3121 The Flat Earth Conspiracy? - Call In Show - November 4th, 2015
An incredibly unique show where a Flat Earth proponent makes the case to a very skeptical Stefan Molyneux.Question 1: [1:53] - Have you examined the world in which you live? Do you believe that you live on a spinning sphere because someone told you or do you know from personal experience?Question 2: [1:10:02] - Can two people be fantastic parents but horrible partners? My husband and I are dedicated to being the best parents we can be, but we have been neglecting ourselves and our marriage at the same time. I tell myself "because I love my son, I am motivated to improve my marriage." Is there a way to turn this though into "because I love my husband, I am motivated to improve my marriage"?Question 3: [1:53:22] - Regarding r/K Selection Theory: Does the impulse to conform to religions and cultural traditions adhere more to Ks or Rs? Is one group more creative? Do you think that artsy, counter-culture types skew more R? Do Ks tend to favor foreign wars or police actions - like drug enforcement? Why or why not?
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Ooh, what a scorcher of a show we have for you tonight.
But first and foremost, there's a couple of videos I really want you to check out at youtube.com slash freedomainradio.
We did an interview with Stephen Camerota from the Center for Immigration Studies.
62% of illegal immigrant households on welfare.
I hope that you will check that out.
Also, one of my favorite YouTube personalities, Bill Whittle and I, we did a show together on the brink of war and economic collapse, a discussion with Bill Whittle.
He's host of the popular show Afterburner, and we did that on RK Selection Theory and the Gene Wars of the Modern World.
And so, first up, we have a flat earther.
I'm not a flat earther and I don't think that the theory has any validity.
Nonetheless, I find it always an intellectually important and useful exercise to dive into people's perspectives and beliefs and bring reason to evidence to bear on what...
I won't tell you what happens at the end.
You really got to listen to figure it out.
But I think it's a good intellectual exercise to debate with people who have widely divergent beliefs and figure out what reason and evidence can do to help disabuse them of what may be overly fantastical notions.
And it's an interesting topic.
Why not?
Why not?
So we chatted with a flat earther.
And then we had a couple on who basically wanted to ask, can we be good parents if we're not getting along that well as a married couple?
And we talked about some ways to resolve issues.
Their conflicts, which was, I think, very helpful and useful.
And last, for those of you who like the RK selection stuff, oh yeah, there's more.
I dove very deep in with the listener into R versus K selection and how it affects the end times of a civilization.
So I hope you'll really enjoy that.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate to keep these conversations heading your way.
Across the ether, thank you so much for listening, for watching, for supporting, and particularly for donating.
Here we go.
Alright, well up first today we have Stephen with a brand new topic on the show.
Stephen wrote in and said, Have you examined the world in which you live?
Do you believe you are living on a spinning sphere because someone told you, or do you know from personal experience?
That's from Stephen.
Hello, hello Stephen, how you doing?
Good.
How you doing, Stefan?
I'm well, thanks.
I'm well.
So, I wonder if you could expand upon this in a non-spherical fashion?
Well, recently, if you've seen it or not, there's a growing group of people who are doing experiments and coming forward and stating that the Earth is a flat and motionless plane.
That's the expansion?
Well, basically.
Okay.
And so it's motionless and it's flat.
And do they have any idea how thick it is?
That's an interesting question.
But no, like the Russians have dug about eight miles deep and that's as deep as anyone has ever been.
Right.
And where's the center of gravity?
And look, I was fine with unusual questions as the next guy.
I'm just sort of trying to wrap my head around it, again, in a non-spherical fashion.
And where's the center of gravity on this flat plane?
Well, in our motionless plane, there is no need for gravity.
We have electromagnetism, attraction between forces that are attracting one another.
So is it that we are magnetically attracted to the Earth, and gravity is not part of the equation, right?
Yeah, it's an electromagnetic universe, not a gravitational universe.
Oh, okay.
Now, do we orbit the Sun?
No, the Sun, Stars, and Moon orbit us.
Okay, and Mars, of course, orbits us, so it's...
Earth-centered solar system and the Earth is like flat.
Is it round and flat like a dinner plate?
Yes.
It is a circle around the North Pole surrounded by Antarctica, like a pizza dish.
So Antarctica is like Saturn's rings around the flat thing, right?
That's the very edge?
Yeah.
Antarctica is the edge of the world.
Right.
Okay.
And so when you fly, when people believe that they're flying around the world, what happens?
You can fly around a circle.
But if they say that they're heading in one direction relative to magnetic north, if they're continuing to go east, and then they end up back where they started?
Yes.
East and west is only relative to magnetic north.
Compass is only point north.
Oh, so they're flying not around the world, but in a circle around the North Pole, which is at the center of the flat Earth.
Yes.
Okay.
And so this, of course, requires some challenging reorganization of our spatial orientation, which, you know, I'm fine with.
I mean, I'm asking people to reimagine society without a state and ethics without a deity and so on.
So, again, I am fine.
I'm sorry?
I certainly agree with you on all the anarchist qualities of what you've been talking about for a long time.
Yeah, that may not seem like a ringing endorsement to some of the listeners, but that's as it may be.
So, is there a deity involved in this formulation?
Well, to me, I don't really ascribe to any religion in particular, but after finding out what I know now, I have come from being an atheist to believing in a higher power.
that the Earth is the center of the universe, everything revolves around the Earth, and for there to be no deity, that would be kind of tough, right?
That would be like a weird coincidence, you know?
Of the entire infinity of 100 billion galaxies, they all revolve around the Earth, and the Earth has a distinctive shape relative to the rest of the universe, at least.
Because, you know, generally matter that is more than a couple of hundred miles across tends to coalesce, as you know, into a sphere.
And gravity has its arguments, the pro-gravity proponents of the case have this argument that says, well, since mass wants to find its closest proximity to the center of mass, you end up with a sphere, which is where we see the rest of the planets in the solar system, the sun itself, the moons, at least the moons, which is where we see the rest of the planets in the solar system, the sun itself, the
But the moons that we can see that are of any reasonable size, sort of above asteroid size, tend to be spheres, right?
So we have, as far as we can tell, according to this hypothesis, it's a unique position to be the only flat rather than spherical large mass object in the universe.
Is that fair to say?
Well, in our model, we don't really, we don't believe in things that we can't see and verify for ourselves.
You know, like, we don't really believe anything that NASA says, for one matter.
You don't believe anything that NASA says?
No, we only believe things that we can verify.
So they might not even be called NASA? Well, they were started with Nazis from Operation Paperclip, you know, Warner Von Braun and other Nazis.
Okay, before we go to the National Socialist connection, there is a uniqueness in this cosmology, there's a uniqueness to the world, and the world is flat and round like a dinner plate rather than spherical.
Is it your contention that the other celestial bodies are not spherical?
No.
Well, the celestial bodies are in question right now.
If you take an eye-zoom camera and you zoom in on Venus, like somebody has recently, it certainly doesn't look like what you'll see from NASA, for one matter.
I mean, I've had a look at Venus when I was younger.
I bought a telescope when I worked, and it did appear to have little crescents, you know, the way that the Moon did, but of course much smaller.
Yeah, telescopes are curved, you know, the lens is curved, like convex.
Well, except that, of course, it correlates with what we see with the Moon, that the Moon has crescents that would indicate a spherical reality, and that accords with what we see with the telescope.
So the curve of the telescope isn't fundamentally affecting the way that the Moon looks to us, right?
And listen, I'm sorry about...
I know, because whenever I put forward anarchy, and these are probably objections that have been examined, and at least some response in this cosmology has been replied to, because, you know, I don't want to be the guy who's saying, well, what about the roads, you know, when it comes to a voluntary society?
So I appreciate your patience when I just sort of put forward my natural responses to it.
Yeah, there's no question that is wrong to be asking.
You know, it's the whole world.
It's a lot of investigation that it takes.
Okay, so if you say that it's the curvature of the telescope lens that is causing the apparent crescent of Venus, then why doesn't the same effect happen with the Moon?
Because when I look at the Moon through the naked eye, then I look at it through a telescope, as I did recently with my daughter, there's no distortion that's particularly visible.
And also when I look at things fairly far away through a telescope, they don't appear to be distorted.
So why would a distortion be introduced when looking at Venus?
Well, can I get to the moon first?
Sure.
The moon is a very interesting and mysterious thing.
They say that you can only see one side of the moon because it is constantly spinning so perfectly that it only faces us in one direction.
Right.
And if you assume that what they're saying is correct, About the moon, about the reflection of the sun.
If you try and cast a light on a sphere, there will be a hot spot.
And when you look at the moon, the moon is equally illuminated from top to bottom on a full moon.
Well, yeah, but that's because the sun is 93 million miles away.
It's not a flashlight pointed, you know, four inches from an orange, right?
So there's not going to be a hotspot if the light is that diffused, is it?
Well, on our model, the sun is about 3,000 miles up, and we do have a lot of ways to confirm this.
And is that right, that it's 32 miles across?
Yeah.
Some people say, we'll call them the...
Scientists say that it's 840,000 miles across, but according to this cosmology, it's 32 miles across and only a few thousand miles away.
Yeah, the scientists throughout time have, like, constantly changed their numbers.
Like, the distance to the Sun has changed dramatically to fit their model, not to, you know, measure what it is in reality.
What has it...
I mean, from when I was a kid, it's been 93 million miles or eight light minutes.
Where has it changed from?
A long time ago.
Many people have theorized the distance and so on.
But if you use geometry on Earth, we can measure the distance to the Sun using trigonometry.
And it's a few thousand miles away.
So the Sun is closer than Australia.
Australia.
Like up, yeah.
From Canada, right?
So horizontally...
Sorry.
So horizontally, across the flat dinner plate, Australia is further away than the sun.
Yes.
Okay, got it.
But the sun is spinning around and then goes around to the other side of the earth, is that right?
Oh no, the sun spins, is it like a dangly ball from a pole that it spins around?
Because it can't go around the other side of the earth, right?
Because when you phone someone in Hong Kong, and it's dark where you are, and it's nighttime where you are, it's light in Hong Kong, which would, to me...
Do something to support the sphere hypothesis.
Sorry, go ahead.
There's a lot of different variations in time zones throughout the year.
Alaska will have much warmer temperatures overall than Antarctica, even though with the tilt, the supposed tilt, it should be facing the sun.
Antarctica has temperatures of under 100 degrees.
Alaska is much hang on.
Sorry.
I don't want to get into temperature just yet as I'm trying to sort of picture some on a flat dinner plate and I'm up Let's say I've got ham and eggs and bacon in a smiley face and I'm up around sort of the top left yolk ball eyeball and It's nighttime there Where is the Sun in this?
Cosmology it can't be anywhere above me.
Otherwise, I'd still be able to see it, right?
Well, you can't see forever and light doesn't travel forever and That's something that they'll tell you that, you know, you can see light from stars trillions of miles away.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure you're answering the question.
So if I'm where I am and it's nighttime and I'm on a flat dinner plate, where is the Sun?
Is it on the other side of the dinner plate?
Yes.
So, then there must be people on the other side of the dinner plate, because, you know, like I've done calls, interviews with people in Hong Kong, and, you know, it's nighttime here, and I can see the sun, like, right over their shoulder in real time.
So, is it the case that there are people at the top of the dinner plate and the bottom?
No, it is a flat plane, and the sun circles from...
Capricorn to Cancer in the northern hemisphere.
Capricorn is the southern hemisphere throughout the year.
That's what creates the seasons.
No, but I'm not talking about the seasons.
I'm talking about night and day.
So when it's nighttime, where I'm outside, like last August, I went to go and see the meteor shower with my daughter.
And so when I'm outside, I'm looking up at the stars.
If the world is flat, And people in Australia, it's noon, let's say.
So it's midnight for me, and it's noon in Australia.
Where is Australia?
It can't be on my side of the flat, because otherwise I'd still see the sun, or at least significant portions of daylight, right?
Yeah.
Have you seen the...
So is the sun flipped around to the other side of the plate?
Yeah.
It's just on the other side.
It circles around.
So the people in Australia are on the other side of the...
Like they're on the bottom of the dinner plate.
Have you ever seen a map on the UN logo?
Yes.
That is our map.
The Equal Distant map.
It's basically the globe flattened.
No, I understand that, but when it's nighttime, where I am in Canada, the spherical model, where the Earth is rotating on its axis and then rotating in orbit around the Sun, explains that when it's nighttime for me, when I'm facing away from the Sun, it's daytime in Australia, which is facing towards the Sun, and vice versa.
I don't understand how the flat model takes that into account.
Well, when it's only 3,000 miles up, And light doesn't travel forever.
It is like a localized spotlight that travels around the world.
But if it's flat and it doesn't go to the other side of the dinner plate, then it would just be low on the horizon for me.
It could be further away, but it wouldn't be pitch dark, right?
No, and there's a lot to support what I'm saying.
If it were as they say, it would be an equal light that goes all the way around.
It wouldn't be as it is.
I'm not sure what that means.
Well, like in their videos, they'll show the light on the horizon ending equally all the way around the planet, but the light from the sun is localized when it goes away.
Well, when I watch a sunset, the light is localized to where the sun is going down, to use the colloquial way of putting it.
Yeah.
It is perspective viewpoint and atmospheric density and the limit of how far you can see, the vanishing point.
Okay, I don't know what that means, but what I can ask then, if we look at the magnetic model of why we stick to the ground, it's because of magnetics, right?
Yeah.
And do magnetics have a very similar...
I'm no physicist, obviously, right?
But...
Does magnetics have a similar attraction as the theory of gravitation?
Because the theory of gravitation, obviously, as you know, doesn't work with the flat Earth, right?
Yeah, we do not accept the theory of gravity because it was basically thought up by this guy named Kavadrich back in the 1700s using an experiment hanging lead weights in a shed.
He said that he could gain the gravitational constant that way, weighing the Earth and the Sun.
And all kinds of other things.
But that experiment cannot be reproduced today.
Well, I would imagine that there's quite a lot of experiments from the 17th century that can't be reproduced today because it's a couple of hundred years later.
Yeah, but that's the basis for their equations that they still use today.
Well, I mean, to be fair, I mean, oh, I guess you'd say that they haven't gone to the moon or they haven't sent probes past...
No.
...Jupiter, and that's all CGI, and it's all made up, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Look, I have this...
Yeah, because I mean, to me, if a theory can, if you can basically send a tiny probe from one planet, you know, billions of miles to pass Pluto, that's a pretty good validation of the theory.
But I guess the response to that is that that stuff's all faked, right?
I mean, like, how are they sending messages back and forth that far?
It doesn't really seem plausible to me.
Like, Pioneer 10 was a probe that they said was sent to Jupiter through the asteroid belt, launched on March 3, 1972.
It was said to have arrived at its destination over 365 million miles away in only 20 months, bringing us images of Jupiter that could have easily been faked.
Okay.
So...
Of course, another way that people think that the Earth is a sphere, I guess you'd say it's more flat like a dinner plate, is, of course, when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, we see the curved shadow of the Earth against the Moon's surface moving across it, right?
Yeah.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but it does have something to do with an electromagnetic vortex that moves in between.
I've just heard of this yesterday.
I've been researching this topic for about nine months, and I learn new things every day.
I'm by no means an expert.
I was trying to make contact with you because I do admire a lot of what you do.
Okay, so there may be an answer out there.
We don't have it.
And wouldn't it be possible, of course, to see the edge, right?
Yes, but...
Because you say you don't believe things that you can't see or have no visual evidence of.
Do you have any photos of the edge of the world?
Here's the thing.
There's a thing called the Antarctic Treaty.
Antarctica is actually guarded by every country around the world.
I've seen documentaries from there.
Yeah, you're not allowed to go there, and when they have people go there for a tour, You only go to like a pinnacle outside of southern America.
There are no flights crossing Antarctica.
There are no southern circumnavigations.
You can circumnavigate east and west, but you cannot circumnavigate north and south.
So nobody flies over Antarctica and sees the edge, right?
No.
Like Operation High Jump, Operation Deep Freeze, and Operation Fishbowl are also...
Operations that were carried out by Admiral Byrd after World War II that went into Antarctica to explore.
