Sept. 22, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:54:43
3080 Liberal Media Industrial Complex - Call In Show - September 19th, 2015
Question 1: [1:25] - What should I do when a bigger child is being aggressive with my son? A mother complained when I protected my son from a boy who pushed him. Am I being over-protective - perhaps because I was bullied by my mother and regularly by kids at school - or is this a healthy reaction?Question 2: [29:50] - If Intelligence has a genetic component and is a strong predictor of future economic success - this raised an interesting moral question. Do we have some duty to protect the less intelligent from themselves, perhaps the same way we might support a person who is born disabled? Is high intelligence just winning the genetic lottery? Do we have a duty? And if not, why?Question 3: [1:54:45] - It is my opinion that that conservatives try to persuade people with logic and reason more than emotions. Besides a few exceptions, I think a majority conservative personas can participate in rational discussions without constant logical errors or appeal to emotions. So - why do not we play the left's game? Why do we persist with logic when the left wins by making emotionally arguments?
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So we've got three callers on the show for tonight.
Just a quick preview of what we talked about.
I hope you'll find it fascinating.
It was a great, great show.
I think you'll really enjoy it.
First caller was a father who wanted to ask about, how do I deal with kids who are bullying or being aggressive towards my son?
And we had a great conversation about proactive steps that you as a parent can take to deal with these kinds of situations.
I think you'll find that very helpful.
The second caller said, okay, well...
If intelligence is kind of unevenly distributed, right, smart people, not so smart people, and it's kind of genetic, then shouldn't smart people be responsible for taking care of less smart people?
We had a great conversation about intelligence and social responsibility and all that fantastic, fantastic stuff.
The third caller was asking about...
Shouldn't we just dump the reason and evidence thing and go for a straight-on emotional gut-punching like a lot of the media does and some of the social Marxists and so on?
That's a great question about how do we best affect change in society?
Do we drop the high road and go for what seems to be working the most in society at the moment?
So these were fantastic, fantastic questions.
I hope you'll stay tuned to a very epic rant at the very end that I think you'll really enjoy.
And thanks, of course, so much for listening.
Here is the shoe.
Alright.
Well, up first today is John.
John wrote in, and his question says, What should I do when a bigger child is aggressive with my son?
A mother complained when I protected my son from a boy who pushed him.
Am I overprotective?
Perhaps because I was bullied by my mother and on a regular basis by kids at school.
That's from John.
Oh, hi John.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Stefan.
How are you doing?
I'm well, thank you.
I'm well.
How old's your son?
Three.
And what's the environment that he's being pushed in?
I've been going to the sort of forest school group.
It's an outdoor activity.
So he gets to, I don't know, play in some mud and sit around a campfire and be around kids of different ages.
And yeah, that's like 99% of the time it's really great.
He meets some of his friends there.
But occasionally there'll be some other children there that pop in with one of the other mums and one of them can be a bit rough.
And on one occasion he...
Pushed my son quite hard, not enough to knock him over.
So I put my arm out between them, between my son and this other kid who was bigger.
I guess he was probably seven or eight.
And I just sort of...
Firmly but gently pushed him back a ways so that he was sort of out of arm's length reach of my son.
You know, I'm easily triggered by aggressive or bullying activity.
And this other mother didn't take too kindly to it, although I didn't hear about this until nearly a year later.
A year?
Yeah, she got pregnant again, and she was really sensitive around that time.
And she wouldn't sort of confront me about it or talk to me about it.
Wait, wait, wait, hang on, hang on.
It's always like, this show has, we should have a countdown to female excuses.
Right?
Which is like, call starts.
If it involves a woman, count down to female excuses starting now.
And very few people make it more than a minute or two.
So maybe I'm missing what you're saying, John, but were you implying that she was sensitive because she was pregnant and therefore couldn't tell you what was bothering her?
That's what she says.
Okay, well, then you need to say that's what she says, because pregnant women are not insane.
Like, nobody says, I'm sorry, pregnant women.
There's a vote.
It happens to fall while you're pregnant.
You can't have any moral responsibility or any possibility of emotional self-regulation because hormones and growing fetal tissue soon to be harvested by government-supported groups in the U.S. But...
Nobody says, oh, well, Your Honor, she was shoplifting, but she was pregnant, so let's just let her go.
Full moral responsibility.
Pregnancy is not an excuse.
Menstruation or being on your period is not an excuse.
Let's not do that.
Her son did something that was aggressive towards your son, and you intervened gently to save it, and then she didn't bring it up for a year.
That's all on her.
Please don't blame her fetus.
Not even her son.
What do you mean?
It wasn't her son who was aggressive with my son.
It was actually one of the leader's children that did it, or like a part-time leader.
She's there sometimes, sometimes she's not, most of the time she's not.
But this is another mother who just didn't like the way I dealt with that boy.
Who was aggressive with my son.
And there were all sorts of things that were fired my way.
There was another occasion as well when my son...
Okay, hang on, hang on.
So it was the leader of the group's son who was aggressive with your son?
Yeah, there's like two leaders.
And is this a woman?
Yes, it is a woman, yes.
And did she talk to you about any issues she had with your behavior?
I don't think she was even watching because she was leading.
Well, but the other women had a lot to say about it, and I'm sure they would have talked to the leader, right?
I'm suspecting maybe they didn't, but yeah, I don't know.
I haven't heard this from anybody else apart from this one other mum.
Okay.
And this other mum brought it up that this was some sort of issue that you gently restrained the other kid from pushing your son?
Yes, that was an issue for her.
And she had an issue one other time when a smaller boy pushed my son right over.
And I got quite angry and I called this other boy a nasty boy.
And I kind of don't like that on reflection myself.
And how old was the boy who pushed over your son that you called nasty?
I think he was probably about five or six.
And how old was your son when this happened?
I was still three.
Oh, so it was an older boy.
Was it an older boy in both circumstances who pushed over your son?
Yes, I think so.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, I think saying a nasty boy to a five-year-old or six-year-old, I don't know if you said it to him or just about him, but that's obviously not ideal, right?
Because he's just trying to survive the environment he's placed in.
Exactly.
Yeah, when I heard that back from her, I kind of regretted that.
And I'm like, well, I can't even remember saying that because it was like a year ago.
But I thought, yeah, that's not something I really want to be saying to a child.
And did anyone have, sorry John, did any of the women who talked to you about this, did any of them have any issues with the boys who pushed your son?
Not that I'm aware of.
No, I've heard nothing about that, no.
So the only problem you see was you being assertive.
Exactly.
Now let me just remind you, John, I'm going to assume that you're Caucasian or white?
Yes, that would be correct.
Now, just remember, John, this is something that those who aren't of this persuasion really have a tough time understanding.
You are never allowed to be assertive.
Right?
I don't know if you've ever experienced this in your life.
You are never allowed to be assertive.
You must always bow down to everyone else's problem narrative.
You are not allowed to stand up for yourself.
That's oppression.
Seems to sound about right.
Does this ring a bell with you at all?
Because remember, all that privilege you've got as a white male, you are never allowed to stand up for yourself.
That is being scary.
That is being intimidating.
That is being a patriarch or some sort of white supremacist or whatever it is, right?
So that's an important thing to remember when dealing with these kinds of situations, that everyone has been programmed to...
To bully white males and no white male is allowed to stand up for himself or you will face escalation until you comply and kowtow.
And in general, right?
Maybe there are exceptions and so on.
But that is an important thing.
Now...
I don't know what the race is of the people around you.
It doesn't really matter.
But the fact that women come to you, who's protecting your son, and the only issue they have is with you asserting a safe physical space around your son, you know, that's just an important thing to recognize, that that's what goes on in this world, that you're simply not allowed to assert yourself.
I mean, if another...
Let me put it this way.
If...
Your son had pushed over a little girl.
What do you think would have happened if another mother had kept your son at bay during that interaction?
I think something probably would have been said about that at the time.
About what would have been said?
Um...
Could you stop him doing that, please?
Something along that lines?
I mean, these are actually quite conscious and generally aware people compared to the average person.
So if your son had pushed over a little boy, you would have been at fault.
But when your little boy gets pushed over by someone else and you intervene, you're also at fault, right?
Oh, yeah.
Hang on, hang on.
There's a common thread here.
I'm just trying to figure out what it is.
Who's at fault?
That's just something to remember as a whole.
That makes it more difficult when it comes to being assertive, because nobody takes your side, right?
That's right.
And the strange thing is, the mum who complained about this was actually at the time in a relationship with her physically violent boyfriend as well.
And her child, who's just a year older than mine, had witnessed and seen some of this stuff.
Wait, so she was...
She was an unmarried mom who was exposing her children.
So she was a single goddamn mother exposing her child to an abusive man.
And the only issue was you protecting your son.
That's right.
Yeah.
God Almighty, excuse me while I just summon up a deep philosophical dry heave.
All right.
Well, good for you.
I'm sorry for this tramp, sort of, this masochistic tramp's kid.
I'm sorry that she gets turned on by guys beating her up while her son watches.
I'm terribly sorry about the son, but of course you did the right thing, it seems to me, in keeping your son safe from physical aggression.
You know, single moms have a bit of a tough time when they see involved dads.
Because deep down, right, deep down, they know that that's what they should be providing for their children, right?
When they see a happily married couple, when you see a dad who's involved and tender and caring and protective...
She knows deep down, right?
Women have maternal instincts, just as men have paternal instincts.
And she knows deep down that she's shortchanging her kid by having some, you know, rough nut, mealy-mouthed motorcycle-wearing, spanner-wielding jerk-off around her kid that she can't get a decent guy, right?
And that's pretty rough.
Yeah.
That is pretty rough.
And that creates a complicated relationship.
You know, like when you are, I don't know, when you were in high school, was there?
I remember there was a girl in my high school who was the queen of the high school, the queen bee of the high school.
She was the prettiest, she was the coolest, and everybody.
I actually did ask her out, screwed my courage to the sticking place and all that.
A story for another time.
But...
The guys all have this really complicated relationship with the queen bee, right?
Because they all want her, but they all know that the steps to try and get her to go out with you are, let's just say, steep and jagged, to say the least.
And, of course, she's an expert at repelling advances, whereas most teenage boys are not experts at closing advances, you know?
They don't have a lot of game.
At least I didn't.
But anyway...
I spoke to my girlfriend about this, sorry to interrupt, but to, like, come up with, well, what would be the best strategy in this situation?
Because she felt a bit embarrassed about this complaint and...
Wait, wait, have we just finished my part of the story?
Sorry.
I was just in the middle of a story and it sounds like we're going off in some other direction.
Yeah, I just wanted to come back to the talk about...
We will.
We'll come back.
We'll come back.
So when you're surrounded by single moms, if you're a good dad and there are single moms around or women who have unhappy marriages and they see you playing with your child and engaged with your child and so on, you've become like the cheerleader.
Yeah.
In high school.
And they have complicated relationships with you.
That's just something to be aware of when you're an engaged, involved dad.
So, okay, that's something to remember, but go ahead back to what you were about to say.
Yeah, that makes sense, and thank you for that.
Yeah, I guess I do probably present an interesting challenge for some of the single mums who are having the worst of it.
What do you mean by having the worst of it?
Well, you know, some single mums are kind of working more functionally with their ex-partners, whereas others are having this crazy shit going on.
Wait, having...
Having the worst of it, you know, like somebody who gets hit by lightning out of a clear blue sky, that's kind of having the worst of it.
But if I choose to get involved in an abusive relationship, that's not just having the worst of it, that's creating the worst of it.
That's actively pursuing and having sex with the worst of it.
Yeah, well, she had another kid with this guy and then left him.
Right, so she sucks as a mom.
Right?
She's terrible as a mom, and her kids are paying the price, and your kids, your son in that instance was paying the price, and all of us in the future are gonna pay the price.
So she is terrible as a person and as a mom and all that, and deep down she knows that.
And because she's a terrible person, she's not gonna take responsibility, but she's gonna get all passive-aggressive and weird, right?
For sure.
And these women used to be regarded as terrible people.
This was common knowledge.
You know, the mid to late 20th century has been this giant time of unlearning stuff that we all used to know as a society.
And it has been, of course, a lot of Marxism and social Marxism and all that.
They put people in these economic categories and strip free will of them.
And feminists, of course, love to have theoretical responsibility for women, but the moment that you say women are responsible for who they have sex with and they're responsible for providing fathers, which are desperately needed by their children, in particular their sons, but also their daughters, and they're doing bad things by not creating those resources or keeping a good man around for their kids, suddenly they're all just victims and the men just run away and it takes two to take a second.
So, has this happened since you said it happened once a year ago?
Well, there were two incidents a year ago.
Right.
One of them was the bigger child pushing my son and the other one was a smaller child pushing my son over and then me saying something nasty about the other kid, the aggressive kid.
Right.
And when did this last incident happen?
These incidents were both a year ago, I guess, within a few weeks.
So why is this a big issue for you now if it was a year ago and hasn't happened in a year?
I guess because she brought it up a couple of months ago.
The terrible mom?
Yeah.
And I kind of, I don't know, there was a time where I initially thought, yeah, I need to talk this over with her and I'd like to get some closure around it.
And then I thought about it and I said to myself, no, fuck you.
I don't really need to talk to you or have you in my life.
No, listen, I know what you mean because when you're a responsible and mature person, there's always this...
desire and if this desire to bring the standards of maturity to everyone you come in contact with but it's really not a good idea People have to earn the right to get closure from you people have to earn the right to civil conversation from you Honesty and intimacy is not like a vagina to be handed out at a NASCAR rally in the back alley or under the bleachers, right?
It's something that people earn from you like honesty and integrity and virtue and consideration and empathy.
These things must be earned by people and it is the great tragedy of an entire group of people in the world that Just believe it's somehow some Existential duty to provide virtues to those who don't provide virtue in return.
So, yeah, good call.
Don't talk things out with people who are weird and dysfunctional and aggressive and whatever, right?
For sure, yeah.
I've given up on that now and not too bothered with it.
But it did leave me with the question of still what's the best path.
I spoke to my partner about this and we had a bit of a to-and-fro Very politely and diplomatically, because we're very mature.
And one of the suggestions she came up with was, well, just pick your son up and sort of, or our son up, and back off and take him away somewhere else.
And I said to that, well...
No, no, no.
I gotta...
Sorry.
I gotta disagree.
We didn't do anything wrong, you know?
No, no, no.
You know, I gotta disagree with all of that.
You know, it's like saying, okay...
So, John, here's what you do.
You go take your child to the zoo, but you bring some extra steaks, and you slip those extra steaks into your pocket.
Make sure they're nicely marinated, full of blood, and all that.
And then what you do is you lower your child into the lion pit, but then you throw the steaks somewhere else so that the lions go elsewhere rather than attacking your child.
Then you lower yourself down, and, you know, maybe you have a pointed stick or something like that, or, you know, the soundtrack to Lion King or something, and, you know, what else it is that drives animals away.
And like, it's all about, okay, well, how about not putting your kid in the lion pit to begin with, then you don't need stakes, you don't need soundtracks, you don't need sharp pointed sticks.
And so the key thing here is, do not have your child around dysfunctional parents and their children.
Yeah, well, the problem there is that, you know, most of the time this group is fine, all the kids are fine, but occasionally this mum comes along, and I don't necessarily know when she's coming, and she's bringing this big kid who's a bit aggressive.
And so there's a bit of an element of unpredictability in it.
I can't always know.
Okay, so if the mum comes by, then you leave.
Right?
I mean, if there is a dysfunctional family around, I mean, listen...
I don't want to get into all of...
But it's a job interview.
Hey, would you like your child to spend time with my child?
How interesting.
Let's sit down and talk for four hours first, right?
I mean, we interview people that we hire for our companies with much more attention to detail than we do having our kids play with other families' kids, right?
