Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:20:51

3124 Estrogen Based Parasites 2.0 - Call In Show - November 7th, 2015

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Yeah, yeah, I say the same thing every week, don't I? Say the same thing.
	Oh, what a great show!
	But seriously, this was a great show.
	First caller.
	How on earth can universally preferable behavior, my system of ethics, how can it make ethics objective when the values and ends and goals that an ethical proposition depends on are subjective?
	If UPB can't make ethics objective, why does it even matter?
	Great question.
	How can we elevate ethics?
	To the structure and strictures of physics?
	That's a great question.
	Good answers, too.
	I would say myself.
	The right to bear arms, asks the second listener, and the use of firearms for self-defense is fundamental to being a free-thinking, self-reliant human being.
	When on earth did we become such weak-kneed mama's boys that the right to bear arms became questioned?
	Great, great question.
	Third caller had a girlfriend who didn't like...
	A video or a podcast I did called Feminism, Unequal Opportunity Nagging.
	And asked me a couple of questions that I don't think are exactly what I said.
	But if you like estrogen-based parasites, you'll really, really love this show.
	And this question in particular, I had some excellent, if I do say so myself, rants about feminism and women as a whole and maybe a little bit his girlfriend in particular.
	So here we go.
	Let's get started.
	Alright, well up for us today is William.
	William wrote in and said, I agree that universally preferable behavior, UPB, is a valid concept.
	However, how does the concept of UPB make ethics objective when your values, ends, and goals that a UPB depends on are subjective?
	If UPB does not make ethics objective, how does it fit in with your theory?
	Why does the concept matter?
	That's from William.
	Hey William, how you doing?
	Good, how are you?
	Good.
	Is science objective?
	Oh yeah, science is pretty objective.
	What do you mean pretty objective?
	I mean it's completely objective.
	Okay.
	But the goals of science are subjective, right?
	I mean, you can choose to try and figure out the universe by reading tea leaves or praying to your ancestors or anything, right?
	So why is ethics in one category if it's a valid and universal and logical framework, but science is in another?
	Well, it deals with preferences, or at least your theory deals with preferences, which is different from...
	If you're going to say somebody should do something, then you have to ask why should they do something.
	So in the case of do we want to figure out why clouds accumulate or whatever, we would say that you should use the scientific methods to figure out that question.
	Right.
	So you want something to be logical and empirical in order for it to be objective.
	But you have to have a preference for something being logical and empirical in order to feel that the objectivity is even a value, right?
	Yes.
	So how is science different from UPB in that regard?
	Well, it's in the way you define moral rules.
	I have a short argument quoting a couple passages in your book that take your definitions of what morals are and moral rules and what a universal preference is and what a universal preference is and then proves how through that the whole objective moral rules,
	the latter half of your book with the logic and maxims Depends on a subjective goal or subjective value.
	I'm already conceding that, right?
	I mean, you have to have, if you want to be in philosophy, then you have to have a subjective preference for universal truth, right?
	Because there's no such thing as an objective preference for universal truth, because that would say that a desire exists outside the subjective realm of the human mind.
	So if you want to know the truth about the physical world, you have to have a subjective preference for the objective methodology of science, right?
	So if you want to have a valid moral theory, then you have to have a subjective preference for rational consistency, empirical conformity, and so on.
	But I'm not sure how it would be different between ethics and science.
	It's a subjective preference for a universal methodology.
	If you're going to say that people ought to be good, is that what you're saying?
	I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.
	You say that people ought to not initiate force.
	That's not the argument in UPB. I like people to not initiate force is not an argument any more than I like jazz, right?
	I mean, me having a preference for what people should do is not a philosophical argument and there's nowhere in UPB where I say it would be, I would prefer it or it would be nice or people ought to just Not initiate force or whatever, that's not a philosophical argument, right?
	The argument within UPB, which, you know, you can get at freedomainradio.com slash free, but the argument within UPB is that if you want to define a system of ethics or of universally preferable behavior, then the behavior that you define as universally preferable behavior has to be three things.
	It has to be universal, it has to be preferable, In other words, people have to be able to choose it, and it has to be behavior, not thoughts, for reasons I go into in the book.
	So the non-aggression principle can be universalized.
	You can have everyone in the whole world not initiating force at the same time.
	You can't have everyone in the whole world initiating force at the same time.
	That would be impossible, at least as universally preferable behavior.
	And it is behavior, not thought, because the initiation of force is not, I'm thinking bad thoughts about you, but I'm doing something unpleasant to you with a fork.
	And so it is universally preferable behavior.
	You can have the non-aggression principle conform to the standards of universally preferable behavior, whereas the initiation of force, the initiation of rape or murder or theft or assault, does not conform to universally preferable behavior.
	So if you and I are both in a room And we have a moral theory which says taking each other's property is morally good.
	Then I should both want to take your property and have you take my property from me.
	And yet if I want you to take my property from me, then you can't achieve the universal value called stealing because it's only stealing if I don't want you to take my property from me.
	Like if I leave an old stove on the front of my house saying with a sign that says take me, no one's going to...
	I'll convict you for theft if you come along and take it because I want someone to take that property of mine away.
	And similarly, if I rent out my lawnmower and, you know, then you pay me, then it's not theft and so on, right?
	So it's not people ought to be good.
	That's like a kid saying, I like candy or puppies are cute.
	It is that ethics are universally preferable behavior.
	And if you're going to have an ethical system, then it has to be universalizable.
	It has to be something that people can choose.
	In other words, it can't be something outside the realm of human choice because then philosophy or ethics wouldn't.
	It's like saying, well, the ultimate diet is Klingon food.
	Well, Klingon food doesn't exist and therefore it would not be a very useful diet.
	And it has to be behavior, not thoughts for reasons I go into in the book.
	So that's the, in a crux, the argument around universally preferable behavior as a system of ethics.
	And it's got nothing to do with I'd like people to be nice or anything.
	So what – I guess then my question shifts to why is it – this kind of seems redundant.
	Why is it good to be moral?
	Or why is it – why should you be moral rather than not moral?
	You're asking me for preferences, but it's around the universality.
	You can say then that morality is objective and you can define what is right and what is wrong in ethical terms, but then all the nihilist has to say is that it doesn't matter because you're not really doing anything wrong.
	Well, so the nihilist would say that there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior.
	That's the argument I'm making.
	Right, and that's a terrible argument.
	That's a completely self-detonating argument that is completely incomprehensible to any rational thinker.
	Because the moment you say there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior, you're saying it's universally preferable behavior to reject universally preferable behavior.
	And if that doesn't cause a short circuit, I don't know how to help you.
	There's no such thing as truth!
	Is that a true statement?
	Yes!
	Is it absolutely true?
	Yes!
	Do you not realize a self-contradiction?
	No!
	Well, philosophy can't help you after that, right?
	Because that's someone holding up a piece of cheesecake saying it's broccoli and refusing to take any evidence of the contrary.
	So, no, nihilist doesn't...
	It doesn't get anywhere.
	Now, someone can say that they don't want to participate in any philosophical discussion, for sure.
	They can excuse themselves and say, I'm not going to make any statement true or false or positive or negative regarding philosophy, ethics, virtue, whatever it is, metaphysics, epistemology.
	Great, okay, then, you know, basically you're trying to influence civilization by going to live in the woods.
	You're out of the equation and you're not going to be part of it.
	of it.
	But the moment you engage in a philosophical discussion, you're saying the truth is preferable to falsehood.
	The truth is something that is objective.
	It's outside human consciousness.
	And there are particular standards that you ought to conform to called the truth or fidelity to the truth, which for a nihilist would be there's no such thing as truth, which vaults over the reality that he's making a universal truth claim that there's no such thing as universal truth claims.
	So no, the nihilist is, you know, just taking a long dump in the punch and thinking he's adding something to the party.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Did we lose him?
	Looks like it.
	Well, you know what?
	Maybe he took me up on my invitation.
	Are you still there?
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	I actually muted myself.
	Oh, I thought you'd just taken me up on the invitation to go live at the...
	I'm sorry about that.
	When I talk about nihilists, I'm not talking about the metaphysical nihilists or the epistemological nihilists, something like that.
	I'm talking about the ethical nihilists, simply that you can accept that truth exists and reality exists without saying that morality exists.
	Now, when I say...
	That universally preferable behaviors don't exist.
	I don't mean that...
	I'm not talking about universally preferable as means to an end.
	As in, if I want to build a house in the woods, it is universally preferable for me to cut down the trees to create an area for the house.
	But we're not talking actions, we're talking theories.
	Okay, if I say...
	If I claim that my theory is universal, then it needs to be universal.
	If I claim that my theory is rational, then it needs to be rational.
	These are almost tautological, but not quite.
	So go ahead.
	If I make the claim, or the theory, that it is universally preferable to...
	Cut down trees versus not cut down trees to build a house in the woods.
	No, no, no, no, you can't.
	Because universally is not specific to a particular location.
	It's not particular to a particular action, you know, like cutting down trees.
	I'm saying, but murder is an action.