And there's a documentary of him talking about all of the things down there.
But you have no proof of the edge, right?
We would love to go down there, but we're not allowed to.
You have no proof of the edge, right?
No.
Okay, that's important, right?
So it remains a hypothesis in that there's no proof.
Yeah, just like, you know, the globe.
I'm sorry?
Just like the globe remains a theory.
Let's just say that the The elaborateness of the deception is something that is a little tricky for outsiders to accept.
Let me ask you this then.
So, of course, if you just jump into the sphere model for a second, there are constellations that are visible in the northern hemisphere that are not visible in the southern hemisphere and so on.
And they tend to tilt around a little bit depending upon the seasons, right?
And so, and that, as far as I understand it, the visibility or invisibility of the constellations accords with a spherical model of the Earth rather than a flat model of the Earth where you'd be able to see a lot more constellations because you're pointing in the same direction, right?
Well, that is an interesting point.
But the thing is, on a world that is spinning a thousand miles an hour, spinning around the Sun, spinning around the universe, which is going...
Wait, wait, wait, sorry.
Sorry, you mean the current model, right?
Yeah, the globular model.
Okay.
So if that's happening, we would be able to see something far different in the stars than what we do now.
What we do now see is people from Capricorn are able to see the northern pole star, Polaris, where they should not be able to.
Polaris does not move.
It only moves in a very small circle, and the rest of the stars rotate around it.
Wait.
You're saying according to the current model, like the globular model, the stars rotate around Polaris?
Everything is the same on both models.
They just make it so that it works.
I'm not arguing that it works on the globular model, but I'm saying that there is no curvature.
There is no proof.
On a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference, there should be a curvature of 8 inches per mile And we have measured it.
There is no curvature.
Like, people will say that Kansas is as flat as a pancake, or the Bolivian salt flats you can see for basically 100 miles.
There is no curvature.
Like, if, you know, you can say that Kansas is flat, but where's the extra curve to make up for the flatness of Kansas or the Bolivian salt flats?
Are you saying so like you shoot a laser and according to the globular model of the world, the world should fall away from the laser a tiny bit, of course, you know, every certain amount of distance because it is a sphere, right?
Yeah, I'll give you the first like five miles would be 16 feet of curvature, six miles, 24 feet, seven miles, 32 feet, eight miles, 42 feet, and 100 miles.
6,666 feet, exponentially growing because of the nature of a ball.
And you're saying, so if you shoot a laser, I guess, I don't know, would be a perfectly calm ocean or something.
If you shoot a laser, then the laser remains a constant distance from the water, which would seem to indicate that it's not a sphere.
Is that right?
Jaronism has done a test on this.
He actually has done a four-mile laser test across an ocean.
Showing that.
Like, he pointed a laser at this board, like, right on the water, a whiteboard.
He pointed the laser on the water, had someone on the other side of the ocean, four miles away, and then he could look at the laser, and there is no curvature.
There should have been ten feet of curvature.
It should have been ten feet below the curvature.
And this is on video.
I sent you the video a long time ago.
And so, when I went...
Very high altitude when I was six.
And then again, when I was 16 flying from England to Africa, the curvature that I saw, would that be just something that I expected to see and my sort of eyes made it look that way?
All fuselage windows have a curvature to them.
At 30,000 feet, you would not be able to see a curvature even if it was a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference.
You would only be able to see the curvature if you're above 100,000 miles in circumference or 100,000 miles up.
100,000 miles up is what you'd need to see any kind of curve?
Yes.
But you measure this in four miles and that's valid?
Well, to see the horizontal curve, yes, but to see a curve going away from you, it should be, at four miles, it should be ten feet of curvature.
And what about the argument that's been made for thousands of years, which is that when you see a ship sailing away from ashore, that you see the hull disappear before you see the top of the mast disappear?
Yeah, we have videos of this now, too.
When you are not able to see the boat with your naked eye, you can take a telescope or a zoom and you can see the entire boat from top to bottom.
It's just your vanishing point as far as you can see.
So it's a trick of the eye?
Is that a mirage thing or a trick of the naked eye?
Well, you can't see forever.
I'm certainly not going to dispute that, especially over 40.
Yeah, it's just atmospheric density.
Like, when we're at the bottom, you know, like, sea level, it's especially dense.
The higher you go, the further you can see, because air gets lighter.
Right.
Now, the retrograde motion of Mars, of course, was one of the big challenges to the ancient Ptolemaic system, which is that when you observe Mars, there's times where it's going sort of Left to right, say, across the sky, and then at times it sort of goes backwards and then goes forwards again.
And this, of course, drove the ancient, you know, Earth-centered model of the solar system people nuts because they couldn't really explain it.
Now, when you put the Sun at the center of the solar system, because Earth has a faster orbit, being closer to the Sun in general, has a faster orbit and a shorter year than Mars, there are times when it's accelerating past...
The Sun, and that makes Mars from the vantage point of Earth, appear to be moving backwards and then moving forwards.
And how is that explained in the flat Earth-centered model of the solar system?
Well, I'll theorize here, but I'm pretty sure other people would be able to answer this better than I can.
But let me give you an example.
Like, the Moon, as viewed from the northern hemisphere as opposed to the southern hemisphere, looks upside down because it's going in between the two hemispheres.
So that could be the difference.
Like they say that the stars go in the other direction in the Southern Hemisphere too, but if you turn around and look the other direction, they're coming from the other direction.
It's just a perspective.
And the backwards Australian toilets, the flushing backwards of the toilets, how's that explained?
That is just because of how they're made.
No.
No, you can take a North American toilet and it will flush backwards.
The rotation will be different.
It's not the way it's made.
Or you could say that the Coriolis effect is caused by the sun moving in between the northern and southern hemispheres.
It's like the wake of a boat.
So if you have a boat going along, the wakes go in different directions.
That's what causes the Coriolis effect, electromagnetic energy from the sun.
Now, if I'm sticking to the ground because of magnetism and I'm not made of metal, how does that work?
Is this a magnetism that also strongly affects things that are non-metallic?
In your atoms and electrons.
Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that I stick to a giant magnet in the way that a piece of metal does.
Um...
Like I said, you know, I'm not an expert.
I don't think anyone is.
We're just learning, you know.
I've been at this...
Well, no, but I think being able...
If you say that we stick to the ground because of magnetism, but magnetism primarily affects metal, and we're not metal, that seems like a fairly big stumbling block to be addressed.
Because then what you have to do is you have to say, well, there's a special kind of magnetism that affects everything that's not made of metal plus metal, and then this just sounds like another way of saying gravity.
Well, atoms have electrons that...
Yes, of course, but I can still hold a magnet up to my hand and it doesn't stick.
It just falls away, right?
Yeah.
You know, like, the theory of gravity is basically there so you won't go flying off the spinning ball, you know, from centrifugal force.
I don't think that's how science works.
Like, I don't think you say, well, We have this theory so you don't go flying off.
Are you saying that you'd have to explain why people stick to something that's spinning round and round?
And without gravity, we'd all just fly off into space, as would the atmosphere.
How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?
In the flat model?
Are the clouds magnetically attracted to the Earth as well?
There are two theories.
Like, either the infinite plane model, which some people believe, but most people believe that it's a dome.
Oh, like a Stephen King dome over a town kind of thing?
Like a Truman Show type enclosure, yes.
Oh, okay.
So it's like that medieval woodcutting of the guy sort of peering through the edge of the dome and looking at the world beyond the world kind of thing?
I guess you could say that.
Okay.
And how high is the dome?
Let's see.
Well, people...
I sent you a video of an amateur rocket going up 73 miles and then hitting.
If we're talking about the dome model, I would imagine that it would be higher in some places than lower in others, like lower in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere.
And do you have any idea what it's made of?
I assume it's clear, of course, because the sun has to shine through it.
The sun is not under the dome, right?
There's some people who think that it's made of sapphire.
There's some people that think the sun is above the dome.
There's some people that think it's in it.
Oh, the Sun is in the dome.
Like, these are all theories.
I don't know whether I'd quite call them theories as yet.
Conjectures, possibly.
Okay.
And I'm just curious why this is an important problem to work on.
Because when you're on a spinning globe, you're the small part of the universe.
You're not the universe.
You know, you're only one very small part of One sun.
It's not the sun.
It's not the world.
When you're an insignificant part of the world, it makes you seem like...
You're insignificant, right?
Yeah.
Sorry, Mike just told me that the toilet thing is a myth, but hurricanes rotate the opposite direction in the two hemispheres.
The reason being that sometimes my bowel movements are so strong that I often get toilet flushes and hurricanes confused for obvious reasons that my family is always very excited about.
So there's a psychological preference that you have for being in the middle of a sort of Truman Show constructed universe that is built with you at the center and as the most important element.
Is that right?
Well, I haven't seen any proof, you know, from anyone other than NASA saying otherwise.
So, you know, it's just what we're working with.
Well, no, it's not just NASA. I mean, trust me, people thought that the Earth was a sphere long before NASA came along.
I mean, it would be thousands and thousands of years ago.
As you know, they did that experiment where they put the two sticks in the ground 2,000 kilometers apart or something like that and found that they had differently pointing shadows at the same time of day.
And they were actually able to calculate the...
The diameter of the earth, circumference of the earth, very accurately.
What's his name?
I can't really pronounce his name.
But he supposedly discovered the tilt of the earth and the circumference and the distance of the sun.
But all of his measurements and work was destroyed in a fire, so there's no way to confirm what he did.
But the stick...
No, they can reproduce those experiments, and those experiments remain the same.
The stick thing is explained by the sun moving over, you know...
I don't know that it's explained.
of attraction called electromagnetics that doesn't require metal and dispenses with the law of gravity and explains away a whole bunch of phenomenon like the earth looking round when it goes up against the moon, like the difference in the constellations between north and south and so on.
It creates an entirely different cosmology That Occam's Razor, you know, like of any two explanations, a simple one is usually the best.
Occam's Razor would lend you to discard, fundamentally, because it's too complicated and it doesn't explain enough.
What's more simple?
You know, that we're spinning on our axis and tilted and spinning around the sun and spinning around the universe and all that, or just we're a fixed and motionless plane?
I mean, have you ever felt a spin or a motion?
Well, no, but I mean, the laws of inertia would explain that, right?
That when you move with something, I mean, that's why astronauts float, because they're moving with something.
And so if you are moving with something, then you will not really experience that motion any more than you feel, you know, if you're sitting inside a train, you can doze off.
Whereas if you were strapped to the top of the train, it might be a little bit more difficult, because you'd have more of a sense of motion.
So I think the laws of inertia do explain, I think, why we don't feel such a sense of motion.
Let me give you an analogy.
Have you ever been in the ocean for a very long time or been on a trampoline jumping around for a really long time, and then when you get off, you can still feel the motion for hours?
I think I can understand what you mean, and what does that establish?
Let's say you're spinning, like they say on the globular model, at a thousand miles an hour on the equator.
If you get into a plane and then fly in the opposite direction, would you not feel the spin?
No, because you're inside the plane, and you're moving with the plane, and the air is moving with the plane.
Well, here's the thing.
East and West flights are about the same time.
So when you're flying against the spin of the Earth, you should be getting to your destination at 1,500 miles an hour instead of just 500 miles an hour, as opposed to flying with the spin going 500 miles an hour in your direction.
Because they say that the atmosphere is pulled along at a thousand miles an hour.
But if you're going against it...
No, but you're not moving independent of the Earth and its atmosphere.
You're moving in the Earth and its atmosphere.
So if you think of a ladybug on a tennis ball, if you spin the tennis ball, the ladybug can walk from one sort of little stripe on the tennis ball to another.
And if you spin and then it turns back, well, the ladybug's going to take the same amount of time to go back.
Because it's moving with, everything's moving the same direction the same way and in the same context.
Yes, but if it's moving, the wind should be moving a thousand miles an hour.
No, because the air is moving with the Earth, right?
As far as they say.
But we do have...
Well, okay, but here's my question.
What's your disprove hypothesis, right?
Now, listen, if you guys are able to break through the army of...
penguin guards or something like that that's in the Antarctic and are able to show the edge or, you know, able to go up in some manner and show the edge of the earth or able to perform miraculous feats of physical prediction using an electromagnetic theory that doesn't require magnetism able to go up in some manner and show the edge of Well, that to me would be okay.
You've blown my mind, and that's really cool.
But my question is, what is your disproof?
Because it seems to me that there's this belief that this is the case, and then the Sun gets changed in size, and it gets moved around, and stuff gets explained away, and then we discard gravity.
Because, of course, if gravity theory works, a flat Earth is kind of impossible.
Because, of course, as you keep walking towards the edge, The gravity well is behind you, and it's like going up a further ramp until you get to the very edge, in which case you're just standing on the edge, and I guess that's close to being what we have now.
So tell me how you would know that this thesis or this theory is false.
Because if there's no falsifiability, it's got nothing to do with science, right?
Yeah, there are many.
We have flight instructors coming out and stating that we all fly over a flat Earth because of gyroscopes.
Gyroscopes are devices that are made to withstand All forces, including gravity, to keep level.
So, using gyroscopes, they keep level.
Of course they keep level, because that's the theory of gravitation.
Because they're at a relatively constant altitude over the Earth, and so of course they're going to stay level, because everything's pointing towards the center of the Earth, which is the center of gravity.
Gyroscopes are made to withstand g-forces, gravity, No, no, no.
Unless they're anti-gravity gyroscopes, there's nothing that withstands gravity.
I mean, a rocket ship doesn't withstand gravity.
That's why you need so much candle at the bottom of it.
But they're made to keep upright and withstand all forces.
No, no, they don't withstand all forces.
They overcome those forces.
Right?
Like, I'm not defying gravity when I climb the stairs.
I'm just climbing the stairs.
I'm working to get away from gravity, right?
I mean, I'm still subject to it.
I'm not immune to it.
And gyroscopes can't be immune to gravity.
And the theory of gravity would say why they would stay level as you fly around the Earth.
They're made to stay upright.
So when pilots fly upside down and go all over the place, it stays level.
They have an artificial horizon, the rising of the horizon.
So when they fly, they keep level.
On a globe, flying at 500 miles an hour, you would constantly have to dip down your nose to keep at the same altitude.
But what they do is they fly at the horizon.
The horizon always rises up to your eye level, no matter how high you go.
On a globe, the horizon would always drop down.
But on all amateur balloons going up to over 125,000 feet, it shows no curvature.
It shows the horizon at eye level.
And no curvature.
So, you still need to tell me how you would know if your theory is false?
How we would know if it's false?
Yes.
I mean, you have to admit, there's quite a lot of evidence for the sphere, right?
I feel like there is much more for our model at this point.
There's quite a lot of evidence for this fear.
I mean, because you have to wish NASA, you have to wish, like, you have to have created this.
It is obviously a big conspiracy.
This truth must be known to NASA. It must be known to aeronautics engineers.
It must be known to engineers.
It must be known to like the people who build the big wide suspension bridges where they try to take into account the curvature of the earth and make the pillars a little bit further apart at the top than at the bottom to take into account that.
It must be known to like millions of people around the world.
Yes.
And I would assume that they've let at least some civilian leaders in on this.
I assume that people who are creating rockets, intercontinental ballistic missiles, they would all have to know.
And then you'd have to have this massive conspiracy, of course, to keep this information from the public and also to create thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of, I mean, not just doctored, but radically created image information.
And also you'd have to have, you know, because there are satellites floating around the earth.
What would they be?
Holographs or something like that?
There is quite a lot of people that you'd have to have in on this conspiracy, none of whom would ever tell the world and none of whom are benefiting economically from keeping the secret.
It creates jobs.
And many people's jobs depend on not learning the truth.
So whose jobs depend on not learning the truth?
You know, like everyone you said, everyone who works on supposed satellites, everyone who works with the curvature.
But we have land surveyors No, no, we're talking about disproofs at the moment.
So are you saying that the fact that because of the curve of the Earth, it was believed that we need what Arthur C. Clarke, I think, this geosynchronous orbit with the communication satellites, that...
We didn't actually need those because we can send the radio waves or whatever it is straight across the flat earth.
