	I hope that this is a place where people feel they can come and talk about difficult stuff.
	Because you've got a whole planet out there of people who are willing to avoid difficult topics.
	Oh my God, do you ever.
	And I appreciate that we can have challenging conversations here.
	I hope people understand that When I talk about races, I talk about everything.
	It is with the goal of creating a more peaceful society.
	And it is with the goal of really trying to get as many facts to bear and as much evidence and as much rationality to bear on a topic as possible.
	And I appreciate you having the conversation.
	I was not exactly saying, ah, I want to go out race tonight.
	I hope somebody mentions the word culture.
	It's just how it went.
	And I'm glad that it did.
	And I, you know, certainly, Paul, welcome to call back anytime.
	It was a real, real pleasure to have the conversations.
	It was a pleasure.
	Thanks for taking me on.
	I'll definitely keep sending you questions.
	All right.
	Thanks, man.
	Take care.
	Bye.
	All right.
	Well, up next is James.
	James wrote in and said, I plan on entering the dating world in the near future, but I'm afraid that I don't represent value to anybody.
	Do I need to alter myself to have value, or do I need to wait to find someone?
	Or do I wait for someone to find value in me?
	Excuse me.
	Yeah, you don't enter the dating world.
	You aim to conquer a mountain of female loins.
	I think that's the approach that you probably want to take.
	Brazilian women respond to confidence.
	I watched Rio the other day.
	Anyway, but I had to bust this thing open like a soda can, like some kind of crazy love hawk.
	I just love that bit.
	Anyway.
	So, James, entering the dating world, tell me...
	Tell you about that.
	I have...
	Yet to.
	You can hear me okay?
	Microphone's good?
	Good, good, good.
	I have yet to enter said world, and I'm not going to do it just yet.
	This is all kind of really preliminary stuff.
	I want to figure out what I'm doing first.
	I think I'm going to have to do this online.
	Unfortunately, I kind of don't want to, but...
	Is it a particular fetish that is extremely rare?
	In which case, could you share the website with me as well as part of a research experiment?
	No, just kidding.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	There's not a lot of slim pickings where you are?
	Yeah, I live in the southwest of the UK, which is a pretty...
	We're generally viewed as being quite backwards and like 30 years behind everybody else.
	Nothing in the way of big business out here.
	You've got to go miles and miles to get to the nearest major city.
	Sod all culture of any description.
	which is odd because we had a big street festival today which was actually quite nice anyway I So you've got to do it online, and you're trying to figure out what you have to offer.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Well, my own history...
	I think we're going to have to delve into this one really deeply.
	Send me one of those calls.
	I have never represented value to anybody.
	That's not true at all.
	That's completely inaccurate.
	I've never represented value to myself.
	You've never represented value to yourself.
	I'm sorry to interrupt you just as you're starting.
	I'd like to pretend I know what that means, but I'm not sure I can.
	All right, give me a couple of minutes.
	Let me kind of get this one together and figure it out.
	No, I mean, look, you're alive, right?
	So you bathe yourself, you wash yourself, you feed yourself, you get out for walks.
	Come on, legs, walkies, right?
	And you go to the doctor or the dentist.
	So you certainly have provided value to yourself in that you're alive, right?
	I do, but one of my last therapists said I'm in a period of flux, which is very accurate and very exciting.
	Let's give it in really, really short terms.
	You're in a state of flux.
	That's like me going to the doctor and them saying, your blood is circulating.
	Thanks, doc.
	I know I'm breathing.
	Anyway.
	Okay, I have had what I would describe as a really, really shitty life.
	I said to one of my other therapists recently, I'd never want to relive a single day of my life until now.
	And I stand by that one.
	I'm okay with that.
	But this last year, probably this last 12 months, I have been on a pretty massive mission of fixing shit.
	And it's going spectacularly well, as well as I could have expected.
	Much better than probably anybody could have expected from me, actually.
	But I know exactly what I want to do, and one by one, I'm doing it.
	So, more on that later.
	And I know you've got an ACE of three: no family, love or support, neglect, not enough food, dirty clothes, no protection or medical treatment, parents divorced.
	I kind of expected it would be higher actually, but no, apparently not.
	It's because I come from a different family background than what you'd normally get from your usual call-in, so I'll find out more about that soon.
	Okay, and I'm not trying to Ah, your AC is not high enough to be called tragic, right?
	I don't mean that at all, right?
	So you only have three out of nine illnesses.
	It doesn't mean that it wasn't painful.
	But when you say you've had a shitty life, compared to what?
	Compared to people who didn't.
	Okay, compared to who?
	Who would you compare yourself to and say?
	Um...
	I don't have an individual example for that.
	I guess I'm collectivizing against people, which obviously that kind of falls flat straight away, because you need an individual example.
	But I did at one point say that I'd never been happy, which is not exactly true.
	I've never been satisfied with my life, is what that means.
	And where do you think you got that dissatisfaction from?
	Good question.
	I was...
	Fine, really, as a small child.
	I don't really have any kind of regrets about that period of my life.
	Certainly the problems began before my parents split, but I didn't really pay any attention to that.
	I didn't notice it until things started to unravel very, very quickly.
	Should we go through my family history in a long sequence?
	I'd like to go through your family history as it relates to the question that you have about value.
	Do you mind if I ask questions?
	It's not that I don't care about your history.
	I don't want to cast too wide a net.
	I want to make sure that we get to the core issue.
	If we cast too wide a net, we're going to get a lot of ocean and not a lot of fish.
	Okay.
	Let me back off for a sec before we go into the family history and say you don't know what value you might provide in a dating environment or to a woman.
	Are we talking about a woman?
	I don't want to miss you, right?
	Okay.
	So what is dating for?
	What is your goal with dating?
	Well, the most basic description of dating I've ever heard, and it probably came from you, is that it's a series of interviews leading to sex.
	And that is, on the one hand, kind of interesting, but at the same time, way too reductionist and simplistic.
	I don't like that representation of it.
	Well, no, but do you want sex?
	Do you want family?
	I mean, what's your...
	No, I don't want family.
	That's probably not a good idea.
	Why is that not a good idea?
	Number one is I'd be afraid of passing on my own issues to my children, as self-aware of it as I would be.
	I don't know if I could prevent it from happening, which kind of makes it worse.
	Wait, so you've got no problem putting your issues onto your dating partner?
	No, I'd like to avoid that.
	I'd like to be honest about it, but I'd also like to avoid that.
	Now, what I mean is if I were to have children, I would be afraid of kind of infecting them or poisoning them in some way.
	No, but what I'm saying is that would that not also happen to your dating partner?
	Probably would, actually, yeah.
	Okay, so that's important because my question is if you have enough self-knowledge to not poison up your Your dating partner, that would give you more security about not poisoning up your kids, right?
	Yes, it would.
	Good point.
	And also, if you have a competent dating partner, she'll watch your back.