I mean, you've got to talk to these parents.
You've got to...
Look for the warning signs.
You've got to look for the, you know, just throw your kid in with whoever is around, right?
I mean, you've got to, you know, for your friends, you wouldn't just go and become friends with just anyone.
You wouldn't just go and hang around at a bar and just become friends with everyone, right, who just happened to be there.
And you really do want to make sure that your children are surrounded as much as possible by functional people.
And people say, oh, well, there are dysfunctional people in the world and you've got to deal with them.
You really don't.
You can design a life free of dysfunctional people.
It takes some work, but it's well worth it.
And the great thing is, of course, if your children are around functional people, they don't speak screwed up.
And so they really, for their whole life, they'll be safe from screwed up people because they'll see them and they will steer clear of them instinctively.
Yeah, that makes sense.
And this is a mom that doesn't come very, very often, you know, once maybe in every 10 weeks or 20 weeks.
Yeah.
Okay.
And that's, you know, what you do is, but you say to your child, you say, look, um, This is a single mom.
She was with a mean guy.
She had a kid with a mean guy.
The mean guys left.
And her kids are, unfortunately, not the fault of the kids.
They're just trying to survive, but it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter whether it's the kids' fault.
People get confused about all this stuff.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if the shark is hungry.
I still don't want it biting my leg.
It's not necessarily a moral thing for the kids, right?
I mean, they're just kids.
Yeah.
It doesn't matter, you know, if a rock is rolling down a hill, it doesn't have any intention to bash my brains in, but I'm still going to hot-foot it out of there right quick.
So you say, you know, what I would do is say to my son, okay, you know, I've got this, my spider senses tingling around this family, plus you remember that incident from a year ago, and so on, right?
And, you know, I don't...
This kid is not up to scratch in terms of playing with you.
So, you know, love to go to these areas.
But I'm telling you, if this woman shows up, you know, I'm going to pretend I got a phone call and, you know, we're going to hit the road.
And I want you to tell me anytime you feel hinky around kids, anytime you feel that something's amiss, right?
You really want your kids to trust their instincts.
That's really, really important.
But it's your job to evaluate the parents of the kids playing.
Because it's not just about a pushing incident at all.
I mean, this one thing for once a year or whatever, right?
But it's about the whole interaction and who you're surrounded by, who you allow.
Whoever's around your kids, your kids assume you've vetted and approve of, right?
Like my daughter, when I cooked her dinner tonight, and she doesn't sit there and say, is this poisoned?
Has this food gone off?
Is there mold in it?
She doesn't say that because she knows I've vetted the food, I know the food is good, and I've cooked it, and it's good to eat, right?
And so every time you serve a meal to your kid, they assume that the meal is good to eat, that you've approved of it, that it's safe and so on, right?
And it's the same thing with kids who are around your kids.
Whoever is around your kids, adult, child, doesn't matter.
Kids assume that you have vetted kids.
And approve of to the point where they're around them.
And you need to be...
If you don't approve of that person, then don't let that person around your kid.
Because that's an implicit seal.
A good daddy seal of approval is letting some kid around your kid.
And if that kid turns out to be dysfunctional or destructive or weird or troublesome or whatever it is.
And it doesn't have to be as obvious as a push.
It can be something whispered to them on the far side of the playground.
It can be just some weird game.
It can be grappiness.
It can be carelessness, right?
Some kids are not aggressive, but just fundamentally careless.
And that can be dangerous as well.
And so, if some child is dysfunctional around your child, that will reflect on you as a parent in your child's mind, because it's your job to make sure that their play companions are good and decent people.
Agreed, yeah.
Has your son talked about this at all with you?
No, I don't recall him bringing those incidents up.
He was just upset at the time and hasn't been mentioned again.
Right.
But something strange happened a few weeks later, that same bigger kid was there, and in somewhat better spirits, but he was trying to get some bubble mixture off my son, I don't know, off me, and my son was popping the bubbles I was blowing, but he was also throwing sticks at the bubbles, and one of these sticks hit the big kid.
Your son was?
My son threw this big stick at a bubble, but it ended up going in this big kid's, the aggressive kid's face and whacking him.
And he got very upset about that.
How old was his son at this point?
Still, this is last year.
No, this is this year.
Yeah, still three.
Right.
Yeah, well, I mean, of course, you know, you need to prevent your kid from throwing sticks when there are other kids around, obviously.
Yes, that's right.
That's a rule since he poked someone with a stick a while ago, so now he's not supposed to have sticks.
He's just not good at it.
Well, he can have them, right?
I mean, just not...
Not near other children, yeah.
Exactly.
Right.
Well, you can even have sticks around other children.
He just can't be throwing them or poking them, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And are you not married to them all?
You're not married to them all?
I'm not married, no.
And how long have you guys been together?
We've been together since seven years, eight years.
Okay, I'm just curious.
I don't want to sort of poke around that as if it's a problem.
I'm just kind of curious.
Why not married?
Why not married?
Can't see the point in it, really.
It's just a bit of paper, etc.
Right, okay.
I'm going to assume that the legal rights, wherever you are, are all the same, whether you're common law or married?
No, I don't think so.
There are some differences.
Marriage grants certain privileges, I guess, yeah.
Yeah, I'm just thinking in terms of inheritance and should something happen to one of you and all that kind of stuff.
Something to look into if you haven't already.
You don't want to find that stuff out too late.
Oh yeah, we have wills and so forth set up and trust funds.
That kind of thing, yeah.
Yeah, so that would be my suggestion.
You don't want to be playing catch-up.
And just try and keep the dysfunctional kids away from your kid.
And certainly keep the dysfunctional families.
And you've got to vet that in advance.
Don't wait for something to happen.
I mean, certainly with this show, we've talked a lot about signs of dysfunctionality and so on.
And you'll find that stuff when you look at the parents and so on.
You know, the obvious things like, you know, whatever, you know, physical markers and so on.
But...
I would, yeah, I would definitely say work on making sure to prevent, you know, for me, most of parenting is, you know, not how fast can you drive to the hospital, but how can you prevent an accident without inhibiting, right?
There was this philosophy that was around for a while, which would basically, you know, wrap your kids in bubble wrap and they'll have a great childhood, right?
I mean, they just keep them inside or keep them from climbing trees or whatever.
And it hasn't worked out very well.
Because, of course, kids are inactive and they become paranoid about the outside world and they are developing health issues as a result of this, right?
So you want your kids to be out there having fun and engaging and so on, but you want to be the filter on their social engagements to make sure that they can relax and enjoy their social engagements without weird stuff going down.
So...
It can get complicated, too.
If there's some weird parent around and their kid is aggressive and you try and restrain that kid, you don't know what kind of weird stuff could come out of the pipeline from there.
I'm a big one for that kind of prevention rather than cure.
Okay, thanks, Steph.
You're very welcome.
Very best to you.
I really, really, of course, appreciate your sensitivity as a dad.
Your son is a lucky specimen.
Thank you.
Thanks, John.
Take care.
Bye.
Alright, thank you, John.
Up next is the meal.
He wrote in and said, However,
you also state that intelligence is a very strong predictor for future economic success, and that unintelligent people tend to make not-so-great decisions like having kids without financial stability, not choosing the right partner, and taking out huge loans.
To me, this raises an interesting moral question.
Do we have some duty to protect the less intelligent from themselves, perhaps the same way we might support a person who was born disabled?
You often jump on the single mothers for being moochers of society and not taking responsibility for their actions.
But it seems a tad cruel to condemn someone to a financially ruined life because they weren't intelligent enough to recognize consequences.
I'm not saying that gives the government the right to take our money, but it does on some level feel unfair.
Is high intelligence just winning the genetic lottery?
I'd like to see you address it philosophically.
Do we have a duty?
And if not, why?
That's from Emil.
That's a great question.
And lots of people wrestle with this.
And this is where some libertarians, I believe Charles Murray among them, have made an argument for a guaranteed minimum income because the analogy would be something like this.
Let's say that you made...
$50,000 more a year for every inch of height you had over 5'6".
That's the way the economy worked.
Everything was a basketball team or something, right?
Even though there was a 5'3 guy who played in the NBA, it's not particularly common because, you know, I guess he dribbles under people's legs.
But you don't earn your height.
It's just the way that you are.
It's the way you're born.
It's the way you grow.
And if height was positively correlated with income, then wouldn't it be fair to take some of the extra money that people got through the unearned attribute called height and give it to those who are shorter?
And in the same way, people who are very smart like to say, well, you know, I've worked hard for my success, right?
And therefore, I deserve to keep the money for my success.
However, if intelligence is to some degree hereditary, just as height is, right?
So just very, very briefly for those who don't know, right?
So There's something called G, which sounds like an expostulation from a stereotypical American, but it's just the letter G and it stands for general intelligence.
And the guy who developed it in the 1920s, I think he said, we just have to call it G. We can't call it wisdom or even intelligence or smartitude or you just have to call it G because you can't.
You can't give it any specific name.
It's going to confuse people.
So G is just general intelligence.
And it's measurable by a variety of tests, the most prominent of which, of course, is the IQ test.
And the IQ test was developed initially to find out how well kids were going to do in school.
And it does that very well.
The IQ test, the SAT test, and...
The graduate school tests and so on are all very good at predicting outcomes for students.
But it doesn't just predict outcomes for students.
IQ tests very, very closely predict how much money you're going to make.
IQ tests also predict your longevity, how long you're going to live.
It also predicts whether you're going to have an accident, an accidental death or not.
It's also going to predict how stable your marriage is.
IQ is also going to predict how honest you are.
Higher IQ people tend to be more honest.
You know, the evil genius that you always see portrayed in movies is just a way to make less intelligent people feel more virtuous.
Ooh, intelligence is scary and evil.
And IQ also predicts your conformity to social norms.
It also predicts whether you're going to end up going to jail or not, whether you're going to run into trouble with the law.
It also predicts whether you're going to be an alcoholic.
It also predicts whether you're going to be a drug addict.
And...
So IQ is a very, very valuable resource in human society.
And of course, for those who don't know, there is a bell curve.
And about 5% of people are in the very low IQ range, you know, 75 to 85.
About 25% of people are sort of 85 to 90.
And then about 50% of people are 90 to 110.
And then 110 to 125, I think, is another 20% of people.
And then 5% of people are 125.
And over.
And this varies by ethnicity and it varies by a variety of conditions.
It varies also for men and women in that women tend to be more narrowly clustered around the center of the IQ bell curve, right?
So there are more women in the middle, which means women are less likely to be like complete idiots down at the low end.
And they're also less likely to be complete geniuses up at the high end.
The bell curve for men is sort of flatter and wider.
And...
So, the intelligence is something that is very real, it is very measurable, and it's very predictive.
And then the question becomes, is it genetic, right?
Is it heritable?
Is it something that we get like height is genetic, right?
I mean, and yes, it actually turns out that it is significantly genetic.
And it actually, it tracks about the same level of genetics that height does.
And...
They've done this with a variety of studies.
So siblings raised apart end up with very similar IQs.
Siblings who are raised apart end up with more similar IQs than adopted children and siblings raised in the same environment.
And IQ is confusing to people a lot because...
And again, if you want more details on this, we've done interviews on this show with Charles Murray, with Kevin Beaver, with James Flynn, all of whom are experts in this area.
We've got more coming up because it is a very interesting area.
But IQ is confusing for people because when you measure IQ, it doesn't stabilize until later in life.
So let me give you an example.
So if you just think of height, boys and girls when they're born are pretty much the same height.
And then for a while, girls are taller than boys.
And then what happens is, like after puberty and, you know, a couple of years after puberty, it tends to shake down to what we accept, that, you know, men are generally a couple of inches taller than women.
When you measure IQ between men and women and amongst various groups, it looks like it's kind of all over the place, but then it tends to settle out later in life.
And then IQ throughout your life is going to remain one of the most constant things that you have.
It's even more constant than height because, you know, we shrink a little bit as we get older.
And so IQ is very stable throughout life, but it tends to settle down after a certain amount of back and forth earlier on in life.
And this is why, you know, if you test boys and girls when they're 13, the girls appear to be smarter in some ways.
And so it is, and their estimates range from between 50% heritable to 80% heritable.
And the challenge, of course, is that the non-heritable aspects of IQ, we would normally assume to be parenting, right?
I mean, do you read to your kid?
Do you encourage them to read?
Do you sit down and play with them and so on, right?
This turns out to be completely irrelevant.
You can't possibly...
They really can't find anything that parents can do to raise their IQ. Now, parents can do things to lower their IQ, right?
To lower their kid's IQ. You know, you pull a Harry Potter...
Sadistic child abuse environment.
Lock the kid in a little hole under the stairs for a couple of years.
Yes, they are going to...
They're not going to be as smart.
In the same way, like if you don't give your kid enough food, they won't grow to their normal height, the natural height.
But if you give them more food, they don't get taller.
So good enough parenting does not, after that, it doesn't make your kids smarter.
Which school your children are going to go to will not make them smarter.
Like whether you go to public school or private school, your kid's going to end at the same height.
Whether you go to public school or private school, Your kids are going to end up just about as smart.
Now, this doesn't mean that it's the same experience, right?
Just because your kids aren't going to be any taller in private school or unschooled or public school doesn't mean that they're all the same emotional experience.
So this is not an argument as to, you know, put your kids in public school.
It doesn't matter.
But you can't make your kids smarter because As a parent.
And there was, in fact, the studies have all been debunked.
Like there was a guy who, there was a Mozart effect that if you play your kids Mozart, they get smart.
It's all nonsense.
They had to give refunds.
I know the baby Einstein stuff.
I think they had to give refunds for that stuff as well.
And so no one has ever found a way to increase IQ. Now, There are some, you know, some breastfeeding arguments, some arguments about spanking and so on, like not spanking versus non-spanking and so on, that seem to indicate that good parenting, because again, remember, they're dealing with the 80 to 90% of parents who spank and who knows how many of the others are lying.
So parenting as a whole, relative to where it will be in the future, is still at a very low standard.
So when they say, well, parenting doesn't have an effect, I assume that, you know, if...
If parenting is at a very low standard, if parents are absent, if parents, if they're single parents around, a lot of single parents, if most kids are in government schools that are crappy, and if they're not breastfed long enough, and they're hit a lot and so on, then I think it's going to be hard to get the right amount of information.
I think that good parenting will help your children develop intellectually.
And what I mean by that is, It's not like everyone just became magically smarter since the scientific revolution.
It's just that with the scientific revolution, people's intelligence can be harnessed a lot better.
Because people go into science rather than into religion or become scientists rather than priests and so on.
And this is why I am really trying to put philosophy out in as friendly and consumable a fashion as humanly possible.
You had to be kind of a genius to run computers...
50 years ago or 40 years ago, now, you know, every mouth breathing neckbeard can run a computer on his hand with the swipe and this and that and the other.
So making things more user friendly is a great way of harnessing and extending our capacity to do smart things, to do intelligent things.
You know, there's an argument about human evolution that back when basically you had to go in and club an animal to death to kill and eat it, that it was dangerous, right?
You had to be big, you had to have heavy bones, thick muscles, and you had to be able to withstand a lot of punishment.
Because even a gazelle, you go in and you kick that, the gazelle kicks you in the jaw, man, you've got to be fast!
But then when...
Human beings developed spears and bows and arrows, and particularly when they figured out how to distill things like frog poison and so on to poison, then they could take down the animals at a distance, right?
When we developed tools, it changed our bodies because then you didn't need to be as big and as strong and as heavy because the big, strong, heavy, big bone bodies take a lot more calories to maintain.
And so human evolution shows fairly clearly that people got smaller and lighter because running and quickness of reflexes in someone became more important than just being this big ogre who could, you know, club a bear to death with his bare hands.
However cool that is, it was not evolutionary advantageous once you got bow and arrow and spears and blow darts and things like that.