So we didn't actually need those satellites and they were a hoax in the launching and the fact that they seem to be flying by overhead.
How is that created?
Because that's a lot of work.
If you don't actually need that, why would you divert money from your weapons programs to create satellites unless there was some value in terms of overcoming the curvature of the earth?
Let me give you an example.
The Dew Line was a distant early radar system that was stretched across the Fulton...
Wait, wait, wait.
Are you not answering my question?
It seems like you're not answering my question.
I don't want an example.
I want to know why it was that every government in the world threw up these satellites that were completely unnecessary according to the Flat Earth Model.
Well, you know...
And why can't we see them?
There are some theories...
Like, the ISS that they'll tell you comes over, they say that satellites could either just be already there, already unexplainable things, that they just say, oh, those are satellites.
You know, because when you look at the ISS, it doesn't exactly look like a space station.
It looks like a self-illuminating light.
A what?
It looks like, basically, another star.
It looks like a light.
Like when they say that's a satellite passing over, it just looks like a light in the sky.
But if you look at many different supposed satellites going throughout the sky, they'll do very strange things.
They'll have very strange movements, things that satellites don't do.
I've never seen that.
I've seen the satellites just slowly cruising above.
I've never seen satellites doing anything strange.
Again, that's just my particular observation.
But are you saying the satellites either aren't there or they're there but they're not satellites?
Or what?
On our model, satellites don't exist because they're impossible.
Here's something from...
No, no, they're not impossible.
Look, the moon orbits the Earth, in the flat Earth, right?
The moon orbits the Earth.
Well, I'm saying they're impossible.
And wouldn't that be the case with satellites as well, that they could do it as well through some electromagnetic whirlpool thing?
I'm saying that it's impossible because of the technology that they supposedly use.
They need actuators, air-driven paramedics, valves, and all kinds of things that would need to be replaced in the supposed heat and coolness of space that they never have to replace.
Things that don't exist in our world.
Let me read you something from an industrial valve expert who has come out stating that the ISS is impossible.
Think about...
Okay, I'll accept that this guy says that it's impossible.
So then, the rockets that are launched to supposedly put the satellites in orbit don't actually go anywhere, is that right?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, nobody has ever gone into space, and when the rockets launch, you can see that they're not going straight up.
They go over.
They go straight into the ocean.
They go straight into the ocean, these rockets?
They make missiles.
You know, they're a military wing of the government.
That's NASA. Okay.
Now, tell me again, what is the hypothesis by which this could be, or the results by which this could be disproved?
Now, clearly, if you were able to fly over the Antarctic, and then you ended up not going over the edge, clearly that would be a disproof of the thesis, right?
Yeah, there never has been a north or southern circumnavigation.
And all of the satellite photos that show that there's no edge when they photograph the globe and so on, that's all part of an elaborate hoax to create jobs for astronauts?
Well, if you look at the photos, there are many instances where you can see Photoshop replicate clouds, copy and paste over and over and over.
And when you look at...
Wait, are you saying that these people who are incredibly intelligent are really terrible at creating their face?
I could show you.
Yeah, it's terrible.
And is that the case with all of them?
Because there could be mistakes, right?
I mean, because they can't take photographs of the whole planet.
They do have to stitch them together.
And it certainly is possible when you've got thousands of copy and paste that all need to line up exactly that you could make mistakes and replicate and so on.
But are you saying that they're...
Because the way that you...
If these people are that smart, right?
I mean, you can go and see Jurassic Park and see a very realistic looking dinosaur that makes you slowly pee yourself throughout the whole movie.
But are you saying these people are very bad at creating these fakes?
They are obviously very bad.
They are very bad images because in many instances, the size will change.
The size of the United States will get extremely different and different photos throughout time.
It's just totally different.
Okay, so they can keep what would be really the greatest secret in the world.
They can keep it.
Millions of people, a lot of whom...
Can you imagine how much money you would make if you broke this story?
It would be absolutely staggering how much money you could make.
Can you imagine how much money religions would make if they broke this story?
Because this would be pretty much proof of a deity created universe, right?
If there's giant domes, and we are the only exception to the spherical model of the universe, wherever there's significant mass, and the universe rotates around us, I mean, that's Genesis 101.
I mean, you are really, and I'm not even talking like Phil Collins' Genesis, like big guy in the sky Genesis.
So why wouldn't religions send up probes or drones or balloons or whatever and take pictures of the edge and come back and say, dudes, you've been lied to.
Everyone is, though.
I haven't seen a picture of the edge.
Have you seen a picture of the edge?
You just said that you haven't seen the edge.
Steph, everyone's sending up pictures of...
Everyone's sending up balloons to look themselves.
Everyone's making GoFundMes.
There's many individual balloons that have gone up.
There are no pictures of the edge because you can't see forever.
They haven't seen the edge.
That's what you said earlier, right?
Yeah.
You cannot see forever.
It's not like we're launching from near Antarctica.
If we did that, that would work.
But in the individually launched rocket that went up 73 miles from Nevada, you could see the moon when it should have been on the other side of the supposed planet.
Well, I can't speak to any of that.
But what I can say is that you do seem to have a theory that can't be disproven.
Because whenever I talk about standards for disproof, you say, well, they guard the Antarctic and we can't check.
Or I don't really have an answer for that.
Or there's some guy who says something or whatever, right?
But that's not really science, right?
To say that every time that this thesis could be disproven, there's some barrier to that disproof.
Or you've created an alternate theory of attraction, which is like gravity, but not gravity and so on, which...
To my knowledge, it's not been proven.
You understand that there's a lot that's not science.
Plus, you have to create this universe with the dome, with the Earth at the center of the universe, with the Sun 32 miles across, a couple of thousand miles away, and there's lots of challenges around this.
You understand that, right?
I understand that this is a very, very hard thing to wrap your mind around.
Like, I didn't wrap my mind around it in 45 minutes.
It's really not, because it is in the category of false, scientifically.
In my mind, there's no experiment to show a curvature.
Like, you can go up in a balloon and not see a curvature.
Have you gone up in a balloon?
You say you don't see things.
Look, are you saying that NASA can fake the entire space mission?
And the Russians with Sputnik, and they faked the whole thing.
Since the 1950s, it's been completely faked, but no one can fake a picture taken from a balloon.
And smooth out the curvature.
Have you seen it yourself?
They use fisheye lenses, like the Red Bull jump.
They have a fisheye lens on it, and the curvature is the same from 25,000 feet.
Have you seen it yourself?
Have I seen what?
Like the lack of curvature?
Yes.
Directly, with your own eyes in the balloon?
Not in my own eyes, but I have seen many...
So then you're looking at other people's photos, but you discount other people's photos for what goes against your theory.
Because you say, well, it's all faked.
But then how do you know that the photos that support your theory aren't subject to the fakery that you ascribe to those that don't support your theory?
Because I know people who are doing this.
You could do this yourself.
That's what you should do.
It's not that expensive.
Get like $1,000 or so and send a balloon up 125,000 feet.
Do the experiment for yourself and show us.
I would love to see you do it.
Have you done it?
My friend Daryl is doing it right now.
Have you done it?
I have not done it myself for kind of, you know, under, you know, unpaid.
You don't have the money to do it?
No.
Right.
But we do have many people who are doing it right now and who are, like, actively doing this.
I have a question for you, man.
I have a question for you.
Yeah.
This is, if you're wrong, this is very costly for you, right?
Um...
Just, just, because look, if I'm wrong about a voluntary society, or, listen, if I'm wrong about being an atheist, oops, hello, like a fire!
No, come on, man.
I don't believe in that.
So, if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, like, I'm conscious of this, like, when I put out stuff in my show, I'm very cautious.
Very cautious, right?
Like, I mean, I'll say, well, you know, it could be true, especially when I'm talking about science and stuff, right?
Like global warming and stuff like that.
I have never said it's false.
The hell do I know?
I'm just, you know, putting out reasons why I have some skepticism.
And so, but if we look at something like religion, man, if I'm wrong, that's like the worst conceivable mistake I've ever made.
I don't get to be reunited with my family after death.
I don't get to jam with Freddie Mercury on the Infinite Laser Space Beam guitar set.
Like, I just...
I've really, really cocked up bad, right?
Now, you understand that if you're wrong about this, then you're crazy.
And it's very, very harmful to you socially.
And again, this is not proof or disproof.
I just...
I just want you to be aware of this reality, that if you're wrong about this, right, if there's no dome, if the world is not flat, if all of this stuff is just a bunch of crazy people, then this is doing significant harm to you in your life, right?
Because you either got to bite your tongue a lot, or people can look at you like you're just plain nuts, right?
I've been looking at this for nine months now, and I'm actively telling everyone I know because I have seen all of the evidence that I need.
But I am still learning.
No, no, no!
You cannot discount the photographic evidence of what displeases you and accept the photographic evidence or video evidence of what pleases you.
When you say, well, I've looked at the photographic and video evidence and it convinces me, but then you say that all the NASA stuff is faked, this is where you're not thinking clearly.
If you have one giant button that says discount all photographic and video evidence, you can't just push it for one side of the equation but not the other.
You can't push it and discard everything to do with NASA And everything to do with ancient history and everything to do with people who make globes and everything to do with people who circumnavigate and everything to do with cruise lines and airlines.
You can't say, well, all of that photographic and video evidence is bullshit, but all the stuff which conform to my theory is valid.
Like you said, the flights.
Flights only travel through the northern hemisphere because that is the only short...
No, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
You're not listening to what I'm saying.
I am.
What I'm saying is, you've not seen this directly yourself...
And you discard all of the visual, all of the multimedia evidence for the position you don't like, and you accept it all for the position that you do like.
I only discount things from the governments that are obviously fake.
You don't trust the government.
You can't say that every single piece of media that has been produced by NASA and produced by the European Space Agency and produced by the Chinese Space Agency and produced by the Russian Space Agency for the past 60 years, that it is all obviously fake.
You haven't reviewed it all.
I have.
I have been looking at it.
Oh, come on!
You have not reviewed it all.
Please don't insult my intelligence.
It's the internet hive mind.
Everyone makes compilations.
Look at them.
When you look at supposed spacewalks, there's bubbles in space because they're in a pool faking it.
Yeah.
And like they did when they made the movie with Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon about Apollo 13.
That's how they faked it.
Oh, because they're bad at it.
No.
They're bad at faking something that fooled the entirety of mankind in 3,000 years.
Steph, they put this on MSNBC.
Like, their training is in a very large pool.
And in every single spacewalk— Oh, is it possible that somebody has taken a pool training video and said, oh no, this is a real spacewalk?
No, because this is what they put out as real.
Chinese and American space agencies...
Maybe they misclassified it.
Maybe they got the wrong video clip.
I mean, there are simpler explanations than the world is flat and the sun is 32 miles across and a few thousand miles away somehow embedded in a giant dome created by a space goblin.
There are simpler explanations to what you're talking about.
And what about the private space agencies?
Like SpaceX?
You say you discount the government.
What about the private space agencies?
They have lots of photos and videos.
They're government subcontractors.
Oh, so you can discount them too?
Like SpaceX.
So everything that doesn't conform...
Understand, I'm trying to fight for you here.
I'm not trying to fight against you.
I'm trying to fight for you.
Everything...
You have a magic wand which says everything that doesn't accord with your hypothesis, with your preferences, can be waved away.
Because you can just say, well, it's faked and there was a bubble.
Oh, there are government subcontractors.
You can get rid of that.
Oh, we can't go past the Antarctic to actually check where the edge is.
That's a pretty important thing.
We can because we can calculate...
Where the curvature should be, we have photographic evidence, and I have seen much further than I should be able to see on a globe.
Wait, wait, hang on.
Photographic evidence?
I live in California.
When you go to the Great Valley, you see much further than you should be able to see on a globe.
These are things that you can find out for yourself.
Like, if you go to the CN Tower in Toronto...
Okay, so hang on.
You're saying that when I brought up the example of the ship sailing over the horizon, you said that that was invalid because my eyes were playing tricks on me or something to do with the atmosphere.
But when you go to California and you look across a smoggy countryside, somehow it's perfectly valid as a way of figuring out whether you can see far or not.
You understand, your stuff doesn't hang together, and I'm saying this to you because I hate the cost that this is having for you professionally and personally.
You may meet some great woman or guy, I don't care who you're into, could be an alien, I don't know, but you might meet some great woman and then you're going to go off on this flat earth stuff and she's going to take several slow steps backwards.
Or she's going to hit you with these kinds of critical questions, which I'm telling you, man, you're not answering very well because they're kind of unanswerable.
No, it is atmospheric density that determines how far away you can see.
And by using a telescope or a zoom, you can see further, but you can't see infinitely far.
You can see further than you should be able to on a supposed globe.
So what you're saying is that you keep repeating that you can't see infinitely far, right?
Yeah.
The fact that you feel the need to say that tells me that you're not thinking critically.
Like, if I said to you, well, you know, if I kept repeating to you something like, you know, you can't see through a wall, That would be kind of a weird thing to keep hearing, right?
Now, saying when you can't see infinitely far, I mean, of course you can't see infinitely far.
Why would you need to keep repeating that, right?
I mean, this tells me that you're kind of stuck in a loop here, right?
Well, it's a hard thing.
When you say you're underpaid, what's your job?
What's my job?
I work in a warehouse.
You work in a warehouse?
Yeah.
Right.
And do you think that the time and energy that you're spending into figuring out the flat earth stuff might potentially, for your own happiness and your own life, be better spent upgrading your skill set to get a job that paid you more?
No, because this is the most important thing.
This shows that every government around the world is indeed working together.
This is how we stop world war.
Do you understand that?
Because if we know that every single government around the world We know that the world stage of world wars are fake.
They're playing us off against each other like pawns to kill each other.
But why do you need a flat earth to show, of course all governments collude.
I mean, of course they do.
Because all governments justify taxation.
And all governments justify, almost without exception, fiat currency.
And all governments justify national debt.
And all governments justify public school education.
And all governments justify the capture of intellectuals in academia in order to keep them from advocating any kind of real freedom.
All governments agree on borders.
All governments agree to a large degree, at least until recently, on immigration and restrictions thereon.
So the idea that governments don't all kind of agree deep down, to me, I don't think you need a biodome, flat earth, 32 mile across sun universe In order to establish that governments collude, I think it seems like an unnecessary complication.
It's not that we need it, it's that we're proving it, Stephan.
But you don't need to prove it, because it's already proven.
How many governments come out and say, well, taxation is force?
Have you ever heard that from governments?
No, but...
We know.
So we already know they're colluding.
I mean, occasionally governments will say, like Barack Obama did say, government is an agency of force or whatever, it's usually a throwaway thing.
But for the most part, they all agree, governments all remarkably agree that governments are good and necessary and virtuous and, you know, righteous and all that.
So I don't think we need this additional complication of a flat earth to know that governments collude in general to keep a dominant narrative over the population.
I mean, it comes back to the nihilism of believing in a spinning globe that could be instantly destroyed by a sun that could blow up or a meteor that could come in and destroy us all.
We're safe here.
We don't need to worry about that.
We don't need to worry because God would keep...
Oh, the dome would keep us safe from asteroids?
I guess it didn't in Arizona.
Or is that crater also fake, made by medieval bulldozers or something?
There's theories on meteors.
I don't really have too much of an opinion, but there are many people who think that it could be pieces of the dome.
Oh, and then all the media, right?
Metals and ores and so on that are shown in museums are all fake unless, because they can't be, they'd have to be translucent, right, in order for the sunlight to get through unless the sun is embedded in it, in which case we'd still need to be able to see through it to get to the stars unless the stars are below it.
See, I'm able to do this kind of gymnastics.
But all of that stuff would generally be faked then, right?
I don't know about that.
Like, I've never seen one for myself.
Oh, I've seen, well, at least what they say are meteors.
And you would say, of course, that they're faked, right?
I've also touched a moon rock, but then I guess you would say that fakes do because they never went to the moon.
They could be any kind of thing.
They could be government projects.
I don't know.
We don't know what they have.
We don't know what they do.
And do you think that from your position as a warehouse worker that you will be able to convince enough people of this to radically change your life for the better in a way that, say, not...
