All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:32
3072 From 8000 BC to 9/11 | A Brief History of Your Enslavement
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, this is Ivan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
On this today, the 14th anniversary of the attacks on 9-11 in America, 2001, it's time for a WeChat about the kind of world that you're living in and where it's headed without strenuous actions to oppose the continuing growth and predation of the state upon the planet and its inhabitants.
So, very briefly, the challenge of modern statecraft has really arisen in the mid-19th century.
Formerly, at least, the big battles from sort of the 18th to the 19th century were around restraining and controlling the size and power of the state and giving the average pre-medieval serf the capacity to act in his or her own economic self-interest.
And to be free of government control, the famous cry of the French merchant when the French king asked him, what can we do to help you trade?
He said, leave us be, leave us alone, laissez-nous faire, leave us alone.
Government get out of the way.
And this rigid control of peasants and their land, which characterized the feudal system throughout the Dark Ages, in particular to the early To Middle Ages arose, you know, when we were hunter-gatherers.
We had to move around a lot and it was all a pretty small tribe.
Everyone contributed and there really wasn't much of a political hierarchy.
When we switched as a species, you know, eight, ten thousand years ago to agriculture, Then we became fixed.
We no longer roamed around, and because we were tied to the land, a new political class arose that basically threatened people with death if they didn't pay their taxes.
And that, of course, has continued until this day.
The continuum of you're stuck in one place, you are reliant upon the property rights of land, and therefore you can be controlled in a way that hunter-gatherer tribes that can slip away and move at will can't be controlled.
It meant that human beings were domesticated through the process of agriculture.
We became taxed livestock, and you can look at my most popular video, The Story of Your Enslavement, for more on this.
We became taxed livestock.
The development of agriculture Changed us from free-range humans to caged animals for fun and profit.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing at the time.
Of course, one thing agriculture did, other than introduce a vast amount of diseases, a vast number of diseases that came generally from livestock, but it did allow for the much more efficient production of food using much less land.
A small hunter-gatherer tribe needed thousands of square miles to sustain itself.
You could sustain A family on a couple of acres so it became much more efficient and the population of the world which had only been a couple of million began to really explode and with the increase in population and the concentration of population in the most fertile areas of the world what happened was the more breeding opportunities you have the more mating opportunities you have the more human evolution can advance Because if you're only marrying and dating,
so to speak, within a 50 or 60 person tribe, your chances of beneficial mutations are very low.
But when you have a couple of thousand people or more around you and you can date and reproduce in a wider genetic stock, your opportunities for progress, for evolution, vastly accelerate.
This remained a tragically static state of affairs throughout much of human history.
There were the explicit tax livestock, which were the people taxed at 100% known as the slaves, and then there were the implicit tax livestock, who were granted a certain amount of more liberty in return for buying their freedom from their political masters.
And their political masters, in general, in turn, were dependent upon the media, who picked and chose whoever was going to be in power as they're currently trying to do in the political races at the moment as they always have done.
Now the media back in the day was the priesthood who interpreted the will of God and told people who God had chosen to be in power and that had a huge amount of sway and so the political leaders had to grant the religious leaders a monopoly in general on worship and special privileges which you can see of course coming down To this day and the political leaders by dealing with the media who evoke the primal passions of the people have to give the media special consideration,
have to give the priest special consideration and in return for giving the priest special consideration for making them the official organ of the state and its ethics or for giving them tax breaks or for giving them other beneficial legislation.
In return for giving the priesthood Their special benefits, the priesthood in turn, stamp the current rulers with the approval of whatever local deity is the most popular, and so you get the divine right of kings in return for we will prosecute or drive out any competing religions, and that's the unholy bargain that continues to this day, and we'll talk about more of this in a moment.
Now, what happened to some degree throughout the later Middle Ages, sort of talking 10th, 11th century onwards, there were a number of massive improvements in agriculture.
For instance, they developed a shoulder harness rather than a neck harness.