	If you were to have children with her, right, then she would watch your back and say, you know, I would focus on this thing.
	This seems to be happening.
	I would be having problems with that.
	You know, make sure you wouldn't be doing it all alone, so to speak, or somebody would be watching your back.
	That's immediately extremely revealing because I always have an expectation of doing things on my own because I kind of basically always have.
	So yeah, I didn't think of that one at all.
	That's a complete revelation to me.
	Right.
	And that's, I would imagine, because you haven't seen that kind of stuff modeled, right?
	No.
	Right.
	I mean, you know, in my family, we watch each other's backs and we know each other well enough that we can dismantle anything that may be problematic that's rising up.
	And we trust each other enough to know it's being done in a positive spirit and in the spirit of helping and all that.
	So you won't be doing it alone.
	So I think that's important.
	And so...
	So is it sex?
	Let's just go with what you said before.
	You may change your mind over time, but if it's not for kids, then it's sex for pleasure that you would want, right?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Because that's the difference between dating and having a friend of either gender.
	It's the naughty bits, right?
	Yeah, it is.
	Okay, so if you were to say to a woman, I would like you to be a friend I have sex with, Would that be a fairly accurate description of your goal?
	No, actually it wouldn't.
	Because I think actually I enjoy having female friends more than I do male friends.
	Which is not to devalue the male friends that I have.
	But when I think of friendship, I always think of it in terms of having friendships with women.
	Completely platonic, non-sexual ones.
	I think just because I find them easier to communicate to.
	I've never really had...
	I've literally only just now started to have male friends.
	Actually, I've literally only just started to have friends.
	I am kind of...
	I'm still...
	The idea of going outside the house, out into the world, and interacting with people and talking with people on any kind of basis, daily or otherwise, is still quite fresh and novel to me.
	And it's very nice.
	So did you not have a lot of contact with your dad when you were growing up, after your parents split up?
	Yes and no.
	Well, the yes and no part applies to pretty much all of my family.
	But going back to what we were saying before, no, I would definitely be seeking some kind of normal established relationship.
	I don't honestly care about marriage, so we can kind of rule that one out.
	But everything that goes with marriage but without all the legal certificates.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So what are you looking for then if it's not a friend to have sex with?
	Good question.
	I don't know if I can define it in any more accurate terms.
	And I think that's part of why I'm here.
	Well, sex is the key, right?
	Because that's the differentiator between romance and non-romance.
	So sex is obviously a cornerstone.
	And I'm not trying to make it reductionist like, you know, organ insertion equals relationship.
	But the sexuality is what you're looking for that's different.
	than what you were looking for before, because that's the dating environment, is sexuality, right?
	Yeah, I'm looking for validation in a lot of different ways, because there's been a massive, massive absence of validation in my life, and it's only recently started to become a thing, and bit by bit I'm crossing off each different...
	Oh dear.
	What am I doing?
	Oh dear.
	Sorry, I've got to interrupt you.
	So, you said, I'm looking for validation because there's been a massive lack of validation in my life.
	So, who are you looking to fix your past for you?
	And how are they going to do it?
	And why would they?
	Why would they?
	Because I'm just so gosh darn lovely.
	Why wouldn't they?
	Well, you're not lovely if you're expecting other people to backfill your tragedies and make everything better.
	You're going to end up hating someone like that.
	That's a recipe for disaster because they can't do it.
	Yeah, I don't know that yet because I've kind of not done it.
	Well, but this is what you said, right?
	You said, well, I want someone to validate me because I've Not had a lot of validation.
	Like, if I grew up hungry and I say, well, I want someone to give me all the food I could possibly eat because I grew up hungry, I'm just going to get fat.
	You can't get anyone to backfill and solve your history.
	I mean, you can go to a therapist.
	I know you have in the past.
	You go to a therapist and you can...
	Get someone to give you help with processing things about the past.
	But a romantic relationship is not an emergency room.
	It's not, you know, I need 20 cc's of plasma stat because I've got a sucking chest wound or something.
	You can't fix your history by screwing people.
	No, I didn't expect that I could.
	I like to think that I'm self-aware enough that I wouldn't try that.
	I'm just going by what you said, right?
	So you can say, well, I would never think of doing that or I wouldn't do that, but you said, I want to get validation because validation has been massively lacking in my history.
	And I'm saying that if you expect someone to give you validation that's going to make up for the lack of validation you experienced in your history, you're going to get somebody who's very damaged.
	And very damaging and you're going to end up really disliking that person because they're not going to be able to solve the problem.
	And you're going to feel like they're withholding something from you and it's going to reproduce the lack of validation that you had in the past because you're just not going to get it.
	That's more of an addiction for repetition of a lack of validation than it is a desire to solve it.
	The solution is not in someone else.
	Which brings me back to the original point.
	One of the most useful phrases I've picked up recently, and it came from you, is that there's no external solution to the problem of self-esteem.
	But then I say self-esteem can't exist within a vacuum.
	So how do you...
	Actually, technically I said there's no external solution to the problem of insecurity.
	Are the insecurity and self-esteem not...
	Well, they're not exactly the same thing, but they're kind of mutual or connected, aren't they?
	Yeah, I just want to be really precise.
	I've had a conversation with, I think it was a psychologist, against the concept of self-esteem, where it's a very good point.
	But anyway, it's not near the end of there.
	But yeah, you can't get someone else to fix your lack of validation.
	You can't get a dating partner to fix that.
	Which is why I want...
	Because you can't be honest about that.
	And so you'll end up manipulating that person, and the only people who will respond to that manipulation are low-quality people.
	specimen that you can find.
	Because you can't come and say, "Well, the reason I want to date is I'm traumatized by a lack of validation and I need someone to pour resources into me and validate me so that I can feel better about having not been validated in the past." Any woman with any self-confidence and maturity and self-knowledge will say, "No." Right?
	I'm sorry that you weren't validated in the past, but I can't fix what your mommy broke.
	Right?
	Well, this is what I mean when I say I want this to be preemptive to dating because I'm aware of these problems.
	And I am aware of the problems that they pose in the future as far as connecting with new people goes.
	So I'm...
	I'm on a mission to fix all of the areas in my life leading up to dating.
	Dating is going to be the very last thing that I get to, or my current list of things that I need to do.
	Why is your dating last on your list?
	Because I need everything else.
	In order to represent value to people, I need all of the other things preceding that.
	But there's a cost.
	There's an opportunity cost for delaying it, right?
	Which is that the older you get, the fewer quality people you're going to find.
	I'm aware of that, and that does frighten me.
	And I think I'm especially aware of that for the area that I'm living in, which is what I was saying about looking online.
	I may have to do that because I simply may not find the kind of people that I'm looking for where I live.
	Yeah, I mean, you're not obviously middle-aged, but you're not a young man.
	You're a very young man anymore, and so you're going to start heading into the burning uterus 30s of...