I mean, you said you've been studying this for nine months.
Just roughly how much time a week do you spend researching this?
I have no idea, but it's not just me.
Yes, you do.
Is it one minute?
A week?
No, it's more than that, right?
It's many, many hours.
I spend many hours listening to all of the experts who are coming out and stating that it is flat.
Okay, so you've put in thousands of hours into this, and what has the net result been in your life?
We are changing the world one person at a time.
No, in your life.
In my life.
I have grown closer to our Creator.
So then for you, this is a religion.
It's not science.
I mean, it's master science, but generally it's a religious reference.
It is.
It is science.
We are proving it in every way imaginable.
There is no proof for the globe.
There is no proof that it spins.
We have Aries failure.
We have trigonometry.
We have radar beams.
We have no curvature.
There is proof, Stefan.
Are you saying there's absolutely no evidence that would support the Earth being curved?
All of what they say as evidence would work perfectly fine on a flat model, which it actually does because it is flat.
And would you say that there are some things that the flat earthers argue for that are also well explained by the globular model, such as the Sun being 640,000 Yeah,
I don't deny that it works on their model because they've had 500 years to work out all the kinks.
Actually, a couple of thousand years, but okay.
Well, I think, well, obviously, I'm not even going to agree to disagree.
I think that this hypothesis is driven by an emotional need for you.
And I would imagine that has something to do with your childhood.
And you've said as much.
I'm not right.
You're saying it makes you feel secure.
It makes you feel closer to your creator.
It gives you a religious perspective on the world that is of comfort to you.
Again, that's not an argument to say that everything that you've said is perfectly false.
I'm just saying that it is driven by an emotional need and therefore it is resistant to empirical evidence.
Now, I have no problem being resistant to empirical evidence because we all have to invest in a world view.
And we do all have to, the more we commit to that worldview, the more invested we become in it.
And you're nine months into this, which is why I'm sort of fighting hard to reel you back in a little bit.
And I would say that for you to focus on things in your life that could make your life better, I don't think that the flat earth is the most important thing, even if it were true, believe it or not.
I think that teaching people to treat their children better, teaching people to live with virtue and integrity in their lives according to the standards and principles of virtue and goodness, which are the same whether the world is flat or round.
It's not like if the world is flat, hitting your kids is good or bad, whether it's relative to whether the world is a sphere.
We have work to do in making the world a better place and having people reject the non-aggression principle, which is completely independent of the cosmology of the planet.
You know, a murder is a murder whether the world is flat, round, or banana-shaped.
So I think there's a huge amount to do, which is much less controversial, much more supported by science, and much more acceptable to people as a whole, rather than trying to rewrite everything that they've been told about for thousands of years in their brain, for which you have to admit there is a fair amount I'm
I'm not sure what you mean.
- Can you do an experiment to prove that it's a globe yourself? - But I'm not sure what that means.
I mean, the number of things that I can prove or disprove by myself is so tiny that if I reject everything that I can't personally validate, then I'm back to like René Descartes thinking that I'm a brain floating in a tank being manipulated by a demon.
I think therefore I am.
I mean, I can't possibly reproduce the entirety of human science and medicine.
I mean, I've never seen an atom.
I've never seen an x-ray.
I assume that radiation isn't just tiny pixie demons attacking me with beaks, right?
So...
I would not put as a standard of validation that which I can personally reproduce of the entirety of the human history of the scientific method.
Hell, Australia could be a giant hoax.
Oh.
Maybe Crocodile Dundee was just on a big giant set.
Maybe it's all the Sydney Opera House and everything.
Maybe the Modern Family episode set in Australia was all just on a big giant set with CGI, right?
I mean, you can say...
Maybe there's no such thing as spelunking because I've never gone deep into caves, you know?
Maybe there's no such thing as really, really high mountains because I never climbed one myself.
And maybe there's no such thing as underground rivers.
You know what I mean?
You can go on and on with the things that you haven't directly and personally experienced yourself.
But we can.
But there is sort of an Occam's razor thing where we can go with that which accords with reality and that which does not require massive and impossible to maintain conspiracies that go on for thousands of years.
But you can prove that the globe is not true.
No, I can't.
You can.
If you go to the beach and look at a boat, you know, 16 miles away, it should be beneath the curve.
My understanding is that it is.
I have actually, you know, I have actually been at the beach and I remember when I was in, gosh, I was in Mexico many years ago and I was sitting on a beach and I remembered this thing from medieval science class in college or whatever and I watched the boat go away and yeah, the hull went away and then the top of the boat went away and it Okay, I'm like, yeah, I'm validated, right?
Seems to be curved.
And then when you zoom in, it can still be there from top to bottom.
We have this on video over and over.
Right.
And none of your video is doctored, but all of the space video is doctored.
Anyway, I've got to move on to the next caller, but I appreciate you bringing the topic up.
It is always fascinating to speak to people who've got a radically different view of the universe and our place within it.
I'm afraid I remain, let's just say, squarely in the unconvinced side.
But again, I really do appreciate you bringing up the case, and I'm sure that it's a good exercise in critical thinking to take a swing at these different kinds of ideas.
So thanks, Stephen.
I appreciate the conversation.
Alright, well up next it's Matt and Tyne, a couple.
They wrote in and said, Is there a way to turn this into, because I love my husband, I am motivated to improve my marriage?
That's from Matt and Tyne.
Hmm.
Very interesting question.
I appreciate you guys calling in.
How old are your kid and or kids?
Our son is 18 months.
Right.
And what's bad about the marriage?
Other than no sleep, no sex, early baby stuff.
But what's bad about the marriage?
Um...
Let's see.
Well, I feel like I have trouble communicating with Matt sometimes.
I'm definitely afraid to bring up things with him sometimes.
I get really angry at him because I feel like he's not listening to what I'm saying or he's not wanting to talk about The feelings part of it.
I express my feelings more readily, and I encourage him to express his feelings more readily, but it doesn't seem to go really past that.
I've listened to Real Time Relationships, the audiobook, a couple of times, and I admit that I think I struggled through some of it, and I think that part of it is because not seeing the forest through the trees, I feel like I'm so close to a lot of what It's talked about in there that I have trouble digesting what's going on there.
And then when I try doing some real-time relationships with Matt and he hasn't read it, it's definitely very challenging just like we're working out what the real problem is and whether I'm right or he's right and all of that.
Just resolving problems is really tough.
And Matt, did you want to add anything to that?
No, I'm just going to listen.
All right, we'll get to Matt's passivity in a sec.
But what is a problem that really keeps re-emerging?
Hmm.
Okay, let me see if I can come up with a good example.
Maybe Matt can come up with a better one.
Oh, it's usually...
Sorry to interrupt.
Did you have something?
No, please go ahead, Matt.
I think it's...
We kind of summed it up, and it's usually I'm interested in the surface, the physical realm, and she's interested in the emotional realm.
Right, like there'll be...
Is it sex versus feeling stuff?
No.
I'm not sure what you mean by the physical realm.
Physical is in, like, the way things...
Getting the stuff done.
...should be done, and the way...
Not the way things, but the...
Yeah, our day-to-day, like the physical world, how we live.
Oh, like getting dinner done, for example.
That's one that we come up against a lot is like Matt does the cooking and I do the washing up and he will, you know, it'll get late in the day and I'll be like, all right, what do you want to do for dinner?
And then I'll be like, oh, it's getting really late.
Okay, what do you want to do?
And it's really like, That means to say, okay, well, what do you want me to do for dinner?
And why don't you just go ahead and get started?
And why don't you just take the initiative time and do these things?
Well, hang on.
But if Matt does the cooking, then wouldn't Matt need to take the initiative to do dinner?
If we can both agree on what dinner is supposed to be and when it's supposed to start and Do you have significant differences?
Like, is one of you like, let's eat at 3am and the other one's like 1pm?
I mean, are you like vampires versus old people?
I mean, what do you have in terms of differences here?
I think that, well, the main thing for me is that I just want to get dinner started before Matt gets really hungry because then he gets hungry.
Oh yeah, no, I'm the same way.
If I have a constant conveyor belt of food, I definitely get a bit bearish.
Right.
And for me, I'll eat anything, just as long as you don't get cranky.
Right.
Now, Matt, are you aware, or first of all, do you agree with Tyne's assessment that you can get a bit cranky?
Yes, that's correct.
And so she is attempting to, to some degree, keep the peace and probably help herself stay a little bit more relaxed when she's suggesting that you all have some dinner, right?
Yeah, well, a lot of times I'm suggesting let's have some dinner, too.
And a lot of times I expect there to be, like, you know, the dishes done before I start working on dinner.
And that doesn't always happen.
I understand now, you know, we have the kid...
And she takes care of him a lot when she's home and I'm home.
But it does still even happen even after I do do the dishes.
The dishes will be done.
I'll be like, all right, okay, now we have to decide what we're going to do for dinner.
Okay, so you guys, clearly this is not about dishes and dinner, right?
I mean, fundamentally, right?
Because if this was about dishes and dinner, I'd club myself to death with this microphone because that would just be like a terrible way to spend your short and powerful and wonderful existence in this world saying, well, I'll do dinner when you do the dishes.
Well, I'll do the dishes after you make dinner and you should get, I mean, that would just be like the Bickerton stuff.
It's not about that, right?
Right.
Okay, so my guess is, and I normally would circle a little bit of these swimmers before taking a chomp out of one of their legs, to use a Jaws analogy, but there is a dominance issue.
Do you guys have a relationship where if one of you is right, the other person is wrong, and it kind of sticks in the air?
In other words, if you say, if Matt, if you say to Tyne, you know what, you're right.
And I've dug in on this issue.
I'm wrong about it.
I should, we'll set a time every day and I'm sorry about all of this.
What would happen?
I'm not saying you should, but if you did something like that.
It wouldn't happen.
What wouldn't happen?
Like, if we agreed to say, like, this is the specific time that we're gonna...
No, no, no.
No, forget...
I'm sorry, I'm not talking about...
No, no, no.
I'm not talking about organizing dinner.
What I'm talking about is what happens in a relationship, in your relationship, When you apologize, it admit fault and promise to change.
Do you feel that that's somehow a loss?
That the other person has dominated you?
That they've won?
That they'll now rub it in your face from here to eternity?
Or is there some resistance towards just changing your behavior to accommodate the other person?
You kind of lost me on that second half.
Is there some resistance towards changing the behavior?
In who?
In yourself.
In myself.
Yeah.
So if you were to say something like this, Tyne, you know what?
How long have you guys been married?
Almost two years.
Almost two years.
Okay.
So you know what?
And how long were you going out before you got married?
Six.
Seven.
Six years?
Seven years.
Yeah.
You guys been together for nine years?
Yeah.
You can't get your fucking dinners organized?
No.
Seriously?
No, no, this is good.
I'm glad you called in.
I'm very, very glad you called in.
We'll get you working on the national debt right after the pastor.
All right.
Is there a dominance issue in the relationship?
Like, I'll tell you this.
Like, I don't have this in my marriage, but I've had this relationship in the past.
I just, I had to win.
Because when I lost, it went badly for me.
If I conceded something, I would feel that the other person that I was going out with at the time would never concede anything on their side and would simply use it as a way to elevate themselves over me and for them to generally be right and for me to be wrong.
And it became virtually impossible for me to admit fault and promise to change because I felt like it was just going to get used against me.
And I'm not trying to sort of say that that's the same as yours, but I'm just exploring whether that dynamic, which happens in a lot of relationships, is occurring at all within yours.
You know, I honestly feel like that's That is happening.
Like, I feel like that's true with Matt.
I don't want to place any sort of blame, but I recall it going through.
Yes, you do.
Come on.
Come on.
Come on, Tyne.
You've got to be honest with me.
It's Matt's fault.
Not that I'm assigning blame, but it's Matt's fault.
Come on.
Come on.
I'm not your in-laws.
You can be straight up with me and we can save a lot of time, right?
All right.
All right.
Okay.
Yeah.
You think it's his fault?
I... Yeah.
We'll have arguments.
I remember.
I can't remember what we were arguing about.
No.
Yes or no.
Yes or no.
Yes.
Yes.
Just be honest.
Do you think it's his fault that this is a problem?
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
And I'm not trying to pronounce.
You can change your answer at any time, right?
Okay.
We'll say yes.
I'll say yes.
Listen.
The reason I'm saying this, Tyne, is that if you believe it's Matt's fault...
Okay.
ways that appear manipulative to him and he's gonna resist unconsciously, right? - Okay. - Right, if you, like this is the honesty thing.
If you genuinely feel it's Matt's fault, you can say, Matt, I think it's your fault.
I'm not saying it is.
I'm saying that's my thought, that it's your fault.
And it's 100% your fault, and I'm perfectly angel, snow white, pure, clear, in the clear, but it's your fault.
And then you can have a discussion about that without the conclusion being that you genuinely, metaphysically feel that it's Matt's fault, no matter what he says, blah, blah, blah.
But if this is your emotional experience, that it's his fault.
Then you've got to be upfront with that, because otherwise it's going to be all under-the-table stuff, right?
I feel like I have trouble assigning fault when the argument is about whether he's right or not.
It's like, okay, yes, you're right.
And when he's right, I have to assure him that he's right several times.
It's like, yes, you're right.
You're right.
But you're not at all justified in being so mean to me.
It's always what I... Yes, you're right about this fundamental thing, but you're being mean to me and I feel bad and this is why I'm acting like this.
So hang on.
Okay, there's a lot in what you just said.
So you're right, but you're wrong about being right because you're doing it.
Yes, exactly.
And because of what you're doing, Matt...
I'm doing what I'm doing.
In other words, my emotions are a mere placid and passive shadow cast by the meanness of his actions, right?
Oh, God, I hope not.
Well, no, but you said, I'm acting this way because you did this mean stuff, or I'm behaving this way because, right?
In other words, he's like the domino and you're the domino that falls, right?
He does something and then you react and blame him for your reaction, right?
Right.
Well, that was the part of the real-time relationships that I was trying to do.
I was like, look, I'm getting mad.
I'm not trying to say that's your fault.
This is my honest reaction.
But, you know, I don't know where to go from there.
I don't want to say that you're the reason why I'm getting mad, but that's as far as we can go.
No, it'd be helpful if you read the book.
Yeah.
I'm not accusing you.
I'm just curious why I haven't read the book.
Maybe I can think about that and answer that question in a second.
But can I just say about the at-fault part first?
Can I respond to that?
Of course, yeah.
I'm happy to.
Whatever you want to talk about.
In my mind, I would say it's usually 50-50 most of the time.
What is?
Fault.
Whatever the situation is, it's 50-50.
50% mine, 50% hers.
Or even in other relationships, I've kind of learned relatively recently that most of the situations I'm in where I think I'm right or the person's wrong, it's really half and half like we see it differently.
But every now and then there will be a point where I have to dig my heels in and say, no, this is ridiculous.
And that's like, I would say 90%.
That I'm right and I'm just getting complete unnecessary heat for something that I said.
Yeah, I don't know what...
I'm sorry, it doesn't sound like I'm rejecting what you're saying, but...
So you're saying a lot of times it's 50-50.
I don't know what that means.
I mean, the fact that you can get that exact makes me suspicious.
It's just kind of a mantra that you say.
50-50, who knows?
51, 49, 60-40.
I mean, usually it's not 50-50.
That would be like flipping a coin, having it land and stay on its edge, right?
It's not entirely every single situation I'm in that I'm like, I must be right and...
Then this whole situation is your fault.
Right.
I'm not going from one extreme to the other.
You're going from 50-50 to 100-0 or whatever, right?
So sometimes, yeah, usually it's two people who get involved in a conflict.
And usually one person acts badly and then the other person uses those bad actions as an excuse to react badly, right?
Yeah.
Because, you know, just to go back to what Tyne said, is that we are responsible for our own actions to some degree regardless of provocation.
So what about our emotions?
Are we supposed to allow our anger to consume us to the point where we're not thinking rationally?
Okay, Matt, what are you doing?
I mean, you're jumping way ahead, creating these crazy extrapolated situations.
It's like, I'd like to walk north.