	If you can say that murder is not universally preferable, then that's a contradiction.
	There is nothing contradictory between cutting down trees and not cutting down trees.
	But if I say that murder is universally preferable behavior, then people both want to kill others and want to be killed themselves.
	And if you want to be killed, then it's euthanasia, not murder, which for some people is a similar category, but it's not completely identical philosophically.
	So, it comes down to that which is inflicted upon other people.
	Now, you obviously inflict your axe upon a tree, but a tree is not a moral agent in the same way that a human being is.
	But if you inflict your axe upon a human being, then you have two of the same entities, two human beings...
	If you say that murder is morally good or murder is wonderful or murder is universally preferable behavior, then you have two human beings with opposing categories.
	One person who has the willingness and capacity and moral ability, if not the right, to take another person's life, but that other person does not have the same right in return.
	Murder cannot be valued by both people who are trying to kill each other at the same time.
	In the same way that if I want someone to have sex with me, then it's not rape, sort of by definition, right?
	So rape can't be universally preferable because then it means everyone should want to impose sexual violations on other people who want those sexual violations imposed upon them.
	But the moment the victim wants the sexual violation imposed upon him...
	He's maybe role-playing, he's maybe got hot wax dripping down in uncomfortable places, but it's not rape anymore.
	So these are self-detonating categories that don't exist when you take an axe to a tree because a tree is not a moral agent by which you are universalizing the act of hitting something with an axe.
	And I understand the contradiction, but that's if you presuppose that the definition of universally preferable and enforceable through violence is good.
	Or the opposite.
	Sorry, I don't understand that part.
	Well, it's actually directly from your book.
	It's the first category.
	You said, it is good, universally preferable, and enforceable through violence, such as don't murder.
	Now, but that's if you put it in the context of good.
	You're only defining – it's in a void.
	I mean, if you put that in a void, if you put universally preferable and enforceable through violence, then you can't – it's – How do you ascribe universally preferable as good?
	Universally preferable for whom?
	Universally preferable for what goal?
	No, no, no, no.
	Stop, stop.
	For whom, you don't understand what the word universally means, okay?
	You can't say universally preferable for whom.
	It's like saying all mammoths are warm-blooded.
	Well, which mammals?
	It's like, well, no, there's a category for everyone, right?
	So universally means universally.
	Now, good as a function of universally preferable behavior, you know, it's a shorthand, it's a good or moral or whatever it is to conform to universally preferable behavior.
	If you have a system of ethics, that conforms to universally preferable behavior the way that you would shorthand it to the population individually.
	Is good in the same way a goodness or virtue or whatever it is.
	In the same way that if you have a hypothesis and a set of experiments and reproducibility that conforms to the scientific method that's called valid or that's called science or that's called proven or whatever it is, right?
	You don't have to use the same terms for everything all the time.
	So no, since virtue must be that which is universally preferable, because if it's not universally preferable, in other words, if it's subjectively preferable, then it's like a taste for broccoli.
	It's not in the category of ethics.
	It may be in the category of aesthetics or it may be morally neutral.
	Category of aesthetics would be something like it's nice to be on time, but you can't enforce it by shooting people who are late.
	So it may be neutral, like running for a bus.
	Is it good or bad?
	Who knows, right?
	It may be aesthetically preferable, like being on time or being polite or whatever.
	Or it may be universally preferable, like don't initiate the use of force.
	Keep your contracts and stuff you've agreed to and so on.
	Don't steal through contract.
	So saying that goodness doesn't, like I say, universally preferable behavior is a synonym for virtue.
	And then you're saying, well, okay, but you've got universally preferable behavior, but where does the virtue come from?
	Well, it's shorthand.
	Well, you're talking about universally preferable behavior in terms of the means to an end.
	I mean, I'll quote you on page 47 of the physical copy of your book.
	You say, when I speak of a universal preference, I'm really defining what is objectively required or necessary, assuming a particular goal.
	And so, if the goals can change, then the means can change.
	The means are not universal.
	No, listen.
	If your goal is to find out the truth, About the physical nature and properties of the universe, then you have to use science.
	Yes.
	Right now you can change those goals, but then you're not going to find out the truth about the universe, right?
	Of course you can change the goals, absolutely.
	But like if my goal is to walk from New York to Toronto, I'm gonna head North-ish, right?
	Now I can head South-ish, but then I'm not gonna get to Toronto, right?
	So yeah, of course the goals can change.
	But that doesn't mean that somehow you're still aiming towards ethics if you're coming up with a hypothesis or a theory that violates universal UPB. But you're still assuming that ethics...
	You still assume that ethics exists before that.
	I mean, what happens when...
	Ethics does not exist.
	See, here's the thing, right?
	I'm sorry.
	And I say this so many times in the book, and I have said this so repeatedly in this show that I can only assume you're either new to the conversation or only skimmed to the book.
	Ethics does not exist any more than the scientific method exists.
	I've read your book three times.
	Okay, but you know then I keep saying ethics doesn't exist, right?
	Yes, but it's...
	It's not meant as an existing physical reality.
	Is there an existence outside of physical reality that I'm not aware of?
	It exists as a concept, not a...
	I'm not trying to get into a metaphysical debate.
	I'm just talking about – yeah, so if you say the means are universal but the goals are subjective, then what happens with a moral agent who doesn't have the desire or goal for morality?
	You should have.
	But why?
	Why do you shoot him?
	Because he's coming at you with a knife.
	Because he's not got the desire to be a virtuous person, which means we assume that he's being an evil person, which means he's initiating the use of force, which through the principle of self-defense, you shoot him.
	If that's all you can do, if you can't get away from it.
	For the person who doesn't desire morality, there is no universal preference.
	I don't know what you mean by doesn't desire morality.
	I don't know.
	What is that?
	Give me an action because we're talking about behaviors, not thoughts.
	How would I know that somebody doesn't desire morality?
	Like just by looking at them, right?
	I don't need somebody to announce that they're going to steal.
	I just have to see them breaking into a window and climbing into somebody else's house, right?
	Well, I don't have to give you an instance because if you're going to say that an ethical theory is universal and applies to everybody and across all time, Then there's going to be at least one person in time that doesn't value it.
	So what?
	You can't pause it.
	So what does that have to do with the universality of it?
	Are you saying that if somebody's bad at math, this somehow brings down the entire edifice of mathematics?
	No, I'm saying...
	Or somebody doesn't learn language?
	Like, I don't know Mandarin.
	Does that mean Mandarin doesn't invalid for the billions of people who speak it?
	No, it's not valid.
	What does it matter if somebody doesn't accept a certain moral standard?
	I mean, that doesn't have any validity on the—like, lots of people reject science.
	That doesn't mean that science becomes less valid or valuable.
	But your moral theory relies on somebody—there being some sort of objective value.
	Because unless there is some sort of objective...
	Objective value is a contradiction in terms.
	I know.
	But this is why the theory is false.
	Because if there is no objective value, then there are no objective means.
	And if there is no objective means, then the concept of universally preferable behavior is moot.
	Okay, so then you think that science is moot.
	Science doesn't exist.
	It has no validity and no value.
	No.
	Because there's no objective preference towards science, and there's no objective value called science, or mathematics, or logic, or empiricism, and therefore these things have no validity or no value.
	No, but science is different from ethics, because it's as in...
	I think you use it, universally preferable behavior, you use that as an umbrella term.
	If universally preferable behavior is false or subjective, then the entire theory becomes subjective.
	Where in science, you're not, it's not the private.
	Hang on, sorry, sorry.
	I got to just take this a step at a time.
	Sure.
	So if universal, rational, empirical behavior or theories about universal, rational, empirical behavior are somehow subjective, do you get the contradiction there?
	If you're claiming universality, either it is universalizable or it's not.
	If it's not, then it's subjective.
	It's a particular preference.
	I like jazz or whatever.
	But if it's universalizable, then by definition it can't be subjective, right?
	If you've successfully proven that something is universal, then it is by definition objective.
	Because you're using a different...
	Definition of what a universally preferable behavior is.
	I mean, Rand used it in the universal way.
	She said that there was a universal value that all moral agents held, and that because all moral agents held that, you could derive a good and bad.
	What you're saying is that there are subjective ends and subjective goals, but there are objective means, and that those are universally preferable means to an end where Rand said that there was already an objective value and that you could derive universally preferable behaviors, but if you don't have the objective value first, you can't derive universally preferable behaviors because they're not they're only universally preferable to the people who hold the goal.
	Now as soon as somebody doesn't hold the goal No, no, no, that's universally preferred, not preferable.
	And again, I've gone over this so many times, it's ridiculous, right?
	So of course there are lots of people who disagree with the non-initiation of force.
	Lots of people.
	People who spank.
	People who like wars that are initiated in an imperial fashion.
	People who hit their wives.
	People who steal.
	People either directly or indirectly.
	There's tons of people who are perfectly willing and happy and consider it moral to initiate the use of force.
	I don't know what...
	So, yeah, there are people who disagree with philosophy.
	Guess what?
	That's why there's philosophy.