Before the development of the shoulder harness, you could only have the horse or the oxen pull so much before they began to choke themselves, Michael Hutchins style.
When you developed a shoulder harness, you could vastly improve the range and power of what the beasts of burden could pull, which meant deeper plowing, more plowing, and keeping things safer from birds.
Agricultural productivity increased enormously.
They also discovered, at least in Northern Europe, winter crops like turnip and so on.
Crop rotation was developed and enhanced, and all of this began to occur, which hugely increased crop production in some places between 10 and 20 times.
What this meant was far more children Lasted through infancy and survived and were stronger against diseases and then you developed an excess population.
When you develop an excess population You develop the capacity for cities when you have to because cities rely on excess food and excess people and so you went from sort of subsistence manorial style feudal farming to having the capacity for cities when you have the capacity for cities you need much more intellectual endeavors.
Roman law was rediscovered and was put into practice and of course when you have People who are not needed to work on the farm, then they can start to be worked in factories.
And so all of this sort of coalesced into the Industrial Revolution.
I know I'm going very fast, but it's important to get to the present day and what's going on.
And with the Industrial Revolution, there was a century, at least in Western Europe, which was relatively peaceful.
Compared to the horrors of the multi-hundred year religious wars because of course when Martin Luther in the 16th century nailed his 99 thesis to the door of the church in Wittenberg complaining about a variety of what he called corrupt Catholic or what back then was called Christendom because Catholicism basically was Christianity.
He sparked off a religious warfare and for several hundred years The various religions within Europe warred with one another for control of the state.
The Zwingalians, the Calvinists, the Anabaptists, the Lutherans, the Catholics, you name it.
They were all fighting for control of the state and eventually in order to survive this slow religious suicide, Europe had to separate church and state because it was too tempting a ring of power for the priests to get a hold of so that they could grab control of the state And then use the power of the state to wipe out religious rivals and then bless the king with the approval of the deity and thus legitimizing his
rule in the eyes of the credulous.
So eventually there was a separation of church and state in the West.
There was originally to some degree and to a fairly large degree, particularly in England and throughout the British Empire, a separation of state and economics.
The separation of church and state we all recognize in the West is a very valuable thing.
The separation of state and economics, well that is a very different thing.
Now in the 19th century with In particular, advances in technology, in lifespan, in health, and in science.
In particular, the theory of evolution, which has been called the single best idea ever to have occurred to a human being throughout history.
You began to see a growing skepticism towards religion.
And of course, it's very hard to damn someone who doesn't believe in your voodoo, right?
And of course, in order to save someone, you first have to damn them.
And the traditional The methodology of the Catholic faith was to say, well, you are born sinful because of Adam and Eve, but if you pay us regularly, we can remove this imaginary curse called sin from your imaginary organ called the soul, and this promise to remove a curse that, in fact, has been put upon you by the religion was the foundation of the wealth of the Catholic Empire.
This is called institutionalized sin, and we'll begin talking about institutionalized sexism and racism as flow-throughs of this in a moment.
But the institutionalized sin means it doesn't matter what you do, you're still wrong.
It doesn't matter what you have done, it doesn't matter how good you've been, you're still evil and going to hell unless you pay us, right?
And before the words thrown at people were sinner and damned and hell, and now the words that are thrown at people are, you know, sexist, racist, homophobe, and so on.
But if you pay us off, we will not use these words against you.
And so my sort of thesis is that the media formerly called religion, which reinforced the power structures that existed through calling people immoral through no fault or action of their own, those people when religion began to decline in its power in the West.
And for those in America and to some degree in Canada, it's hard to really understand just how secular Europe is.
And the number of atheists and so on in the Scandinavian countries is like near Japanese levels of close to unanimity.
And so the priests recognized that the ship of religion was going down, and so they shifted.
They shifted, of course.
Some of them shifted into politics and political theories, and some of them shifted into the media, right?
And so more, it's like the modern media, not sort of I was referring to with early religiosity.
And so the challenge for the new political theorists and media theorists was to create a system of thought that continued the religious tradition but without religion.