	You know, desperation, single motherhood, and otherwise oddly constituted women that is like, oh, why is this car for sale?
	Oh, right?
	I get it.
	There's a gaping hole where the floor should be or something, right?
	And so that's a challenge, right?
	So this is not – even if you don't want to have kids, if you do want to have kids or if you find out you want to have kids, then you've got to move quick.
	Because you want a woman who's not wildly dissimilar in an age to you if you want to have some chance of success in your marriage or the greatest chance of success in your marriage.
	One of the strong predictors of divorce is a significant age gap between husband and wife.
	And so you want someone close in age to you, but if you want to start dating someone who's closer in age to you, you want to make sure you do so before the fertility window starts to close in the early to mid-30s and so...
	I wouldn't say that this is something...
	Once I get all my I's dotted and T's crossed, I can holler that, right?
	I don't think that's a valid thing to approach because you've got some time pressure.
	And I thought I was doing so well up until this point.
	Wait, I'm not sure what that means.
	It's a deflationary statement and I just want to know where that came from.
	Where does it come from?
	I'm, to be honest, quite pleased with myself right now.
	I think things have been going very well for me recently, you know, for having been going so badly for so long.
	And, you know, I'm aware that I'm running out of time.
	I'm not exactly sure what that even means because I understand what kind of running out of time, fertility-wise, means for women.
	But, you know, obviously men, we don't have the same experience of it.
	Well, no.
	Men's sperm quality does deteriorate with age.
	But...
	It's because you want to be somewhat close and age your wife, at least ideally.
	It's not always the case, but ideally.
	And therefore, you're sort of lockstep a little bit with female fertility if you want the age proximity.
	I don't know if age proximity is that big of a deal to me, actually.
	Oh, we do.
	Mike, do you have that handy?
	Yeah, sorry.
	Mike, come on, quick!
	Pull up the infinite database of FDR annoying information.
	Yeah, I'm working on the truth about marriage and divorce right now and pouring through all types of studies, so you caught me at a particularly interesting time to have this information.
	But husband nine or more years older than his wife is one of the largest predictors of divorce risk and the relationship not succeeding.
	Normally successful age ranges in a relationship, let me just pull it up.
	I think if the man is a few years older than the wife...
	That normally works out better.
	That's fine.
	I think three years is what people have termed as the ideal gap, just based on statistics and how things are going to work out.
	If there's going to be a gap.
	Yeah, if things are going to work out.
	But it does tend to work better if the man is a couple years older.
	And if there are vast age differences, that doesn't work out well.
	And the woman being older is a divorce risk as well.
	All right.
	So just something to keep in mind.
	We try to give you as many facts as possible.
	And you don't have to be perfect to date.
	You don't have to have all your issues solved.
	To date.
	You just can't expect the other person to solve your issues, right?
	I mean, they can listen, you can be in conversation, and they can be part of your process of working on your issues, but they can't, you know, and you know that, right?
	Don't repeat that again.
	So, yeah, just don't wait for perfection, right?
	To look for heaven is to live here in hell, as the song says.
	So, yeah, so then I guess the question is, so, in terms of to date, I mean...
	You will date monogamously with the goal of lifelong pair bonding in the long run, is that right?
	Yeah, that sounds good.
	Okay, so I think you said you don't want the paperwork or whatever.
	I think in most societies you get that whether you like it or not.
	Like if you live together eventually, I think you're just considered equivalent to marriage and common law or whatever.
	So that's just something to be aware of when it comes to For heaven's sakes, don't move in with any woman until you've talked to a lawyer and really understand what it means to move in and just at what point you may have, what a business partner of mine used to call years ago, acid mitosis, which is where you may end up parting with half your assets, including it seems one of your testicles.
	So just be aware of that.
	The fact that you don't want to get married doesn't mean that you don't end up married in the eyes of the law.
	So just be aware of that.
	And if you do want to live with the woman to the point where you're going to get married in the eyes of the law, then you might as well get married ahead of time because, again, if you live together before you get married, your chances of a successful marriage drop significantly.
	So again, just trying to keep you safe from anything negative that might happen out of a breakup where there's assets on the line.
	So in terms of what value you can provide to a woman?
	Well, I mean, there are the moral virtues, which I'm sure I don't need to go over in any particular, you know, courage, sensitivity, and honor.
	Honesty and all of the general, both moral and aesthetic pluses that you can bring for a woman.
	And you want to be as open and honest about your strengths and what you bring to bear as possible without necessarily being a braggart or anything like that.
	But you want to bring that stuff to bear as quickly as possible on a relationship to find out if the woman...
	Gets wet for virtue, right?
	That's important.
	You want her to moisten up because you're a good guy, in other words.
	I mean, because that says a lot, right?
	I mean, who a woman responds to sexually tells you a lot about, tells you, I think, just about everything about her character.
	And I think that's an important thing to recognize.
	So, you know, lead with your virtue, I suppose.
	And that's your aphrodisiac.
	And if it is an aphrodisiac, then hang tight to that woman and you really can't go wrong from there.
	So, you know, work on your moral courage and your integrity and all the things that we all have to sort of keep working on from a variety of perspectives.
	And then, of course, make her happier.
	Right, make her happier for being with you.
	I mean, I know that sounds like a reduced to bare essence argument, but...
	Why do people buy a tablet?
	Because they believe that their lives will be better with that computer tablet.
	And why do they then not return the computer tablet?
	Well, because lo and behold, their life is better because they have that computer tablet.
	And it's better than the, you know, maybe couple of hundred dollars that they spent to buy that computer tablet.
	They'd rather have the computer tablet than the couple of hundred bucks.
	And it's a net positive for them, so they keep the tablet, right?
	And so you simply have to be someone who makes the other person's life better for you being in it.
	They're happier.
	They laugh more.
	They are more comforted.
	They have positive companionship.
	They are happy when you phone.
	They look forward to talking to you.
	You are a net positive in their life.
	And again, I know that sounds like a really...
	Oh, well, obviously, right?
	But people usually don't look at it that way.
	Like, it's a transaction.
	And like all transactions, there are elements of economics involved.
	And just because money isn't changing hands, at least I hope, then you're going to end up in Eastern Europe with some webcam girl, which I think has happened before on this show.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, so there are going to be...
	There are economic transactions.
	She's giving up time.
	She's giving up opportunities to meet...
	Other men.
	She's giving up every single day.
	She's giving up youth and beauty, which are significant coinage for women and for men too, to some degree, but more so to some degree for women.
	So she is fading, right, in terms of sexual market value every day that she's with you.
	So she's not So you have to be, particularly when you're not in your 20s anymore, you have to be the guy that she wants to settle down with or has the potential to settle down with.
	Otherwise, she's an idiot and you shouldn't date her.