And there are bushmen in Africa who are, you know, five foot tall or less, very slight, very fast, and compared to the hominids that were there before them who were sort of big and heavy before about 40,000 years ago when this big creative explosion happened.
Tools have been around within the human species and pre-species for two and a half million years, but there was a big blow up in tool usage.
So...
So in the same way that tools fundamentally change the human body and extend, you know, you don't need to be as strong because the spear has stored up the strength that you need to bring down that animal.
In the same way, I think better philosophy, better decisions, knowing how to negotiate allows, I'm not sure it makes people smarter, but it allows them to use their intelligence in a much more productive manner.
And that's really the foundation of this show is to give people the tools and capacities to harness intelligence.
All of their potentialities in the realm of intelligence.
And I'm sorry for the long speech.
I'm almost there.
And so there is, of course, also a regression to the mean.
So people who think there's some sort of permanent overclass are making mistakes just based on a misunderstanding of biology.
And there's something called the regression to the mean.
Two tall people will have a tall child, right?
Two people who are six foot six will have a child who's taller than average, but it's unlikely the child will be as tall as they are.
Two people who are short will have a child that is taller than average, but it is unlikely the That the child will be of average height or above average height.
So there's a regression.
Otherwise, we'd end up with 90 foot tall people and 2 foot tall people.
I don't think human beings can be any more than 8 or 9 or 10 feet tall because then every step would break the thigh bone.
But anyway, it's neither here nor there.
So...
It's the same thing with intelligence.
Two people with an IQ of 140 who have a kid, they're likely to have a kid who's smart and smarter than average, but they're not likely to have a kid who's got 140 IQ. And there is this constant churning and this regression to the mean.
Two people with an IQ of 90 are likely to have a kid who is smarter than they are, but not 140.
It could happen, of course, right?
Lots of mixing up and so on.
And so, also I think emotional trauma interferes with intelligence.
Think of people who are really traumatized trying to take a test, right?
They kind of freak out, they panic, their mind gets fuzzy, right?
So I think an excess of fight or flight is not helpful in terms of cognitive abilities and so on.
Now, the other question, of course, that people ask is, well, are IQ tests cognitively biased?
In other words, from many years ago, there was an example, an IQ test, which asked kids basically, what is a regatta?
And it's a pretty good police album, but it's also, of course, an upper-middle-class boat racing sport or race sport.
And of course, you know, kids from inner cities and so on wouldn't know this stuff particularly well.
That example is very singular.
It's been weeded out long ago.
And they don't find cultural bias.
Cultural bias does not exist as far as can be ascertained by any reliable test in IQ tests.
A lot of the IQ tests are not cultural at all, right?
So there's one where you have to remember a sequence of numbers and then you have to repeat them backwards.
The first one is a test of memory and the second one is a test of more raw intelligence and processing power.
And people of less intelligence do just as well on the memory test and they do much worse on the repeated backwards test.
You get someone to try these things with you, they're actually kind of fun.
I've taken a bunch of them.
They're quite interesting.
And so there's no cultural bias that can be determined, that can be figured out.
There does not seem to be, like they've done tests with East Asian, and by that sort of basically Chinese and Japanese.
Kids, even the ones who grew up horrendously malnourished, and like kids who are airlifted out of North Korea who've been in state orphanages for years, those kids do, they grow up to do exactly as all the other Asian kids do, which is 103 to 106.
And in particular, Asian kids Kids do very well on spatial perception, spatial organization tests.
The Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, which are not the Sephardic Jews that remained in the Middle East, but who kind of roamed around and attempted to survive the horrendous treatment that they generally received at the hands of their Muslim and Christian overlords, the The Jewish groups do very well on verbal and written language-based and so on, which is why, you know, and math, right?
So this is why there's a lot of Jewish scientists, a lot of Jewish mathematicians, a lot of Jewish writers and so on.
They do at or below average in terms of visual-spatial, which means not many famous Jewish engineers or architects and so on.
They tend to go, right?
Whereas Asians do really, really well on the visual spatial, which is why, you know, the cliche of like the Asian engineer and so on, there's some biological truth to it, whereas there are not that many in terms of architecture and, I'm sorry, there are not that many in terms of being writers and all that because they just don't score as well.
So all that having been said, the question of how much of it is genetic, well, the best estimates so far, and more and more genes are being discovered that contribute to intelligence.
Twelve have come out that have been, alleles they're called, and they contribute significantly towards intelligence.
There's no one gene for intelligence any more than there's one gene for height.
There are probably hundreds of genes out of the 22,000 that matter.
There are probably hundreds that...
Combine to produce particular intelligence.
Also, the higher IQ people do better just on reaction tests, right?
So there are tests that involve almost no cognitive capacity, which is, you know, a buzzer goes off, push a button when the buzzer goes off.
Smarter people do better on those tests than less intelligent people, which of course has no cultural relevance whatsoever.
So there is a sort of raw horsepower that is available to some people in the world that doesn't seem to be available to others.
So sorry for that very, very quick sprint through IQ and intelligence as a whole.
But the argument is, of course, if 50 to 80% of it is inherited, and the remaining part is something called the non-shared environment seems to be the most, like the non-family environment.
And we can go into a bunch of stuff.
I talked about it with Charles Murray and so on.
You do some research on that.
But the upshot is that it's significantly genetic and nobody knows how to increase it.
So if there's some magic lever out there in the environment that you can hit that is going to make people smarter after, I guess, IQ tests have been around for 100 years, more than 100 years now, nobody knows.
Nobody knows how to permanently increase someone's IQ.
And of course, America just spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the Head Start program that was supposed to equalize intelligence and pour the resources into traditionally underrepresented groups in the high intelligence spheres and move them in some way to a high intelligence area.
Complete failure.
A complete, like even by government program standards, a complete failure.
Well, I shouldn't say that.
It didn't make them dumber, but it certainly didn't make them smarter.
There was a brief sort of moment where things got better.
But, you know, whether that was test faking or just teaching the test or whatever, it didn't produce any...
Permanent changes in IQ. That having been said, there are very smart people, you know, Jack Nicholson in five easy pieces, very smart people who are genuine failures.
There are people who are less intelligent, who are very successful, so this is not...
You can't judge any particular individual out there, but as far as looking at society as a whole, it's an important thing.
Now, if intelligence is largely genetic, or at least nobody knows...
What to do to change it, then smarter people didn't earn their intelligence.
Is that a fair way, a very quick way of sort of summing up?
up.
You didn't earn how smart you are.
So in a kind of in a way, you didn't earn your income, right?
That's, that's pretty much exactly.
And all of the your, your lead up there was was pretty much how I got to that point where, yeah, it's, it really is kind of a random, like you aren't born into any kind of particular, like you don't, you haven't earned it, it really is random.
So yeah, so that goes like, you know, people talk about when you inherited money, people get mad at Oh, Donald Trump, he inherited his money.
It's like, eh, you know, the question is, would you rather inherit money or would you rather inherit brains?
And if you have brains, you'd recognize that the correct answer to that question is you would rather inherit brains than inherit money.
Because in a free market system...
You're paid for your intelligence, fundamentally.
With some, you know, some people are paid for their looks, you know, and some people, whatever it is.
Some people are paid for their singing ability and so on.
But in general, overall, in the free market, casting aside those weird outliers, in general, and you can see this linear, right?
The smarter you are, the more money you're likely to make on average.
So you'd be much wiser to choose, if you could, to be born smart than to be born wealthy.
Because less intelligent people don't tend to hold on to their wealth and more intelligent people will tend to accumulate wealth regardless of where they start from.
So if inheritance of money is a bad thing, inheritance of intelligence is also and could arguably be An even worse thing, right, as far as the equality and egalitarianism within society goes.
Is that, again, a way to phrase it that works with you?
Right.
And not just, you know, being successful in the workplace, but less intelligent people, of course, also make, you know, worse decisions, arranging, you know, just everything.
Anything that has long-term consequences.
I brought up the single mothers especially because I know you bring that up a lot.
Single motherhood is directly linked to intelligence as you go along the curve.
More intelligent people aren't going to pick the wrong partners, aren't going to Break up with the partners or they're going to find a way to make it work and solve problems.
And so my kind of underlying question is to what extent, given this kind of unfair world, because, you know...
Well, unfair?
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Unfair, you're bringing a moral argument into it?
Mm-hmm.
And I don't know, is it unfair that some people are born tall?
It's not unfair.
It's unfair in the sense that, you know, maybe not unfair.
It's just random, you know?
Well, it's not random either, right?
Because there's genetics involved, which means it's not random.
It is what it is.
When it comes to facts of reality, I think it's important to avoid moral judgments about facts of reality that are not the result of anyone's moral choice, right?
Moral judgments are around moral choices.
And the fact that some guys are bald and some women are tall and some men have hairy backs and it becomes difficult for them to become bikini models.
This is just a variety.
There's a variety.
And I think it's really important to try...
The moment you start to bring in something unfair...
You are, you know, then you're saying that reality is unfair.
And reality, by its very definition, can't be unfair.
Like, is it unfair that we have this gravity on Earth rather than it being lighter or us being lighter or heavier?
Well, if it was lighter, you know, we could jump higher.
And if it was heavier, we could drive faster.
I don't know, at least off the top of my head, right?
But I don't think that we can say that facts of reality are either fair or unfair.
Is it unfair that we have to die?
Well, we're only alive because people died before us and we need replenishment as a species, right?
So I don't know.
Is it unfair that women are the ones who have the children and men are the ones who fall asleep?
I don't know.
So I really wanted to just push back on the fact of reality that intelligence is not evenly distributed across the population any more than height or good hair or whatever.
I don't know that we can say fair or unfair to that.
How about we say unlucky, right?
I feel like there's a lack of...
I'm sorry to be annoying, but luck has no philosophical significance.
It has no philosophical relevance.
Because unlucky, again, bummer, man, I'm just unlucky.
That has no...
That doesn't solve the problem of it having no moral significance.
In a weird way, we kind of run out of language when we come to disparities that are not the result of anyone's moral choice, if that makes sense.
Right.
So, I guess my question was one of, you know, do we have a duty to help these people in any way?
And I would imagine that you would say no, you know, based on all your talks where, you know, Since it isn't, you know, anyone's fault, you can't take by force, you know, resources from any person to another.
But I have this kind of thought where imagine, you know, in a small tribal kind of maybe 20 humans, right?
Let's go back 4,000 years.
You've got a tribe of, you know, 30 humans, let's say, and the most intelligent human In that tribe, we'll probably be the leader, we'll probably invent all the tools, and be, you know, kind of going forward, and we'll probably have most of the resources.
Of course, there's, you know, the other factors, such as, you know, if you're born big.
No, hang on, hang on, hang on.
Sorry.
From my knowledge, and it's not, I'm certainly, and this is most other things, I'm no expert, but my knowledge is that hunter-gatherer societies were fairly flat in terms of their hierarchies.
It really took until agriculture for the real pyramid of human oligarchical hierarchies to make their appearance.
And at that point, we were also increasing in population and humans condensed.
So was there never really, and I guess this is also my lack of knowledge regarding, you know, the human history coming out here.
But was there no real kind of dependence on maybe that more intelligent, you know, where there wasn't leadership up until that?
Because, well, OK, hang on.
I'm sorry, we have to break this down a little bit first.
OK, I'm sorry to be be annoying, but it's important to be precision here.
In hunter-gatherer society, there's very little differentiation in intelligence.
And there's because they're working with such a small gene set, right?
And so if you look at things like the Bushmen of the Australian Outback, who have the lowest recorded average IQ in the world, I think it's 66 or 67 average IQ. Well, they are hunter-gatherers, and like most hunter-gatherers, they're very, very geographically dispersed in small bands.
Hunter-gatherers need a lot of space.
A lot of space.
So, for instance, a hunter-gatherer of 25 people, a hunter-gatherer clan of 25 people, needs a thousand square miles or so to get enough food to eat.
And because remember, they're hunter-gatherers, which means that they're constantly on the move, which means they need a lot of calories.
And so they're, you know, 25 or 30 people all inbreeding with each other in a stable environment, right?
What is it that slows down evolution?
Evolution slows down when you have a static environment.
When nothing much is changing.
Because, you know, the organisms adapt to their environment to the point where they've kind of perfected themselves at least as much as they can, right?
This is why horseshoe crabs are literally, as one author put it, literally older than the hills, right?
Because they've been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Pretty much unchanged.
You dig up a fossil of a horseshoe crab from hundreds of millions of years ago, it's really tough to tell from the current one.
Or sharks, hundreds of millions of years, very little evolution because they've got as good as they can get, right?
And so when you're in a relatively static environment and you have a relatively small population with which to breed, evolution is very, very, very slow, right?
And so there is not likely to be Any significant disparities in intelligence in hunter-gatherer tribes, which is one of the reasons why they were so egalitarian, as well as other reasons in terms of work and effort and so on.
But not...
Not much goes on when the environment is static and the breeding pool is small.
It's very stagnant, which is why you see in some human societies, you know, the North American Indians came across a land bridge, I think from, what, Asia to North America or whatever, 16,000 years ago.
Right.
And not much changed because hunter-gatherers don't evolve very much at all.
On the other hand, as you know, like when you get a huge change that occurs in human evolution and the big one that's argued by some authors is 10,000 years ago was agriculture.
Agriculture, and I don't want to get into the whole detail of it because, you know, it may be more than people's patience.
You know, if people are interested, let me know below, but I'll do a separate show on it.
But agriculture changed everything.
Massive explosion in human population, as you say.
We went from a couple of million to tens and tens of millions through agriculture.
And significant pressure in agriculture on...
Evolution.
Significant acceleration in evolution.
There are some geneticists who estimate that human evolution post-agriculture, including up to today, is occurring at 100 times the rate that it was previously.
It is accelerated.
Evolution accelerated 100-fold after the introduction of agriculture because, you know, you had the pressure of having to survive winter.
You had also a lot of people had sex with...
Neanderthals and other hominids who weren't exactly homo sapiens, which brought a huge mix into the gene pool and, you know, the best tends to survive.
And, of course, you just had more people to breed with because the population was much larger and you had more access, so much more of a mix-up.
And this is why, you know, I think it's only 4,000 or 5,000 years ago that we became manpires.
It's a weird word, but apparently it's a real word.
A vampire is a human...
Well, it's only humans who do this.
A vampire is an organism that survives off the milk of another species because milk is produced by mammary glands.
So that's hence the word vampire.
I've just been wanting to use that for a while.
Thank you for creating the opportunity.
Vampire porn coming soon to a website near you, I'm sure.
But...
So, lactose tolerance kicked in for Europeans about 4,000 or 5,000 years ago and, of course, created a huge evolutionary advantage in war because you could travel with your food source, which, of course, was quite different from before, where you had to stay tied to the land.
Anyway, it's a whole bunch of different things.
So, when you talk about The genius in the hunter-gatherer tribe, or the, you know, there was, of course, occasionally it would happen, right?
I mean, there'd be some real smart guy who'd figure out fire and cave painting and, you know, jawbone of an ass, whatever you do with that.
But it would be very rare compared to the number of intelligent people who are produced now in the gene pool, of course, is vastly, vastly higher.
I guess what I'm looking for, and what I was hoping, you know, Find in that situation would be to find kind of a natural situation in which the more intelligent provided for the less intelligent.
And I see maybe...
But they do.
They do.
They do now.
They do.
Listening.
Okay, go ahead.
No, no, no.
Finish your point.
Sorry.
Okay, so...
I don't know if we maybe jumped over, since we evolved so quickly as agriculture, or not evolved, but agriculture took off, we very quickly became mega-populated.
Cities were created from maybe very small groups where there wasn't a lot of need for change.
So my question kind of is...