And it had to portray people as immoral through no actions of their own, through no choices of their own, through no empirical evidence of their behavior.
They had to just be immoral.
And people had to then pay the theoreticians to lift or remove this curse of immorality.
And at the one extreme, of course, you had communism and various flavors of progressive and Fabian socialism, which emerged, of course, Mid to late 19th century in particular for the progressive movement the early 20th century and in this you replaced good and evil with the morality of class structure and so if you were a working person then you were good but exploited And if you were an employer or
a capitalist or just anyone who had any money, then you were evil.
Were you evil because you had done anything in particular that was immoral?
Had you, you know, strangled hobos or stepped on kittens' tails or something like that?
Well, no.
Didn't matter.
Because you were evil by definition.
You are evil by definition.
And again, this is just the continued prospect of calling people immoral through no actions of their own because of some particular kind of theoretical structure that damns them as evil.
And the communists, of course, used this to gain power over huge sections of the globe.
I mean, Russia, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam, Cuba.
I mean, there was just massive amounts of communism and its spread that went on.
And the old goal in religion of evoking a sympathy and then using that sympathy as a cloak for the initiation of force then continued, right?
So in the past, Jesus said, Those who would follow me, cast off all your belongings, sell all of your belongings, give your money to the poor, and follow me.
And that was considered the route to virtue.
And, of course, by giving money to the poor, what he meant was, in general, not giving money to the poor directly, but donating money to the church, which then uses it to buy entire cathedrals made of gold, it seems, and all of the art treasures in the Western world.
So, this idea that if you sympathize about the poor, then you must give me money is an old trick of religion, and basically it's the same thing in socialism.
And by socialism, I mean Western democracies, which are, if you count national debt and proportions of government spending, majority socialist countries by now.
Socialism, of course, being...
The forced redistribution of wealth based upon the premise that wealth is not earned by individual choice and virtue or inheritance, which is the perception of preference by the person who owns the property before you.
Give it to you because they like you.
They're your parent or whatever.
But the idea that wealth is somehow magically distributed And the government needs to use force against those who have more in order to give it to those who have less, because there is an inherent injustice in the inequality of wealth throughout society.
It's wrong, you see, to have more.
It's a sin.
It's wrong to have more.
And it's better, it's more moral, so to speak, to have less.
Or, to put it another way, because of the economic determinism that comes out of communism, that The people who have money have not earned and are not responsible for it.
It just somehow mysteriously got distributed.
And the people who don't have as much money, they are not responsible.
They are victims of class circumstances and prior poverty.
What they call socio-economic status, which is actually pretty much statistically a lie.
And that socio-economic status tends to follow the IQ bell curve.
And if you have an IQ of 100 and you're born into the very poorest of families, Your chances of getting out of poverty are 800% greater than someone of low intelligence born into a low socioeconomic status.
So society tends to cluster itself around IQ lines and so it's really not the same as some sort of mysterious evil capitalist control class forces to keep the poor down.
But of course there is an appeal which says you have more and therefore you have an obligation to those who have less.
The idea that we should not have sympathy for the poor, of course, is ridiculous.
We do need to have sympathy for the poor, but the argument is if you allow wealthier people to keep their money, to save it, to invest it, to create more jobs, then you're doing a lot more good for the poor than giving your money to an intermediary.
And said intermediary then takes most of that money for themselves and dribbles a little bit to the poor.
There's almost no worse way to get money and help to the poor than to give your money to the government.
Government keeps most of the money for itself and gives a small amount to the poor and then creates, as you can see in my presentation, The Truth About Poverty, a welfare cliff where if you earn An additional dollar at particular points in welfare dependency, you're effectively taxed at 100%.
In fact, sometimes you're taxed at over 100% in that you lose more benefits than you gain in your income.
And this is what traps people in poverty.
When you give money to private charities, more money reaches the poor.
And it's much more helpful because, of course, you want to give your money to those charities who will get the most poor people out of poverty.