	In other words, if she's saying, well, I really want to have kids and so I'm going to squander the last and most potent areas of my sexual value, dating with a guy I don't even know if I want to settle down with, Then she's just an idiot.
	And I'm like, I don't even know what to say.
	But, you know, I don't have a lot of instructions for humanity in this world.
	But I would say that don't breed with idiots would definitely be one of them.
	In fact, that would probably be the number one.
	Like, don't strangle hobos.
	Don't breed with idiots.
	And I'm not even sure which one of those is at the top.
	But it's pretty high up there.
	So...
	So, she's, you know, a woman who's close to age.
	She's given up a lot to be with you and just make it worth her while.
	That's all.
	You know, my wife can dump me tomorrow and, you know, she's very attractive and very funny and very warm-hearted and very hardworking.
	And, man, she could snap her fingers and have a lineup.
	And I'm aware of that.
	So, I need to bring, you know, every day.
	The job doesn't end, right?
	It's not like...
	Ah, I've been working at this place for – how long have we been married now?
	12 or 13 years?
	We've known each other 12 or 13 years.
	We've married 11 or 12.
	So, I don't sit there and say, well, you know, she's committed now.
	So, I guess, no.
	I mean, you don't work at a place for 12 years and say, well, you know, 12 years in a day, I'm just going to stop working because, you know, you're going to get fired.
	So, you just – and I do this with this show too, right?
	I mean – 3,000 plus shows, you know, I've got to keep pushing the envelope about things that we can talk about and things that we can be honest and open about and not keep doing the same show.
	I mean, some people can do that.
	That's not me.
	So, you know, I know the people who've listened to a lot of these shows could go be listening to other people, talk about other things, and what's going to pull them back in here?
	Well, I don't want to be someone who's talking about the same stuff, takes the same approach.
	I don't want to be the guy, oh, I know what Steph's going to say about this.
	I mean, I don't want to be wildly unpredictable.
	Squirrel!
	Right?
	I mean, I don't want to be wildly unpredictable.
	But I also don't want to be wildly predictable.
	And it's a real challenge to continue to provide value after 10 years and 3,000 shows.
	You know?
	It's important.
	Because I'm not telling jokes, right?
	Jon Stewart, you know, come and listen to the guy because, you know, you like to lick the liberal tentpole.
	But also because, you know, he's funny.
	And he'll make you laugh.
	And I don't have that, right?
	I mean, I'm not a comedian.
	But...
	So you just need to focus on, am I providing value to this person?
	Now, of course, you don't want to be a slave.
	You're not getting paid.
	So, you know, a comedian talks to an audience because the audience is paying for his time.
	So that's what they're giving back.
	Now, when there's no money exchanging hands, then she also has to be someone who brings value to you.
	And you, your life is better because she's in it.
	And it's the most better that you're willing to risk.
	Right?
	There's an old joke about like, you know, this woman says, well, why can't I get my boyfriend who's 30 to commit to get married?
	And her mom says, oh, you see, it's because he's concerned that he gets married to you.
	And, you know, you have kids, you grow up together, you raise your children together, they have grandkids, you grow old together, and then you're 90 years old, you're walking along a beach and a bunch of Playboy bunnies come up and say, hey, come join us in the hot tub, and he can't because he's married, right?
	And that's obviously kind of a joke, and of course it's insulting to men and so on, because women are far more likely to destabilize and end a marriage than men are.
	That kind of surprises me.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	If I remember rightly, it's over 70%.
	I think the number is 73, but in many areas, 70 to 73% of divorces are initiated by women.
	Women are unbelievable home records.
	I'm sorry?
	I would have thought it was more like 50-50.
	No.
	No, it is 73-27, I guess, or 70-30 or 72-28 or whatever it is, but it depends on the locale, but it's significant, the number of… 66-34 towards women in the U.S. Yeah, we did get one.
	There was one area that was higher than that.
	Is it 66-34?
	66 is what I got.
	Okay, good, good.
	Good.
	So, yeah.
	If that's the average, I don't know if the 73 was someplace in the US, so it's higher and lower, but it's certainly not 50/50 for sure.
	So, yeah.
	Just focus on whether she can provide value, whether you can provide value, and the maximum value that you're willing to risk, right?
	Like, I mentioned this.
	I think this Ever Levine got married to some guy, some rocker or whatever, and I was like, Sorry?
	It was Chad Kroger from Nickelback, wasn't it?
	No, he actually just went in for vocal surgery.
	I hope he's doing all right.
	She was married before.
	I think that was her second marriage.
	Derek Wibley from Sum 41.
	Derek Wibley.
	That is such a funny name.
	Sum 41.
	Because Wibley has a specific meaning in Britain, right?
	Which means sort of weak-willed and pathetic.
	Anyway.
	It's like getting married to Biff Pathetic or something like that.
	But anyway, I started reading that.
	It's many years ago.
	I read that and I'm like, aw.
	You know, like, because she's cute as two buttons, very talented and all that, right?
	And I'm sitting there.
	I remember I just finished a workout.
	I was sitting in the – having a coffee in the – I don't know, that little room where you can have coffee.
	And I was reading that and I was like, aww.
	You know, like, yeah, because I'm about to meet Avril Lavigne and we're going to date and get married.
	Like, that's going to happen, right?
	But, you know, part of me is like, aww.
	She's taken.
	Oh, that's a shame.
	Because, you know, I guess I'll take her off my list.
	You know, because that's important after that list.
	But, um...
	So, yeah, I mean, if the woman of your dreams is about to show up three days from now, then going on a date tomorrow doesn't really make much sense.
	So we all have to make our calculations about who we can get and who we can keep.
	And so on.
	And those calculations get more complicated as we age, obviously.
	Now, they're complicated particularly for young men because it seems like – I mean, this is certainly the trend when I was younger.
	I think the trend has increased more that younger women are relentlessly shallow in who they want to date.
	And so are men, but we're supposed to be, because we're looking for fertility indicators, whereas women are supposed to be looking for resource providers, which has more to do with consistency and virtue and intelligence to some degree than it does with the number of sit-ups you can do in any given day.
	But anyway, so the sexual market value slides down when we get into our 30s for both sexes, particularly for women, though.
	And Bird in the hand, so to speak, is worth two in the bush.
	So we all have to make that rational calculation of, well, maybe there's an IQ220 supermodel about to walk into my life tomorrow, but this person here is pretty great, and we all have to make those calculations, and hopefully we calculate reasonably well.
	We'll never know for sure, but...
	Those are, I think, the things that you need to think about.
	In other words, don't wait for everything to be perfect because that'll never happen.
	But you have to make a calculation of, you know, given who I am, given where I'm at in life, given what I can bring and what I can provide, this person will do just nicely.
	And then you work at making it as great as possible from there.
	So does that make any sense or help at all?
	That does make sense.
	I guess the issue that I'm faced with is...
	Kind of the age that I am literally versus the age of where I'm at are two really quite separate things.