Oh, are you saying that we go to the North Pole and freeze to death?
It's like, no.
Just, let's take this one step at a time, if that's alright with you.
Sure.
Okay.
So, if Tyne has an escape valve or an escape clause, or, I'm trying to think of a good way to put it, a get-out-of-jail-free card.
In other words, well, if Matt, if you act in a way that she considers bad, Tyne, does that give you permission to act badly or not?
And not feel like you have acted badly.
In other words, if you react badly to something bad that Matt did, do you feel that that gets you off the hook?
No, usually I just feel worse.
No, no, but in the moment.
I mean, afterwards, of course, right?
But in the moment.
Do you react like a little ferociously and then, well, you know, but you said this and therefore, of course, I had to whatever, right?
I know I have.
I've done that before.
I've acted out.
Can I say yes?
And...
In the other direction, too.
Sorry, I lost my train of thought.
But this is okay.
This is sort of the first thing that I wanted to kind of get across, which is that you have to have your standards of behavior regardless of what the other person is doing.
Otherwise, you really don't have free will.
Oh, you know, sometimes it'll be like...
Hang on, let me finish my thought.
Hang on.
Hold that thought.
Let me just finish this very briefly.
Right, so you wouldn't go into...
Like, you wouldn't go into a gas station, or you wouldn't go pump car in your gas, and then see no one behind the canter and just giggle and drive off, right?
You'd hopefully leave the money if you could, right?
Or whatever, right?
Or if you found, I don't know, if some Brinks truck blew up and blew $100 bills all across the street, you wouldn't grab them and all just run home.
You have to have standards of behavior, right?
That are not entirely circumstantial based, right?
In other words, this is my integrity.
Like, I'm not going to be abusive.
I'm not going to say mean things.
I'm not going to, you know, I can get angry for sure, but I'm not going to be destructive towards the other person's ego in order to win.
Oh, right.
And if you have those standards, you can't trust people who don't have those standards because we all make mistakes.
We all express things too strongly sometimes.
We all fly off the handle.
And we need to trust that the other person is going to Act with integrity even if we slip up.
And that doesn't mean it's never going to be a problem because maybe you both slip up in sequence or whatever.
But this focus on what is my standard of behavior in this relationship needs to be internal.
In other words, you can't give yourself an excuse because the other person is acting badly.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Now, Matt, sorry, you were going to say something about what Tyen said earlier?
No.
Well, let me just respond.
That applies very truly to us.
Yeah, I agree.
But earlier, you were just saying that, you know, you can have a negative reaction to something, but you can also, you know, you can say, excuse your negative reaction because the environment or the situation, but at the same time, you know, you can kind of ignore your responsibilities if you've, like, done something good for me.
Well, no, but there's a difference between the reaction and the action, right?
So let's say that I see a $100 bill floating down the street, right?
Now, I may have the emotional reaction to, like, grab it and run.
I want to take that money, right?
On the other hand, my conscious choice, knowing that my emotional reaction can be there, my conscious choice will be, okay, I'm going to grab this money, I'm going to walk up the street and ask if anyone lost it, right?
I mean, whatever scenario works for you.
I mean, who knows, right, what that could be.
Federal Reserve not included.
So, in terms of having a reaction, sure, have a reaction.
Feel the angry reaction and so on.
But the whole reason we have standards is because we're tempted to break them, right?
You know, I don't have a standard which says, don't do ballet in the mall, because I'm really not very tempted to do ballet in the mall, so I don't really need that standard, right?
I don't have a standard that says, don't eat too much sea cucumber, which is basically a That gelatinous slug that lives at the bottom of hell itself, right?
Because I just, you know, don't, right?
Yeah, I may have a standard which says don't eat too much sugar because I've got a bit of a sweet tooth and so on.
So we need standards where we're tempted, right?
So the fact that you're going to have an angry response, yeah, that makes perfect sense.
But you have to have a standard which says, I'm going to say that I'm angry, but I'm not going to yell.
I'm not going to say, you bastard, you jerk, you bitch.
I mean, whatever, right?
Whatever could be said, right?
And having those standards means that You can have win-win negotiations because the moment you escalate into trying to tear the other person down or be abusive or be mean, it becomes win-lose.
And you can't ever win in a relationship.
I think maybe this is where you guys are at after...
You're nine years together or whatever, right?
Is that you can't win.
If you have a conflict at the other person's expense consistently in a relationship, welcome to the wonderful world of blowback or being strangled with a starfish in your sleep, right?
So if you're at the point where winning is losing, then this is a good time to review the standards that you have in terms of your behavior.
So let's say, you know, Matt comes in and says, you know, goddammit, I can't believe...
You didn't do these dishes.
You're so lazy.
You never lift your finger up.
It goes on some tirade, right?
Again, I'm not saying you would, but let's say that he did, right?
Right.
Well, you, of course, would be tempted to...
You're just saying that because you haven't listened to me for the last hour that you've got to put some carbs in your gullet, right?
Whatever it is, right?
You've got to get some food in you, and this is why.
But you have to have the standard that if the other person is acting in a provocative manner, that you can get upset, but you can't act out in the same way back, because that's not going to lead to anything positive.
And of course, you have a child in the house.
Oh, yeah.
Which means that you can't be showing that behavior to your child, right?
Oh, yeah.
I feel like I've been extra conscious of that, especially when I have Let's say, gone against some of my standards, like raised my voice.
I've been scared in the past.
Yeah.
I'm sorry?
I've been scared.
For our son, because, you know, she's like storming around with holding him, swinging him around.
I'm like, let me have the baby while you do this.
Wait, sorry, Tiny, you storming around, raised voice with the baby in your arms?
Yeah.
Not recently.
Not in a while.
But you know you can do that, right?
Yeah.
Like, you know that that is not even remotely on the list of acceptable behaviors as a parent?
No, no.
I mean, it's like being held around by an angry giant is a terrifying experience for a baby, right?
I wouldn't say that I'm, like, screaming my voice.
No, no, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
I mean, it doesn't have to be screaming for the child to be scared, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Because you're so big.
Right?
Like, if some guy was 30 feet tall and just yelling at you, would it matter if he was screaming?
It'd still be pretty terrifying, right?
It doesn't even matter what he's yelling about.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if he's not yelling at you, but yelling at someone behind you.
Yeah.
Right?
So, that's sort of an example.
Now, what is the kind of stuff that you guys get into verbally when you get into a conflict?
What kind of language are you hurling at each other?
Well, can I say something?
Um...
I'm sorry to bring up all these situations, but there was one morning recently that we woke up around 5 in the morning and we were all tired because it was like a super late night.
We were up talking, actually talking about this phone call, and the next morning You know, I I suggested that she get a little more sleep and That to me meant I'm gonna let you get an hour or two more sleep.
I can take the baby.
He's awake.
I'll take I'll take him but in her mind, it was like You're trying to tell me what to do and all this Great and So tying your experience of being offered a sleep in what was that?
I Yeah, I didn't understand it as that at the time, and when I woke up, he was like, he said, this was before Halloween, and I had been working on this Halloween costume for our son, and he said, we shouldn't be spending so much time working on this costume.
No, that's not what I said, though.
What I said was, Getting up early is so important because you have to get home from work in time to go on a Halloween march when your health needs are requiring that you sleep.
Yeah, I felt like you were...
Sorry, what is a Halloween march?
She wanted to go on a little parade.
It sounds a little paramilitary to me.
Goose-stepping.
I'm trying to picture what the costume is.
She wanted to take her son out, see other kids dressed up.
I was saying that because that's so important to you that you're willing to sacrifice sleep.
I felt like he was chalking up all these This anxiety that I had that was making me really exhausted and all these, like, because, like, just talking about this call has brought up all kinds of feelings and conflicts with us, and so I had a lot of anxiety.
I was late getting home, and Matt was really mad at me, justifiably so, for coming home late because I missed my train.
I was really anxious, and so then I was tired.
There was all these things leading up.
And instead of acknowledging all those things...
I've got to interrupt.
Hang on, sorry.
First of all, you said justifiably so?
Yeah.
Because you were late?
I mean, like, it had been a problem at work where I just lose track of time and got really absorbed in what I was doing, and I missed my train.
Not by just, like, a couple of minutes and ready to catch, like, the next train 20 minutes later, but, like, I missed it by, like, an hour.
And so I was going to be really late getting home from work.
And, like, I messed up.
I should have set an alarm.
I should have been paying closer attention to the time.
And so I texted Matt and I told him what was up.
And he said, I'm really mad about that.
And I said, you know, of course, you can be mad.
And I'm really sorry.
And I'm going to work on that.
Now, with the waking up in the morning at 5 o'clock in the morning, I guess when everyone woke up, you woke up because your son was fussing, is that right?
Yeah, pretty much.
So, hang on.
So, Matt, the way you first explained it was you said that you offered for Tyne to be able to sleep in?
Yeah, and she was experiencing it.
And then the way that Tyne explained it was a little different, right?
Yes, I didn't understand it as that at first.
Well, no, because what Tyne said was that you said something like, you know, it's not sensible for you to work on this costume and give up the sleep, right?
I didn't say anything about the costume.
Oh, you didn't?
No, I didn't say the word costume.
Where did the costume come into it?
The costume came into it probably beforehand, like the weeks before that she was working on it.
Okay, so I'm just trying to figure out this morning thing.
So, what did you say when you wanted Tyne to be able to sleep in?
I was like, what's going on?
Are you okay?
This was a couple of nights ago?
Yeah, and I said that I'm just really tired and I didn't get very good sleep the night before and I just wasn't ready to wake up.
And how did that become a conflict?
Because what he said felt like he was summing up, he was ignoring all of the anxiety that I was feeling to the days leading up and all of the fights and the lack of sleep before all of that and summing it all up to, well, there's just this one thing, this costume, that's the big problem.
Wait, but did the costume come up when he offered you, because I thought you said it came up later, did the costume come up when he offered to let you sleep in?
It wasn't the cause.
It was the Halloween came up.
He said, you know, if you weren't wanting to do this Halloween thing, you wouldn't be getting up so early to get to work on time so that you could come home and do this Halloween thing.
So I'm still trying to comprehend what the hell's going on.
So in the morning, you all woke up at five because your son wanted attention.
And then Matt got out of bed and And said, do you want to sleep in or would you like to sleep in?
Or I'm happy to take him if you want to sleep in, right?
Or get some more sleep, right?
It wasn't that clear.
Yeah, it wasn't that clear of a...
Okay, so I brought up the Halloween costume and then I was told that that wasn't part of the conflict.
Is it or isn't it?
You know, these things happen, and I don't know the order in which exactly everything was said.
It was obviously we're both tired.
Well, no, I'm not asking for an exact sequence.
I'm not asking you to reproduce it with hand puppets.
I'm just trying to figure out what the hell the conflict was about.
So, Matt, did you bring up that she was tired because she shouldn't be working on a costume?
It wasn't a good use of her time?
No, it was...
That's not exactly what I brought up.
I brought up the fact that...
But just roughly.
Forget exactly.
I'm just trying to figure it out.
I don't care about the mimeograph.
Was that brought up in the morning?
Yes, it was.
The costume wasn't, but Halloween was.
And then later on, because we argued about it for a while.
So the costume wasn't brought up, but Halloween was brought up.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But what was Halloween to do with it outside of the costume?
Okay, so prior to this, I've been under a lot of pressure to get out to some sort of event.
And I want to do it, but it never happens.
The timing is never right when Tyne's home, when it's home and everybody's ready to go.
And it just never happened.
I think some of that has had something to do with the way Tyne was reacting.
If you could just refer to him as my son, we don't want to use his name because we're going to have his permission.
Okay.
All right.
So I appreciate all that backstory.
I'm still trying to understand.
I asked you when you had a conflict and I still don't understand what the conflict is.
So your son wakes up five o'clock in the morning.
Matt, you wake up.
And what do you say, roughly, forget about the exact thing, what do you say to Tyne that ends up, for whatever reason, in a conflict?
Like, are you okay?
Do you need to get more rest?
Like, you can sleep in.
You don't have to worry so much about the, you know, getting to the parade on time, or getting to the parade.
Like, you should take care of yourself.
Like, maybe you should see, you know, maybe see a professional if you're having issues, see a doctor or something.
So your idea of helping her to get a good sleep in is to say that she should go and see a doctor or a professional.
That was kind of...
Do you find that to be very relaxing?
I don't know.
I don't know if there...
I'm trying to think of the relaxation tape to help get you sleep.
You might be unwell.
You might need to see a doctor.
You might need to see a professional.
Now try to get some sleep.
That would not be a very hot-selling relaxation MP3, right?
She was out of bed.
You're in a waiting room.
There are lots of people around who are coughing, right?
It's not relaxing, right?
I just didn't find it very sympathetic to...
I get that.
So, Matt, why do you think that you brought up...
You understand objectively that's not going to be very relaxing for her, right?
I understand that.
Okay, so if you wanted her to sleep in, that was not a sensible way to do it, right?
Right.
I was using my own internal logic about the number of hours that might need to be Got enough sleep before I can wake up and function like a normal person.
Yeah, you weren't using your internal logic because let's say that I would say to you, Matt, here's a stranger who's waking up at five o'clock in the morning and they're exhausted and I will pay you a million dollars if you get that person back to sleep.
What would you say to that person?
Go to sleep.
Yeah, you'd play some guitar, you'd give them a foot rub, you'd put on some waterfall noises by peeing in a manly slow way into the toilet, right?
I mean, so you wouldn't do what you did if you were going to make a million dollars by getting someone to go back to sleep, right?
Right.
So, that's not your own internal logic.
You were annoyed at something, and you kind of took that annoyance out on Tyne when she woke up at 5 o'clock in the morning when she was exhausted, right?
I feel like I was actually genuinely concerned.
Yeah, okay, but that's not when you bring up, you don't bring up, I'm genuinely concerned with someone, when you're offering them a chance to sleep in, right?
Yeah.
Like, it's like saying, hey, I really, really want you to get some rest.
Whoa, you've got some freaky mole on your back.
I wonder what that...
I think it might be moving.
Anyway, have a good rest.
Right?
I mean, this wouldn't work, right?
No, but there were other things in the situation that made it a little bit...
Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, stop fucking me.
Stop.
Don't Clinton me, bro.
Don't fucking me, bro.
I'm not trying to pick on you.
If you want to know why these conflicts are happening, it's because you have a...
Because what you told me at the beginning regarding this conflict was, Matt, you said, well, all I did was offer her a chance to sleep in.
Next thing you know, right?
So you have a story, and maybe this is a story you tell to yourself.
It's certainly a story you're telling to me in the audience about what you were doing.
But when we start pulling it apart a little bit, that's not a very accurate way of describing it.
And so if you have a story about what you're doing that is very complementary to you, Then it is inevitably negative towards your partner, right?
In other words, hey, all I, I'm just paraphrasing here, right?
But hey, all I did was offer her a chance to sleep in and next thing you know she's yelling at me for no reason, right?
I mean, I'm not saying that's exactly the way you put it, but you know what I mean.
I'm sort of exaggerating for effect, right?
So if you have a story about an interaction where you didn't do anything conceivably wrong or negative or annoying or instigating or whatever, right?
No, I don't think, I don't agree with that assessment.
What don't you agree with?
That I was not instigating or acting in a way that wasn't ideal for this situation.
Okay, but what I'm saying is that when we first talked about this conflict, and you can hear this back when you listen to this show, and Tyne, you can back me up if I'm going astray here, but you basically said, you know, well, we woke up at five o'clock in the morning because my son needed something and I offered her the chance to sleep in.
And that's not an accurate description of what happened, right?
Okay.
I mean, overall, you know, there are details that matter, but...
No, that's a pretty important detail.
Right?
Come on.
Giant mole on your back, basically?
Yeah, that's sort of an important detail, right?
Well, it didn't help, you know, the situation that we were in.
But yeah, I get what you're saying.
Listen, if you want someone to If you want someone to be able to rest, you don't tell them that they're doing something fundamentally wrong to the point where they might need to see a doctor or some other professional.
Yeah, well, there are some things that I couldn't ignore at the time.
No, I'm not saying that, but God's sakes, man.