Whereas in the welfare state, You want to keep people dependent upon you so that they will continue to vote for government power, and there are very few people who work very hard to put themselves out of a job.
And the welfare state has no particular interest in ending poverty, but rather in maintaining it and to some degree expanding it, which is what you've seen.
Statistically, in the post-war period, poverty was declining by one percentage point every year, and then the government intervened when it looked like it was running out of poor people, which is like the church running out of sinners.
There's nothing left to sell.
And so it intervened to make sure that the numbers of poor people continued.
And that's what you see statistically.
Was this conscious or not?
Doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter whether it was some backroom smoky deal or just the natural instinct of the predatory classes to maintain their tax livestock.
And voting livestock, it doesn't really matter.
That's the way it is.
And so the the idea that when there are two Ideologies in opposition, that the way you fight them is to adopt the other person's worth, the other ideology's worst characteristics, is what has been happening throughout the 20th century.
And so the autocratic states in Germany and other of the more autocratic states in the middle of an Eastern Europe Well, this is what was ostensibly being fought against in World War I and then a lot of the countries after World War I took on a lot of the very autocratic and fascistic style elements of the countries that they had been fighting.
It's not an accident if you see this pattern that you become what you claim you despise when we see that one of the ways that The West was supposed to fight communism was by introducing socialism because they were afraid of course that the communists were going to rile up the working classes and so they bribed the working classes and the poor classes to hopefully prevent the spread of communism and all that did of course was infect the cancer of communism into the West which is playing its way out now and soon we
will come to a fork in the road where we will choose freedom or slavery.
Given modern technology, probably for all time.
So yes, that will be the fork in the road that history will call upon you to stand and scream your barbaric and rational Yorks to the ceiling of the world so that everyone can see which direction humanity needs to go so that we can put a stake in the heart of this historical vampire once and for all.
Historical vampire being, of course, bad ideas.
I'm never advocating violence.
And so...
The idea that we fight our enemies by taking on their worst characteristics, you see, they fought National Socialism in the West, Nazism, they fought National Socialism, and when the West was done with the case selected Churchill after the disasters of the R-selected Chamberlain,
you can watch for Gene Wars, my presentations on this or more on that, Well then, at the end of the Second World War, they went with the Labour Party, which were socialists, and they instituted a wide variety of socialist programs, you see, because you want to fight National Socialism by setting up...
What?
Yes, yes, that's right!
National Socialism is the best way to fight Socialism.
And, of course, this parallels war as a whole, in that most people believe it's a great idea to fight murder with murder, but topic for another time.
Now, The former priests, and this is sort of more of a pattern of thought than any particular individuals or bloodline, but the priests moved into the media and they moved into political theorizations, they became political theoreticians.
And they created, again, these involuntary immoral categories, placed people in them and charged them money to forgive them, right?
So, oh, you have some money.
I'm going to call you an evil exploiter and immoral and terrible.
And threaten you, but if you pay me off in the form of giving me massive amounts of money in the form of progressive taxation, then I will let you off the hook and call you an okay guy.
And that's the way it continues to work.
If you believe, I don't, but if you believe that giving huge amounts of money and power to the government to help minorities, you know, just as they helped the poor and Have helped Middle East freedom and peace and have helped the war on drugs.
If you believe that giving huge amounts of money and power is the best way to help particular minorities, Then you're okay.
If you doubt that, if you don't want to have the minorities use an excuse for pillaging and a diminishment of your economic and political liberties, well then, you know, you get racist screamed at you, you know, you get xenophobe, white supremacist, Nazi, so you get cursed with verbal abuse, you know, sin and all of this stuff.
Again, in the absence of specific evidence, it's all just verbal abuse.
So you get threatened with verbal abuse and that verbal abuse has very real consequences for a lot of people.
Loss of income, loss of reputation, their lives can be destroyed.
So you scream verbal abuse at people until they pay you off.
I mean, beforehand it was a death threat of infinite torture through hell.