	I would describe myself as only just having entered into an adult world.
	I've been kind of trapped in the floaty black sort of middle of nowhere for a very long time.
	I mean, to put examples on it, like if you didn't know...
	Did you read?
	Because it says on the sheet how old I am, doesn't it?
	I did.
	I didn't want to mention it if you didn't want to.
	No, we'll do that in a second.
	If I were to describe what I have now, I've not long left college.
	I finished college a couple of months ago.
	I'm working my second job.
	First time working outside of the house.
	I've had one relationship in the past.
	And I just got my provisional driver's license.
	How old would you say I was?
	Oh, I would assume, you know, early to mid-twenties.
	And now my actual age.
	Yeah, it's 30, right?
	Yeah.
	No, and I've been in the same boat.
	I mean, I guess 15 years ago, I was dating an older woman.
	I mentioned this story before, but for those who haven't heard it, I was picking up some sushi to eat.
	And I saw this wonderfully attractive woman who was sitting in the restaurant.
	And she was eating alone and I just said, oh, can I get my food to stay?
	And I went over and I said, listen, you're eating alone.
	I'm going to eat alone.
	Let's eat alone together.
	And she laughed and we sat down.
	We started chatting.
	We ended up dating and we had a relationship.
	And I was in therapy and I was 15 years ago.
	I was 33 and she was seven years older.
	She was 40 and I remember having talks with her and saying, gosh, you know, if you want to have kids, yeah, it's kind of now or never and I'm just becoming who I am.
	I was going through really radical changes in my life professionally and personally with my family, just radical changes.
	And I said, gosh, I don't know.
	I really don't feel like I'm ready to have kids yet, which is kind of a ridiculous thing to say at the age of 33.
	Like, I get that.
	But, I mean, it was a time of big transition, and I'm certainly glad that I waited.
	And I said, I can't have children because I've only just become myself.
	And I don't want to lose myself in parenthood.
	And there is a certain loss of identity in parenthood.
	It's natural because you're so focused on the children.
	So I get that sort of feeling like you're sort of behind the times a little bit, if that makes sense.
	It does.
	So...
	But...
	But you're growing, and that's going to put you miles ahead again of the majority.
	Yeah, I look forward to that part.
	So, yeah, I mean, the positive values you can bring, you know, perspective, wisdom, curiosity, listening, virtue, knowledge, philosophy, self-knowledge, sense of humor, whatever it is, right?
	A sense of humor doesn't mean you tell jokes and make people laugh.
	It just means that You can put things in perspective, right?
	I mean, there's this comedic tripe where they make a joke about a recent disaster and they say, oh, too soon, too soon.
	You know, it's like today's tragedy is tomorrow's comedy.
	And having that kind of perspective can be very helpful.
	I'm sorry.
	I apologize, James.
	Go ahead.
	No, I was going to say, one thing I noticed particularly about stand-up comedians is it's their job to tell it like it is.
	And I forget what people say about having a sense of humor, but it's to do with laughing at yourself or not taking yourself seriously.
	So is humor more of a self-reflection tool than anything else?
	That's a big question.
	I believe that humor is a logic trainer, but that's because a lot of humor has to do with inverses in logic.
	And so that's a big topic, sort of what is humor.
	I've sort of been mulling notes over for a podcast series on that, at least from my thought.
	But to me, humor is more about being good-humored and not catastrophizing.
	Catastrophizing is exhausting, you know, like, oh, this disaster is going to happen, oh, this disaster is going to happen, or whatever.
	And so I would say that just being good-humored and...
	Helping people to not, you know, there's an old Paul Reiser thing about, you know, being a couple is, well, when I go crazy, you talk me out of my tree.
	When you go crazy, I talk you out of your tree.
	And that, I think that's a little bit too codependent-y for my taste.
	But, you know, helping people have perspective, helping people to not get wrapped up in unnecessary drama and so on.
	I think those things can all be very helpful.
	I guess the trouble I have with that is I don't actually think I'm funny anymore.
	And I say anymore because I definitely used to be funny.
	I used to have a very, very dry sense of humor.
	Like I was so kind of dry and deadpan with it.
	You know, people kind of couldn't tell if I was...
	Oh, I've never had that problem.
	Bloody colonies.
	It's British humor.
	We dress up and you don't know if we're joking.
	Yeah, people wouldn't be able to tell if I was being serious or not.
	And I kind of wouldn't reveal it to them.
	I was like, I don't know, what do you think?
	Am I being serious?
	I'd almost play on it.
	But people who knew me, or very few of them, they were endlessly amused by it, and they got it.
	But I just seemed to have lost that.
	And I don't seem to be able to Draw on any kind of humor reserves anymore.
	And the same thing goes for fun.
	One of the things that frightens me most about entering into dating is people are going to ask you basic questions about yourself.
	And an obvious one is going to be, what do you do for fun?
	And I have no idea because I don't know what fun is.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's a challenge.
	That's a challenge.
	Um...
	Well, I think that you probably lost your humor because of a variety of reasons, and I would assume it has something to do with a fear of negative consequences.
	You know, the one thing that's true of, I think, some of the best comedians is they're fucking fearless.
	You know, watch some of the greats at work, and I'm thinking in particular of George Carlin.
	I mean, listening to him talk about religion, listening to him talk about government, listening to him, I mean, the man had, like, serious balls.
	So it's less to do with wit and more to do with whether or not you're apologetic.
	Yeah, I mean, just...
	I think that there's a frankness about comedians.
	I talked about this with Joe Rogan back, I think, the first time that we talked together, but it really is to do with what everyone's thinking but no one dare express.
	And there is a fearlessness to...
	And I'm sure it happens not just purely innately, but it happens because they work at it.
	I'm sure there are some comedians who are like, ooh, is that too far?
	And they're just like, no, fuck it, I'm going there, right?
	And there is a relief.
	One of the reasons people laugh is there's a release of tension.
	And the release of tension is...
	That other people are thinking what nobody is saying.
	There's a huge relief in that.
	There's an old line from a movie called Shadowlands where a guy says, we read to feel that we're not alone.
	We read to know that we're not alone.
	And comedy is a way of us saying to other people, no, you're not alone.
	Like, I just had this conversation about Race, intelligence, genetics, and all this sort of stuff.
	And we all think about race.
	And we all have concerns about race.
	And we all have occasionally said, what the hell is wrong with everything?
	And the fact that I'm willing to talk about it, someone else is willing to talk about it.
	I mean, we all have had thoughts where we've tried to wrestle with the challenges of race and of culture and success and failure.
	And I'm just wrestling with the same things that everyone else is.
	I'm just willing to talk about it.
	And I'm honest about what I think I might know.
	I'm honest about the vast majority of things that I don't know.
	But I'm committed to being as honest as I can about what's going on in my mind.
	There's a relief of tension.
	There's a relief for people.