	Like, there's this weird thing where people say, somehow we need to get a philosophical theory to the same level as a physics theory.
	Like, physics is like this...
	It gives all intellectuals this massive boner to think that they're approaching the certainty of physics.
	But the whole point of physics is physics does not involve human consciousness.
	Philosophy can never ever conceivably approach the level of physics because if it did it wouldn't be dealing with human beings anymore and choice and free will and values and morals and so on.
	And so, naturally, everybody wants to get to this realm of physics.
	They think it's going to close off the debate, but the only thing that's relative to physics is physical matter alone, right?
	Without the confusing mess called human consciousness that throws a span in the whole works of mere physics.
	And you need a philosophy like discipline for the same reason that you need a philosophy like nutrition for human beings, but you don't need a philosophy called nutrition or a methodology called nutrition for rocks.
	Because rocks don't eat.
	Human beings eat.
	And you don't need necessarily a nutrition that you're going to lecture ants on what to eat because they'll basically eat whatever spills off the kid's ice cream cone.
	So human beings are in a unique position.
	And this is why we need philosophy.
	We can never get external values, external blah, blah, blah.
	I mean there's no laws of physics out there that dominate human behavior.
	Otherwise we'd all be determinists and there'd be no such thing as philosophy.
	Philosophy is you attempt to encourage people to think more rationally or just to think rationally, to use empiricism, to listen to the evidence, and to have that which they claim to be universal actually be universal.
	So the fact that there's no values out there, it's like, well, of course there aren't, right?
	I mean, there's gravity out there.
	There's the inverse square law operating out there.
	There's a wide variety of, you know, electromagnetic forces all operating out there independent of human consciousness for sure.
	But there's nothing to do with ethics.
	Ethics is centered around the capacity of human beings to choose.
	And we want, I like, human beings to make better choices, which is why I sort of lay out ethical theories that are universal and empirical and consistent and rational in accord with our basic concepts of good and bad, like, you know, don't hit, don't steal, don't rape, don't...
	Don't kill and so on.
	So the idea that there are no values out there, I don't know, somehow this is considered to be a negative for philosophy, but it's like saying we don't need nutrition because rocks don't have stomachs.
	It's like, of course rocks don't have stomachs.
	Human beings have stomachs and human beings can make choices about what to eat.
	And yes, values don't exist out there in the universe like the laws of physics do.
	That's exactly why there's such a thing as moral philosophy, because it's specific to human beings and their capacity to choose.
	And yeah, human beings will make bad choices.
	But the better the moral case you make, I think the better choices people can make.
	But I'm not making any of those arguments.
	I mean, look, I really appreciate...
	Wait, hang on, hang on.
	You were talking about Ayn Rand's values out there, right?
	Values, objective values out there.
	No.
	So are you not making that argument?
	No, I didn't say that the values existed out there.
	I said that what Ayn Rand said was that people, not even had to value, but that generally people valued one thing.
	Which are universally valued one major thing, which was living.
	Because they valued living, that rationality was one of the best tools to enhance living.
	Therefore, it was a virtue.
	And then she derived some other virtues from that, too, and immoralities.
	And the reason why she failed in her ethical theory was because the value was subjective.
	Not every moral agent valued living.
	I don't think that's why she failed.
	I mean, certainly, everyone who's alive must value living over dying, because dying is what happens when you don't do anything to sustain life.
	Eat, you don't, right?
	So, no, I think she failed because...
	That's why I think...
	I'm sorry.
	That's why...
	I mean, that's why I think the solution to your moral theory is, because the latter half of this book, when you get into the ethical categories and the maxims and the logic for...
	Defining good and stuff once you have the value makes a lot of sense.
	I mean, it's a quantum leap forward in ethics.
	But the problem I'm having is with...
	I mean, if I could resolve in myself the whole UPB thing, I would totally accept the rest of your theory.
	Let's just jump back to Rand.
	To me, Rand failed because the Pope is rich.
	Okay.
	Right, so she says life is the highest standard of value, that which is rational best serves life, and therefore we should have rationality as our highest standard of value because that's what best serves life.
	But the Pope is very rich, and the Pope did not get rich by pursuing relentless rationality and empiricism.
	And so the idea that there's just like one kind of human being, and that like is the R versus K thing and a bunch of other things too.
	But the idea that there's one sort of one human being and we just all need to be rational and that's going to be best for everyone, that's not the case at all.
	There are people who are much better at emotional manipulation than they are at critical thinking.
	There are people who are much better at evoking a crowd's fear and hatred and thus getting resources from them through a variety of rhetorical devices and so on, from religion to, you know, some more hysterical aspects of government science and You know, some economic doom porn and stuff like that.
	So yeah, there are lots of people who are really, really great at manipulating other people to get resources.
	And in fact, they are much better at manipulating people in terms of the resources they can get than they ever would be just competing rationally.
	Just think of your average priest who's got the thrilling voice and the gestures and knows how to impact an audience and say, okay...
	Go be a physicist.
	Is your income going to go up or down?
	Well, it's going to go down and it may in fact never go back up because that's how his gene set or his personality type or his choices, that's what he's adapted himself to.
	And human beings are competing and warring set of tribes.
	And by that I don't mean ethnicities necessarily, but it's just various competing capacities.
	Politicians attempt to lie and thrill and frighten people into giving them resources.
	Priests do the same thing.
	And again, certain aspects of crazy government science does the same thing.
	Some advertisers do the same thing.
	Like, ooh, you know, buy these sunglasses and you'll look like this great-looking guy with the sunglasses.
	You know, just stupid stuff like that, right?
	And if you don't have a Prada bag, you've lost status.
	Or, you know, if you don't have a six-pack of abs, then yeah, all right?
	So, the idea that rationality is an equivalent survival strategy for everyone of the wide variety of subspecies within the human condition is not valid.
	I mean, it'd be nice if everyone was rational, but they're not.
	And there are particular evolutionary advantages to being anti-rational, which is why if you look at Jewish history, particularly from sort of the 14th century onwards, the rabbis, again, not exactly paragons of scientific and rational inquiry, rabbis accumulated not exactly paragons of scientific and rational inquiry, rabbis accumulated the most resources and had the most children.
	And so from an evolutionary standpoint for Ayn Rand to say, well, reason is man's life is highest standard of value.
	Reason best serves life's values and so on.
	It's like, no.
	Quite a lot of times in society, the least rational reproduce the most.
	Or people who are not dedicated towards rationality reproduce the most.
	Maybe she just didn't know enough about evolutionary biology.
	I mean, who knows, right?
	I mean, she did spend a lot of time indoors.
	So, all I can say is that I don't think it's successful because if you just look across the world, You know, people who are the smartest and most rational are breeding the least these days, and people with lower IQs are, you know, reproducing like, you know, rabbits dropped in a petri dish of sperm and porn.
	And so, I don't think that that argument follows particularly well.
	And the Mormons, for God's sakes, right?
	I mean, look, I'm not an objectivist, but when I came across your seven categories, I realized that this kind of fixes it, because you split...
	You make the split of personally positive, aesthetically positive, and good based off of the logic behind something being enforceable versus not enforceable, or something being universally preferable but not enforceable and then not universally preferable, but you like it.
	She would just split it into what is good for life and what is bad for life, and that would be the determinant.
	But...
	And you wouldn't need philosophy if that could be bad, because biology selects that which is good for life.
	And if rationality were always that which is good for life, everybody would mostly be rational, right?
	In the same way, having two legs is really good for a human life, because, you know, three, it's just crazy.
	And so biology selects through evolution that which is good for life.
	And so the idea that Ayn Rand would regularly say, well, the vast majority of people are irrational, but rationality is really great for life.
	It's like, well, shouldn't evolution have taken care of this for us?
	And so, I don't think that she solves it.
	No, I'm not saying she solves it.
	I'm saying these ethical categories solve it.
	Because she identified, and I think correctly, the universal value.
	Which was living.
	And you correctly identified, through logic, how you could split aesthetically positive and good, which was enforceable through violence.
	That's your split.
	You could put things like rationality into an aesthetically positive.
	Because you could prove rationality as a universally preferable to the means of the quality of life.
	But you couldn't put it as the good.
	It wasn't evil for you to be irrational.
	It was just aesthetically negative.
	That's why I think your categories solve her problem.
	But your ethical categories only matter when there is a universal value in the first place, which is living.
	No, look, there's tons of people who kill themselves.
	There are tons of people who sacrifice their own lives for other people.
	But they make the choice to sacrifice their life for some other goal.
	It doesn't matter.
	If life is the highest standard of value, then wouldn't we do everything possible to maintain it and not kill ourselves for the sake of some other value?
	No, it's not that life is the highest value.
	It's that life is the universal value, as in every moral agent, everyone who can be considered a moral agent values living.
	How do you explain suicide bombers?
	They're dead.
	They're not moral agents anymore.
	Oh my god.
	Oh my god.
	You can't be this dense.
	Come on.
	Do you not think they make the choice to strap on some explosive and blow themselves up?
	Of course they do, but until the moment that they die, they still value living.
	I don't even know what to say to that.