Now it's a threat of ostracism and the destruction of your income.
But either way, these verbal abuse that have very real threats behind them are screamed at people.
But if you pay people off, then they will call you an okay person.
They will move on to some other.
It's a shakedown.
Basically, the shakedown class has shifted.
From the priesthood to the media and to, well, to academia in particular.
You know, academia that really welcomes diversity and says that a multiplicity of thought is such a great idea, but I don't think I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of academia.
I went to three universities in my time.
I have never seen a single academic department that says, you know, we don't have enough objectivists in here.
We don't have enough libertarians in here.
We really don't have enough republicans in here.
We better go and really cast our net a little bit wider.
They have no interest in diversity whatsoever.
So we can see that what the government says and what the government calls good and what the media praises is nothing more than the categorization of people as evil so that they will give money to avoid persecution.
And this shakedown has been going on ever since the foundation of agriculture.
I think it's reaching its nadir at the moment.
But let's talk a little bit because we started with 9-11.
So how is this playing out in the modern world?
Let's have a look.
So, the question of the Middle East, of course, has been part of Western history for at least over 100 years since Syria was first formed in the 1920s and a bunch of incompatible and often opposing Ideologies and religiosities were crammed together, so it's been going on for a long time, and even before that there were certain elements of it, although the imperialism tended to focus elsewhere, colonialism tended to focus elsewhere.
This idea that you can go and fund a bunch of people's weapons purchases and come in with the hammer blows of imperial powers and create peace within a region is a massive fantasy.
Certainly not how things occurred in Europe or other places where some tangible progress towards freedom now being eroded was made at least in the 19th century, early part of the 20th century, until Central banking and fiat currency came along, which is the opiate that drugs people to the predations of power by not charging them directly for its expansion.
But anyway, we'll get back to that just at the end.
And so the idea that you fight your opponents by adopting their tactics was, of course, the root of the CIA's involvement.
In the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was partly brought about by the CIA arming the Islamic holy warriors, the Mujahideen, of course Bin Laden was involved in this, by arming them against the Soviet Empire.
And when a $20,000 Stinger missile can bring down a multi-million dollar plane, you have an asymmetry of warfare when it comes to economics.
And this asymmetry Of warfare in terms of economics is very important.
It is vastly, vastly more expensive to invade than it is to defend.
To attack is incredibly expensive.
To defend is relatively cheap.
And that has changed a little bit with drones, but they weren't particularly available during that conflict.
And so the CIA taught the Mujahideen how to take down a superpower, which was to involve it in a war with economic asymmetries so that you could destroy the economy of the invading superpower.
Huh.
I wonder if they'll ever use that against America.
No, no.
Oh, wait.
No, yes, they did.
And so bin Laden, of course, knowing how to bring down an empire and wishing to diminish America or the West's role in the Middle East.
In particular, he was revolted at the support of Saudi Arabia and the stationing of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil.
And so he, of course, funded an attack on 9-11 that provoked the exact response.
You know, it's never a good idea in war to do exactly what your enemy wants you to do.
That's called losing.
And we can see that, of course, playing out now across the world as a whole.
And so the goal was to strike at America so that America would get involved, as had happened before in Afghanistan, under a wide variety of colonial superpowers.
They get involved in an unwinnable, treasury-draining war where defense is very cheap, attack is very expensive, and the goal is to destroy the economy of the host country.
And the longer you delay the destruction of the economy of the attacking country, the worse that is.
So, for instance, the The delay, the extended pretend that is occurring.
Governments don't even remotely have enough money to cover their expenses.
They're over by massive amounts.
In terms of their spending, this is only maintainable by fiat currency, by the other form of fiat currency called treasury bonds and so on.
So, basically, they're taking out massive loans in order to maintain the illusion of solvency.
The longer that continues, the worse the crash is.
And, of course, it's working relatively well, because that's exactly...
And, of course, the people in America, in the intelligence agency, know all about this.
But it takes a courageous person to stand in front of a mob thirsting for irrational vengeance and say, stop and think about it, for God's sake.