	Like this Dylann Roof fellow was constantly hearing about blacks being victims of crimes, right?
	So he was hearing about that.
	And this Trayvon Martin thing was one of the things that set him off.
	And then he types into black-on-white crime, and he comes across, you know, the guy who writes, like, white girl bleed a lot and stuff like that, and he comes across the knockout game, and he comes across, like, all these other things and these massive examples of black-on-white violence, and he kind of freaks out, and he goes, hey, Wire, because that's not part of our conversation about race.
	I'm not going to turn this conversation into one about race.
	I'm just sort of pointing out that That if we did have more of an open and honest and fact-based conversation about race, he could participate in that conversation and may have gone mental in other ways, but probably wouldn't have gone mental in that way.
	And so comedians talk about things that everyone else is thinking but no one dare express.
	This goes all the way back to the ancient world where jesters were allowed to make fun of the king.
	And if you ever want to see this in incredibly poetic action, just look at...
	The fool in King Lear who tells this mad, crazy, megalomaniacal king some extremely bitter truths in the form of jests and jokes.
	And the king keeps him around because he's able to make these incredibly pointed comments about the king's ridiculous foolishness and vanity.
	He's able to make these pointed comments at the king.
	My king, thou shouldst not have been old before thou were wise.
	And he makes these incredibly pointed jokes.
	He's able to get away with it because laughter disarms people and allows them to accept the truth that otherwise they might find too painful or too volatile.
	And so a lot of times we lose our humor when we lose our courage.
	And when we are afraid of offending people or upsetting people, we become very dour.
	It's like that very old joke...
	How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
	That's not funny!
	Right?
	That is a joke that has some real truth to it, right?
	In that because feminism is very much don't offend anyone.
	Well, of course, except white males and all that.
	It's just gendered scum.
	But there is this political correctness, right?
	Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld and other comedians have talked about reluctance to play The college circuit.
	Right?
	Because I think Jerry Seinfeld was making a joke about how people swipe through their phones like a gay French king.
	Whee!
	Whee!
	You know, and they're swiping to scroll.
	And, you know, people are getting pissed off at him for making jokes about a gay French king.
	And there's this horrible humorlessness that comes from a paranoid...
	Fear of offense.
	And the reason that people try and shut down humor is because humor is the last resort of truth.
	In other words, once comedians stop talking about it, nobody can talk about it.
	Comedians are like the last and best line of defense for truth.
	And once comedians say, whoa, that's too much, I won't do that material.
	That's it.
	I mean, then I guess it's just up to philosophers on the internet to talk about these issues.
	But humorlessness is a desire for delusion.
	A desire to protect lies from the light-giving acid of comedy.
	Just because you're around a lot of people who don't want to hear a lot of truth, you end up pretty humorless.
	What is it about humor that women enjoy so much?
	I mean, it has to be more than just a feel-good chemical in the brain that's kind of being provided by somebody else.
	Well, I mean, women like humor because it denotes confidence, because humor is a form of courage.
	It denotes intelligence.
	People who are comics are often very intelligent.
	I mean, someone like George Carlin, I think, was just brilliant.
	Just brilliant.
	I mean, you watch him do the seven things you can't say on television, you could see this incredibly rapid-fire intelligence.
	And, you know, just little statements.
	He says, think how dumb the average person is.
	Well, half of them are dumber than that.
	I mean, it's like, I don't know, it's just great.
	And so, it's a mark of intelligence.
	It's a mark of confidence.
	It is a mark of...
	And men who are unafraid are more likely to get resources.
	Because fearful men are more likely to give way in competition for resources and back away.
	And so a willingness to offend people is a mark of a person, a man who can get resources for women.
	And a man who can make fun of a woman in a way that is positive, that is not embittered.
	It shows that he doesn't take her so seriously that he's going to be subservient to her, which is bad for either party in a relationship.
	So he's not going to be subservient to her.
	He's affectionate.
	He knows how to be appropriately funny.
	It's a complex social skill which again shows social intelligence, emotional intelligence and raw intelligence.
	He also is not a pure conformist because he's willing to take a skeptical view of society and point out its foibles and foolishness which means because he's not a pure conformist he again has the potential to be a leader and the leader of course is the ultimate aphrodisiac in terms of resource provision to women.
	And so for these and probably about a billion other reasons and also that laughter is fun, women in particular respond to humor in a very positive way.
	And as I've also talked about before, men enjoy making women laugh.
	Not for the Christopher Hitchens way about it looks like an orgasm, which I always find him kind of...
	He's like a satyr when it comes, like this little pointy-eared demon, like the satyr out of the movie Hercules when it comes to talking about sexuality.
	But as I've talked about before...
	Yeah, I don't know what I don't know where I fit into that.
	I don't know how that reflects on me or how that affects me.
	More accurately, I don't know what I'm going to do about it.
	Well, I mean, you must have thoughts that you're not expressing, right?
	That you're afraid to express.
	I don't even know if I have that.
	While you were talking just then, I was kind of suddenly being struck by this feeling of non-presence.
	I suddenly started to feel like I'm not here anymore.
	I'm kind of fading into the background.
	And so any moments when I do emerge from that, it's just sort of me delivering a very sort of flat and dull-sounding comment, which then kind of prompts off the next kind of sequence from you.
	No, that was very honest.
	You said that you felt you vanished, right?
	Yeah, that part was honest.
	Right.
	Because I was talking about...
	And the reason why I think you did that, and correct me if I'm wrong, you know your own experience obviously better than I do, James, but the reason that that occurred for you is that I was talking about what women find attractive in terms of comedy and why women find comedy so attractive, and because you don't feel you can be funny, you are vanishing from the sexual arena in that time, right?
	I am.
	Like, oh, well, if you have to be funny to get a woman...
	I can't be funny, therefore I'm going to vanish from this aspect of the conversation.
	Speaking of existence and non-existent, kind of going on to a different area of topic, I'm not diagnosable as bipolar, but recently I have experienced things as far more through the perspective of a bipolar person because for years and years and years I was just emotionally flatlining.
	I wasn't feeling anything at all.
	I certainly wasn't externalizing or expressing anything.
	And then now recently, because my life started to come together, it started to become something and I've I keep getting these big peaks and dips and troughs in emotions going up and down in a very compressed space of time.
	I'm trying to relate and relay that to how I experience that around other people.
	This weekend in particular, I was out with friends.
	There was a big summer festival here today, and it just started going last night.
	I was out with friends last night, and I just...
	I felt completely invisible.
	I felt like I didn't need to be there, like I was providing no value.
	And then today, it was completely different.
	I felt like I met some new people today and got on just fine with them.
	I felt present and I felt visible.
	And I keep sort of fading in and out of existence, like I'm becoming transparent and then visible again.
	And I guess it stems from years and years of being invisible.
	And now, kind of like a hologram, I'm just sort of starting to spark and crackle and fade into visibility.