Is there no, like, because now we have this huge society in which, you know, everyone is very interconnected, you know, we have these giant social programs, like, the intelligent, you know, it's a massive beast that, you know, nature never really intended.
We kind of out We're part of nature.
You know, there's no nature outside us that never intended us to.
We're just part of nature.
We're doing what we do in terms of creating tools, just like every other animal does.
The cities are as much a part of nature as a beaver dam.
But anyway, go on.
I'm just saying, is there really a genetic component to giving to maybe the less intelligent and giving some...
That's what I was hoping for, to maybe kind of provide some kind of What I was hoping was that in that hypothetical society, which I guess never existed, where there were a group of 30 humans, the more intelligent one would maybe provide for the less intelligent, and vice versa.
And it would work, and it would go forward in that way.
Because I'm trying to equate it to the point we're at right now, in which we...
We have these, the more intelligent have vastly more resources than, I guess they aren't very necessary resources, you know, they're not about survival anymore, but...
No, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you're going off on, I know you're not a socialist, but you're going off on a socialist tangent here.
Okay, first of all, the poor have vastly more resources than they used to, even compared to the intelligent.
Certainly.
Right?
So the idea, well, we've got to find some way to force the smarter people to look after the less smart people.
We just call them the brights and the dulls, right?
Which is a fairly common way of phrasing it.
First of all, the brights do take care of the dulls.
As I sort of said earlier, you had to be very intelligent to use a computer, and now you don't.
So how smart do you have to be to scroll through and look up something on Google and so on?
Now the entire world's knowledge is pretty much available to you for virtually nothing, right?
And so the expansion of knowledge and the capacity to use computing power has gone into the hands of the poor, not because dull people invented cell phones, but because dull people don't have to work very hard to buy a cell phone or a cell phone plan, right?
And so simply letting really bright people be free to innovate and create and trade benefits the poor disproportionately to the degree that it benefits the rich.
So like if you were rich 20 years ago, you could have a phone, right?
Now your phone does a lot more now than it did 20 years ago.
But if you were poor 20 years ago, you couldn't have a portable phone.
Right?
You couldn't have a cell phone because they were too expensive.
Not just to buy, but to run.
And so, 20 years ago, rich guys had cell phones, poor guys didn't.
Now, everyone has a cell phone.
And yes, the rich guys have got better cell phones, but the poor have both better cell phones and cell phones to begin with at all, right?
Right?
So the poor have gone from no cell phones to great cell phones, and the rich have gone from okay cell phones to great cell phones.
The poor have benefited more proportionately than the rich.
And there's less rich as well, of course.
I'm sorry?
And there's less rich, of course, you know, if the one guy who invented the cell phone sells it to a million, you know, poor than the dolls.
Now, now each, you know, all the million dolls have cell phones now.
And, you know, that's that's maybe help them, you know, go forward and and provide for themselves more.
And that one rich person who invented the cell phone, you know, he benefits, of course, but not I guess I see I see where you're going there.
Well, he has to benefit less than the public does as a whole.
Right.
Right?
So, I mean, if someone makes $10 million, it's because he's created $50 or $100 million worth of value.
You always get paid less than the value that you create.
Otherwise, you know, economics makes no sense, right?
So...
So the smarts, right, the brights do take care of the dulls.
So none of the dulls can invent a cure for polio, right?
Or a vaccine against polio.
Alexander Sork, I think, did it.
And now, you know, people with an IQ of 90...
People with an IQ of 95 can inject people with an IQ of 85 and render them immune to polio.
So none of the dolls could have invented a vaccine to protect against polio or smallpox or you name it, right?
But the brights have done it and therefore the dolls are protected from polio and smallpox and you name it, right?
And so the idea that do we have an obligation, do we have a duty and so on to provide, well, let the brights be free to innovate and create and become rich, and the advantages flow out amazingly to everyone else.
And if you don't let the brights be free to create and innovate and get rich, none of those benefits are going to flow out to the dolls, right?
Mm-hmm.
I guess my problem though is, or I guess what I have an issue with kind of accepting is just that fact that certain groups of people are in general always going to stay less.
I'm fortunate in that, you know, that they are always going to have less resources.
They're always, you know, you could split it up by race then, right?
If Black or Africans have less, lower IQ in general, wouldn't that kind of...
In general, they're going to be—in the U.S. especially—they're going to be in jail more often.
They're going to be poor more often.
They're going to be raising more kids that are poorly, and that's going to, in turn, cause those kids to—whatever genetic factor does contribute to intelligence, it just spirals down, and it's kind of that vicious cycle of never really— I guess I just feel, I feel bad.
And that's, I don't really have, maybe, I understand that, you know, you can't take, by gunpoint, you know, like, as you say, resources from the rich just because, you know, whatever social is.
Okay, hang on, hang on.
We got to, because we were brought in blacks, right?
Mm-hmm.
Okay, so the studies show, and again, people can research this for themselves as much as they want to look at my previous interviews.
The studies show that sub-Saharan Africans, I talked about this in The Truth About South Africa, sub-Saharan blacks have an average IQ of 70, which is, of course, not super high.
And African Americans who have about 20% Caucasian blood in them in general have an average IQ of 85.
And this has been affirmed by the American Psychological Association.
It's been well known, researched, studied, and is well accepted in the professional literature for over 100 years.
And it is tragic to some degree.
I mean, it's natural because...
People adapt to local environments, and there's no question of racial superiority or cultural or, in particular, ethnic superiority or inferiority.
Cultural, I've maybe argued that there is, but certainly when it comes to race, no superiority or inferiority.
There's simply adaptation to local circumstances.
And the argument that has been put forward by a number of people, including Charles Murray, is that if you look at how badly the blacks are doing in America, it's not a function of racism fundamentally, it's a function of disparate levels of intelligence.
Again, smart blacks, dull whites and so on.
And if blacks have an average IQ of 85, that means, you know, 20% of blacks are smarter than the average white, right?
Which you see, I think, showing up fairly regularly.
But their argument is not that blacks make less money.
It's that everyone with an IQ of 85 makes about the same money.
And everyone with an IQ of 100 makes about the same money.
And everyone with an IQ of 130 or 150 makes about the same money as everyone else with that same level of IQ. So what income is measuring is not race, but IQ. And if there are racial or ethnic disparities between IQ, those will show up.
As disparities in income but it's not racism unless you're gonna say that evolution is racist and that's of course a really pointless argument to make because it doesn't right and that explains why as we talked before Jews have the highest IQ followed by Asians followed by whites followed by Hispanics followed by blacks and so on and this is more a function of Yes,
This is something, this is information that people find troubling.
Heartbreaking is probably a better way of putting it.
And is that sort of what you feel as well?
Yes.
You know, it's given, especially the single mothers, which I feel like every time that you might rail on a single mother, and I'm not saying this too in any way, you know.
I think everybody has that kind of question of like, you know, it is...
People like to give responsibility to individuals because, you know, individuals, of course...
You are making your own choices.
You are, in a lot of ways, you know, I forget the term, but, you know, in control of your own body and whatnot.
But if, in general, all these trends are based off intelligence or race, and so they're by intelligence, it's really, you can't really Fault anybody for that.
And of course, I love what you do here and promoting what you can with the peaceful parenting and whatnot.
But I guess it is very troubling to me that there is no way to, I guess, ultimately fix anyone if that's what I'm trying to Not that there's anything wrong with them, but there's no way to raise IQ. But I had this other thought as well here, and this is my last kind of thing.
I know in a society, the most desirable people are, of course, the most successful.
The ones that succeed are financially successful.
Effective and are thereby intelligent, more, you know, successful people.
Just, you know, biologically, you're going to look at the person who is, you know, making the money and is able to provide for children and whatnot.
You're going to gravitate to that person.
So I feel like even though we say these things like, oh, there's nothing wrong with people who are less intelligent, we still have these standards, you know, dull.
It has a negative connotation.
Oh, of course.
Look, sorry to interrupt you, but just to reinforce that.
I mean, of course.
Of course.
I mean, if you were to say to a parent, you can have a child with an IQ of 90, or you can have a child with an IQ of 110, what do you think they would choose?
Of course.
And that is a fairly unambiguous choice, right?
So if you could say, oh, you know, you can have a child who's super beautiful, or you can have a child who's plain, that's more of a complicated choice.
Because really physically beautiful people have some significant and unique challenges to deal with.
But I think when it comes to intelligence...
I don't know, if you say, well, you can have a child with an IQ of 120, or you can have a child with an IQ of 180, there are some people who will be like, ah, I don't know, 180, isn't that kind of burning up the stratosphere of human intelligence?
Aren't they going to be neurotic, and I'll have nothing in common with them, and they'll be, you know what I mean, right?
And so, but I think just around, if you, you know, if you're given that choice, there are very few people who would say, yeah, give me the 90 rather than 110, right?
I get what you mean.
But we choose not only our mating partners with this in general, but also our friends.
We try to move up.
Everyone wants to be friends with that rich, successful, intelligent friend because they've got something going on.
We want to be part of that success or get something from them.
But it's quite the reverse with the other way.
We tend to ostracize these people who are the dullest or not intelligent.
But it's interesting, especially with race.
We all say, and if this is true, that if we look down upon people who are less intelligent, then aren't we looking down upon...
And I've had a struggle with this, and I'm in no way racist culturally, of course.
Sorry, just because you brought up the R word, and please hold your thought, I just want to be very clear that nothing that is based upon fact can be considered racist.
It is racist to hold an opinion about a group that has no basis in empirical evidence.
It is not racist to say that blacks have darker skins than albinos.
That is not a racist statement.
It's not racist to say that blacks have shorter, thicker, and kinkier hair than Norwegians.
None of these, anything that is based upon generally accepted and researched and understood and validated facts, nothing that is fact-based can be racist.
Nothing whatsoever.
And that's really, really important to understand.
But of course, because ethnic and group differences between human groups have been vigorously denied, Throughout history, and particularly since the Marxists took over the social narrative in the 1920s and the 1960s, people think that any time you talk about group differences, that's automatically racist.
But of course, that's not the case at all.
And any doctor who tried to practice medicine without taking into account ethnic differences would be sued for malpractice because it would be absolutely incompetent for them to do so.
Right.
And you spoke to, I don't remember the name of the last, you know, intelligence talk.
I watched it, though.
But, you know, what I kind of thought about after that talk was, you know, you brought up that it's going to, in the next, you know, 20 years or 10 or 20 years, become completely non-refutable intelligence.
That, you know, there are these strong genetic predictors between the races, and it already is, but obviously it's going to be proven undoubtedly in the next upcoming time.
And I had this thought, if on average Africans have less intelligence, And for a job, for example, it's more economical and a better business decision for an employer to choose the more intelligent people.
So could it become a factor then?
Your race becomes a factor and then it's not racism.
Well, no.
Sorry to interrupt.
I know what you're saying, but not in a free market.
Because in a free market, you would give, I would assume, since the IQ tests are a way stronger predictor of job success than almost anything else that you can think of.
Your resume, your references, your hobbies, whatever you put down, doesn't matter as much as IQ. So no, it's not...
Going to be racist at all.
Because what's going to happen is people will be given IQ tests, which is currently generally illegal in America.
And it's not...
You can kind of get away with it if you can prove that it's absolutely essential.
But nobody wants to go there, right?
Because it's just too much of a challenge, right?
And...
So, no, I mean, and it will be much fairer to blacks as a whole to have a system which is free market, right?
I mean, everybody wants to see every group succeed as much as humanly possible, anybody with any decent amount, right?
So right now, we have a pseudo-intelligence test called four years of $50,000 plus college education, right?
That is terrible, right?
For blacks who have lower incomes and much lower, far fewer assets than Asians or whites.
So what we want is an IQ test or something like it that's specifically geared towards a particular job.
You sit down, they take an IQ test, and then you can get rid of HR departments who tell you what questions to ask the higher people.
It's stupid, right?
Just give them an IQ test.
Just give them an IQ test.
Now that means some poor genius black kid Coming out of the ghetto can sit down and write a test and do just as well as anyone else.
Because an IQ of 140 is an IQ of 140.
It doesn't matter what color you are.
You can be rainbow colored.
You can have a clown wig on.
It doesn't matter.
So the best way to get talented blacks or Hispanics or anyone into where they can do the most good is to get rid of this bullshit college education system and get a straight-on IQ test.
And that way, instead of spending four years and tens of thousands of dollars, you can just sit down for an hour, and if you've got the raw horsepower and you've got the smarts, you'll do just fine.
But there is, of course, a very specific reason that this is resisted around the world.
This very humane, obvious, non-racist, perfectly valid, sensible, cost-effective thing to do, I think we all know why that is discouraged around the world.
Why do you think?
Okay.
I think it's because people want to get ahead in any way possible.
Everybody wants to be able to get better resources for their families regardless of what environment they're born into.
No, the reason that this is resisted around the world is because if the theories or if the recorded data of IQ disparities across ethnicities is valid, it's true, right?
Then what's going to happen is lots of Ashkenazi Jews are going to pass these IQ tests.
Some proportion of Asians, again, if we're talking about a lot of numbers, some proportion of Asians are going to pass the IQ test.
Some proportion of whites, some proportion of Hispanics, and some proportion of blacks.
And it's going to be, if this is valid, a descending proportion.
And then all the social justice warriors, all of the chest-thumping race baiters, all the Al Sharptons, all those people are out of a job.
See, you can't have affirmative action in college.
You can't have affirmative action in a privately administered IQ test.
Right, so Google gets nagged continually as to Intel...
Because they have very few black engineers.
But if you look at the bell curve of intelligence spread, they don't.
But people can nag them and complain about them and of course it's a great...
To hide any ethnic differences in intelligence is a fantastic way to destroy the free market.
Because the free market pays on intelligence and if there are disparities, Between ethnicities in intelligence as a whole and you can hide that fact from people that everything looks racist.
And my problem is I'm sick and tired of white people taking the blame for evolution.
I'm so sick and tired of white people taking the blame for evolution.
It's not any white person's fault that organisms adapt to different environments.
Right?
It's simply not.
It's not white people's fault that there are no elephants in Antarctica or penguins at the equator.
It's not white people's fault.
And this is why it needs to be talked about.
Because...
It's a natural self-defense measure.
If everyone's screaming at you...
I've used this example before, but for those who haven't, if everyone's screaming at the NBA owners that they're racist because they don't have enough Asians on their team, and nobody knows that Asians are in general shorter...
Then they're going to spend the rest of their lives fighting off these attacks of racism for something that isn't their fault.
It's not the fault of any NBA owner that Asian people tend to be shorter.
It's not their fault.
They didn't get up and rewire the genes throughout history 100,000 years ago or 40,000 years ago when the race is split.
It's nobody's fault.
But if we are blind to differences, then white people will get blamed.
And I am so sick and tired of this.
It is so anti-scientific and it is costing white people self-esteem.
The degree to which white people are constantly obsessing, looking in the mirror, oh my god, this group is still doing badly.
Am I racist?
Are we racist?
How many of these friends do I have?
It's such a waste of time and energy.
It's so destructive.
Get rid of affirmative action because affirmative action makes it really difficult to hire talented and intelligent minorities.
Because affirmative action, I mean, it used to be, actually, interestingly enough, okay, so affirmative action comes out of something kind of interesting that happened in the 1920s.
To do this, I have to very, very briefly go over Jewish genetic history.
Very briefly, very briefly, I promise.
Let's do it.
Yeah, okay, so the ancient Greeks used to write a lot about everything, and they wrote about Jews.
And they never wrote that Jews had any brains at all.
At all.
Nothing.
Not a bit.
They weren't dumb, but they weren't smart.
They were just like everyone else, right?
And for a variety of reasons that we don't need to get into huge amounts of detail, Jews ended up becoming the smartest, not Sephardic, not the local Middle Eastern Jews, but the diasporic Jews, the Jews who were trying to survive in other cultures, became pretty super smart.