For God's sake, put down your pitchforks and put down your flaming torches and let's just think about this for a moment.
Is this really a rational course of action?
Most people end up with arrows in their chest and footprints on their face if they stand in front of a bloodthirsty mob.
And there was not much success.
And of course, the media didn't have the courage to stand in front of the bloodthirsty mob in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
And therefore, they basically paved the way and spread the lies.
Oh, weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, Saddam Hussein was buying a yellow cake to make nuclear weapons in Nigeria.
Oh, this.
Oh, he was associated with Al-Qaeda.
They've got long-range missiles with weapons of nucleosity capable of flattening American cities.
We wouldn't want a smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Save yourselves.
Your children will be irradiated.
You'll just be nuclear shadows on the sidewalks.
Kill!
So easy to rouse up the population.
So much bad parenting and so little critical pushback from rational thinkers.
But history has played itself out and the bloodthirsty mob wakes up with the hangover of debt and blowback, as we see, and with neighbors missing limbs and with half a million or more dead Iraqis and with the sowing of the seeds of Further retaliatory terrorism in the Middle East and so on.
And so after 9-11, was it 45 days after 9-11, of course they passed the Patriot Act, which was entirely unconstitutional and bypassed the Bill of Rights enormously.
But this, of course, was to keep America safe.
From terrorism.
The whole point was to keep America safe.
And people believed that things weren't particularly bad until Edward Snowden came along and proved just how much information the government had been gathering.
on Americans and what this meant was that this combined with some other things meant that America was attempting to run a foreign policy completely blindfolded and this is very important if you look at the foreign policy disasters that have occurred in America particularly over the last decade and in particular over the last five years it's just been endless catastrophes that there's the idea that Clinton would run on her record as Secretary of State is like Bernie Madoff running
on his excellent accounting.
It's just madness.
But because so much information has been gathered, not only domestically but around the world, and unconstitutionally, but with the authorization, of course, of the Patriot Act as revealed by Ed Snowden, so much information has been gathered that you can't trust anyone.
This is so important to understand.
A variety of things have happened that means that America is running its foreign policy completely blind.
The first, of course, is that recently, a couple of years ago now, I guess, there was a significant hack of US computers and the information that was in people's files, including those who were in the State Department, was all compromised.
It was all compromised.
And what that means is that unknown people around the world have every single bit of blackmailable dirt on just about everyone of importance in the foreign affairs departments of the US government.
They have all the blackmail information they could possibly need.
And what this has done is it has meant that the intelligence community can no longer be trusted, not because everyone there is a liar, but simply because you have no idea who's being blackmailed or not.
So when you want to go and work for the State Department, they do a background check and they look, have you had affairs?
Do you have a drinking problem?
Do you have a drug problem?
Do you have whatever it is?
Do you have some weird goat fetish or something like that?
And they need to find out if you can be blackmailed and they put all of this information in secure files which apparently are not paper in a vault somewhere but were accessible online.
And this information has all gone out into the world.
So you have no idea who is being threatened or blackmailed or bribed in this way.
And so, because none of this information is available, you basically have no capacity to trust the people who are pointing the massive US military at particular targets.
I mean, and they've also been spying on foreigners as well, right?
Angela Merkel recently reversed with regards to the European migrant crisis.
In 2010 she said multicultural society is a complete and abysmal failure.
It hasn't worked.
It'll never work.
And now she's inviting half a million refugees from opposing cultures into Germany.
Well, why?
I have no idea fundamentally, but the most rational explanation is that the The powers that be have something on her.
She's been spying on everyone all the time.
Her email's been hacked.
They've got something.
Who knows, right?
Now, another, of course, Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private and relatively unsecure email server during her tenure as Secretary of State has also meant that It seems very unlikely that anyone has trusted anything that Secretary Clinton did while she was in that position.
Because it was fairly well known around the world that she was using unsecure email.
And apparently it was not known to the US media, but then of course they have to protect.