	But I still have this issue where I feel the most alive and the most like myself when no one else can see me.
	And I feel the most invisible and non-existent when people can see me.
	Right.
	Yeah, and I think that's probably because you are missing the other component to humor, which is anger.
	I am definitely missing that.
	I know my parents quite deliberately engineered me to be unable to express anger, probably for inconvenience.
	I'm not able to express anger outwardly.
	Maybe I'm just starting to get a handle on that.
	I'm just starting to get better at it, but I have for my life thus far been deathly afraid of inconveniencing people with my anger.
	And likewise been very much afraid of confrontation.
	And the relationships I've, or relationship I've ended up in subsequently, is completely indicative of that.
	Right, right.
	No, I mean, a woman should value and respect a man's anger.
	Because a man's anger is partly how he's going to get resources.
	And a man who has no expression of anger at all is not going to have the necessary fuel to stand up for himself and to fight for what is right and what is needed in the world.
	So, I mean, I don't know.
	I guess there are some women maybe who are attracted to guys who have no outward show of anger.
	Maybe they feel that they'll control these guys or whatever.
	It's like, okay, mommy, you know, like, that's not the relationship that you want as a mature adult, as a guy with no spine that you can control.
	And those relationships end up being, I think, like literal hell for both parties.
	So, I think that anger is...
	I've got a whole podcast called The Joy of Anger.
	Anger is very important and very healthy and very necessary for the world.
	It is inconvenient for some people in the world.
	Well, fuck.
	I mean, I don't remember signing a contract when I was born called I'm going to be so fucking convenient that the world will not even know I was here.
	You know, water that is room temperature you barely feel when you put your finger in it.
	I don't want to be room temperature.
	I don't want to be convenient.
	I don't want to be boring.
	I want to be myself.
	I want to think.
	I want to speak.
	I want to listen.
	I want to correct.
	I want to reason.
	I want to question.
	And, uh, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's inconvenient.
	Well, fuck that.
	You know what was inconvenient to me, society?
	Government schools.
	You know what else was inconvenient to me?
	A legal system that helped drive my father out of the country and around the world, because it was impossible for him in many ways to continue to be my father in the environment that was where my parents were divorcing.
	That was, you know, somewhat inconvenient for me.
	It was also kind of inconvenient for me that in the halls of higher education, here in the noble socialist ice fortress of Canada, it was pretty hard to To have any free market, rationalist, objectivist views.
	It was not hugely convenient for me for that.
	So, I don't remember society getting all kinds of fucked up and guilty and feeling bad about how inconvenient I don't remember society getting all kinds of bothered by the fact that it kept screwing up the economy to the point where it was a yo-yo sometimes getting work.
	I don't remember that.
	I also don't remember society getting all kinds of fucked up about the inconvenience, say, of giant, massive jobs.
	Soul and generation destroying national debts.
	You know, that was kind of inconvenient to be born into that level of debt and have the continual acidic eating away at one's heart and muscle effects of that kind of debt that occurred when I was growing up and is occurring even more for younger people.
	I don't remember society saying, well, you know...
	It's pretty inconvenient for these kids that school lets out at 3.15 in the afternoon but parents don't get home until 6.
	That's really inconvenient.
	I don't know that it's, you know, it's not very convenient for single moms or any family for that matter that there's like two and a half months of no school over the summer.
	That's not really very convenient for the families.
	Neither is it very helpful for the children who have two and a half months to forget everything that they learned at a time when retention is not the number one priority.
	And I could go on and on like this ad infinitum, but I don't remember society being all kinds of fucking bothered about the inconvenience of my life and my childhood.
	So the idea that society, now that I'm grown up and have my own fucking voice, the idea that society should be like, oh, what you're saying is inconvenient and inconvenience is bad.
	Hey, I remember my first 30 fucking years.
	I don't think anybody gave a shit about how inconvenient those were for me.
	So excuse me if I don't give a fucking rat's ass about how inconvenient what I'm saying is to you, society as a whole, because I learned something early, young, that has stuck with me forever.
	When you first meet someone, treat them the very best you can.
	And after that, you treat them the way they treat you.
	And when I first met society, when I bounded out of the playroom and into society, I was like, hey, let's hug.
	Whoa, the fuck is going on?
	The hell is going on with society?
	Well, this is really inconvenient.
	Well, this is really shitty.
	I don't like this.
	I don't like that.
	I'd voice my complaints.
	I got caned.
	I got detention.
	I got lines.
	I got shit on.
	I got threatened with being held back.
	I got failed.
	Oh!
	So society says fuck you to inconvenience.
	Oh, that's a great lesson.
	So then when I grow up, I don't have to worry about being inconvenient to society.
	Oh, but society is also massively hypocritical as well.
	So society says fuck you when you're a kid and a young man and a young woman.
	Because if the things that you want are inconvenient to the teachers' unions and inconvenient to the divorce lawyers and inconvenient to the parents of the priests and inconvenient to everyone, hey, can I not be born into massive debt?
	No!
	We've got to buy votes.
	Shut up.
	Sorry.
	We don't even care that it's inconvenient.
	And so, now that I'm older and I have a voice and I can speak truth to power and I can speak reason to evil and I can speak integrity to corruption, Oh, what are you saying is difficult for people?
	What are you saying is inconvenient to people?
	Hey, man.
	Payback's a bitch, ain't it?
	Payback's a bitch.
	So what I'm saying is, James, you're probably just not, in a healthy way, angry enough to speak your mind.
	Is anger a defense against convenience, then?
	Or inconvenience?
	Is anger a defense against inconvenience?
	I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood that.
	I'm not sure if I got it the right way around.
	I'm not sure if convenience or inconvenience is the active word there.
	But does being angry protect you against being inconvenienced?
	Oh yeah, for sure.
	Oh yeah, for sure.
	For sure.
	Because people who are annoying and late and inconvenient and unreliable, they piss you off.
	They piss you off.
	This ended up being the subject of...
	I've been to three therapists in the last year, and the very first one I thought was the least effective therapist, or he understood me the least or had the least amount to offer.
	The main thing that he did pick up on was not a lack of anger, but a lack of expression of anger in me.
	We didn't really make any progress on this.
	I think once I started college, I left that therapist and then went to a different one.
	That was pretty much the only thing I took away from those sessions was an absence of anger, which I was pretty well aware of already.
	Wait, an absence of what?
	An absence of anger.
	You actually said an absence of anguish.
	I did.
	I am not in the least bit aware of that.
	Right.
	You've got to listen back to that.
	That was fascinating.
	You said an absence of anguish.
	Nope, I didn't hear it.
	I think I am prone to fluffing words or perhaps even dropping words out of sentences altogether and just not noticing it.
	Oh, that one may not...
	I'm not a big Freudian, but that may not have been accidental.
	An absence of anguish.
	Well, anguish, of course, is one of the root causes of anger.