But you don't do it at five o'clock in the morning when you want someone to sleep in.
Right.
Okay.
That's all I'm saying.
I'm saying don't have concerns.
I'm saying don't have concerns and then give me a false representation of the interaction and then do it in a negative way at five o'clock in the morning when she's exhausted.
Come on, man.
That's pulling a grenade and rolling it into a classroom and saying, gee, I don't know why there's body parts on the wall.
You say that at 5 o'clock in the morning.
How did you receive that, Tyne?
Was that relaxing and fun for you?
No, not at all.
It's kind of annoying because you're tired.
Everyone's tired, you know?
And of course, we know when everyone's tired, you've got to be more delicate and more careful, right?
Yeah.
I mean, you can run if you want, but just don't run when you're in an egg cup race, which is kind of your mood when you're tired or cranky, right?
Uh-oh.
If you want to bring him here, I'll be more quiet.
If you want to talk to Matt for a second, I'll mute my mic.
All right.
Sorry about that.
Oh, don't apologize.
I haven't heard that sound in a while.
It's lovely.
He sounds like he's a very happy boy.
Hello?
Yeah.
So here's the thing, Matt.
I mean, to know your own motivations is really, really important.
And also to know the timing.
of when to talk about something is important and I think if you were sort of to judge this as an outsider you would say that if you have any kind of fundamental criticism or things that you want her trying to do differently then the worst time and way to bring it up is with an oblique criticism at five o'clock in the morning when she's exhausted, right?
Absolutely Okay, so that was not the right time or price or approach to bring up your concerns, right?
Right.
This does not excuse her reacting in whatever way she reacts, but I'm just trying to give you guys a sense of control because the way it seems like you describe this stuff is things happen to us, right?
But things in relationships don't just happen to you.
They usually are the result of specific choices that aren't even consciously registered as choices.
In other words, if you say to yourself, well, I just offered her...
An extra sleep, which is a nice thing to do.
I offered her extra sleep.
And next thing you know, right, there's always this X cloud that happens in conflicts.
You know, all I did was this.
Next thing you know, we're having a fight or whatever, right?
And the reason you can't solve that is because you don't know what is starting the ball rolling of the conflict.
And again, I'm not saying it's all your fault because she's, you know, probably getting behind it and pushing a little bit too.
But it doesn't just happen, right?
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, if you've been annoyed for a while about her working on the Halloween costume and wanting to go into the, I don't know, Nazi death camp, death march, Halloween march of doom or whatever it was called, then bringing it up when everyone's exhausted and in an oblique way that's kind of critical, I mean, that's just lighting the fuse.
Right.
And I definitely, that's where I would take my share of the responsibility because I Of, you know, who caused the situation because I was...
Except, Matt, you didn't.
I am now.
No, no, but what I'm pointing out is that now, sure, okay, we've been talking about it for 20 minutes, but what I'm saying is that at the beginning of this conversation, not only did you not take responsibility, you didn't even admit that there might be responsibility to take.
And I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just pointing out the difference.
Between then and now it's really important because you can't do anything about the conflict that's already happened but the next time If you're more aware of how little you knew about this conflict then you can be more humble about how you bring things up the next time Yeah, I wasn't I wasn't actually like in in trying to get a conflict by saying that I was actually scared and I wanted to I wanted to like Is this an important thing?
Do we need to see somebody about this right now?
Because I was scared.
And then she got up and got really mad and I said, you know, what's going on?
Why are you so mad?
And then I had to get away from her, basically.
Okay, so now you're back to justifying it, right?
Because you're saying, well, I was just scared and then she got mad and I had to get away from her crazy madness, right?
No, I wasn't scared of her.
I was scared for her.
I was worried that there was an emergency.
What was the emergency?
I shouldn't have even brought it up.
No, you said you were scared that there was an emergency, but what was the emergency?
I don't think I'm at liberty to talk about that.
All right.
So, yeah, that would be my suggestion, which is to, first of all, if you have things you want to change that your partner is doing, that happens.
You know, Mike and I have that with each other.
Stoyan and Mike and I will all have that with each other.
I have that with my friends.
I have that with my daughter.
I have that with my wife.
We all have things that we would like the other people to do differently from time to time.
And...
I find, in general, that the best way to approach this stuff is proactively, not reactively.
Because reactively, it's kind of in the heat of the moment, and the longer you've put off talking about it proactively, the more things have accumulated in a negative reactive way.
And so, if you are worried about something, this emergency that we don't That has no name, which is fine.
Then the time to bring that up is proactively when things are at their most peaceful and Tyne is at her most receptive.
That's usually the best time to bring it up.
Not 5 o'clock in the morning when you just woke up startled by your baby crying and everyone's exhausted.
That's not the time to bring this stuff up.
He wasn't actually crying.
He was just sitting there smiling, looking around.
Well, okay, but you're still not getting enough sleep, right?
So, in general, trying to be more proactive with this stuff is usually a better way to try and get these conflicts out in the open rather than reacting to them.
Because, of course, you know, at 5 o'clock in the morning, you're tired too, right?
You're usually not going to have the best sleep.
Kind of judgment.
And it's a pretty terrible way for your son to start his day, not to mention the two of you as well.
And again, this is not to say that she couldn't have reacted better, of course, right?
But the only thing we can control is ourselves, right?
And so if I'm going to make the case that she has to have the standards of behavior that are very high, then you have to as well, which is, you don't jolt someone awake with a startled fear-based attitude.
Panic, anxiety, criticism, disaster, go see a doctor or whatever, right?
That's not how anybody wants to start off their day, right?
Yeah, that was my fault.
Absolutely.
Well, again, faults, you know, I mean, you obviously thought at the time you were doing the right thing, and that's how you communicated it.
Responsibility, fault is usually a bit of a sort of finger-wagging thing to talk about, but certainly, you know, if you know Which choices lead to a bad outcome, then you can make choices that lead to better outcomes.
Yeah, I should have been more delicate in that purpose.
Yeah, and not the right time at all.
And also, isn't it very tough to get into anything substantial in a relationship that you want to re-engineer when a baby's awake?
We were talking the night before the whole, like, hours while he was sleeping.
We were up until 1.30 in the morning talking the night before.
So that kind of confirms what I'm saying, that it's better to do this stuff when the baby's not awake, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Now, have you guys tried or would you be open to trying couples therapy?
We have tried.
It's too expensive.
We don't have enough income.
It's still cheaper than a divorce.
Not that I'm suggesting that that's the next step or anything like that, but it's cost-effective relative to some of the alternatives, right?
Like food?
Oh, is it that tight?
Yeah.
And are you both working?
No, I got laid off and she's working part-time.
And is her part-time salary enough to live on?
No.
Are you bleeding savings or getting money from friends, family, relatives kind of stuff?
We're selling our personal possessions.
Right.
At least I am.
Well, listen, I mean, if you guys really need some help to get into some therapy, which I think would be a good idea, we'd certainly be happy to pay for a couple of sessions if you can find somebody in the neighborhood who's good.
That would help.
Alright.
Yeah, because I mean, I sort of feel a bit odd going on without your wife, who's currently probably dropping the great boob spigot of milky goodness into your son's mouth.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
Excellent.
Excellent.
So yeah, I want to let you guys get back to it.
But if you can find a good therapist, and I've got a podcast on how to do that, at least my thoughts on that.
Then let us know.
We'd be happy to drop some bucks your way to be able to get to therapy.
Because, I mean, this is very, very important stuff.
And if you can solve these kinds of timing problems and proactive ways of bringing up issues not in a reactive way, I think that will be a huge turnaround for you guys' satisfaction and happiness.
Because, you know, kids learn love not by being loved primarily, I think, but by watching their parents loving each other.
And the more that he sees on that, the happier your family will be as a whole.
And of course, what's happening right now is laying in the foundations for probably how he's going to be as a teenager.
And the more comfortable and happy and secure his existence is now, I think the easier his hormonal reactions are going to be when he hits puberty and gets into his teenage years.
And so I think laying the foundation for that now...
It's really important.
And yeah, if you guys are broke, I get it.
I've been there in my life as well.
But if we can help out and get you to a couple of sessions, we'd certainly be happy to do that.
Well, that's part of the reason why we're in this situation.
We don't want time to go back to work full-time when he's this young.
When do you think is a good time to do that?
I mean, ideally, it would be great if you could get a job that wasn't, you know, 80 hours a week kind of thing and give you guys some more financial stability.
I don't know.
I don't know what the best time is.
I know that at least 18 months of breastfeeding is considered to be a good starting place.
But, you know, part-time work is not exactly going to break the maternal bond or anything like that.
So I don't know the answer to that, but you might want to look it up and see if there have been any studies that might help with that.
Okay.
I don't know.
Yeah, I was just wondering if you knew anything specifically.
No.
I mean, obviously, I think the first five years are pretty crucial, but I don't think you've got to be staring at your baby without blinking for those five years or anything.
Okay.
All right.
Will you guys keep us posted and let us know what we can do to help out?
Sure.
Yes.
And how was the call for you guys?
I wish there was less baby waking up, but it was very helpful.
Oh.
They can be so inconvenient, inconsiderate, and selfish.
But, you know, he's looking at that giant boob saying, it's going to be a while until I get my hands on one of these again, so hang on tight.
Well, yeah, keep us posted.
And look, if you guys want to call back in any time, you're certainly welcome to.
And I'm sorry for the interruption, but obviously, you know, that stuff comes first.
Thanks so much, Stefan.
You're very welcome.
Take care, guys.
thank you that was me I'm sorry.
No.
Straight off the body.
Back on the mic.
Okay, well up next is Clay.
Clay wrote in and said, Regarding your R vs.
K gene wars theory, does the impulse to conform to religious and cultural traditions adhere more to K's or R's?
Is one group more creative?
Do you think artsy counterculture types skew more R? Do K's tend to favor foreign wars or police actions, like drug enforcement?
Why or why not?
That's from Clay.
Oh, hey, Clay.
I like you lobbing me the easy questions.
Oh, okay.
Easy.
Well, I have 12 other ones, but maybe caller number four I should maybe...
Now, listen, I really want to, just to be clear, obviously, give credit where credit is due.
I had some impetus to look into this, but anonymousconservative.com is where people should go for more of the source material.
And there's a Canadian psychologist, since deceased, Philip Rushton.
R-U-S-H-T-O-N... Who's tried to apply R versus K continuum theory to humans as well.
So there's lots of other people.
I thought I was being all kinds of original, but apparently, as usual, I'm synthesizing mostly other people's intelligence.
I've had a few things that I've come up with, but that would not be one of them in particular.
So I just want to, when you refer to it as mine, I wanted to be clear that it's a ways off from that.
So, okay.
What was the first one again?
Okay, well, I mean, I just want to say that you've done a great job in explaining it because it's a lot of facets, of course, to the human race, and to sum it all up and generalize it.
Oh, thank you.
You know, I mean, it's kind of like the political spectrum, you know, people saying right and left.
And in a way, that's maybe why I was kind of confused, because on one of your presentations, you said that left and right is universal throughout society.
And yet, myself as a libertarian, former GOP fan, former GOD fan, I, as you know, as the cliche goes, economically right, socially left, left on the war, right when it comes to all that PC garbage.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry, I just wanted to mention E.O. Wilson was the biologist who first came up with the RK theory as a whole, but he didn't particularly apply it to people as far as I know.
So, yeah, just for those who are not in the know, so there's a continuum of freedoms.
Libertarian is more social freedoms, you know, prostitution legal, drugs legal, gambling legal, and that kind of stuff, and more economic freedom, free trade and property rights and so on.
The right tends to be more focused on economic freedom and And not so much traditionally with the social freedoms.
They want to ban drugs and all that.
And on the left, you may get more of a focus, at least in terms of the language, on social freedoms, but they really want to take away your economic freedoms.
And this does, to some degree, conform with the RK stuff.
So that's...
I just want to put that back.
So the impulse to conform to religious and cultural traditions is K. Okay.
That's K. Okay.
Now, it's important to remember that throughout, just speaking about most of American history, which of course I can encapsulate on the fly, but you know, with obvious caveats and all that.
You know, Coke was legal.
Not just the fizzy stuff, but the powder stuff, right?
I mean, and gambling and prostitution were often legal, you know, those big riverboats and all that.
So, Kay's...
Like cultural traditions, but they don't like governments to enforce them.
I see.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Go ahead.
No, no, go ahead.
Okay.
So they want the social pressure, like that religion.
Ostracism, baby!
Ostracism all the way.
That's how you, you know, this is why, you know, ours can't stand ostracism, but Ks are much more comfortable with it, which is why, you know, when I talk about the voluntary family and so on, there's a certain type of people who react very strongly and other people who are like, yeah, I can see that.
But the K's are very into social enforcement, but they don't want the government to do it.
Because when you concentrate social enforcement, it gets taken over by the R's and it gets used against the K's.
Ostracism can't be used against K's.
K's can use it against individuals.
But given that K's follow the rules in general and R's don't, and again, this is not just made up by me.
You can look at gene wars.
There's a lot of physiology behind this.
But because K's in general will follow the rules and R's won't follow the rules, the R's get ostracized In a case society.
And so the R's really dislike ostracism as a means of enforcing social standards.
So when I, you've seen this, Tom Winnicott, I think was his name, I talked about this with a lawyer, about how you would deal with crime in a voluntary society.
And he played me back an article from like, I don't know, 10 years ago that I wrote that was on lewrockwell.com.
About how you would deal with a rapist in a free society.
You cut off his electricity, you cut off his water, nobody sells him food until he surrenders himself and goes through whatever trial would restore his, or he goes and lives in the woods and nobody cares about him anymore because he can't function in society.
Tom Wilketz, you can look at this debate.
And he played this back to me like this was somehow supposed to, I was supposed to go like, oh my god, did I actually say that?
It's like, yeah, I said that and I'm comfortable.
I'm perfectly comfortable with ostracism.
And because I know that the alternative to ostracism is the state.
Now, when you have ostracism as a means of enforcing social standards, you don't need the state to enforce it.
And ostracism appeals very strongly to K's.
Because kays are pack animals and they're actually much more social animals than ours are because the rabbits don't have any particular tribal loyalties and, you know, a hawk can come and swoop away a rabbit and the others barely even stop eating, right?
You know, they're like, oh good, one's gone, now I can relax for a bit because the hawk has eaten something.
And so K's love the ostracism because they ostracize the R's because the R's are the rule breakers.
So a voluntary society, a small government society is good for K's, really bad for R's.
Now, if the R's can convince the K's or whoever can convince whoever...
That the government is needed to enforce these standards.
That's very bad for the case because now the capacity to enforce standards in a cost-effective, voluntary, minimal way through ostracism has now been taken away from them and this giant predator has been created in society called the state that in general the R's will swarm to get control of as you can see from communism which is the ultimate R philosophy and socialists all swarm the government and try and take it over.
Sorry, you were going to say something?
Okay, what's the temperance movement, like prohibition, was that linked with the churches?
No, that's ours.
It's the women.
Women were all driving that.
Okay, so the churches didn't...
I mean, I... No, the churches, yes, sorry.
The churches did, but it was the women's temperance movement.
And what it was, was when women got the vote, women...
Take this huge gamble with their eggs, right?
Because they have to find a guy who is going to stick by them And this is prior to really effective and readily use sheep's bladders and crap like that as a con.
But this is prior to any sort of effective and easy to use birth control.
And so women take this huge gamble with their eggs.
And this has been the challenge and horror and glory and you name it of femininity, particularly in humans who are the most case selected species, is that women are disabled.
for 20 plus years usually from like 15 to 35 or 20 to 40 they're disabled for 20 years having kid after kid after kid So they need a guy who is going to stick around with them when they've been turned into Pillsbury dough chicks by constantly squeezing out pups in their increasingly flabby lower extremities and after their vaginas have been stretched so wide that it's like spelunking going in there, right?
And so they've lost their youth, they've lost their looks, you know, their boobs are hanging down, they can tie their shoelaces with their nipples if they're very dexterous, you know, they've just turned into a mess.