Like, some studies have them about a standard deviation above the white norm.
And in language, they're crazy, right?
Like 120 plus sometimes, on average, in certain groups.
And this is partly because Jews were so harassed That if you didn't know when the next pogrom was coming and you didn't get out of town early, you got killed.
So the smarter people got out of town early.
And also because Jews, they've studied this in very great detail.
Jewish groups who were richer and rich as a proxy for intelligence had many more children than Jews who were less intelligent.
Their rabbi families regularly have, and they can see this in the parish records, they have regularly 8 to 10 to 12 children.
Whereas the less intelligent Jewish families have 2 to 4.
Right?
So, Jews were, of course, not allowed to own land in a lot of places, so they had to go into all of these white-collar professions.
Muslim and Christians were not allowed to lend money at interest for a lot of Western history and Eastern history.
And therefore, Jews had to get into business with lending money at interest, which requires higher mathematical abilities, which is why they have.
But they weren't allowed to be architects.
They weren't allowed to be engineers.
They're allowed to lend money at interest, which is why they've evolved to have higher mathematical reasoning and less spatial reasoning.
Christians, of course, take the smartest people, teach them a lot of Latin, and then staple their dicks shut because they're not allowed to read.
The priests were celibate.
In order to not diffuse the wealth of the Catholic Church, they kept the smartest people from breeding.
And therefore, the Western gene pool, the European gene pool, had to accelerate itself through endless disasters like the Black Plague, which tended to wipe out the less intelligent portion of the population who were more crowded in cities and didn't take the right...
Didn't take the right precautions in terms of quarantining and so on.
Like in Italy, during one of the black plagues that went in waves for hundreds of years after the 12th, 13th centuries, if somebody coughed badly in a house, everybody would just nail that house up.
They'd just nail boards all over, and people would just like, hey, maybe you'll live, maybe you won't.
This is how hard-hearted, and now, of course, migrants come in, and it's all, anyway, that whole gene pool seems to have completely vanished.
But because the Jews also have a strong valuing of intelligence.
Because that's what allowed them to survive.
Because to be the white collar, to be the smart, to outthink people, to lend money, to survive in a society that would regularly kill off.
There's pogroms in France and other European countries in the early Middle Ages.
A quarter of the Jewish population just got wiped out.
It was brutal.
And so intelligence, they pounded into...
They pounded into the Jewish women, marry a smart man, marry a smart man, marry a smart man, right?
I don't know where you grew up, but where I grew up, intelligence was not the giant ab of female attractiveness, right?
In European Western culture, the same reverence for intelligence is not there.
So there's a reason why, like, tiny Jewish guys get these ultra babes, right?
Because in the Jewish community, If you can train Jewish women to grow up hugely valuing intelligence, and the rabbis, of course, who had to learn multiple languages and master very difficult texts like the Torah and so on, if you can get the women to really value intelligence, well, then you're going to make sure that the most intelligent men are going to have the most children.
And the argument is sort of like this, that even if we assume a heritability of only 0.3, of 30% for intelligence, and if Every single generation, the Jews went up...
I don't know...
About one IQ point.
Every generation.
Well, over a thousand years, that's 40 generations.
And that's going to give you a 12 to 15 point boost in intelligence over a thousand years.
And so, since a lot of these habits within the Jewish community started at around 600 AD, and Jewish intelligence really began to burst forward in the human stage at around 1600 AD, we've got a thousand years now.
Of incredible genetic progress in intelligence, in particular for these Ashkenazi, the Ashkenazi Jews.
What an incredible thing.
And, God, I mean, of course, all of this progress happens with immense suffering, right?
I mean, it's horrible suffering.
And...
That is one of these staggering things in human evolution, just how smart we all could be if intelligence was valued from a breeding context.
So one of the reasons why I say don't date single moms is we kind of need to restore the value of intelligence as something that women demand.
If women value intelligence as Over less intelligence, the human race can progress.
And if women keep choosing idiots, then devolution, disgenics will occur.
Everything's eugenics.
Everyone you choose to have kids with is eugenics.
And of course, we're not talking Nazi eugenics or anything stupid government programs like that.
And evils like that.
But this is why I'm constantly encouraging people, listen!
Be smart.
Figure out what people's values are.
Figure out how smart they are.
And women, stop chasing the dumb stick.
Stop riding the dumb stick and producing less intelligent people as a result.
Now, as far as choices, yes, just to look at single women for the moment, yeah, single women are making bad choices and they have lower IQ. But I don't believe that lower IQ automatically means bad choices.
I guarantee you, and I know this for a fact, that lower IQ does not mean worse choices.
What it means is that when you have a lower IQ, you need more social reinforcement to make better choices.
You see what I mean?
Right, yeah.
Sorry, if in society as a whole...
Single motherhood is intensely frowned upon, and there's huge commandments against it, and there's huge social ostracism, then people of lower intelligence will say, oh, that's really unpopular, so I'm not going to do it, right?
Everybody really dislikes that, and I saw what happened to that other woman who had a kid out of wedlock and blah-de-blah-de-blah, so I'm not going to do it.
Because people are making worse choices now Than they did 50 or 70 years ago.
Black illegitimacy was 20% 60 or 70 years ago.
The black family was more stable than a lot of white demographics in their families.
Now black illegitimacy is like 73%.
I would not say that blacks have become less intelligent, I would argue, and the data suggests they become more intelligent over that time period.
But they're making worse choices.
Why is that?
Because when you're less intelligent, you need more structured and rigid social cues about what you should do.
And this doesn't have anything to do fundamentally with intelligence or not.
Like when I was a kid, they just said, brush your teeth.
They just said, brush your teeth.
They showed horrible videos of what your teeth looked like if you didn't.
And I was like, oh, okay, I don't get any of this, but I suppose I just brush my teeth, right?
And we do this all the time with a bunch of things.
You know, the mechanic comes and says, you need to spend $1,000 to fix your huddle-duddle-duddle, right?
And you're like, well, I don't know what the huddle-duddle-duddle is, but it sounds like I've got to give you $1,000 so I don't crash into a fiery ruin, right?
So all the time, you need very strong cues about what to do in stuff that you're stupid about.
You do, I do, everyone does.
And I mean, you know, it's the old thing.
Who doesn't want to eat chocolates and cupcakes?
I don't know.
I like them.
But you don't, right?
You have your broccoli and you have good food and all that.
And so we all need these strong social cues to make better decisions.
And so for me, and I've said this in the videos about single moms, it's not like, oh, single moms, they're just incomprehensibly stupid, nasty, mean, and idiotic.
No.
They're people of a lower intelligence, right?
In general.
So we, as smarter people, need to be really clear with people.
You can train people who have an IQ of 90.
They can have productive and happy and good lives.
But we have to recognize they have an IQ of 90.
And so we need to give them very clear social messages about the right things to do.
I mean, it takes...
Staggering intelligence to come up with the general theory of relativity.
It takes less intelligence to kind of follow it and understand it.
It takes less intelligence even still to kind of get the gist of it.
And it takes less intelligence even still to listen to the Great Queen song 39 written by Brian May, which is about the theory of relativity.
You can sing that song and you can kind of get the idea if you've got an IQ of 85, right?
And so in terms of like, you know, coming up with UPB, like if UPB turns out to be valid and I think it's holding its own pretty well, that's a pretty stellar human achievement.
It takes a fair amount of smarts to do that.
Does it take as much smarts to read the book and understand it?
Well, no.
That's why I wrote the book in a popularly accessible style.
Does it take even less to kind of explain it to someone who's not that smart?
Does it take even less to explain it to someone who's five years old?
Yeah, once you can, like you downshift it, you make it accessible and understandable To people of less intelligence.
And again, this is not me smart, everyone else dumb, because I don't know how a touchscreen works.
It's got the feels and the magic movement.
That's all I know, right?
A touch capacitor.
Okay, well, that explains it.
Might as well call it a Klingon armpit for all I know.
But it works, right?
So they've dumbed it down to the point where I can carry around a supercomputer on my ass, right?
And so it's just about everyone who's smart should, especially in the realm of ethics, should work at trying to get people to get the proper social cues.
So that they can make better decisions without having to understand all the theories because a lot of them won't be able to.
I mean, the amount of work it used to take to run a car, like if you wanted to run a car in like 1918, you had to basically be a mechanic.
You had to carry around a bag of tools.
You had to regularly stop it and crank it up.
Now, push a button, turn a wheel, right?
It's magic.
And so you make things easier for people to use, you make them more understandable, and you give people the correct social cues.
So that when I put out the message that is negative towards single moms, well hopefully it helps single moms not continue to have more kids, and hopefully it has men not want to go and have relationships with single moms.
So that the women who aren't single moms yet say, okay, well, men really kind of turning against single moms and so on.
And again, until the welfare state ends, this is all a bunch of theory, but you've got to lay the tracks before the train comes, right?
I mean, otherwise it's just going to plunge into a bog.
So, yeah, recognizing that there are less intelligent people, I think...
Should raise our commitment to helping them, to making things more accessible, to making things easier for them.
Just as I appreciate really smart people making a lot.
I have no idea how my heating system works.
I don't know.
It's warm.
It's cold.
I guess there's some electricity.
I think there's a fan involved.
I've got to clean the vents.
But I don't know.
And thank God I don't have to know.
Because if it was me, I don't know, it'd be like a candle and some farting.
Blue angel of warmth.
So, yeah, I think recognizing less intelligent people is fantastic.
I mean, across all spectrums, you just make things easier, make things better, and make the social cues clearer.
And the problem with government is it completely screws up the social cues.
you.
So to get back to your original point, at the very lowest levels of intelligence where people can't function, and I'm not talking about, well, you know, they had some brain injury.
They had, I don't know, some brain parasite.
They had something that really screwed up their brains, and they can't function on their own.
Yes, I think that we should help those people.
Should we force?
No, of course not, because that's just going to make things bad.
And then you have to have an agency with which to force people, right?
Now, if you have an agency with which to force people, that agency is, at least in the modern context, either going to be totalitarian, or it's going to rely on votes, right?
Now, as soon as you open up a system to voting, then you are allowing half the population with below average intelligence to vote.
And, you know, whenever you...
Because voting originally used to require...
Like, you had to have a certain amount of income and a certain amount of property to vote.
And people say, oh, they're shocked at this because universal suffrage has just become this deity that everyone worships without any sense or rhyme or reason or second thought.
But I can't vote in IBM stock proxy conflict because I don't own IBM stock, right?
I mean, if I don't own the thing, if I don't have a stake and a vested interest in it, then I can't vote in it.
And people, you know, people on the receiving end of welfare, can they vote objectively about welfare policies for the long term interest of the country and its benefit?
And more particularly if people on welfare tend to be of lower intelligence.
Again, there are exceptions, but that is generally the case that people who are on welfare tend to be less intelligent.
Which means that since it takes more intelligence to take small to short term hits for the sake of long term gains.
Right.
One of the whole points of intelligence is to expand your horizon with which you're willing to sacrifice your personal comfort to gain things in the future.
So you end up with a population that's less intelligent, that's entirely dependent upon government programs.
Can they be trusted to vote intelligently and responsibly and in a mature and sober and wise way about government programs?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Even smart people have a tough time doing that.
But less intelligent people who are completely dependent on these programs at the moment can't pass.
So they're just going to vote for more and more.
Because they're less intelligent, they're going to just say, well, give me stuff.
And they don't really get where it comes from.
And this is the whole socialism thing, right?
The Bernie Sanders thing.
We're just going to give you free stuff.
And people are always writing to me, well, it's free here and I get free college there.
It's not free.
But it's free to them, and that's the limit of their thinking, right?
They're not smart enough to say where's this money coming from and who else gets hurt.
And because they're not smart enough to know where the money comes from, they don't have empathy for the people it's taken from.
It just shows up, free check, right?
Government has all this money.
I guess they're sitting on piles of gold like Scrooge McDuck, and here they're shipping me some.
How nice of them, right?
And so if you want to find some way to forcibly redistribute wealth, you have to set up a government and the government has to include votes and the votes are going to be cast by the people on the receiving end who are less intelligent.
Receiving end of that money who are less intelligent, they're just going to keep voting for more and more and the system collapses.
So I'd love to make the case, you used the word duty, which is kind of one of these words, I don't know what it means fundamentally.
Because I don't know if duty is legally enforced or something that's nice to do.
Is it aesthetically preferable?
Is it polite?
Is it something self-defense if it doesn't happen, right?
But I think the basic reality is I am happy to help and do help people who can't help themselves and people who are unfortunate.
Right?
Let's say someone has some brain parasite and they grow up, can't take care of themselves.
Well, if you take care of that person, it's not like a whole bunch of people are going to be snorting brain parasites to get those same goodies.
They're not.
But if you give money to people who just don't feel like working, then more people will not feel like working.
Right?
So this can't be done by a government.
It has to be done by private charities and there has to be competition about who helps the most and who helps the best.
So I think that yes, I am lucky to be smart.
And I am lucky to live in a society where intelligence is not a liability.
In lots of societies, intelligence is a huge liability.
If you live in a very superstitious society, atheism and agnosticism are positively correlated with intelligence.
The more intelligent you are, the less superstitious or religious you are, in general.
Don't post the exceptions, otherwise you're just proving that you're not that smart.
And so if you grew up in a very superstitious culture and you're smart enough to be skeptical, I mean, you're often the first person that they're going to barbecue their marshmallows off your roasting forehead.
Kill the unbeliever!
Skeptic!
Heretic!
Right?
So, intelligence is like being intelligent in a superstitious society is like being gay in a homophobic society.
You've got to pretend to drool a little.
You've got to pretend that, oh yeah, I can read this religious text for the 12,000th time and pretend I'm getting, oh yeah, I've got to kneel down.
Okay, we've got to stand up.
Okay, we've got to go here.
You've got to zombie yourself up, right?
Pee yourself a little once in a while and pretend that darts is a sport.
I don't know.
Like, whatever you do, you just got to pretend that it's great.
Our society is the best.
Wait, you didn't see a little bit of brain, did you?
I mean, there's Ariel Winter, I think her name is.
She just got breast reduction surgery because...
Well, anyway, if you look at pictures, not that I have, but I hear she had some pretty specific put your head between them and make motorboat noises, columns of feed a village mammary glands.
And she played this character who was supposed to be geeky and unattractive.
So basically, I don't know what they had to do with her boobs, but I assume it involved a caterpillar truck and some duct tape of nearly NASA strength proportions to keep the lush those puppies down.
And that's sort of what intelligence is like, you know, restrain it, keep it down, right?
I mean, in front of the lobotomy, where do I sign up?
Because I can't fit in here anywhere.
But now, of course, in the Jewish society, having great intelligence meant great income, great respect within the community, and you had the best reproductive choices because the women were trained to value intelligence.
And this is why I'm constantly nagging women, make better choices, make better choices!
Choose smarter guys.
And that way we can get smarter people.
Because intelligence is not something to be taken for granted.
Intelligence is something that comes out of people making incrementally better choices every generation.
And right now people are just making worse and worse choices.
And how long is it going to take before we recover the intelligence cliff dive that we're currently going through with the dygenics of the welfare state and other things?
It's just wretched, wretched and horrifying.
So I think that we do have an obligation to take care of people.
I'm in no way, shape or form think that it's safe to set up a majority vote violent institution to take care of that because that's just a recipe for...
dystopia as we see happening all around us and Constantly exhorting people to make better choices is by far the best way to do this and social ostracism for those who don't is the most powerful way because social ostracism is gene death Right if no one's gonna have sex with you you ain't gonna have any kids and this is why ostracism is so powerful and So and this is why ostracism is so strongly resisted, you know when I talk about ostracism People freak out.