	I don't like the idea that they're just about to push a button and blow themselves up, but they value living until the moment that they push the button and then they don't because they're dead.
	Come on, man.
	Are you saying there's no difference between somebody fighting to live and somebody who's strapping on a bomb to blow themselves up?
	I'm talking about the means.
	Look, if the goal is to blow yourself up.
	Are you saying there's no fundamental moral difference in terms of the value of life, their own value of their own life between these guys?
	It doesn't matter.
	I'll give you an example.
	I'll tell you exactly how, to the moment where he pushes a button and he dies, that he values life.
	Because if the goal is to blow up a building, you still need to be alive to do that.
	You still need to...
	You have to die to do that.
	I know, I know.
	You have to die to do that.
	Right, and you still have...
	Let me explain.
	If the goal is to kill yourself...
	I don't even know how many virgins in heaven.
	And you need to do that.
	And the way you could do that is to blow yourself up.
	You still need to live to get to that goal.
	No matter what your goal is in life, you have to live first.
	And even in situations where you're going to die...
	If your goal is to blow up the building, you have to die.
	And his goal is to blow up the building, and therefore he must die to achieve that.
	Yes, but until he dies, he has to value living because he has to be able to live to do that.
	Oh my god, if you repeat this again, I'm just going to move on to the next caller.
	You're just repeating the same things over and over again.
	I fully accept he has to live in order to blow himself up.
	He can't blow himself up if he's dead.
	Yeah, I got it.
	Unless there's a kill switch.
	I don't know.
	But so what?
	Are you saying there's no difference between someone who's going down to the marketplace to get a latte and really, really is enjoying the day and wants to have a wonderful life and some guy with a detonating vest on blah, blah, blah?
	I mean, are you saying that there's no difference in their value for their own lives?
	Let's take the example with a latte, like you just said.
	Okay.
	Now, the person going to get the latte wants the latte.
	That's the goal, right?
	And to go get the latte, they have to be alive, right?
	And if getting the latte meant that they had to die, would they want the latte?
	No.
	No.
	Okay.
	Now, the guy who wants to blow up the building...
	Is willing to die to do it.
	So the guy who wants the latte won't accept death to get to the latte.
	But the guy who wants to blow up the building will welcome and embrace and initiate his own suicide in order to blow up the building.
	Because dying is still, in the circumstances that you're talking about, dying is still an action.
	Dying is an action.
	Gotcha.
	Yes, okay.
	So...
	And so if dying is an action, and you need a means to that action, and if the means is universally preferable, which means you prefer or value that mean to that end, to achieve that end, and life is required to die, then you have to value life to die.
	You have to value life to give up your own life and blow up some people.
	Just like you have to value life to walk into...
	No, he's not valuing life for God's sakes, man!
	You don't say, I value this painting and then set fire to the goddamn thing.
	He's not valuing life because he's destroying it.
	What he's valuing is his time in heaven or the aforementioned virgins or maybe a relief from the agony of being who he is or maybe it's compliance with his mother who tried to strangle him 14 times a day in his crib.
	I don't know.
	Maybe he's got voices in his head telling him to kill himself.
	But it is not life that he is valuing.
	It is something else that he's willing to sacrifice his life for.
	So if I go to get a latte, I don't value the fact that I have two legs and can walk to go to the store to get the latte.
	That's just...
	I have no idea what you're talking about.
	I'm still talking about the means.
	You have to always value your means.
	No, I just made an argument.
	What are you talking about legs for?
	You can't just make parallel arguments and think that you've responded to anything.
	I just made an argument.
	You need to respond to the argument.
	The argument that I believe you're making, and if I'm wrong, please correct me, is that...
	You don't have to value the means to value the end.
	That's the argument you're making, right?
	No.
	What argument?
	I'm just curious what you heard.
	What argument did I just make?
	Because, you know, in a debate, it's also important to have ears, right?
	So what argument did I just make?
	You said that the guy wants to blow himself up, so he values that more than he values his life.
	Because he...
	No, he doesn't want to die.
	He wants something other than his life.
	Something is a higher value than his life.
	Because, I mean, a lot of the suicide bombers, of course, are religiously motivated.
	They think that they're going to go to a better place.
	Or people who kill themselves because they're so unhappy, they seek an end to their suffering, which is preferable to a continuation of their suffering.
	So there's a value in direct opposition to their own continued existence that they prefer to their life.
	Which is, you know, 72 virgins or an end to their suffering or whatever it is.
	Right.
	And so what you're saying is that there is a value or a goal or an end and that the means, which is living, you can value the goal, you can value the end, which is the 72, whatever, I don't even know the number of virginses, but you don't have to value the means, which is living.
	Because living is part of the means.
	No, you must die.
	It's not like you don't value it.
	It's like you're willing to sacrifice it.
	You're willing to destroy it.
	But you're not answering the question.
	I didn't hear a question.
	What was your question?
	I asked you whether or not you have to value the means to value the end.
	I have no idea what you're talking about.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't know what you mean by means and ends here.
	So the end is to die.
	Sorry, the end is to get the 72 virgins.
	Yeah.
	That's the end.
	Okay.
	Now, if we had a similar case where the end was to get a latte, right?
	You have two ends, which is to get 72 virgins and to get a latte.
	Now, to get a latte, you have to have a car or some means of transportation, right?
	And you have to be living to go get a latte.
	You have to have money and all this stuff, right?
	Now, for each means that it takes to get a latte, you have to first value the means because you value the latte.
	Because to get the latte, you have to have all these other things in order to get the latte.
	So you have to value these things in order to obtain the end, which is the latte.
	And now in the case with the 72 virgins, living...
	Part of getting the 72 version in this case is dying.
	So dying is part of the end.
	Dying in this case would actually be part of the means.
	But you also have to live to get to that end.
	Okay, I told you, if you brought this up again, everyone's alive until they die.
	Can we just not repeat that fucking point again or I'm going to just shoot myself, okay?
	I agree.
	Everyone's alive until they die.
	I'm just telling you, there's a T in the road.
	One leads left where you get to live and the other leads right where you get to be cleaned up by a bomb disposal squad a couple of hours later when bits of you are dripping from the ceiling.
	And so one leads to life and a continued enjoyment of future lattes and the other leads to a sticky and gory end which you value higher than your own continued existence.
	And if you don't know that there's an opposition in values to that which allows for the continuation of your own life and that through you are directly choosing the end of your own life, I don't even know what to say to you.
	There's no amount of sophistry that's going to take that bold choice.
	You're just basically saying that north and south are exactly the same.
	I just don't even know what to say.
	This isn't an argument.
	I just said that, and you didn't bring up the objection to the latte case, that if you wanted a latte, you would have to value all those means.
	Correct?
	Let's just say five bucks.
	Okay, so if you want a latte, you need five bucks.
	So you value the five bucks as a means for getting your latte.
	And until you get the latte, you have to value the five bucks.
	Until you get the latte in your hand and start drinking it, you have to value the $5.
	Now, do you admit and agree that when you hand the $5 over to get the latte, that you are valuing the latte more than your $5?
	Yes, at that point.
	Then you have lost the case, right?
	No, I haven't.
	You absolutely have.
	You may not be aware of it, but the whole trapdoor of logic just opened up underneath you.
	Let me explain.
	Okay, I'm going to give you a few more minutes, but not much more than that, but go ahead.
	To get to the goal of the 72 virgins, you have to die.
	And to get to the goal of dying, you have to live.
	So until the point...
	Until you hand over your $5 for the latte, I fully agree that you value the $5.
	And then you're willing to hand it over for the latte, which means you prefer the latte to your $5, which means that you have a higher value than your $5 in the same way that when you kill yourself, you have a preference for non-existence over life.
	And then once a person dies, they're no longer a moral agent, so it doesn't matter.
	Got it.
	Okay, I'm going to move on to the next caller because I feel I'm done and dusted, but thank you very much for your call.
	It was very, very entertaining.
	All right, let's move on to the next.
	All right.
	Well, up next is Sean.
	Sean wrote in and said, The right to bear arms and the use of firearms for self-defense is fundamental to being a free-thinking, self-reliant human being.
	When did the shift to championing weakness, passivity, and a victim mindset become mainstream?
	That's from Sean.
	Sean, I believe you may be asking a leading question or two.
	How are you doing?
	Good.
	How are you doing?
	Thanks for having me on.
	I love the show.
	Well, thank you.
	I'm happy to not be armed at the moment.
	All right.
	So, what was your first...
	The first point was that you have to be armed to be like a good person?
	Yeah, but having re-read the question that I posed, it was more about kind of a lead-in to...
	Having the ability to defend yourself as kind of a core tenant to...
	Defend yourself from what?
	People trying to harm you.
	Yeah, I don't know how you can do that for the most part in life, though.
	Okay.
	I mean, the vast majority of harm that we experience is the initiation of force known as taxation or government regulation and so on, and you can't defend yourself against that, right?
	Yeah, no, it was really leading up to...
	I think the second part of the question was more of what I was getting at, and that was...