The priesthood largely serves the God of Democrats.
And so she said, well, I never received anything classified.
It's like, that's sort of important, right?
If you're a tax lawyer and you've never received any tax information, that's kind of important.
Her whole job was to receive and process classified information, fundamentally.
But of course, the U.S., The US allies or anyone around the world never wanted to communicate either by phone or email and probably not even in person given that they thought any one of her 12,000 phones could have been turned on remotely and set to record, but they didn't want to have any communications with her because they knew that her email was not secure.
And so unless you wanted everyone in the world knowing your private business, you didn't communicate with Hillary Clinton, which means that nobody said anything of substance to Hillary Clinton during the entire time of her tenure as Secretary of State, the whole point of which is to receive classified information from allies and work with them to achieve foreign policy goals.
So, because you don't know who's been compromised, you don't know who's been hacked, you don't know who's being blackmailed, you can't talk to anyone because you're not on a secure system.
The US has, for many years, been flying completely blind when it comes to foreign policy.
Of course, nobody wants to talk about this because that would mean that the entire military budget has been rendered largely null and void.
The entire military budget has been rendered largely null and void.
How much would you pay, as a military procurement specialist, how much would you pay for a weapon that fires in random directions?
You wouldn't pay anything.
In fact, you'd pay to not have that weapon because it will do as much damage to you as a potential enemy, as bystanders, as oak trees, as butterflies passing by.
You can't trust any of the intelligence that the US military, sorry, the US intelligence community and State Department has been gathering.
It's all compromised and there's no way.
You have to scrub the whole thing and fire everyone and start again and build up all your contacts again and train everyone again, which would take years and years.
So everyone's just pretending that there is some sort of reliable intelligence that is available to the American intelligence community when any rational Observer understands that this is completely false.
And so the US military is running blind.
They have no idea what they're doing.
They have no idea whether any of the information they're getting is true or false.
And because of that, the entire military budget, 700 billion dollars plus of the US has been rendered entirely invalid, right?
I mean, this to me is the real crime that has gone on with the failure to secure files and the potential The insecurity of Clinton's email server is that the cost is enormous and it has rendered hundreds of billions of dollars of investment every year entirely null and void and in fact counterproductive because again it's a weapon that everyone wants to pull the trigger of but it has no idea what it's pointing at.
It fires fairly randomly.
So this is what has resulted in some of the vast disasters.
The idea that you can go in and destroy Saddam Hussein and then suddenly have a peaceful Iraq is a fantasy.
I've done a book reading of Lloyd DeMoss' The Origins of War and Child Abuse, where you can understand that society generally is a reflection of people's early childhood experiences.
And that is the power vacuum which is originated from brutal and dictatorial parenting, aggressive and abusive parenting.
That means that you want to grow up in a society and you're trained and programmed to grow up in a society where you demand a brutal and oppressive overlord to replace the parental image within your own mind and heart.
That was never going to work.
But what it did do, of course, is it destabilized the entire region, because when America invaded in, I think it was March of 2003, it invaded, it destroyed the Republican Guard, and then it disbanded the military.
And that, of course, created the demand for America to stay in there.
And Dick Cheney recently, who said originally, along with Rumsfeld, that the war would be over in six months and everything would be done, was now complaining that the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops that was originally negotiated by George Bush the Younger was actually adhered to by President Obama, who began withdrawing the troops in 2011 as per Bush's negotiations.
And of course the reason why The troops were withdrawn from Iraq is that the Iraqi president said that he was going to start subjecting U.S. troops to Iraqi law.
And that was not going to work very well, because if you end up with the troops fighting against the government that the troops installed, the failure becomes too blatant.
I mean, there are certain times where the sun breaks through even the murkiest of clouds.
And so they withdrew the troops and this created an opening, of course, along with the US arming and Saudi Arabian arming and Qatar arming of Syrian rebels and government forces.
It created an opening for Iran and ISIS to sweep into northern Iraq.
That power vacuum was natural and inevitable.