	It's being hurt.
	What makes us angry?
	We get angry because our rights are being violated, our integrity is being violated, our possibilities are being violated, our freedoms are being violated.
	And anger, you know, if you're not angry, you're just not paying attention.
	There's a lot in the world to be angry about.
	And it's not the evil that's done fundamentally.
	I don't give a shit about that.
	It's just the rank hypocrisy.
	That's what pisses me off more than anything else.
	That's what pisses me off more than anything else.
	It's just the rank hypocrisy.
	You know, like, when rich old fucks, or even poor old fucks, say to the young people, well, you can't Cut our pensions because that would lower our standard of living, you see.
	And lowering our standard of living is really fucking terrible.
	To which the young people could say, what about the national debt?
	Does that not lower our standard of living, leaving us tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt by the time we turn 18?
	So where was your fucking concern about lowering other people's standard of living When you were demanding that the government give you all this shit for free and hand us the bill?
	Who the fuck are you people to complain about lowered standards of living?
	You had votes we didn't.
	You ran the country into the ground with massive debt.
	I mean, we can talk about this, but don't you dare try and hold up, ooh, lowering other people's standard of living is bad as any kind of standard.
	So, I'm just pointing out that we have been talked out of anger for two generations of gynocentric culture.
	And look what's happened.
	We have gone completely off the rails as a culture.
	Because most of us are not allowed to get angry.
	Not allowed to get angry.
	And Particularly the Freedom Club people are not allowed to get angry.
	Not allowed to get angry.
	That's abusive.
	That's verbal.
	That's mean.
	That's nasty.
	You're crazy.
	No.
	We have been cut off from anger, most of us, particularly males, for over two generations now.
	And look what's happened to the world.
	It's gone completely off its rails.
	It hangs over a precipice that could swallow civilization itself.
	And we either give up and accept the fall, or we get angry.
	And the longer you delay anger, the worse it is.
	And this has been pushed off for 50 or 60 years.
	So, yeah.
	We're a little backed up.
	And there's a lot of anguish.
	I think what your accidental word was right and true.
	A lot of anguish at the root of this anger.
	And...
	We better start speaking about it honestly.
	And yeah, we've got some complaints.
	And those complaints are damn valid.
	And what pisses me off is not that people screwed us, but when we universalize their principles, they claim that we're evil and they're victims.
	I think What you said before, you said when.
	When I listen to this back, I think the part I'm most uncomfortable about of all of it, not that I'm really uncomfortable, is the part of listening to it back.
	I've always had a revulsion to hearing my own voice recorded.
	And I remember this ever since I was a kid.
	We had an old tape deck with a microphone built into it.
	The idea of recording myself onto it and hearing it back was new.
	It just kind of sends a sort of shudder.
	You want to get up and look into the room?
	You should do it singing.
	Singing is really eye-opening and ear-closing sometimes.
	But yeah, I know what you mean.
	But you should listen back to it because, you know, this is who you are.
	This is how you say it.
	I think viewing myself in the third person would be a very, very peculiar thing.
	And oddly enough, I have no real apprehension about what the comments are going to say.
	I think because I enjoy being judged.
	I like it.
	I like being judged.
	I like people...
	You mean YouTube comments?
	Yeah.
	I like people...
	Oh my god.
	I mean...
	I mean, with some exceptions.
	Hey, Con.
	But taking YouTube comments as any kind of valid criticism is like taking monkey screeches as feedback on the quality of your ballet moves.
	I mean, it's just not – they've thrown poo.
	They must not like my painting.
	It's like, no, they probably just are thinking of bananas.
	So, yeah, I wouldn't worry about YouTube comments.
	It's mostly just people typing with their missing testicles.
	But go ahead.
	What I was going to say was I like people to observe me because they can reveal things about me that I can't see.
	And also, if people can observe me, it means that they can see me.
	Which means that I exist.
	And I take a lot of...
	Wait, if people...
	You mean if people on YouTube or other people?
	I guess anybody.
	Any kind of critical observation of me, wherever it comes from.
	Oh, I don't know about that.
	I think be very skeptical of criticism.
	Doesn't mean don't ever take it, but I think it's very important to be skeptical of criticism because...
	Now, I've got a show on this about judging criticism, but...
	I mean, and this is sort of where I have to end up because I've been four hours on the show, but...
	Be very skeptical of critics because a lot of people are not criticizing you because they care about the quality of your life or care about you becoming wise or knowledgeable or anything like that.
	They're just criticizing because...
	They like to have power over others and they like to bully and so on, right?
	I mean, it's pretty sad.
	I mean, just how little intelligent criticism and effective criticism there is in the world.
	Again, there's some people, some exceptions, even in YouTube, but it is really important to be very skeptical about criticism.
	Well, I guess that's why it's important to have people around you as your critics, people who value your presence, to give you necessary feedback, rather than just kind of strangers who have no real vested interest in your existence or success.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	I mean, universal principles and so on.
	And for those who want to know, it's called Podcast 2725, How to Handle Criticism.
	So, have a listen back, though, and let us know what you think of this conversation, because I think there's a lot in here, hopefully, that's value and that can give you something to work towards.
	But, yeah, I certainly wouldn't give up on dating.
	I mean, you know, I think all the listeners should breed like rabbits, but not with rabbits, necessarily, unless that's one of the reasons why it's hard for you to find.
	No, no, no, Southwest England's lots of rabbits.
	Anyway, but will you give us a shout about what you think of this conversation?
	Just give us some feedback.
	Yeah, I can do.
	I suddenly became very afraid of disappearing again because I felt like the show was about to end at any second.
	It is.
	That's not just an irrational fear.
	Yeah, we didn't even talk about my family or, in fact, we didn't talk about anything that I came here to talk about, which is awful.
	Is it awful?
	Yeah, it is.
	You were talking about...
	Wanting to provide value in the dating world?
	And how to provide value to a partner?
	I was, but I don't feel as though I'm any better off.
	But that's why I say you've got to re-listen.
	Because you will be if you re-listen and hear a lot of the stuff that I've talked about with regards to that.
	If after re-listening you still think that you've got absolutely nothing of value, then please give us a shout and we'll take another run at it.
	So keep us posted.
	Thank you so much for calling in everyone.
	Naturally, I must bookend this as well with freedomainradio.com slash donate to come and help out.
	There's a reason why we're able to do what we're doing and that has entirely to do with your green sticky fingers of generosity.
	So freedomainradio.com slash donate to sign up for something.
	Just do it.
	Sign up.
	5, 10, 20 bucks a month or whatever you can afford.
	Do it.
	If you don't like it, you can cancel.
	Just see how you feel.
	I bet you you'll feel great if you do it.
	And I'm just trying to make you happy because I'm all concerned about that.
	FreedomMainRadio.com slash donate.
	Thank you everyone so much for a wonderful, wonderful conversation as always.

▲