And so as their sexual market value plummets, they need a guy to stick around, to provide all the cheddar that they need to help raise the babies, put a roof over their head and so on, right?
Now, women who choose well, they don't need a state because they've got...
Now, even if something happens to their husband, if they've married into a good clan of good guys, then they can go and live with the husband's brother, or the husband's sister will come in and help, or, you know, the church will chip in and so on.
So it's not even if the guy gets, you know, hit by a comet or something, there's still a whole bunch of K's out there who will step in and fill the gap, right?
Now, if the woman chooses badly, in other words, if the guy turns out to be a drunk, And if he turns out to be a drunk, and we know this from...
The work that Gabor Matei has done in the realm of Hungry Ghosts, the degree to which childhood trauma brings on addictive personalities, which means if he's a drunk, most likely he comes from a really bad family, a mean, abusive, destructive family.
And so if the husband's a drunk, he's not going to work, and his extended family is crap too.
And in general, if his extended family is crap, it probably means she comes from a crappy extended family too.
So what happens is she gets pretty desperate.
Because she just rolled her egg dice and came up snake eyes, right?
The guy just takes all his money, goes to the track, gambles on the ponies, goes to the strip clubs, goes to an opium den, goes to a bar, blows all his money or whatever, right?
And so when women didn't have the vote...
Well, women had to choose really, really, really well.
And I've said this before on this show, and I'm sure I'll say it again, that when I was studying the history of the novel, one of the great things that came out of it was seeing that these novels in general were instruction manuals for eggs.
Here's how to get your eggs to the right sperm.
Here's how to get your eggs to the right sperm.
That's What was going on in these novels?
And you can see this with Pamela.
You can see this with a novel called The Narcissist.
You can see this with Dostoevsky's novel.
Get the right guy.
It's super, super important.
Now, Jane Austen's novels are all about this.
Choose the right guy.
Don't choose the guy who's handsome.
Don't just choose the guy who's rich.
Choose the guy who's honorable, who's decent, and so on, right?
And You know, in Pride and Prejudice, you know, the challenge of this guy who's got a whole bunch of daughters to marry off, I mean, it's crazy, because, you know, one thing goes wrong, and your whole family fortune and future can just go up in smoke.
And so when women didn't have to vote, they had to choose really, really good men.
And then, when women got the vote, if the women chose badly, they could then rely on in-group preferences with other women to convince women as a whole to do things like ban alcohol, to ban gambling, to ban drugs, like all these things that were causing their men to be less productive.
The women asked the state to backstop their bad vagina decisions.
By pointing their eggs and getting impregnated by shifty, worthless, trashy guys.
And then, of course, you know, women took care of the old people, so they wanted old-age pensions, and then they wanted the welfare state, then they wanted unemployment insurance.
So if their husband got fired or got laid off or whatever, and they didn't have enough money saved, they could go to the government to get that money for them.
So women are more selected than men are.
Again, lots of...
Randian slash Thatcherite slash Ann Coulter style exceptions to all of this, but women are generally a little bit more are than men.
So when women get the vote, you get this huge impetus towards an ever-growing welfare state.
To some degree, that is not the woman's fault, of course, because the First World War created a dearth of men, thus causing more women to want to turn to the government.
And the Second World War created a dearth of men as well, because so many got killed, that again, the women turned more towards the government as a substitute.
But that is the challenge.
The K's do not like government.
And remember, R's flourish when there's predation.
And when there's excess resources plus predation, that's the nutrient-rich Petri dish for the R gene set.
And so to create a predator called the government, which also simultaneously gives huge amounts of resources, is the ultimate stimulation towards the R gene set.
And also, of course, the R gene set flourishes in the absence of a father, right?
That's one of the fundamental programming, environmental epigenetic programmings for the R gene set.
Geneset flourishing is if you can keep fathers away from children, you are growing a perfect storm of our society seppuku.
So that I think is how traditions and the state and banning things work with the K's and the R's, if that makes any sense.
Okay, I had another related question as to the causes, because you've said that life in a war zone or the ghetto will bring about more ours, but those environments don't seem like they're too resource friendly.
See the contradiction there?
Because like a war zone or the ghetto, they're not going to have as many resources.
No, the ghetto is incredibly resource friendly.
Well, these days.
No, seriously.
But like a war zone.
No, no.
First of all, we'll deal with the war zone in a sec.
The ghettos are incredibly resource friendly because you have to remember that the R versus K gene set, the K gene set is supposedly, again, going by some general theories, which I can't obviously prove, but the K gene set arose in a time where like for at least a quarter to a third of the year, you were at risk of starving to death because you had a big giant winter that meant you couldn't eat very well or very much, right?
And so the R gene set flourishes when there are significant resources enough that you're relatively comfortable.
Danger is not negative to the R gene set.
In fact, danger provokes the R gene set response because danger means that there's predators, which means you better have sex early and quickly as much as humanly possible.
Your sex drive goes through the roof and your pair bonding collapses and social standards And so in the ghetto, in the modern ghetto...
Resources are plentiful relative to people's necessities, right?
Relative to having enough resources to fuel the R gene set, there's more than enough.
Now, if you start to talk about...
A long, lean winter in Siberia, that ain't the ghetto.
That's a whole other kind of thing, right?
Or if you're looking at something like where the predation is really excessive in terms of the Black Death in Europe and sort of 12th, 13th, 14th centuries and so on, well, that's really bad too.
So, no, the ghetto is not at all a case-selected environment.
It's fatherless and there are more than enough resources for people to survive on.
People don't starve to death.
In the ghetto, even the bums don't starve to death in the ghetto, and that's really all you need.
Okay, so I was confusing food with violence.
So danger is violence, resources is food.
Yes, that's right.
And in fact, the perfect storm of the ghetto is enough resources for everyone to live on, combined with random predation, both from the criminals and from the police response that the criminals often provoke, combined with the fatherlessness, combined with the vanishing fathers into prison and so on.
I mean, that is...
That is one of the reasons why it's become so relentlessly R-selected as time progresses.
And this was perfectly predicted in the 60s, by the way, which is one of the great tragedies that nobody ever listens until it's too late for apologies to do any good.
Okay, so what is the evolutionary purpose of R? Well, the evolutionary purpose of R is exactly the same as the evolutionary purpose of everything, which is to create as many copies of itself as possible.
But, I mean, what does it do for the human race?
Why have we kept the R trait after all these eons?
Because it works really well in certain conditions.
It works really well in times of war and famine.
And it works really well in times of war and in times of plague and so on.
Right?
So, I mean, obviously one of the big killers used to be smallpox.
And sometimes upwards of 10% of the population in any given area would die in every couple of year period from smallpox.
And so if smallpox was an omnipresent danger, as of course were things like cholera and diphtheria and typhus and tuberculosis and all that kind of stuff, then you better have kids young.
And you better have lots of kids because you can't really do anything to prevent yourself.
They don't even know about hand washing, right?
And so you have as many kids as quickly as possible because you simply don't know.
If you wait and say, well, I'm going to have kids with the most handsome and strongest and most fit person, well, you know, the fitness doesn't do you any good.
If you get infected with smallpox or the bubonic plague or something like that, or if there's, you know, Genghis Khan comes along with 10,000 horsemen and, you know, it doesn't matter.
You know, that's a great old, it's an old comedy bit.
Where a guy is talking about these storms.
I mentioned this in the show years ago.
It just popped into my head.
That's a pretty funny bit.
He's talking about how guys want to experience a hurricane, the power and force of nature.
They really want to experience a hurricane.
And so what they do is they say, tie me!
Tie me to this tree and I'm going to experience this hurricane and the ferocity of nature firsthand.
And it's like, it's okay because I've participated in an Ironman competition and I'm super fit, right?
And he says, well, you know, the reality is it's a hurricane and it really doesn't matter.
You know, when a Volvo comes spiraling through the air, it really doesn't matter how many sit-ups you did that morning.
You're cream.
You're toast, right?
And that's kind of true, right?
If you can't do anything to avoid the predation...
Then you are in trouble, right?
Okay, so...
Sorry, one other thing.
Okay, go ahead.
The reason I exempted hunger was that there are things that you can do to avoid starving to death in a climate with high variability in temperature, right?
Which is that you work really hard, you harvest your crops, you keep your seed crops to plant again in the spring, and you domesticate some animals, and you measure your eating, and you participate with your...
In order to stave off something like hunger or starving to death.
But there's not much you can do when it comes to when diseases come ravaging through.
And I would suspect that birth rates went up considerably when diseases were ravaging through because people immediately switch to our behavior because that's what we do.
We adapt on the fly.
And this is why, you know, if the welfare state ends, people will just switch to K again.
I mean, it's a little bit of a transition.
It's not exactly a smooth 180, but, you know, they'll...
They'll just switch to that which best serves their genes and women will start choosing better guys and guys will start sticking around and, you know, all the old values of, you know, cross your legs, grit your teeth and wait for Mr.
Right.
Well, they'll just re-emerge very quickly.
And the women who are currently, you know, screaming at men as sexist, nasty pigs, they'll be just like, oh shit, okay, I guess a...
Better be nice because, you know, I need the men again.
So all of that will change and everybody thinks that all of these ideologies have something to do with belief systems.
No, they just have to do with where resources are being applied in society.
And if women don't need men, then women can put down men.
And when women need men again, they'll be nice to them again.
And everybody will say, oh, look, feminism did a strange 180.
It's like, well, people follow the benefit, right?
Okay, so I'm using my high school understanding, public high school, of history.
But did not the Renaissance come after the Black Flag?
So did the R's, did they bring on the Renaissance or maybe the Enlightenment?
Was there an abundance of R's then?
Well, I mean, that's a big, complicated thing.
And Jim Pellman, who's been on this show, has got a whole theory about that, which you can...
Read his book, which I'd recommend, and listen to his interview for about that.
In the RK paradigm, though, a couple of things happened.
So, under the Black Death, the R's died more than the K's.
Because the R's generally are pirates.
The R's are generally crammed into close quarters.
They're not as intelligent.
They're usually not as sophisticated.
And the richer people were the ones who lived outside the cities on private estates and so on, right?
And...
So during a time of plague or pestilence, the R's tend to die out more.
There was, of course, the little ice age that occurred in Europe in the early to middle part.
I can't remember exactly which century, 15th century or something like that, where there was famine.
Now, of course, famine hits the poor harder than the wealthy, who generally have their own livestock, can go and hunt their own game on their private reserves and so on.
And so there was a lot of...
Ours were deselected out of the society as a whole.
Plus then, of course, you have, I don't know the specific connection between this, and I would even hesitate to guess on the fly, but there is a significant gene set that's associated with religiosity.
And religiosity has a genetic component, which is why, you know, some people end up religious even if they're raised in atheist households, and other people end up atheists like myself, even if raised in religious households.
There are genetic components to this.
You can only convert people so far.
At some point, you run up, for a lot of people, against a genetic wall, unless they're really, really...
Willing to focus on reason and evidence despite their particular preferences.
Jim Penman, biohistory, colon, decline and fall of the West.
You can get this at biohistory.org, well worth perusing.
And so the religious warfare that occurred after Martin Luther nailed the 96 thesis, 94 thesis, whatever it was, to the church door in Wittenberg and took on the Catholic Church and created a variety of sundered Christendom and created a variety of sects, to the church door in Wittenberg and took on the Catholic Church and created a variety of sundered Christendom and created a variety of sects, which then proceeded to slaughter each other, all trying to get a hold of
This wiped out a huge proportion of the religious gene sets in humanity.
So, in Europe, you had, the first, the R's all got wiped out, and then the religious people all got wiped out.
Because if you didn't have the religious mindset, you weren't willing to go and fight and die.
Uh, they were the equivalent of sort of the modern religious, uh, terrorists and extremists.
You weren't willing to go and fight and die for something that just, you didn't believe in, because genetically you just don't have that gene set that gives you those weird mystical oneness crap with whoever, right?
And so the first round is the Rs get wiped out the second round is the religious people get get wiped out and then you get the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution And then you get the welfare state and we go 180.
So that's very very brief history Okay.
So, presently, with the migrant crisis going on, these mostly gentlemen, from what I understand, if you call them gentlemen, coming from the Middle East, and if I remember correctly, you said that there was going to be a bit of a culture clash.
Does that have anything to do with R and K, like the K of Europe and the R of the Middle East, or something like that?
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were elements within that, but I would certainly put the R&K far behind secular versus religious fundamentalist, I think, would be a much more important thing.
Division between religion, sorry, between Europe and the Middle East.
I'm just sort of thinking on the fly that the one thing that Christianity is relatively noted for is that it tends to spread by the word rather than the sword, and it tends to punish by ostracism rather than imprisonment, at least since the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
That's been sort of the way, and according to some of the early stuff, that's the way it went as well.
And so...
I think the big challenge with Europe is when you, you know, most of the migrants coming into Europe are men and young men.
And there's two phases that young men need to go through to be domesticated.
First, they have to get married.
And secondly, they have to become fathers.
And that, in a successive way, reduces the aggression of their testosterone-based nervous system and biochemical system.
And without that, when you have a large proportion of unmarried migrants I'm sure that may be part of it,
but I think that the largely secular versus religious fundamentalist and huge waves of men who don't have enough women to marry within their own tribe or within their own culture and who are most likely going to be rejected by the women in Europe Uh, that's not good.
Uh, you know, that's not a good situation at all.
Right.
Okay.
Well, um, also, um, I can stick with the religion vein of R versus K. Um, if R, if you would like to move on to the next question with military or, um, but, um, I just, well, I was listening to your death of reason presentation and, um, you mentioned the bulk, the scenario of the primitive man and the volcano God and not angry in the volcano God.
And if the R is less traditional, less fundamental, would the R be more skeptical of the volcano god?
I mean, would that bring value to his tribe?
No.
The R's are not skeptical of the dominant narrative, I would say.
The R's are skeptical of the rules that the dominant narrative is designed to enforce.
In other words, The R's are not typically skeptical of the existence of God, but they would want to cheat that system.
In other words, they're skeptical of the rules that God is supposed to be enforcing.
Okay.
So, are rules and laws synonymous?
No, no, no.
Because, no, rules and laws are not synonymous, because laws are, you know, enacted by the state, and rules are just stuff that you...
You know, one is...
Rules can be enforced...
Without a state, like there are rules to monopoly, there are rules to chess, there are rules to, you know, whatever, like social engagements and politeness and etiquette and they're all enforced without the state.
But a law is something where, you know, the state comes in and throws you in prison if you don't obey kind of thing.
So the R's, remember the R's are not, they have no moral adherence Yeah.
Where he basically says, yeah, just use the values that people have against them.
Use the rules that they believe in against them.
Smash them with their own rules.
We don't care.
We don't have any rules.
The only thing we want is victory.
The only thing we want is dominance.
You just use whatever people's prejudices and whatever their particular fetishes for goodness is, you use that to smash them up.
But they can't use it against you because you don't have any goodness.
You don't have any values.
You don't have any rules.
So they can't use that weapon against you, but you can use that weapon against them anytime you want.
That's a pure distilled R perspective.
Right, but I typically see R's as having like an egalitarian ideals.
As having what?
Egalitarian.
Is that a way to pronounce it?
Egalitarian?
What's the word that, you know, it means like...
Egalitarian?
Egalitarian!
Thank you.
I like eagletarian, because that actually sounds pretty K to me.
Eagletarian views.
The rabbits shall bow before me, and they shall be beheaded to be stuffed into the beaks of my babies.
You know, Phyllis Lafley does have the eagle for him.
That's one for groups, so that might work.
Sorry, egalitarian.
Yes.
Okay, so it seems like they tend to have more egalitarian ideals.
Everyone's together.
I mean, everyone's equal.
And that seems like an ideal.
So...
No, no, no.
But hang on, hang on.
Because in order to have that, you need a very powerful state.
And so ours want to...
I mean, there's two kinds of ours, right?
The followers and the leaders, right?
Because you can't have an R society, like you can't have a communist society without an all-powerful state.
You can't make people equal because people aren't equal, right?
I mean, if you want everyone in the world to win and lose exactly the same number...
Of chess games, whether you're a grandmaster or three years old, right?