	My personal subjective opinion is I see more and more of kind of a passive victim, have someone else help me kind of approach to living in general, just based on some of the comments and things I've seen from friends, family...
	Oh, yeah, no, listen, the people in charge...
	I would much rather the people not be armed.
	Of course, right?
	It's tough to get the old dictatorship rolling if people have got weapons on them, right?
	Which is why the precursor to every dictatorship is a systematic disarming of the population.
	And, you know, I think like if people like Obama want to say, hey!
	Guns are bad.
	Guns cause crime.
	It's like, okay, would you like to take some of the US military out of places like, say, Okinawa or Germany or, say, just about every sand particle in the desert in the Middle East?
	Or would you like to stop selling arms around the world?
	You know, boy, no background checks at gun sales.
	How about gun sales from the U.S. military?
	Do you do any background checks on those people?
	Oh, do you have an atrocious human rights record?
	Do you systematically oppress women and children?
	And do you draft men and have them thrown into the sand flea-bitten desert combats that last forever?
	Yes, I'm looking at you, Iran and Iraq in the 80s.
	Where are the background checks for government arms sales?
	They don't exist.
	Got a check?
	Is that stolen blood money from the Twisted gonads of the last remnants of freedoms of your domesticated population?
	Great!
	That's all we need.
	Do you have the power to pay us more with blood money?
	Great!
	That's all we need.
	Hey, did you ever get a parking ticket?
	No guns for you, because you're not Saudi Arabia, who's so responsible with their use of weaponry.
	So, no.
	And also, if you were to say, you know, I've actually just decided to arm my secret service that surrounds me with flowers.
	And I'm going to give them pamphlets on how bad it is to use guns to commit crime.
	I'm sure I'll be super safe.
	So, yeah.
	I just wanted to mention that governments, of course, will never, ever give up their guns.
	Because guns for governments, super great!
	Guns for private individuals, well, you see, that's just plain dangerous.
	Right, and I, yeah, I understand, I agree with that, for sure.
	I think what, what startles or bothers me the most is how, I guess I see it trickle down into kind of like the everyday person that I talk to, at least in what bubble I live in, as far as kind of a, There's just kind of an embracing of fear, and you don't want to protect yourself.
	I don't know if it's just buying propaganda.
	It's not about guns, fundamentally, if you don't mind me interrupting, Sean.
	No, go ahead.
	It's BAB. It's the B-A-B principle.
	Just BAB. BAB. And BAB is very simple.
	It's just three simple syllables through which the modern world is blindingly illuminated, and it goes something like this.
	Are you ready, Sean?
	I'm ready.
	Balls are bad.
	Okay.
	Balls are just plain bad.
	You know, we're working on a presentation about Japanese sex robots because, hey, we might as well use my Google search history for something.
	And people are saying, oh, you see, that's so dehumanizing because, I mean, they're just sex robots.
	They're really just for sex.
	And so it's bad because, you see, it's objectifying sex and turning women into holes and That just to be plugged up like liquid Drano, and I don't even know if these guys are going to run these sex robots through the dishwasher or whether they're going to shake my hand after tousling that Japanese-style weird Barbie hair.
	I just don't know, but it's bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
	Why is it bad?
	It's bad because balls are involved.
	That's why it's bad.
	Anti-ballism is just staggering.
	Everybody is just so ballist.
	Because, Jesus Christ, I don't know if you spend a lot of time in sex shops, but I was in my 20s once, and let me tell you something.
	It's like being an ant going through a giant lawn of bodiless dildos going in there, right?
	I mean, it's insane.
	You know, if you think about it, the women who are complaining about the Japanese sex robots, it's like, do you know what male sex toys come with?
	A fucking head, literally.
	You know what?
	Female sex toys don't come with anything other than a giant cock.
	Oh, but you see, men are dehumanizing women by having eyes that they can gaze into as they lovingly thrust their horrifying shafts of dumbstickness into the open velvet mouth of the Japanese sex robot.
	That's really, really bad.
	But you see, a vibrating cock run by batteries with no body attached to it at all Well, that's just a woman exploring her own sexuality.
	You know, like, I mean, if there's a face attached, it's a little bit more humanized than what women are pleasuring themselves with, which really looks like something that a tiny NASA should be sending to fucking Pluto.
	But anyway, so, yeah, I just wanted...
	So balls are bad.
	You see, if men do it, it's bad.
	And what do men do?
	Well, men like guns a little bit more.
	They're bad!
	Balls are in proximity, therefore bad!
	And if men like pornography...
	It's bad and it's exploitive and that lighting is terrible.
	What are you all having sex in a pharmacy?
	For God's sakes, I don't need to see everybody's moles and broken bones.
	That's bad.
	You see, pornography is bad.
	But you see, if women like women getting beaten up for sex, well, that's just kinky, sexual, house-rife, exploring-your-own-darker-side, Fifty Shades-of-Grey bondage.
	It's erotica.
	It's erotic porn?
	That's males.
	That's got balls attached to it, or at least balls shaking near it.
	Bad!
	Ah, but you see, if it's Fifty Shades of Grey and women are going, ooh, in their own bathtubs while imagining some Viking taking them through a wall, well, see, that's just exploring your own sexuality, and it's just lovely, isn't it?
	Delicate and thrilling and wonderful.
	I mean, 46% of women think about someone else during sex.
	45% of them are thinking of me.
	And in fact, they just want me to go down on them, so I'll shut up.
	That's just a whole different other kind of thing.
	But yeah, this is just balls are bad.
	Balls are bad.
	Got balls?
	You got bad.
	You're just wrong.
	You're bad.
	I mean, if there's any castanet squishy sounds around, it's bad.
	If there's any padding around with like...
	Vaginas, it's wonderful.
	They walk on water.
	We walk on the very eyeballs of the innocent and the depths of hell itself.
	So I don't think it's anything particular to do with guns, other than guns remind women of men, and men are bad, and therefore guns must be bad.
	Okay, so that skips way ahead of other things I was going to talk about.
	So, is there a way to fight against that kind of mindset, I guess?
	The reason I say that...
	Is because when I've had conversations that have come up, unlike, I have more of a mindset to try to change the person's mind instead of just, you know, label them as an idiot and kind of move on with my life.
	But I mean, is there a way to reverse that kind of approach?
	Or is it just kind of an uphill battle that's not going to get changed short of something?
	Well, no, I mean, the government has to run out of vagina bribe money, right?
	That's I mean, the relationships between the genders are so viciously distorted by the giant alpha NASA dick of the state squirting molten tax money all over the women that they have no possible conception of what it is to actually have a positive and useful relationship with a man object.
	Men are tax slaves for women as a whole, right?
	There's lots of great women out there.
	This is very much a generalization.
	But so what?
	Doesn't mean it's invalid, right?
	Generalization.
	Asians are short.
	I know it's all Asian.
	Now I'll...
	Well, okay, go find your unicorn.
	But the reality is that the government has bought the hearts and minds and souls of so many women that the idea that women can shit all over men because men aren't there voluntarily.
	Expecting women as a whole to be nice to men as a whole these days is sort of like expecting the slave owner to be really nice to the field hands.
	It doesn't really work.
	Yeah, it'll happen occasionally.
	But I wouldn't put a lot of money on it.
	And until all of that normalizes, right?
	I mean, women are going to ride the giant alpha cock of the state right into financial oblivion and then things are going to ride themselves.
	And when the checks stop coming and the vampire squid sucking tentacle teeth vaginas of the single moms in particular unclamp themselves from the giant constitutional state and they're going to have to sort of squelch on over and attach themselves to some other men.
	But it's going to have to be voluntary.
	And then when you have voluntary relationships, you can have quality relationships.
	And if you don't have voluntary relationships, you can't have any kind of quality or any kind of appreciation.
	And so right now, women are in the category of, you know, the Soviet captains of industry.
	The customers are all captive and nobody has any choice in the matter.
	They can...
	You know, wave around their pheronomes and vaginas when they're young, thus dazing men into acting against reason, common sense and experience and getting often married to these unstable people.
	And then what they can do is if they get unhappy, well, they can just sick the dogs of the state on them because, you see, men are just, women are so independent they don't need men unless there's any kind of problem, in which case, who do they call?
	Quite a lot of men with guns because apparently that's called being equal and liberated.
	And then they can get the state to give them lots of money or if some guy bangs them and runs off, well, they don't have to worry about it because the government's going to swoop in and take care of all of that mess for them.
	And so that's, you know, women don't have to be that nice, which is why you see these just endless and boring and repetitive and relentless insults upon a man's intelligence.
	Like I watched...
	God help me, a confusing mess of a film with a George Clooney who seems like he's gone through a time dilation machine and aged in about 10 years.
	I don't know what Emile's doing to him, but it's not injecting him with youth serum.
	But I watched this film called Tomorrowland, and I thought maybe it had been recommended as something to review.
	Oh my God.
	This girl, I don't know, she's 15 or something like that.
	She's 15.
	Now, her father is a NASA engineer.
	NASA engineer.
	And a guy.
	Now, guys, of course, do very well on visual spatial recognition.
	They are way ahead of women as far as that goes.