It's like I'm calling for the extermination.
People just completely freak out because they get it deep down.
What I'm saying is intelligence is the resource that we need to breed.
It is our most precious resource and it results in the best societies.
And you can see this all around the world.
You can see national IQ and you can see standard of living and you can see the absence of corruption.
You can see the rule of law and it generally works.
Now, Lots of problems, things still aren't perfect and so on.
Of course, right?
And there are outliers.
But in general, the less intelligent the country, the less rule of law, the more violence, the more criminality and the more corruption.
Corruption is very strongly associated with less intelligence.
And the countries who have This precious intelligence resource are wise to hang on to it.
And, you know, like people are nagging at me about some of my take on the migrant crisis, and that's great.
You know, people should nag at me.
Lord knows I need course corrections just about every day.
But...
Oh man, you don't believe in borders.
It's like, well, I don't have to not believe in them.
They're not there.
They are imaginary lines on a map.
But where there are significant disparities in IQ, we need to figure out what's going on.
If it's entirely environmental, okay.
But the problem is no one's allowed to research this stuff and talk about it.
And everyone gets screamed down as racist and Nazi and xenophobe if they talk about it.
And that's not good until we have an answer as to what's going on with ethnic differences in IQ.
Because if it is genetic, it's a disaster in the long run, right?
Until something can be solved, until something can be sorted out.
I don't know if it is, right?
Nobody knows for sure.
Strong indications seem to be that there's strong genetic components.
That's not good, right?
Until we have an answer to this, it is not a wise idea to have massive crashings of IQ disparate populations into each other.
It's not going to work.
Mm-hmm.
Because just like with the height, we are moving towards a more average society, right?
A loss of five IQ points in a national IQ results in like 30% more welfare, 35% more high school dropouts, significantly more criminality, significantly more single motherhood, significantly more drug addiction, significantly more promiscuity and dysfunction.
You drop the national IQ by five points, and that's not a lot.
You really start to split that society apart.
And this is not my opinion.
These are facts.
So, it is a risky social experiment that we're cooking on at the moment.
I hope it works out.
I hope that, you know, it's all...
It has nothing to do with genetics.
Then, of course, the problem is I can't be an atheist, right?
If it all works out, then evolution is invalid, and therefore there must have been a creator, and therefore I have to return to my Christian roots.
Which I'll do if that's what the facts lead, but I don't think it's about to happen.
So we are headed towards lower intelligence on average, correct?
I don't know.
So I hate to say this is inevitable because then I have no capacity to change it, right?
I don't have a program called Tomorrow We Repeal Gravity, right?
Because they're not going to change that.
But where it is that I'm focusing on bringing the arguments and the science and the data to people, I'm not going to say, well, that's where we're heading.
But people tend to segregate by intelligence, right?
And if there is a low IQ population moving into a high IQ population, there's going to be segmentation, segregation, and friction.
Especially, of course, if people don't understand that there may be differences between these ethnicities, they're just going to scream racism at all the white people from here to eternity.
And that's a pretty shitty place to be for white people to just be blamed for the results of evolution.
I mean, it's so unfair.
It's so wrong.
And I think it's time we just we have to push.
I mean, I hate having to have these conversations, to be honest with you.
I mean, I, I really, really enjoyed a lot of the anarchist stuff.
And I, you know, people are like, hey, man, you just keep talking about these differences.
It's like, well, if they stopped showing up in the news and screwing up society, I wouldn't have to talk about these things.
Yeah, people segregate, I think, in particular, along IQ lines.
And along cultural lines and to some degree along race lines.
We're a tribal species and I wish it were different.
I wish we were all philosophical and I wish we all had the same bell curve of intelligence.
But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
And wishing doesn't do any good.
So I'd be very happy if all the data was the same for all ethnic groups.
I'd be very happy if we didn't have to have these conversations.
But I tell you, I'm pretty fucking pissed off that after having been screamed at as being part of a racist patriarchy for 30 years, the answer seems to be that it's not my fault and the people who are screaming at me are fact-rejecting assholes.
And that's pissing me off.
So that's where my heart's at.
Sure.
All right.
Thank you very much.
It's been really enlightening.
You really did answer a lot of...
I definitely am going to, you know, look more into, you know, try to sponge up more as much knowledge as possible.
It really is, you know, it really is telling, you know, you just have such...
There's such a difference in knowledge, you know.
Between you and I, I don't have the words to say sometimes, but I very much appreciate you.
I've actually made a very large life decision based off one of your talks, The Truth About Procrastination.
In which I really looked at my life in a fundamentally different way and started to live for myself more.
And it caused me to move halfway across the country away from my parents.
Long story short, dropped out of school to pursue my own thing and hopefully be happy.
But thank you very much for having me on.
It's been a great talk.
Thank you.
Well, thank you.
Very, very kind words.
I hugely appreciate that.
And congratulations on that.
And yeah, the procrastination video, somewhat underappreciated.
Of course, it's a long time ago now.
The first take was even better, but the audio got messed up.
Second take is out there.
But I appreciate that.
Maybe we should post that below this.
I think people should get a chance to see that if they haven't.
It was a good show.
But thanks very much.
I appreciate, Emil.
Great chatting with you.
All right.
Thank you.
Alright, up next is Nicholas.
He wrote in and said, Remember, this is from a European's perspective.
In addition, there are of course exceptions on the left, but the correlation is less so on the logical thinking, in my opinion.
It has long been my own belief that the logos, or logical, will ultimately win over the pathos, emotional.
We just have to subject them long enough and surely they will change.
It strikes me, however, that I do not have historical references proving my thesis, nor do I see any evidence in reality of this.
I think to myself that the cognitive dissidence will at some point put my opponents at a dead end and it will become obvious to him.
However, I am having serious doubts on presumptions.
What are our trump cards and how do we convince the logically weak?
Why did we not play the left's game?
Why abandon the tactics which measure on a historical scale regardless of era?
Why do we persist with logos, logical, when the Yeah.
It's a good question.
It's a good question.
Yeah, I mean, my thinking is evolving continually in this area.
And it's kind of funny, you know, when you're a public figure, particularly a public intellectual figure, if you don't change your opinions, then you're called dogmatic and resistant to new evidence.
But if you do change your opinions, you're called a flip-flopper.
It's one of these no-win situations that you just have to shrug and walk past.
But you do have to, of course, you know, now that I've been in the public sphere...
Going on 10 years, trying to bring reason and evidence to the world.
And I think we're doing a great job, you know, with people's support, freedomandradio.com slash donate, to help out.
But I think that you constantly have to monitor your successes and failures in what it is that you're doing.
And in some ways, we're further ahead than I expected to be.
And in other ways, we're much further behind than I expected to be in the spread of philosophy.
So I think that these questions that you...
You bring up are very, very important and very helpful.
What's your experience been in trying to reason with people?
My personal experience, it takes a very long time via logical arguments and statistics Persuade somebody to change their opinion.
And there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in this, whatchamacallit, in trying to persuade somebody.
It takes a long, long time.
And the cognitive dissonance, often, if this is a relative or friend to you, causes you to not become friends.
So you subject him to a sort of pain that he doesn't want to be subjected to.
Does that make sense?
Oh, yeah.
I'm sorry, English is not my first language, so it's kind of hard to reach the world I'm looking for at times.
No, you're doing great.
Look, I hugely, because my ability to learn any languages other than new computer languages is very limited, so you have huge props for me for not speaking in your native language, particularly in abstract conversations, so don't apologize for anything.
But it's an observation.
I am from Sweden.
An observation is that media in Sweden is completely focused on a character's ethos.
If that person is, you know, deemed as far right or doesn't, you know, is not a socialist, He will become attacked for his ethos.
They will not attack whatever facts him or her brings to the table.
It's always about the ethos and it's emotional.
You've discussed in length The migration crisis to Europe.
Now, there was a three-year-old child who tragically died upon the beach upon, I think it was Greece or Turkey or something like that.
And it's, you know, it's an emotional thing.
No thinking.
When a statesman or a president or prime minister...
No, no, sorry, sorry to interrupt you, but it's not an emotional thing.
Because, as you know, I mean, the rape statistics in Sweden are pretty horrendous, and the vast majority of these rapes are committed by first or second generation immigrants, mostly from Africa and the Middle East.
So if it was emotions, then they would be showing the pictures, and we talked about including them in the recent talk that I gave on this, but they're so brutal, I just didn't want to shock and horrify people.
Just do a search for Swedish rape victims and click on images, and you'll see these mashed-up faces of women who've been brutalized by these immigrants.
So it's not just emotion, it's propaganda.
Emotion is, okay, well, there's this kid who died, but then there are these women who got raped, and of course, I'm not saying the two are causal.
And of course, you never find out the real facts, right?
There's a lot of people on that boat who say that this was a human smuggler taking $10,000 to smuggle people into Europe, and he brought his family along so that people would be reassured as to the safety of the vessel.
People on the boat saying it was supposed to be a 15-minute trip.
The boat was way overloaded, and the guy drove really badly, and that's why he wrecked himself.
Yes.
So it's not, you say, well, it's emotion versus logic.
No, it's propaganda.
I mean, the emotions can be perfectly valid.
But this is just one-sided propaganda designed to shut everyone up who disagrees with the dominant narrative.
Oh, yeah.
Don't get me wrong.
What I mean is it's by design meant to appeal to people's emotions rather than thinking.
I mean, if somebody came to your house and said, you know, things are really bad around the neighborhood, I think we're going to have to bring 10 people into your house.
And that's about it.
See these pictures of a three-year-old child?
It's really bad over here.
They're coming tomorrow.
You'd start thinking, Christ, I can't household ten people.
Maybe I can put a tent outside my house, but that's not a long-term solution.
You need to think about these things.
But nobody's thinking about these things because we're bombarded.
But that's because there's no shortages, right?
Because we are no longer constrained by shortages because of fiat currency and government borrowing and debt and all this money printing, there's no shortages.
Look, those of us whose ancestors grew up in a cold climate, well, we had, and I think you and I are probably the same background in many ways, but we had tough choices to make.
Which you don't have to make in other places, right?
Where food falls out of the trees and you're never really going to get that hungry.
The main thing you have to worry about is other people, right?
Not nature.
And a toughness is part of the East Asian and the European mindset.
There is a toughness.
And that's because People who didn't save for winter, who didn't save their food, who didn't chop the firewood that was necessary, who didn't make the necessary preparations for winter.
So let's say that you and I are neighbors, right?
Yes.
In Sweden in the 15th century.
And all summer I'm out there playing volleyball and learning guitar and memorizing Latin verse and all that kind of crap while you're slaving away in the fields.
And you finish your work just as winter comes because you've stored up just enough food for you and your family for the winter, right?
And I've been lazy and thoughtless and whatever, right?
And I'm doing okay for a bit because, you know, I got some apples.
They haven't gone bad, you know.
Doing okay for a bit.
My horse is alive, and my cow's doing okay.
I don't have enough hay for the cow for the winter, but, you know, cow's doing okay.
It gets a little hungry, but I still got milk.
I can, you know, first month or two, maybe I'm doing okay.
Oh, man, December comes by, man.
My cow dies because I didn't have enough hay.
Or maybe, you know, before my cow dies, cow's getting skinny.
I come knock on your door and I say, hey, man, I need some hay.
My cow's hungry, right?
But you only have enough hay for your cow for the winter, right?
What do you say?
Sorry.
Sorry.
Because you're limited, right?
Yes.
Because in a very real way, it's your family or my family, or in a very more real way, if you give me the hay to keep my cow alive, both our cows are going to die.
Yes.
And so it's either I have trouble, to put it mildly, Or everybody has trouble, but there's no way trouble can be avoided because it's winter.
You know, like if I live in, I don't know, Tahiti.
I don't know if Tahiti has bananas, but let's assume it does.
If I live in Tahiti and I didn't pick enough bananas for dinner, you know what I can do?
Go and pick some more bananas.
It's like no winter.
Now with winter, it's win-lose.
And so the whole Western mindset, the whole European mindset, the whole Northern climate mindset has developed around limitations and the need to postpone gratification and the need to be a real asshole when you have to be.
This is one of the reasons why Europeans are so aggressive and another reason why some of the East Asians in China and Japan have had a history of significant aggression and imperialism.
Because there's a toughness that is necessary to survive in winter.
You have to close your heart.
Now, to people from warmer climates, that's incomprehensible.
It's the R versus the Ks, right?
It's...
For those who don't know what that means, just look at the Gene Wars presentations.
For people from warmer climates, it's like, hey man, why aren't you giving him a banana?
He's hungry.
It's like because we have six months of no food and we can't hibernate, right?
And so the whole culture kind of grew up around limits and the necessity of tough choices.
And that partly is what has driven a lot of the, as we talked about in the last call, some of these differences in IQ and deferral of gratification and even things like testosterone levels between different ethnicities and so on, right?
And so this is when I say people in Europe are nice until they're not nice.
Like you'll go help your neighbor and your neighbor will come and help you and so on.
But if at some point your neighbor is just taking advantage of you, slam the door.
Good luck with winter.
I'm sorry if you have to wander off into a blizzard.
Maybe I'll give you shelter for the night.
But in the morning, I don't care if you're crying and weeping.
I got to kick you out because I only have enough food for my family for the winter.
Because there's not going to be any new food for another six months or four months or three months or however long it's going to be.
Maybe we can trap a rabbit.
I don't know.
But we're not going to get any substantial food for another couple of months.
So we gotta be assholes.
Do you know what I mean?
Yeah, I completely understand what you mean.
I digress.
But I find it because you brought up, for example, the rape fact.
Whatever you call it.
You know, it's a That's sort of a hate fact in Sweden.
Yeah, the idea that something could be both a fact and hatred is insane.
Pointing out the fact that a lot of women are getting raped in Sweden by third-world immigrants, if that's a fact, how can it be hateful?
Well, I don't disagree with you.
It's just...
I guess the left thinks if we tell the truth, if I'm going to be a bit nice towards them, it's a slippery slope, and hey-ho, Hitler is reborn.
And to a degree, it's probably correct.
And that's going to be sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because what is going to happen is that the longer you defer your limits, the harsher those limits become.
So if you're drinking because you're depressed or you're socially anxious or whatever, the more you use alcohol to cover up your problems, the worse your problems get.
And you're either going to die or you're going to run out of alcohol or you're going to decide to go cold turkey quit.
In which case, all your problems are going to come crashing in on you, including now the alcoholism as well.
And if you borrow money rather than go to work, You can live for quite a while.
You can swap around.
You can extend and pretend.
You can get new cards to pay your old cards.
You can whatever, right?
Yep.
But the longer you put it off, the worse it is when it hits, right?
Yeah.
Now, we, of course, in the West, have done this.
We've kind of turned a winter-based society into a tropical society.
Insofar as we have released ourselves from the rational limits of our environment.
We've done that partly through the generation of wealth, but more in particular through government, right?
Through fiat currency, through borrowing, through printing, through crazy overspending, through making promises we can't possibly fulfill, and unfunded liabilities in the hundreds of trillions of dollars.
Yes, that's trillions, hundreds of trillions of dollars.
And so we've kind of turned...
We've taken polar bears, in a sense, and put them in the tropics.
We've created this environment of infinite resources, which is more associated with the tropics without the associated angry bees and hellacious pathogens and angry insects of every kind.
So we've kind of taken...
A personality and cultural structure, a brain structure you could say, that has for tens of thousands of years adapted itself to significant limits on resources and we've turned on the spigots of tropical food production.
And so what's happened is, before People would have said, well, I think it's a terrible shame that you had to turn away that person because you didn't have enough food to share, but we understand, right?
If you have to choose between your family and someone else's family, evolution demands you choose your family, and anybody who didn't choose that didn't evolve, and that gene is not around, right?
Yeah.