Until the country starts becoming a little bit more philosophical, until the region starts becoming a little bit more philosophical, it's always going to be a war.
of various belief systems against other belief systems.
They're incompatible because of their irrational nature.
You can have diversity in science, you know, because a Muslim or an Indian scientist or a British scientist, they're all going to agree on the scientific method, so they have a way of resolving their disputes that has nothing to do with culture or religion.
But when you have irrational absolutes, they will always be at war with each other until either reason comes or bodies all fall.
Then, of course, because there is a proxy war being fought between a variety of Middle East and, to a smaller degree, American forces in Syria, you have the displacement of millions of Syrians and the Iraqi states don't want to have, sorry, the Middle Eastern states don't really want to have anything to do with them.
The largest and richest Middle Eastern states are rejecting them and therefore they're heading to Europe.
Now, Now, of course, anybody who raises any concerns about this potential incompatibility between secular Europe and Muslim immigrants, of course, again, now you're just screamed down as a sinner and a xenophobe and a Nazi and a racist and whatever, whatever, whatever, right?
And those concerns are just brushed aside because you have the media in full priesthood mode damning anyone who interferes with what they perceive of as their own self-interests.
So my big story here is that humanity started without a state.
It started in a hunter-gatherer as a tribal society without a government.
The founding of agriculture was the founding of political oligarchical hierarchies where it became profitable because human beings could be enclosed by their need for agricultural food and land and property.
Human beings could be fenced in.
I mean, the fences don't just keep the animals out and the four-legged livestock in.
It also keeps the two-legged livestock in and allows for the endless predation upon those livestock who now are dependent upon agriculture to survive and the protection of property to survive.
They then have to pay off governments forever.
So we've had this multi-thousand year history of governments.
Now, what's interesting is that we're no longer tied to land.
And this is one of the reasons why I'm a voluntarist, a stateless society advocate.
Some would call an anarchist, although it's not the kind you think about.
And I've got free books on this at freedomainradio.com slash free.
You might want to check out Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
But the reason is that I fundamentally understand that we are back to a hunter-gatherer kind of society, potentially.
And by that, I don't mean we go and hunt rabbits for food with blow darts and bows and arrows.
What I mean is that because of the internet, because of the information revolution, we are no longer as specifically tied to land in terms of productivity as we used to be.
There is much more of a roamability to humanity as well, and of course we're hands across the water joining with other people from different cultures to pursue particular goals, whether they're philanthropic or entrepreneurial or artistic.
And so we are much more back to the hunter-gatherer potential because of technology.
And this is one of the reasons why.
I mean, I'm talking to you and you're only hearing me because of this and the fact that we're doing a couple of million downloads a month and views a month is because of technology.
And so We have a potential to re-examine the roots of human civilization, which was a stateless society, and to look at that.
Because at some point we do have to accumulate enough wisdom to see these repetitive disasters.
Because now people are saying, well, governments should be in charge of the migrant crisis.
But it was government ineptitude and incompetence and brutality That created the migrant crisis.
So the same people who created the problem, which was, you know, it's easier to break things than it is to make them, the same institutions that created all these problems people are now expecting to be able to integrate opposing cultures with great sophistication.
It's never going to happen and it's not going to work.
I'm not saying multiculturalism is impossible.
What I am saying is that governments can't run it.
Anymore than governments can do anything efficiently and effectively, because governments are agencies founded upon the initiation of the use of force, which is fundamentally immoral, and we should not have to continually cough up our children's future to buy one more day of freedom in the here and now.
So I hope that this helps.
I hope this gives you some perspective.
I look forward to your comments and feedback below.
As always, if you find these conversations helpful, I beg of you, please go to freedomainradio.com slash donate To help us out.
To help us continue to spread the word of peace, freedom, good parent, reason, empiricism, and to build the cathedral of liberty we all hope to inhabit in the future.
Because it's going to go one way or the other.
We're going to go uphill or down into an eternal hell.
And I am heading up.
▲
Export Selection