	And at the very top tiers of intelligence, men outnumber women, about eight to one.
	And at the very bottom tier, so in the bell curve of intelligence, women's is much more narrow and men's is much more spread out, which is why there are more Men who get Nobel Prizes in physics and more men who are homeless.
	And anyway, so this is NASA. He's a NASA engineer and he's trying to figure out something and he's just staring at it like some physical contraption he's put together.
	NASA engineer.
	He's got to be in his early 40s.
	He's highly educated.
	He's been working at NASA for a long time.
	You know, clearly he's skilled at this.
	He's in the very top percentiles of male visual spatial reasoning.
	He's got years of experience, years and years of education, and he's trying to puzzle something out.
	His 15-year-old daughter walks into the room and she just barely even glances at what he's working on, moves one connector from one place to the other, and it all just works.
	Tiny split second, they vastly outstrip NASA engineers with 20 years of education and experience without even barely having a glance at it.
	And this is what you see, this unbelievable, relentless, insane appeal to female vanity.
	You know, there's an old saying that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
	And I'll tell you something else, people.
	Nobody ever went broke underestimating women's capacity to drink up sycophantic vanity.
	You know, it's like in 101 Dalmatians.
	Why are you?
	You're such a sycophant.
	Why are you such a sycophant?
	What's the matter with you?
	And he's like, what kind of sycophant do you want me to be?
	If somebody praises me too much, I start to get nauseous.
	I start to feel like, get your creepy little forehead-tugging, manipulative stuff out of my brain.
	I push back with excessive praise because it's basically a precursor to getting robbed blind.
	Ladies who are listening to political speeches, but that's a topic for another time.
	But women, unbelievable.
	They'll just drink it up.
	They'll just drink it up.
	Like, In this movie, there's this little girl who weighs, I don't know, all of about 11 pounds.
	And she's taking on giant robots and winning.
	And giant guys and winning.
	And it's like, well, there's a reason that WWF doesn't hugely mix.
	WWE doesn't hugely mix the genders.
	There's the reason why wrestling and weightlifting all that break up the genders.
	Because men, even untrained, have about 40% more upper body strength than women.
	But women in the video games, and they can do everything, and they're geniuses, and there's no limitations, and they have no vanity, and they're totally reliable, and they're fantastic, and they're hot, and they're smart, and they're physically, they can do anything, and they can drop into and beat up people in kung fu movies who've had 20 years of jujitsu experience because they, I don't know, looked at a cereal box where a guy was bending over.
	They can just go in and beat everyone else.
	You know, Ronda Rousey's not fighting.
	John Jones, for God's sakes, because it would be a pretty short fight and she's great, but she's not that guy.
	And the fact that women can just sit there with this endless flattery pouring in and not go like, hey, I think we're being played.
	It's like, is there...
	You know, I drop a fucking sponge in the ocean.
	I don't expect the sponge to drink up the ocean.
	I expect at some point it's going to get saturated and start oozing seawater back out again.
	But you drop women into an endless sea of flattery, they soak up the entire goddamn planet of water.
	I mean, they suck the vapor out of the sky.
	They suck the...
	I got viscosity out of my eyeballs and I got to use eye drops because it's just like giant sucking sound of women sucking up all the vanity in the known universe, all the praise.
	Oh, you guys are women are wonderful.
	You guys are so great.
	It's like I was talking about the movie Inside Out.
	The women have all the sensitive, loving, empathetic feelings.
	What do the guys get?
	Paranoia and rage.
	It's like...
	At some point, I mean, I'm waiting for this moment where the sponge starts shitting out some seawater.
	Like, I'm just waiting for the moment where women say, okay, okay, come on.
	That's too much.
	You know, we're not that great.
	You know, come on.
	I mean, we have a flaw or two, don't we?
	Don't we, girls?
	But instead, it's just, it's like a bottomless hole.
	You could just grind up male testicles, get this giant hose of emasculated ex-manhood and just pour it down this hole in the ground.
	And it just, what does it go out into space at the other end?
	That's like, when does it, when is it enough?
	When do women start rolling their eyes when a guy can't figure out the remote?
	Yeah.
	And the women are just like, oh, you just do this.
	Right?
	I mean, when do women...
	When is it enough?
	When is your vanity fed to the point where you get sick?
	How much fucking candy can you eat before you start shitting M&Ms out of your ears?
	Like, holy shit!
	I just had to get this rant off my chest because I was just looking at it the other day like...
	Maybe I just saw one too many commercials where the guy was a complete moron.
	Or maybe I just saw one too many women can do everything without training, whereas men are just trailing along like lost little puppy dogs.
	It's like, oh my god.
	I mean, or maybe I've just been reading Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray too much.
	I don't know.
	But it's something like along these things.
	And it's just like...
	Ladies, do you ever get sick of people blowing smoke up your ass?
	You got so much smoke up your ass, you're basically Venus by now.
	And I don't mean Venus the goddess.
	I mean Venus the corroded, acidic, sulfuric acid, barren rock closer to the sun than we are.
	Ladies, let it be enough.
	Let it be enough, dear God.
	It's like Hitler at Nuremberg.
	It's like, wait, there aren't enough Germans here.
	Can we find some more?
	Can we import some?
	I think there were some in Georgia.
	Anyway, alright, so the idea that you can normalize this without the state running out of money to bribe women, well, when the state runs out of money, women who want to have kids, women who don't want to have kids can do whatever they want, of course, but if you want to have kids and you want to be a good mom, Well, then you need a guy who's going to provide for you.
	Maybe you go provide for the guy.
	I don't know.
	Maybe he can be stay-at-home, but for the first two years, it really should be you because, you know, you come with the milk trucks on the chest.
	And so, this is another thing, too, where...
	Women just have no sense of limitations.
	No sense of limitations.
	Like they consider it a personal insult that you can't be in two places at the same time.
	Like somehow not only every man, woman and child on the planet needs to bow to women five times a day as if they're Mecca.
	And we're hysterical religionists.
	But also, reality itself has to bow to women.
	Like I was reading this article the other day about, you know, well, I'm a single mom, but I work two jobs and I'm going to school.
	It's like, then you're a shitty mom.
	Because you're doing all that stuff and not taking care of your kids.
	And if you're taking care of your kids the amount that you're supposed to, then you're not going to be very good in the workforce.
	And you shouldn't be because you can't parent and work at the same time.
	But women have been so...
	It's so destructive.
	It's so enabling.
	It's so like telling someone with a shitty voice they're the best singer ever.
	It really is the most unbelievably destructive thing that you can do for any group of people as a whole.
	But women, it's like nobody says there are limitations.
	And women are genuinely and deeply shocked.
	And I see this all the time, all the time when I do these videos on single moms.
	Well, you see, I'm a single mom, but I do all of this stuff too, and I've not taken a dime from the government.
	Okay, then you're working two jobs.
	You're a shitty mom.
	Sorry, you're not there.
	You're not there.
	I lived that.
	I know what that's like.
	You're a shitty mom.
	If you're a good worker, if you've got kids and you're a good worker, you're a shitty mom.
	No, it's quality time.
	No, it's not.
	No, it's not.
	We didn't evolve for like bungee parenting.
	Well, kids, I'm going to leave you in the woods with a sharpened stick.
	Hope the bears don't come by.
	I'll be back tomorrow for 15 to 20 minutes of block time.
	We'll call that excellent parenting.
	That's so R-selective.
	I mean, God, quality time is just the most ultimate R-selective bunch of crap that I've ever heard.
	And so the idea that there's any kind of limitations on women, well, there's a A gender gap in pay.
	It's like, yes, there is.
	Because men work harder than women.
	Sorry.
	It's a fact.
	It's reality.
	Reality is sexist.
	And then you need a hug room because two and two make four.
	And this is supposed to be empowering to women?
	God, give me an Iron Maiden, Phyllis Schlafly...
	Anne Coulter, Margaret Thatcher, Ayn Rand, goddess of power, any time over these, like, well, what do you mean I can't be in two places at the same time and that makes me either a bad mom or a bad worker?
	And then apparently tears just dissolve balls.
	This is like how you reduce balls.
	You just sand them down with endless female tears and hysteria.
	I don't know.
	Anyway, so I don't know how to solve it because there's no amount of rhetoric that can overcome financial incentive.
	You know, you really shouldn't cash in that lottery ticket because, you see, that's...
	Yeah, yeah, good luck, right?
	You can't.
	I mean, you can't.
	And so, where the financial incentive exists, reason and evidence will just go to die a quiet and withering death, you know, like a fungus in direct sunlight or something that needs sunlight underneath the fungus.
	Don't go where you're in direct contradiction to direct financial incentive.
	Forget it.
	People, you know, they're not stupid.
	They just follow the money, they follow the financial incentive, and they make up all this bullshit behind them.
	You know, can we get a reasonably open and critical and competent intellectual set of debates in society?
	No.
	No, because of academia.
	Because all of the smart people are captured by the state and bribed to become I just did a video about this for more of this.