And so what's happened is we've created tropical abundance in an environment that is specifically designed to manage resources and defer gratification.
And...
There's a reason why all of the people from the third world want to come to Europe because they get all of the abundance that they get in the third world but without all the associated corruption and horror that goes along with all that abundance, right?
For a variety of evolutionary reasons which everyone can look up for themselves if they want.
But the problem is the abundance cannot last because it's an illusion.
It's extended pretend.
It's dead.
So what's going to happen is The money is going to seriously run out.
Like, oh my god.
It is going to be a worse crash if nothing is done to avoid it or slow its descent.
It is going to be a worse crash than has ever been seen before in human history.
Because there's never been this amount of debt before in human history.
This amount of inflation, this amount of turning money into a superstition never occurred before in human history.
And so what's going to happen is the tropics are going to freeze over.
The tropics in terms of the fantasy of infinite resources that is really only available in the tropics that's been created in people adapted to a cold climate, the fantasy of infinite resources in a cold climate is going to crash.
And then, this is what I'm talking about when I talk about, and then there will be a lot of not niceness.
Because all of those dormant genes, all of those dormant impulses are going to be there.
And people can switch from R to K pretty quickly because actually that's a way of keeping the R genes alive, right?
The reason we are R and K is because we can switch between the two.
Because if R's were R's until the death, the gene would be wiped out every time there was a...
Limitation in resource.
Anytime there was a shortage of crops or anytime there was an ice age, right?
The R's will go dormant by switching on the K. And the K is not pretty.
When there's an excess population and a deficiency of resources, K's are not pretty.
And they will do what it takes to survive.
And that's what we want to avoid.
Does this make any sense at all?
No, I completely understand.
I think you're a couple of years ahead of time.
I know the Swedish system and I know the European Swedish system in particular.
It will be like a domino game.
Because it's heavily invested in debt on all levels.
You already have the largest or the highest marginal taxes in the world.
It's going to go off, and then at the end of the line, somebody's going to start pointing fingers.
And all you need, for example, in Germany or in Sweden, an authoritative figure, and the ball's rolling.
Oh, as soon as the resources run out, people switch from R to K. And outsiders then become the enemy, and there will be unbelievable ruthlessness and brutality in the maintenance of the...
Local gene set.
Because people are saying, well, let's just give welfare to these migrants as if there's money.
There's no money.
There's no money.
You're just going into debt, which means it's going to get way, way worse.
And this doesn't mean, of course, that you can't ever have people from the tropics come and live in cold climates or vice versa.
Of course you can.
It's to be free market-based.
It can't be welfare state-based.
It can't be delusion-based.
It's like me building a house On a glacier that's heading south.
It's going to melt.
My house is going to sink.
You talk a bit as it's inevitable.
I think to a degree it is inevitable.
Because I look at my society.
I look at what kind of society I was raised in.
And that's my original question, you know?
You cannot talk to people in this society.
You cannot reason with people in this society.
I'm doing my best.
You know, I'm doing my best.
And the only thing I can hope, there will be, look, there are some people who will listen to reason.
There are other people who will listen to reason because you put forward the principles, right?
You put forward the principles and they go, well, those principles, I can't find a way to argue against them, so I'm going to alter my perspective to match up to that, which I cannot disprove, right?
That's a rational, mature, intelligent thing to do.
Number one.
Those people will listen to reason.
And those are primarily the people that I'm talking to.
People like yourself and the other callers and so on, right?
They listen to reason.
Not many.
Not a big percentage of the population.
And we've got the death of reason as a presentation.
People want more of the science in this.
And those are number one.
The second group of people...
Are the people who will remember your arguments, but will discount them until the evidence overwhelms their resistance.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
Right?
So there are people, like, they're diabetic and you say, oh, you should take your insulin or whatever, right?
You should manage your blood sugar.
And they're like, good, okay, you know, you make sense, you show me the argument, so here's why I'm gonna do it, right?
And there are other people who are like, ah, you know, I get what you're saying.
I don't really think it's that important, right?
And then they faceplant because they do something that's against what the best practices are for managing diabetes, right?
And then they're like, okay, man, I get it, right?
So some people who are like, you got to brush your teeth because you're going to get cavities.
And they're like, okay, I'll brush my teeth.
I won't get a cavity.
Other people are like, ah, you know, I get it, but I don't think it's that important.
And then they get some god-awful cavity that they have to have drilled.
And they're like, okay, okay, I'll brush my teeth, right?
I'll brush my teeth.
So they remember the arguments.
But until the evidence compels them, so to speak, they will not act upon...
They won't learn by principle, but at least they will learn from experience or empiricism or consequences or whatever you want to say, right?
Yeah.
Now, the number of people that I'm able to reach through principled argument is very few.
However, it's my hope, of course, that people like yourself and the other listeners put out these arguments to other people.
Now then...
When the limitation is reached there are not enough people in a democratic society or any society at least that's been known throughout history I think there is not enough people in any current society to prevent the end of the resources that is coming because there are too few people who understand that you don't have to suffer To make better decisions.
You can make better decisions based on principle.
There are just not enough K's out there at the moment to make that case.
However, if enough of us spread that the system is unsustainable, that there is going to be a crash, then when the crash hits, they'll listen to us.
That's the only thing that I hold out hope for.
Not that we can avoid or prevent a crash.
But that when the crash hits, we will suddenly be vaulted to the top of credibility because the people who predicted it should be the people that everyone comes to for what's next.
And we will be competing with the demagogues and the tyrants who want what's next to be a new dark age.
So we're going to be out there, light versus dark, fighting the good fight, So I put out the arguments to reach the few people of reason and hope that they'll spread the predictions.
When the predictions come true, credibility goes up, and then you can tell people what's next.
And that the problem has been a lack of freedom and an excess coercion, not a lack of coercion.
And so that, I think, is the goal that I have.
And of course, you know, peaceful parenting and all the stuff that people can do to prepare the ground for a generation of people who are more able to listen to reason.
If reason is not the enemy, see, if you're commanded and yelled at and brutalized and spanked by your parents, reason becomes your enemy.
Because reason reveals that your parents were jerks, were cruel, were vicious, right?
We bond with our parents.
It's a hard thing for people to take.
But if you're raised rationally, empirically, philosophically, Through negotiation and virtue.
A show like this is not any kind of enemy to you because it reveals how great your parents were, not how troubled and aggressive they were.
And so, in terms of why don't we abandon logic and simply do the appeal to emotion?
Because First of all, I don't think a race to the bottom of infinite cruelty is going to end up with us winning.
The people who run public discourse are mostly exquisitely well-trained and natural verbal sadists.
The media are just incredibly well-practiced and entirely natural verbal sadists.
And you can see this whenever you read something, it becomes yawningly boring.
I can't really read much mainstream media anymore because it's all just so boringly predictable.
Oh, George Clooney is anti-Trump.
What a shock.
You know, it's just natural, right?
You see this with the...
Discussions of Trump, you know, nobody talks about any facts.
They all just try and portray him as a lunatic and a clown and a buffoon and a, you know, just the usual crap, right?
Now, if you were to pay me a million dollars to write a really snarky, sarcastic, I mean, I'd have a tough time doing it because it doesn't come naturally to me.
I kind of gravitate towards reason and evidence.
So the idea that these people who were obviously severely traumatized and dehumanized in early infancy and toddlerhood, who grew up surrounded by exquisite verbal abusers, who have developed this poison tongue and poison pen methodology to a truly fine art black belt degree, that the idea that I, who have a very basic and wholesome approach to human communication, can suddenly go in and fight dirty with these verbal sadists and win, I think is, they want to lure you in.
They want to lure you into that fight because, you know, it's the old thing about, you know, if you don't wrestle in shit with a pig because you get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it.
I think you have to take the high road, at least I do, because I can't win in those fights and I would not be the person I am if I could.
I wouldn't be in that fight, I'd be on their side, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I hear you.
I understand what you're saying.
It's just...
It's food for thought.
I'll take it with me.
I'll think about it.
I think being more assertive is helpful, right?
I think recognizing that there are enemies that need to be fought, right?
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is a book that people should read just as a manual for dogmatic religious secular assholes who want to rule the planet with lies.
But it is, you know, it's good at explaining how this stuff all works.
And I think that it's worth reading.
But, you know, I don't know if you want to take on those tactics because we still need to reach people of reason who are willing to think and willing to examine their assumptions and come to better conclusions and so on.
Because if all we do is sway a bunch of emotionally volatile people, we're going to assume that there's no demagogue anymore.
Who's not going to sway them back with greater skill, which is most likely, right?
I mean, I have a great respect for training and I have a great respect for experience, right?
I'm not subject that much to the Don and Kruger effect because I'm really good at a few things.
I recognize how difficult it is to become good at anything.
I just, I can't compete with the demagogue because I've got, you know, 30 plus years in reason and evidence.
I just can't switch that over to the exact opposite, right?
Now, it's just that the originals...
The cultural Marxists, the originals, the really intelligent people who designed all of this, that media is reproducing today.
I mean, I don't think the most journalists or public media are aware of their ideology.
It's just something they reproduce.
There's something that's in their system.
I don't know.
You know, you're trying to step in the head of these people.
And I don't know that that's valuable.
I don't know to what degree people believe the bullshit they spin.
I mean, and what does it matter?
I don't care how hungry the lion is.
If it's coming at me, I'm going to run or shoot.
You know, I don't care if the bear is defending its territory, or is hungry, or is in a bad mood, or, you know, is just playing with me.
I don't, like, I don't, what does it matter?
What does it matter?
Whether the shark is territorial or hungry.
The bite is the same.
So, you know, I'd really caution you against trying to pass through the veil of evil people's foreheads and trying to rummage around in their motivations.
I don't care.
Why would I care?
I mean, Churchill didn't say, well, you know, Hitler did have a bad childhood, and he did have a case about the backstab in the World War I, and blah, blah, blah, when the communists were taken over, and they were afraid of a genocide against Christians, right?
I mean, no!
He's trying to bomb the shit, right?
Empathy is for minded people.
Empathy is for the empathetic.
Empathy is not to be used against the cold-hearted.
You reach your heart in there.
They don't get warmer.
You just freeze.
It just freezes up.
I really, really strongly caution you against trying to empathize with enemies, to try and empathize with those who are hell-bent on your destruction.
The only way that you ever want to empathize with them is to try to figure out what their next move is.
Not why their next move is, but what their next move is.
Yeah, but whether they believe they're bullshit or not doesn't matter.
Right?
If you have an enemy who is, like in war, who's trying to take some town, his motive for doing it doesn't really matter.
Trying to figure out what his next move is going to be is going to be helpful in terms of trying to counteract it.
But his fundamental motive, whether he believes in the virtue of what he's doing, whether, you know, it's, who cares?
You know he's going to do it, and you figure out his tactics, but his base motivations and why he's doing it, does he want to, you know, does the general want a promotion?
Does he want to go out in history books?
Is he pleasing his military father who always disapproved of him?
You know, does he have a tiny penis and wants a big howitzer?
Like, who cares?
And you'll never know.
You'll never, ever, ever know.
Because the only way you'd ever know somebody's true motivations is if that person was scoldingly honest and had deep self-knowledge, right?
What do we know about evil, manipulative people?
They're not honest, because they're manipulative, and they do not have self-knowledge.
So if you're trying to figure out the mind of a fictional character, you're trying to figure out the motives of an imaginary being called an honest manipulator, you will never ever know.
What I want is their audience.
And my theory or thesis is that Just like with intelligence, I don't necessarily think that all intelligent people have to be logical, but I think there is a bigger proportion of very intelligent people who sway through logical thinking.
But...
Okay, you want their audience.
Okay, I'll tell you a little something about...
I've got some experience with audiences by this time.
I'll tell you something about audiences.
Most people in history simply don't exist and have no relevance and no reality and no show on history whatsoever.
And why is that?
Because they simply say, who can give me the greatest benefit and who can give me the greatest punishment?
That's all they're doing.
Now, right now, the media will...
Praise people who are leftist and multiculturalists and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And they will attack other people who aren't that way.
Right?
This is why I said, oh, George Clooney, oh, he's anti-Trump.
What a shocker, right?
Oh, of course he is, right?
Because if he's pro-Trump, his movie career is jeopardized.
So he doesn't care about Trump.
He doesn't have any opinions that are any principle, anything like that.
His wife is a lefty and he works in a lefty industry.
So guess what?
He's anti-Trump.
Oh my God, what a shock.
The sun is over here, the tree is here, the shadow is over there, right?
The power is over here, the individual who wants to benefit from that power is here, and that is the shadow caused by their conformity with those in power.
That's all it is.
Most people are just like, oh, okay, so I'm praised for doing this and I'm punished for doing that, okay, I'll do this and do not do that and pretend I'm making a moral choice?
They don't exist.
They don't exist.
I mean, in any fundamental way in terms of their effects.
They just go on with the flow and so on.
So you can't get their audience.
Because right now, reality has nothing to offer the delusional.
Nothing!
In fact, reality greatly punishes the delusional.
Because right now, realities like Stanley Kowalski and the general population is like Blanche DuBois from A Streetcar Named Desire.
Any kind of reality is a house of cards for most people, what they charitably could be called their mind.
So you have nothing to offer the deluded because the deluded do not want truth, reason, and evidence.
They're living in delusion sustained by violence and And counterfeiting.
The force of taxation and the counterfeiting of fiat currency is what sustains their delusions.
So the only people they want to listen to are the people who deny reality and enhance their delusion.
When reality begins to crack through these delusions, when the wall is hit and the lies and the fantasies of infinite resources cannot continue, Then suddenly, the people telling them lies will no longer provide them a benefit, and the people telling them the truth will provide them a benefit, right?
And they'll go like, oh, you know, the sun has moved.
The benefit is now over here.
So the shadow has moved, right?
But the sun doesn't think it's pushing the shadow.
It just moves.
The shadow moves on its own.
People's allegiance will change when the lies prove more costly than the truth.
Right now, the truth is far more costly than the lies.
In the future, when the lies run out of the capacity to sustain themselves, the truth will be more valuable than the lies.
And this is the pendulum back and forth with the state and God and brutal parenting.
This is the same bullshit.
This is a pendulum.
Only philosophy can break this stupid cycle of history.
And so right now, the left is saying, we'll punish you.
We'll make it painful for you to tell the truth.
Now, at some point in the future, the lies will run out.
And then, anybody who tells the truth will be more valuable, and everyone will be like, oh yeah, you know, I was your fan when you were still playing clubs, man.
I've been around with you since the beginning, man.
You've always been the shit.
I watched your second podcast.
I was the third person to donate to you.
Man, I've always been, right?
Of course, right?
And, you know, I'm not mad about this.
It's just the rational division of labor among the species.
Not everyone can be a philosopher.
Not everyone can be an open-heart surgeon because other people got to do other stuff, right?
They're not mad about it.
It's just the reality.
And so trying to argue people who've adapted...
To conform to whoever gives them the most resources and recoil from anyone who can punish them, well, they'll do that.
And that's natural.
I mean, they're followers and they're leaders probably in their own areas, but in this big moral sphere, they're followers.
So you have to lay the ground and wait for circumstances to change.
Right?
You ever do this?
I don't know.
Like, I try to stay out of the sun, right?
Especially since I had radiation therapy.
I've got a big, giant Tilly hat and stuff, right?
Try and stay out of the sun.
So sometimes, I'll sit, if I'm doing some reading or whatever, I'll sit, and I'll be like, oh, I'm going to sit over here.
The shadow of the tree will be, you know, will cover me in a few minutes or whatever.
I just, you know, I don't want to run and wait for the shadow to cover me.
And so this is what it is in society.
You say, what's going to happen?
Nobody listens to you.
Because they're punished for listening to you.
And they're rewarded for listening to liars.
Because the liars hold the power.