Then you need someone in there who's going to jig all the rules and who's going to change the outcome because people are going to win and lose chess games on different ratios and different levels because different skills, different concentrations, different desires, different abilities, different intelligence, different spatial reasoning, different deferral of gratification.
We're all different, right?
So if you want to make everyone the same, you need an all-powerful state, which is why ours are sheep defined by their need for a shepherd.
They are followers.
You can't follow unless there's someone in front telling you what to do.
Right, but don't they want to bring out about a nation of sheep?
And isn't that like a...
You can't bring about a nation of sheep without all-powerful shepherds.
Right, right.
But they're thinking of like, we're going to use relative means to bring about our ends, and our ends is equality.
And that is still like a moral to them.
No, no, no.
Equality is immorality.
No, it's not equality.
You've got to stop using these words like equality because equality is too neutral a word, right?
Okay.
Because I don't know whether you're talking about equality of opportunity or outcome, right?
Outcome.
Outcome is what the R's want.
Okay, then don't use the word equality.
Okay.
Violent redistribution.
Right?
Like if I'm saying everyone in the bar has sex tonight, Then what I'm talking about is coercive rape, right?
Right.
So I wouldn't want to say, well, it's just sexual opportunity.
No, it's like I'm saying, everyone in the bar has sex tonight.
Sorry, ladies, if you don't like this guy, I'm pushing his squishy, middle-aged, lard-ass muffin top all over you, right?
And so the R's...
Just want free shit because the R gene set wants free shit because that's what makes the R gene set breed so well.
It wants you to create an environment where limitations are removed and where there's predation.
So for that, you need a redistributionist state that's coercive and brutal and dictatorial because it creates the predation that attacks The people, which provokes the R tendencies, and also the redistributionist state gives them free stuff, and free stuff is nectar of the gods to the R gene set.
And also, with an added bonus, the Ks will be disproportionately preyed upon by the R selected redistributionist state.
That's the beauty of it, is not only is it a predation that flourishes the R gene set, but it also wipes out the competitive K gene set, because the competitive K gene set can't stand it, and is constantly rubbing against it, and hates it.
And also, the K gene set generally has more money.
It generally has more resources.
Like they're saying, well, if the rich only paid their fair share, it's like, oh, really?
So the fact that like 5% of rich people pay like more than half of the taxes, that's not their fair share?
In fact, that's 10 times their fair share.
No!
It's got to be 20, 50, 100, right?
It strips resources from the case through the violent state.
Redistributes it to the R's, which allows the R's to breed more, and is the added bonus that a lot of K's end up getting killed or thrown into gulags or whatever, right?
Concentration counts and taken out of the gene pool.
Yeah, because the K's can't stand the R society.
In the same way that the R's can't stand the K society because they generally lose out.
Okay, so the whole bleeding heart liberal stereotype is that just they're fooling themselves.
They don't have real empathy.
It's just...
Their genetics are bringing on this fake empathy where they think they care about other people, but they don't really?
Well, no, they don't care about the case.
Okay.
They just care about other artists.
Have you ever heard a socialist ask a rich person, how do you feel about paying so much taxes?
You know, and the tax rate before Margaret Thatcher got in on money that you invested and got the return from was 98 fucking percent.
Right?
You invested, you made 10,000 pounds, you only got to keep 200 pounds of that.
And there were no socialists saying, wow, that must really hurt.
George Harrison, who writes a song called Tax Man, right?
There's one for you, 19 for me.
Right?
That's because they were at a 95% tax bracket.
They don't give a shit about the K's feelings.
But there's two things.
See, the K's care about the poor.
Because redistribution hurts the poor.
It helps them in the short run in that you get free shit, but it hurts the poor in the long run because as I talked about with Bill Whittle and the analogy from D'Souza about the carts, which you can go and listen to.
We just put out this presentation.
But the Ks actually care about the poor because they're an in-group preference tribal species, right?
They're a pack species, the Ks.
So they care about the poor.
But they care about the deserving poor, and they're willing to let the undeserving poor be punished by their own bad decisions in order to make sure that you don't keep growing more and more poor by subsidizing their bad decisions.
So the K's actually do care about the poor.
The R's don't give a shit about the poor.
And socialists don't give a shit about the poor.
And we know this.
Because everywhere that socialism and communism gets implemented more and more and more, the poor end up doing worse and worse and worse.
Are they consciously aware that they are just being enablers in the long run and it's not going to do well for the poor?
Or are they just fooling themselves?
Why would I possibly care about that?
I mean, it just...
Okay.
No, you're trying to get me to have empathy for people who don't have empathy for me and I won't do it.
That's the big fucking K mistake.
Oh, but these poor Rs, they know not what they do.
I don't care!
Okay.
I don't care!
Do not ask me to have empathy for people who have no empathy for me!
That's the fundamental K mistake, is to extend the tribe to people who hate you.
Let's let the Middle Easterners in!
What could go wrong?
Don't have empathy for people who don't have empathy for you.
An excess of empathy, as I said before, is both a sin and a crime.
Okay.
because I'm not going to try even remotely to step into to have empathy for people of no empathy for me.
That way self-destruction lies, and that's how the Ks get screwed every single time.
Okay.
I mean, the R's are all...
R's are...
Like, the leftists are all...
Oh, multiculturalism is wonderful!
Hey, is that a conservative I smell?
Smash him!
Slander him!
Lie about him!
Kill him!
You know?
I mean, it's like...
It's so insane!
I mean, where on earth do the liberals have any kind of...
Like, do the newspapers say, well, shit, in Washington, about 90 to 95% of us are voting Democrat.
That's not very multiculturalism.
Let's try and get...
50% conservatives in here because that's much more multicultural.
They don't do that.
They don't give a shit about multiculturalism.
They just like the fact that if you bring in a bunch of incompatible people with a K culture, K people react and then you can scream racism at them until they give you their firstborns.
So no, I don't care whether they know or don't know.
I couldn't give much less of a shit because I'm sorry until they start showing some empathy for me.
They're like flies in my house.
Okay, so it sounds like I'm sticking up for R's here, but...
No, no, no, I didn't say you were.
You were genuinely curious, and I understand that.
Yeah, I am.
You are genuinely curious.
Don't do it.
The way I picture this stuff is through a lot of stereotypes.
I mean, visually, I need to see the R, what the R is.
I think, you know, hippie, earth mother goddess, or whatever, you know, or...
I mean, there are lots of different variations, but that's like a stereotype, I guess.
So...
But, you know, one thing you said is that R's are less intelligent.
And I know, of course, there are going to be exceptions.
But, you know, there are...
The leaders are very cunning.
The leaders of the R's are very cunning.
Okay, so that's like the Brandy College professors, they're on, like, the bell curve.
It's kind of equivalent of, you know, how you said that men and women are different, that, you know, men you have get really smart and really stupid, and women are more in the middle.
So could it be that way with ours as well?
That maybe with ours you have some...
No, they're stupid because they have the weapon of slander.
And when you have the weapon of slander, you're by definition a complete moron.
Because as Socrates says, when the debate is over, slander becomes the weapon of the loser.
So because the left and the R and the communists and all of them, because they can just scream slander at people, they don't know how to think.
Any more than if you have a remote control kill device that you can activate with your brain, you're not going to learn a lot of jujitsu, right?
Why would you bother?
You don't need it.
And so the R's, yeah, they've developed exquisite capacities for verbal abuse, slanders, and lies.
But they can't think to save their lives.
And again, just go to the Bernie Sanders videos that I've done and just scroll through it, if you dare.
And you'll just see snarkument after not an argument, after bitchy little nothing, after rhetorical question.
And, oh, so if I get this straight, got it.
You know, it's like, that's not a fucking argument.
You exquisitely ornamental morons, right?
And they don't have to learn how to think because they can just, like...
I've said this before, but during the McCarthyism, right, and all of that, there was a guy named Whitaker Chambers who was a member of the Communist Party and then realized that he was on the side of evil.
And he began to work against the Communist Party.
And the Communist Party reacted by slandering him, like, viciously and endlessly.
They said that his brother committed suicide because he'd had a homosexual relationship with his own brother.
And when you look at McCarthy, McCarthy was saying, hey, there's a lot of Soviet spies in the State Department.
And they just slandered him, and slandered him, and he actually won a suit against, slander against, and they just slandered, and this continues to this day.
All they do is just slander, and you've got this image of McCarthy as this crazy, foaming at the mouth, paranoid, red-baiting, insane guy, and all that.
No!
He came from a poor family, very accomplished guy, a lawyer, very intelligent, a very young and able congressman, and so on.
Sorry, in the Senate, I think.
And this was, all they have to do is vomit up slander at people over and over.
They lie.
They lie, they slander, they lie, they slander, they lie, they slander, they lie.
That's all they do.
Okay.
And because of that, they don't actually ever have to learn how to process an argument, how to rebut, how to deal with facts, how to deal with reason.
A Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin People think that McCarthyism had something to do with Joseph McCarthy, but McCarthyism was a congressional inquiry, which he couldn't do because he was in the Senate!
Anyway, just lie after lie after lie.
And this is the way that the left operates in general, and Ben Shapiro's got some great analyses of this and how to respond to it, which you can find pretty cheap or free online.
And so they're not smart...
They're cunning and they're manipulative.
And this is what people from a state of weakness usually use, you know, slander, right?
If you lose an argument, then you can go around slandering people and then pretend that you've won.
And it works on other people.
And there's an old line from a Ray Bradbury story.
Where basically, you know, if you take away guns, people will hit each other with clubs.
And if you take away clubs, they'll strangle each other and so on.
And if you tie them all up, they'll just stare at each other and try and kill each other with hatred of the mind or something like that.
And that's...
The left, they will just stare at someone and pour vitriol and lies and hate at that person until they provoke ostracism from the case and then they've won, right?
And that's some of the observations I've seen, especially more lately.
And I'm thinking that because if you look at the left-dominated fields, what do you get?
You get reporters, you get professors, and you get Hollywood.
Well, you know, that drives the media, which drives our culture.
Well, maybe in the past, K's controlled our culture through, like, religion.
Yes, well, K's controlled the culture because you usually had to come through religion or focus on some religiosity.
And that's changed quite a bit.
That has changed quite a bit.
And now ours are very dominant in the culture.
And I don't even know what to say about that other than, you know, I wrote a lot when I was younger and couldn't figure out why everyone said my writing was like the greatest thing ever and that nobody wanted to publish me.
It's like, now I know!
Because I was writing K novels and there's just an R audience out there in general.
So that's a...
That's the reality of where we are.
And, you know, you generally...
You just don't see high quality...
You cannot see high quality arguments in our society because they're just trying to portray people as good or bad.
Like, I watched the movie Inside Out.
I don't know if you've seen it or if you have any kids around or whatever, but I won't.
I may do a review of it, so I'll just...
Oh, wait, that's a Pixar film, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, that's the Pixar.
Okay.
I like the idea of it because I've talked about this Miko system that we are a bunch of competing emotional and psychological agencies within us, different personas, different alter egos or alters, as they're sometimes called, and that we need to have them all at the table.
They all have value.
And there was some of that in the film, which was kind of cool.
But because the cultures so overwhelmingly are...
Any culture that elevates women to a status of goddess is fundamentally R by definition.
Because it's devaluing men and elevating women and that is the ultimate petri dish for breeding the R mindset and the R gene set.
And so you have these emotional, like there's a little bit of disgust, which is more like a valley girl.
And then there's hope and positivity and peppiness and just all sorts of wonderful things.
And then there's like a really helpful kind of sadness that's really, and these are all the female emotions, you see.
And they're so gentle and they're so helpful and they're never aggressive and they're never violent.
Now, who are the male emotions in that movie?
Angle!
Lewis Black on, you know, full coke in the head mode, right?
Anger and paranoia.
Paranoia and terror and fear and anxiety.
See, those are the male emotions.
And their value is never talked about at all.
In fact, they're just difficult and disruptive.
But the female emotions are so gentle and so sensitive and so empathetic and so without sadness, how can you empathize with the elephant?
Like just, again, they can't help themselves.
Yeah.
They can't help themselves.
It's not even a conscious choice anymore.
Well, you have said that ours are highly fearful, but they're fearful of imaginary threats.
And then you said that K is a mild anxiety.
So is it just a question of degrees?
Well, it's a little...
I have to say it's more complicated.
It sounds like a bit of a cop-out.
But even if we say that they start with the same levels of potential anxiety, K's, by embracing competition, learn how to manage anxiety, learn how to deal with anxiety, learn how to know what is appropriate and inappropriate anxiety.
But R's, by being mildly depressive and usually not very good at sports, end up avoiding competition.
And because they avoid competition and they avoid the challenges that competitive anxiety will mount within your system, you know, the desperate desire to win, you know, managing winning is really complicated because the more you want to win, the worse it is to not win.
And if you want to win a lot, then you have to really, really, really want it.
So much that you're willing to do, you know, Michael Phelps, you know, 12 days plus a bong training regimen to become a champion swimmer, right?
So you have to really, really, really, really want to win in order to become excellent, top-notch at anything.
And have the right genes.
Well, yeah, but okay, but lots of people have the right genes, right?
But you have to really, really want to win, and then you have to deal with losing a lot.
So learning how to manage that anxiety is fundamental to the K experience, whereas the R's just avoid anxiety, which is why they end up completely hysterical, right to the point where they can't hear contrary opinions without screaming for fascistic-style censorship and demanding a right to the point where they can't hear contrary opinions without screaming So I don't know what the origin of it is, but they certainly have tested and found that the...
Liberals, the lefties have more envy centers and so on, and the right have a stronger fear and disgust response, but also better at managing it, right?
Because people on the right, I mean, to be on the right, to be case-selected, these two are not synonymous, but just in general, to be on the right means to be disapproved of.
Of course, because the dominant culture is R. So to be K is to be disapproved of so automatically.
I have just respect for anybody who's on the K side or on the Republican side.
Again, these are not synonymous, but in general, just because they're not going with the flow, which means that they're willing to be rejected, which means that they have a strength of character that is not, you know, the left just leaves floating down a stream of prejudice.
They don't have to work as hard.
They don't have to push back as hard.
They're not as negatively selected.
There's not that much hostility, you know.
I mean, it's the basic thing that if you write stuff that goes along with the professor's particular beliefs, well, you don't need a lot of footnotes.
But if you go against what the professor believes, then you've got to justify everything.
So who's going to be the better scholar?
Well, the person who disagrees with the professor.
And the person who disagrees with the culture as a whole is going to be a stronger-minded thinker almost by definition.
Right, but you've also said that the R's don't like the rules, and they don't like the ostracism, but it sounds like it's become to where the K's are the ones going against the flow, or the K's are becoming less conformist now.
Yeah.
Well, the R's like the rules that they can use against the K's, and they like using those rules, right?
Right.
I mean, like, the left is constantly screaming that the right is prejudiced against a whole group of people, whereas, of course, the left is viciously prejudiced against half the population who are Republicans in the United States.
Viciously prejudiced.
And so the R's love the rules with which they can trip up and ensnare and destroy the K's.
And the K's...
The K's great weakness is to extend the protection of the K tribe to the Rs.
And until that is addressed and understood that there is a gene wars set going on, we're just going to keep swinging back and forth.
All right, listen, I've got to wind this up because I'm RK-ing myself into...
Into oblivion.
But I hope that gives you some context.
And please understand, I am like so far from being the final word on any of this kind of stuff.
These are just my thoughts about the subject.
Please don't take anything as gospel.
And, you know, there are biologists and people who've studied this stuff, obviously, a lot more than I am.
This is just me trying to work within the paradigm.
So take that for what it's worth.
All right.
Well, thank you for your time, Stefan.
Thanks for the invite, and I'm a fan of your show, and you've inspired me to do a podcast of my own, too.
Oh, fantastic.
I'm glad to hear it.
I think that's wonderful.
The more the merrier.
I think that's great.
Thanks, everyone, so much for calling in tonight.
And as always, it is a genuine honor and privilege and pleasure to be able to talk about these very important issues with y'all.
And please don't forget, please, please, of course, don't forget, given that winter is approaching, which means the case selected need to hoard up and survive.
freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