	But the corrosive effects of government monopoly power over intellectuals has just meant that there's absolutely nothing but vicious petty fiefdom internecine religious warfare between people of various ideologies who never have to sand down the rough edges of those ideologies through the complicated and challenging interaction with people who may not give a shit about what you do and you have to provide value to them no matter what.
	So, love women as a whole and I don't blame women as a whole for ending up this way.
	I don't even blame culture that much for ending up this way.
	It's just what happens when you put these balls in motion, so to speak, when you start channeling trillions of dollars to women or trillions of dollars to whoever.
	It's just going to change who they are.
	It's going to change how they act.
	It's not that women are bad.
	It's like calling Soviet factory workers lazy.
	It's like, nope, they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.
	And so it's not anybody's fault and it's not about women being bad.
	It's just that when this all changes, when the government runs out of money, well...
	We'll see.
	And then things will become normalized.
	But the idea you're going to do it with a Facebook post, I think, might be a bit...
	You know, if you can get a Facebook post...
	This is my challenge.
	Get a Facebook post that is so compelling that...
	Let's just pick a stake.
	People in California who have ridiculously overpaid government pensions decide to cut them by half and return half of that money back to the Treasury because, you know, it's not the kids' fault that they, you know...
	Taking all this money from the young people is unfair and so on.
	If you get a Facebook post that radically reduces, say, CalPERS expenditures on pensions, okay.
	But I got better things to do with my life than try and talk people out of their own naked self-interest.
	Because it kind of grosses you out when you come up against naked self-interest with people.
	What happens is they eject a huge amount of bullshit at you to justify their own naked self-interest.
	I paid into the system!
	Well, you know you're taking out many times more than you paid in.
	Well, that's the contract that I signed.
	I didn't force anyone to sign it.
	Actually, the taxpayers are forced to pay for it against their will, and it's really stripping the young people of their economic opportunities.
	Well, I got obligations.
	Well, so do the young people and, right, all that sort of shit.
	Well, I had a boring job for 30 years just waiting for this.
	Yeah, it sucks sometimes.
	You know, I studied for computers, and then the bottom fell out of the computer industry.
	Yeah, sometimes it happens.
	You know, people start housing companies, and then the Fed destroys the housing market.
	It happens.
	stuff changes too bad right but all that happens when you go against people's naked self-interest is you realize the degree to which intellectualism or philosophy or values is all just a bunch of bullshit that is designed to cover the naked robotic power cash grab of whatever public money might be currently rolling out of the government's armpit so um if you've got a stomach for that you're a stronger man than i yeah uh wow Yeah, you touched on a whole bunch of stuff that I wasn't even going to go into, but...
	Including my balls!
	Yes.
	No, I mean, kind of spiraling out to the bigger issue with kind of the lionization of women, or the...
	I guess that's the best way I can put it.
	I didn't actually think about that in the context of the...
	armed second amendment discussion.
	And now that you've put it that way, connecting the dots a little bit more, some very strong points.
	So yeah, it's more than guns.
	Obviously guns are phallic and they're loaded and they shoot and all that, but it's more than that.
	Anything masculine related is just considered to be really, really bad.
	Yeah, and the media forums with the superhero women that weigh 80 pounds and take down giants.
	It's funny because I didn't want to think about it until now, but I was wondering where did this trend kind of come from?
	Why has this become popular?
	You know, with the typical male gamers and all that, or the media and so forth.
	I just don't...
	I can't relate to it.
	I don't like it.
	Like, I'm not a fan.
	It's just silly to me.
	Yeah, I've played one or two video games with, like, the ultimate female warrior and so on.
	And it's just like, oh my god.
	Oh, please.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Just give me...
	Okay, let's mingle up sumo wrestling and throw some anime characters in there and just see they basically ended up as wedgies in the sumo...
	Restless butt crack, but I don't know.
	It's just very silly and there's nothing to be done about it until, right, because people are going to follow their own economic self-interest.
	You know, like, what is considered to be bad for the environment, it's all this masculine stuff that's bad for the environment.
	You see, it's the fracking and it's the oil exploration and it's the derricks and it's the drilling and it's the giant ships.
	It's all masculine stuff, but who the fuck are they serving?
	Who are they serving?
	Think of the amount of single moms, the extra kids that they have, the welfare kids and so on.
	What kind of resource predation is that inflicting on the world?
	How about women without husbands keep their fucking legs shut?
	I mean, I know this is a shocking thing for people to hear, but...
	How about that?
	Of oil.
	I mean, just, but it's all, nobody ever says to women, listen, irresponsible procreation and massive consumption of stupid material resources.
	Like, if you ever really want to cry for a tree, then pick up a woman's magazines and flip through it and look for stuff that is even remotely useful.
	For any kind of intellectual quality of human life.
	See, you pick up a Best Buy, you pick up a Future Shop, you pick up a Staples, there's shit in there that can actually make you smarter, right?
	Okay, you got some tablets, you know, you got some folders, you can put stuff in them that you, you know, you might conceivably have read.
	There's a...
	Look, we're building stuff.
	Look, I have to measure something.
	Look, it might make me a tiny bit smarter to build a deck.
	Right?
	Something.
	Something, right?
	Pick up a woman's magazine and flip through it.
	And try and figure out any of that shit you would ever need on a desert island.
	I wouldn't mind having a tablet on a desert island.
	Get some solar batteries going.
	At least I could play Candy Crush until I shot myself.
	Or, you know, if you build a deck on a desert island, useful.
	Hey, do you need a lot of eyeshadow on a desert island?
	How about a bag that's completely impractical?
	How about a Snoopy diamond studded case for your cell phone?
	Is that really, really helpful?
	Ooh, you know what would be great on a desert island?
	Different hair colors.
	Wouldn't that be great?
	Oh, also, if I could get that purse with a tiny dog inside, that would be a fantastic thing for the seagulls to eat.
	I mean, just, you know what would be great?
	Shoes that make no conceivable sense whatsoever, that put your ass on a shelf, make your calves look longer, and make you completely unable to run from predators.
	Fantastic!
	Love it!
	That'd be excellent!
	You know what else would be great?
	Celebrity gossip!
	Because nothing helps you survive on a desert island like knowing how Ben and Jennifer are doing.
	I mean, it's just unbelievable how much useless shit women consume.
	I've said this before and I'll say it again.
	Go to a mall, people!
	That is the death of Mother Nature right there.
	You know what a mall is?
	A mall is a big, giant tombstone on the face of Mother Nature.
	A mall is just, you know what, let's set fire to everything in the world and then turn it into shoes and handbags and jeans and some glittery fucking scarves that won't even scare off anything.
	I mean, that's what malls are.
	A big, giant...
	Fist and boot to the face of Mother Nature.
	All for useless shit that nobody ever needs, ever, anywhere, anytime, anyhow, in any conceivable way, shape, or form.
	You ever woke up one morning and said, you know what I really need?
	What I really, really need is jeans so tight it looks like I ran through a denim spray tanner.
	You know, like, Jesus Christ, you ever want to confuse a woman in a mall, take something out of a pocket, drop it on the ground and say, hey, you want to pick that up?
	I can't.
	I'll lose a leg.
	I mean, Jesus God.
	And people go to malls and they look at this stuff and they say, well, you know, men are really a big problem with consumption.
	You know, hey, beer's more natural than fucking Prada shoes or whatever the hell they make that shit out of.
	I mean, unless you're actually going hip-wading for disco, you don't need thigh-high space boots unless you're actually a porn actress.
	Jesus, God, go into these stores.
	How many feet do these people have?
	Are like a women secretly centipedes?
	I can't understand it.
	What the hell is going on?
	How many trees have to die?
	How many birds have to have no nests?
	Because you need as many fucking shoes as you have hairs on your head.
	God almighty!
	It's insane!
	That extends over into the males, too, right?
	There's that expectation, like, let's feminize the males.
	I don't know.
	This is just personal experience, but I've run into that all the time.
	There's that expectation that you need to be more feminized or be more passive, be less aggressive or masculine.
	I thought maybe it was just a temporary thing, but it seems like it's always repeating itself.
	Listen, listen, man.
	All dependent organisms get paranoid.
	All dependent organisms get paranoid.
	That is absolutely natural.
	And the vast majority of women who are, you know, basically dependent, what are they dependent on?
	They're dependent on welfare.
	I'm not saying the vast majority of women are dependent on welfare.
	Just give me a chance here, right?
	So, women are dependent on welfare, women are dependent upon free government schools, women are dependent upon Section 8 housing and food stamps, and also, women are enormously dependent upon government jobs.
	Like, it is insane how many women work for the government.
	The government is one giant explicit or implicit welfare program, insofar as it's either giving money directly to women, or it's giving money to women through government jobs.
	And it's completely mental.
	And they say, well, you see, women need mentors.
	Women need mentors to get ahead in business.
	You see, if they don't see any examples of successful women, they just can't get ahead.
	I'm hearing that now in my own work, so yeah.
	Yeah, you know, you just, you can't get ahead.
	They all fucking hate Ayn Rand.
	That's, you know, a topic for another time.
	But here's the thing.