The liars could be the key to the infinite resources that everyone imagines can go on forever.
Like, this is how insane it is in the world at the moment.
It took 125 years for the American government to raise, to go $1 billion in debt, right?
Right now...
The US government is spending the amount of money it took 200 years to accumulate it spends in a little over 25 years.
That is how insanely quick the stored up capital and savings of prior responsible generations is being burnt and squandered.
And this is after the Civil War and two world wars and the Cold War.
This is how much they used to save even with all those disasters.
Now it's all being burnt and squandered.
The seed crop is being devoured at an astonishing rate and then the resources are going to run out.
And then the people will have a choice.
The people who said there were no problems have been proven to be liars.
The people who said this is not going to end well have been proven to be truth-tellers.
Now, human beings are crazy But they don't want to die.
Because crazy genes could live in a crazy tribe.
But the genes that wanted to die, they didn't live.
So when they have to choose between death and reason, they would choose reason.
Because any genes that chose death did not get positively selected into the next generation, at least not very well.
So when the liars are revealed to be liars, and the ones who predicted it are revealed to be the truth-tellers, people will align themselves with the truth-tellers.
Because they value the truth?
No.
Of course not.
Because now the people who are telling the truth have more value to them than the people who were lying before.
That's all.
Right now, you can't win, because what do we have to offer people?
Social ostracism, punishment, blah, blah, blah.
Yay!
Right?
Feminists won't sleep with you.
It's okay, because what if they changed their minds the next morning?
But right now, the government is providing infinite resources, and wherever there are infinite resources, you end up with single-parent families, and denigration of the male, and males become progressively irresponsible, and the usual R-selected bullshit, right?
Now, the government is creating an R-environment which can't possibly last.
When the R-environment stops lasting, Then feminists will lose power, which is why they want it to go on as long as possible, because when the infinite resources run out, women will need men to take care of them when they are pregnant and have children and so on.
And they won't be able to get their free cheese and cheddar from the government, so they have to go to the dairy farmers of testicles, right?
They have to go to the men to get their resources, right?
And, you know, people are like, oh man, if we run out of money, what's going to happen to the single moms?
Well, I'll tell you what's going to happen to the single moms.
They're going to have to be a lot nicer to men.
They're going to have to cross their legs and grit their teeth when studly criminal comes along, right?
And flashes his gold tooth and, you know, his tattoos or whatever, right?
I got a Harley!
Do you have a job?
Vroom!
Vroom!
Okay, cross my legs, grip my teeth, and wait for some boring guy with a pudgy belly and an income, right?
When the studly criminal comes by and asks for their vote.
Oh yeah, well, no, because once they hit the wall, the politicians aren't going to have anything to offer them, right?
And so all that will happen is that Right now, men have nothing to offer women because they're getting their stuff from the government.
And so the feminists can say, oh, you do it yourself, girl, and you don't need a man.
It's like, well, okay.
Yeah, I don't need a job if I just won the lottery.
I get it, right?
But when the lottery money runs out, I go back to work, right?
And so right now, like the idea that there's this big...
It's nothing.
It's not like this big feminist movement, this big multicultural movement, this big Marxism, this big social...
It's nothing.
It doesn't exist in any...
It's just predicated on violence and counterfeiting.
It's the mere shadow caused by power.
And that power can't last and it can't sustain.
And people won't listen to reason as long as they're being paid to applaud lies and punished for listening to reason.
But reality reasserts itself always.
And single moms will be like, you can't take away my welfare.
I needed to...
Oh, is it gone?
Okay, I'll just find some man who now doesn't have to be forced to be married to me and who now I actually have to provide value to and make his life a better place in order for him to provide value to me so they'll just be nicer.
People are adaptable.
They'll survive.
We went through an ice age.
We can go through the end of the welfare state.
I think we'll make it.
We're not dinosaurs, you know.
Oh no!
A meteor fell.
There's fewer plants.
We're all dying.
I mean, we'll make it.
Fine.
It'll be good.
It'll be exciting.
It'll be fun.
And people will have to be nicer to each other.
When the government isn't giving you free stuff, then you actually have to be nice to your community.
Like, people writing to me, like, I put this thing out about my cancer and stuff, and People are writing like, well, what if you're poor and you get sick and you don't have the money?
It's like, well, people will help you because you've been nice to them, because you've helped them.
You know, what if I'm on a farm and I need to build a barn and I don't have enough money to hire people to build my barn?
It's like, well, no, it's okay.
You don't need to worry about that because you've gone and helped other people to build their barns.
And so they'll come and help you build your barns, right?
Well, what if I get sick and nobody wants to help me?
It's like, well, you should have been nicer.
You should have helped other people.
What if I get sick and I've never helped anybody at any time and I've always been selfish and all I did was stay home and turn my stereo up loud and fart out the window and play Call of Duty really loud and ignore my neighbors when they asked me to be quiet but then called the cops any time they played anything loud, especially that classical that don't even get me started on Chinese opera.
I can't.
I spent my whole time being selfish, never helped anyone out, never offered to babysit anyone, never bought anyone any food when they were sick, never did anyone any favors, never helped anyone, and then I get sick, and I spend all my money on video games and PS4 porn, and now what happens?
Well, you reap what you sow, man.
If you live a whole life of selfish taking, and you never help out anyone else, and you never save any money, I'm sorry.
It's the double D formula.
Dicks die.
Can't help you.
Maybe that will teach you, maybe teach other people not to be a dick.
Hey, remember that guy?
He was a total dick.
And he never helped anyone and he was just annoying as shit.
And you know, when he...
Carry his garbage down the hallway of the apartment building.
It could be dribbling out the most inhuman, satanic piss crap coming out and he'd never wipe it up.
He'd just slop stuff down and slam his door really loud and turn his story up really late at night.
But enough about Whitney Houston, kid.
But what, like, remember that guy?
And then he got sick and people were like, I don't care.
Sooner you die, sooner I get some sleep.
Sooner I don't have to stroll through your pissy garbage crap down the hallway.
Oh, I better not be that guy.
I mean, this is how people learn in society.
People say, well, what if I get sick and no one wants to help me?
They say, I want being a dick to be subsidized, right?
I want to gain the benefits of people liking me without actually having to have people like me, right?
Why did people send me money for my operation?
Because they didn't want me dead.
My life was worth it to them.
Or another way of putting it, let's say you sent in $100 to help me get my operation.
Your life was better with me alive than having $100.
Now let's say you have an operation that's going to cost you $20,000.
You've got 20 friends.
They each ship in $1,000.
You're fine!
But if you don't have 20 people in your life, Who'd rather have you in their lives than a thousand dollars?
You ain't living right.
You're doing something wrong.
People don't like you.
They don't care about you.
They don't love you.
You're not providing value to others!
You're living selfishly.
You're not making the world a better place.
You're not helping other people.
You're not enriching their lives.
I'm sorry to speak to you as if you're on the other side of an airplane hangar, but this is a giant gap of inhuman selfishness that needs to be bridged by language.
Be nice.
Be helpful.
Make other people's lives better because you're breathing.
And you know what's a really wonderful thing that will happen if other people's lives are better because you're breathing?
They'll help you keep breathing.
They really will.
But first of all, you have to take your head out of your own ass, peel yourself away from all the selfish little stupid pleasures that you call a life.
Oh look!
Something new came out on Netflix!
Oh look!
There's a new video card that I can buy!
Rather than help anybody out, I'm gonna try and win a trophy online that's gonna vanish when the server gets reformatted.
Oh, God!
Can you just peel yourself off your stupid electronic fetish and go and help the world?
Be nicer.
Be better.
Be happier.
Go visit someone who's lonely.
Make a meal for someone who's hungry.
Help someone move.
I don't care.
Just do something so that people notice that you're there, not in annoyance.
Oh my God.
If the only reason that people know you're alive is that you're walking with hard souls on the floor above their apartment.
That's the only reason people know you're alive.
I think I heard some music there a week or two ago.
Do you even exist in your social environment?
Do your neighbors know you?
Do your friends look to you for help?
Do they call you up when they have troubles?
And not in that vampiric parasite codependent way, but in a way that's actually they listen and do things better.
Is the world a better place because you're in it?
If the world is a better place because you're in it, the world will be invested on you continuing to be in it and won't let you die.
But I want to be selfish and then have people love me.
It's not subsidization of laziness that's the problem with socialism and forced redistribution of wealth.
It's subsidization of selfishness.
Make people happier.
Make people happier.
Do something that makes their lives better, that puts a little bit of a spring in their step, that gives them hope for the future, that gives them courage in the face of evil, that gives them strength in the face of the infinite calumnies that small-minded people can hurl at great souls.
Give them some support.
Give them a shoulder to cry on.
Give them a boost over the wall of inhibition.
Give them a propulsion Over the challenges of insecurity, be there for them.
Make them grateful that you're alive.
Make them love the fact that you exist.
And you will never want for anything.
You will never go hungry.
You will never go without shelter.
You will never go without healthcare.
You will never want for anything, least of all, love.
Love the world.
Help others.
Make the world a better place for the good people and a worse place for the evil people, which is basically saying the same thing.
Help other people out.
And then you won't worry about how to pay for what you need to pay for.
Because people will love you enough that they will be your welfare state.
They will be your social safety net.
And you know what's great about this?
Because you're not selfish, because you're helping other people, you won't have to scream for people with guns to get you what virtue would have given you for free!
I have a roof over my head.
I have food in my belly.
I'm alive because people help pay for my healthcare treatment.
I have a camera.
A microphone.
I have a shirt.
Sorry about that, but you know, if I take it off, I'm kind of indistinguishable from this ping-pong background.
I am alive because people love me.
Because I'm doing good things for them.
And this is why I don't need a welfare state.
This is why anybody who says, what about the poor?
What they're saying is, I'm a selfish son of a bitch.
So who's going to want to help me if I get into trouble?
So I need guns pointed at people to give me stuff because I didn't earn it by being nice to them and helpful to them.
The welfare state is a vicious enclosure for jerks who don't help people.
For jerks that no one loves.
I need the government to give me stuff because no one wants to give me stuff.
It's like people who say, well, this woman owes me sex because I'm horny.
Well, that's kind of creepy, right?
Well, people owe me money because I'm in need, right?
Well, my question is, how did you deal with With the world when other people were in need?
How did you deal with your friends when they were in need?
How did you deal with your friends when they had a bad breakup or when they got sick or when they ran out of money or when they failed an exam?
Were you there for them?
Did you bring them up?
Did you help them out?
Don't talk to me about your needs.
Talk to me about your generosity.
And if you don't have that generosity, don't talk to me about your needs because I don't care.
But all people want to do is, oh, I need this, and what about it?
And they'd sow these seeds of insecurity.
Or what if this big, bad disaster happens?
And what if...
I don't worry about that.
I mean, obviously, I worry about disasters happening, but I don't worry about, can I financially survive them?
Because people care about me.
Because I provide value to them.
This is why people donate.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
You know that your world is a little bit better because I'm in here doing what I'm doing.
You know that you have to work a little bit less hard for virtue because I'm working so damn hard for virtue.
You know that you have to be a little bit less philosophical because you can point people at me and I can take the hits for you.
I can be the human shield for you to get your ideas across.
Well, there's this interesting guy.
He's kind of controversial, but, you know, maybe have a look at this, right?
Oh, good!
I don't have to talk about the migrant crisis because Steph's video has done half a million views!
Soon, right?
So I don't have to talk about race and IQ because I don't have to talk about feminism.
Good.
He's doing it.
Good.
It's off my plate.
Someone's doing it.
I don't have to do it.
Yay!
Right?
And so I can do this stuff and the people pay me for it because they know that this stuff needs to be done.
They know these conversations need to be had.
They don't want to do it.
I can understand that.
So they'll pay me.
Because I'm doing it and they know it needs to be done.
It's okay.
I sponsor families around the world because I don't want to fly out and bring them cheese myself.
Division of Labor is totally fine.
But everyone who says I'm scared of the government not being there for the poor people, those other people I'm concerned that the government is going to help them, they're not talking about other people generally.
They're basically, they might just have a big sign on their forehead.
I'm selfish.
I don't help the world.
Nobody loves me.
And I don't want to accept those consequences.
And I sure as hell don't want to have to start being nice.
So I'm just going to vote for free shit.
Enforced by guns.
That's a big confession.
I'm a horrible person and only the government would want to help me to buy my vote out of contempt.
It raises the demand for virtue for there to be no welfare state, right?
Because if there's a welfare state, you don't have to be good to be supported.
You don't have to help people to be helped in return.
You just have to sell your fucking vote like a cheap dime store truck stop whore.
You just sell your vote rather than be a good person.
You sell off the future of your children rather than be a good person.
You sell off the stability of your country and the savings of your forefathers universally.
You sell off everything rather than get out of your fucking chair and be a good person and help the world.
You'll sell off any shit that you want.
You'll sell off other people's kidneys to get a Diet Coke because nobody wants to bring you anything because you don't care about anyone and you don't do anything for anyone, anytime, anywhere.
So you're just some fucking parasite who goes and crawls up the ass of government and shits out the future of his children because you can't get off your ass and help people out in the world to the point where they'll care about whether you're alive or fucking dead.
What happens if the poor people don't do this and nobody cares about them?
You're not talking about poor people!
You're talking about you!
Nobody cares that you're alive!
You can change that!
Stop running to the government to get stuff that virtue and love should get you for free!
Oh wait, no, it's not quite free.
You will have to give up season 12,000 of The Walking Dead.
Because that's really important.
Because, you know, there could be more people in bad makeup who are on the other side of things you need to get to because it's...
Right?
Right?
You might need to give up watching Kevin Spacey go down on some woman in House of Cards.
You may not figure out which racial stereotype is the most offensive in Orange is the New Black or Hillary Clinton's biography Pants Seats of the New Orange.
You might need to give up expansion 12,000 in World of Warcraft.
Yes, I know there's Hearthstone 2.
People tell me about it as well.
Oh, look!
Someone in Tahiti came up with another user expansion in Skyrim where you can buy a palm tree.
I better not go help the world because a palm tree that's not real could get me visual stimuli that go outside in the world.
It's really well rendered.
The graphics are excellent and you've got two GPUs that work beautifully.
They're called eyeballs.
No!
No!
I can't because people are complicated and I can't reboot them when they're not working.
The drivers are sometimes mismatched and there may be conflict and I don't like that.
And there are mean people who might say mean things if I try to help people in a way that's actually helpful.
Anyway, sorry, that rant could probably go on for quite some time, but yeah, just this all I hear when people say, well, what about the poor that nobody will help?
Well, will you help them?
I'm sorry?
I didn't, yeah, I didn't, to my defense, I didn't say anything about the socialist state.
You didn't, and this was not directed at you, this was you just an innocent bystander in this drive-by ranting.
Yeah, but I completely understand where you're coming from, and I think you have a point.
Yeah.
Many points that are valid.
Let's just hope this transition in society that will happen will be less violent than it has been before in Europe.
I fear for the worst though, I'm afraid.
But I concur with you, it's inevitable.
Yeah, I don't know if the violence is inevitable.
A transition is inevitable.
We hope to make it as peaceful as humanly possible.
But listen, it's a great question.
You're welcome back anytime.
And congratulations again on your mastery of English.
It's very good.
And I appreciate that.
Thanks for having me, Stefan.
Great show.
Thanks to Michael.
Everything.
Thank you.
All right.
Have a great night, man.
Thanks again for calling in.
You too.
Bye-bye.
And thank you everyone, of course, for being part of this conversation, for supporting what it is that I do and keeping me on the vertical side of the deep six.
That's six feet underground.
Anyway, thanks everyone so much.
FreeDomainRadio.com slash donate to help out the show, do the right thing, help spread philosophy, help avert the disasters that are going to come without philosophy.