	Here's the thing.
	Ladies.
	Not all ladies.
	Love the women in my life.
	But here's the thing, ladies.
	If having a mentor and an example is so important for getting ahead, how about we break up the gynocracy The mammocracy in children's education.
	How about not having like 98% of women, of teachers being women for the first like seven years of a kid's educational experience?
	Because you see mentors are very important.
	Mentors are so important.
	And you see a lot of these girls are growing up with moms in the home, see the vast majority, not so many with the boys.
	See, the girls already have authority figures at home because they're moms.
	However, a lot of the irresponsible trash moms don't have the dads around because they either couldn't find a good man, wouldn't have sex with a good man, or drove a good man away.
	In which case, the boys are growing up without seeing an authoritative penis until they're well into their early teens.
	And so the idea, well, you see, to get ahead, adult women, they need a lot of examples and tutors and mentors, and they need to know that blah, blah, blah, right?
	How about society as a whole?
	How about, you know, just as a possibility, let's try exposing little boys to a male authority figure before their balls drop.
	You know, that's just a thought.
	It's just because it's a little confusing for a lot of the little boys.
	They really don't know what a male authority figure is.
	Oh wait!
	No, I should reform that.
	They may see a male authority figure in terms of the gay man who might be in charge of the shoe store.
	I'm not sure that's exactly the kind of robust masculine presence that these little boys who are straight may need.
	They also may see, let's see, a politician, say, who is constantly pandering to women.
	See, there's nothing that spells cock like, hey ladies, is it okay if I do something?
	Do you mind that?
	Is that okay?
	Jesus Christ, I swear to God, this phallic paranoia, this gynocracy, why can we not have a pipeline?
	Because it's too much like a penis.
	Wait, is there going to be a giant dick near my house?
	What?
	It could blow at any time?
	I'm not drowning in sperm or oil, thank you very much.
	No to that.
	I mean, this is just nonsense, right?
	But I mean, this is how crazy it is.
	Like, how about you give little boys a male authority figure?
	How about we say, okay, let's get some male authority figures in there for the little boys who are growing up without dads.
	Let's just have a proactive, positing hiring policy.
	Jesus Christ!
	Try having a company that's 98% white males.
	You can't do that.
	You can't do that, but you can have, like, in early childhood education, it could be 98% women and everyone's like, yeah, that's legit.
	You can't have men.
	And what if you said, if you had a 98% white male company and you said, ah, you know, I might be okay with hiring blacks.
	The problem is that they're all rapists.
	Yeah, you'd be crucified, obviously.
	Right!
	But you can say, see, we don't want men teaching little children because they must be pedophiles, you see, which is even worse than being a rapist.
	And this is, you know, there's a reason why white middle-aged men in America are committing suicide at unprecedented rates.
	It's because the environment has turned deadly, it's turned into a deadly toxin for white males.
	And this is why this whole victim bullshit that goes on around there, it's like a bunch of Roman people in the aisles complaining that they're getting sore thumbs up and down while a bunch of Christians get fucking tridents through the head and get eaten by lions.
	And they're all saying, well, you know, my thumbs hurt.
	I'm really the victim here.
	I mean, plus, you know, there's blood on the sand and that hurts my eyes when the sun reflects off it.
	And it's like, you know, there's some people dying here.
	Christ Almighty.
	It is truly insane.
	And people who aren't white males, they don't understand it.
	Like, there's supposed to be this patriarchy.
	And white males in particular were supposed to be this all-powerful group.
	My question is, okay, well, when was the last time there was an ambiguous interracial incident where the media automatically came down in support of the white male?
	Wouldn't that be a test of this patriarchy?
	Right.
	But they invent power...
	In order to brutalize, right?
	They imbue white males with power and this imaginary authority so that they can attack and brutalize the white males.
	And that is the elevation of people into positions of power prior to brutalization, while it's key to anti-Semitism and other things as well.
	And people who...
	You haven't experienced it.
	They genuinely...
	And of course, if any man ever complains, any white male ever complains.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I saw a meme about that where it had a picture of a guy holding his head, looking stressed out, and it's like, I want to be offended, but I'm a white male or something like that.
	And it's like, yeah, pretty much.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, there are no allies.
	I mean, if you're a white male and you stand up for yourself, whether it's about white maleness or anything else like that, I mean...
	Holy crap.
	I mean, it's just a giant shitstorm.
	Or you're being too aggressive.
	When was the last time anyone ever sided with a white male in any kind of ambiguous conflict?
	Sorry?
	Yeah, no, I was just saying, it's like, there's always a reason.
	It's like, well, you know, don't stand up for yourself.
	You're too aggressive.
	You're not understanding, or you're racist, or you're sexist.
	Yeah, you can't.
	What are you?
	Just a mask walking around.
	It would be nice if there was some kind of solution aside from just watching the clock and wearing the mask until things change.
	We just have to keep putting the message out.
	Again, you cannot pit philosophy against naked economic self-interest because that will actually insult philosophy and will reduce its power.
	You always want to make sure that you can apply your...
	Intellectual capacities and energies to the weakest parts of a structure.
	I mean this is basic detonation 101, right?
	Demolition 101.
	You have to apply your energies to the weakest part of the structure.
	And if all you do is apply your energies to the toughest part of the structure, then you're just going to look weak.
	You want to really withhold, this is all analogies, everyone knows, right?
	But you really want to withhold your greatest intellectual powers for that which you can have the most effect on.
	Which is why I don't do a huge amount of stuff railing against the Fed.
	What the hell is that going to do?
	But I can talk about voluntary relationships.
	I can talk about the voluntary family.
	I can talk about not spanking your kids.
	I can talk about promoting virtue and opposing evil in your own circle.
	Because these are things that people can do something about.
	Right.
	Well, it's got me thinking about What directions I can or should take as well when you put it in that kind of frame of mind.
	So definitely food for thought.
	Yeah, and also, I mean, people complain that there's a pay gap, right, for women.
	And I've gone through this so many times, I won't bore you with it again.
	But how many people know that there's a mark gap for boys in school?
	that boys and girls who turn in the identical work, the boys get marked significantly lower than the girls.
	In other words, when the female teacher knows that it's a boy's work, she will mark it lower.
	When it's anonymized, she marks it the same.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	Now, of course, we've got all these fucking laws Which, it's all in The Truth About Male Privilege, which is on this channel.
	All these laws saying, well, you can't underpay women for the same job, right?
	Well, okay, but at least women are goddamn well adults and can negotiate for themselves.
	What the hell are you supposed to do when you're six and you get regularly marked down because you have testicles?
	Where's the outrage at that?
	that doesn't exist because males, men and their preferences, white men and their preferences simply don't exist.
	And people will try and tease out white male preferences in general only to belittle and attack them.
	And I think it's horribly unjust.
	I think it is absolutely brutal.
	And it angers me enormously.
	Yeah, Sarah Silverman did some sort of commercial, I think it was, where I think she was a doctor and there was a, it's a boy.
	Oh, I'm so sorry.
	Oh, that's so bad.
	Oh, that's so this.
	Oh, the boys, you know?
	Jesus Christ.
	Boycott stuff invented by white men and see how your day goes.
	Anyway, I hope that helps.
	Yeah, definitely.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Who's next?
	Okay, well up next is Darius.
	He wrote in and said, That's from Darius.
	Okay, Darius, why are you trying to get me in trouble here, brother?
	What are you doing?
	Gross before, right?
	I mean, what are you trying to...
	That's not what I said in the show.
	I'm not saying every ugly woman is a nag.
	Oh, oh, oh, Stefan.
	I know.
	I know, but when I say this to my girlfriend, I know at the beginning, you said, I'm going to be painting with a broad brush.
	In the end, you said, you know, this is my tentative thesis.
	Throughout the whole video, you're saying that this is just in general, and I'm not speaking specifically or anything like that.
	But she says that none of that stuff counts, and she still got angry over it.
	Wait, wait, hang on.
	Her rebuttal is, none of that counts?
	Oh, well, yeah, basically.
	That's it?
	None of that counts.
	Was she topless at the time?
	I mean, does that seem like a valid argument to some part of your body?
	It's never a valid argument.
	I was just wondering if, you know...
	There's some kind of analogy that I can...
	I mean, you have a lot of good analogies and stuff like that, so I'm just trying to get some ammunition, because I can't even, like, if you just...
	I mean, if he's saying that he's not talking about all women, and then you just say that doesn't count, then I don't even know how to combat that, you know?
	So I was just hoping maybe you could clarify it in some better way, form of fashion.
	I don't know, you know?
	Well, can I give you a sound poem?
	What's that?
	Can I just take you on a journey here?
	Okay, that's fine.
	Close your eyes.
	Let's just go to a little place here.
	Okay, you ready?
	Yeah, I'm ready.
	Okay, here we go.
	What soundscape are we following here?
	It sounds like someone who's just really angry.
	Okay, so first we opened a drawer, and then we took some clothes out, and we put them in a bag.
	And then what we did was we walked across the floor, and then what we did was we opened the door, and then we walked out the door, we got into a car, and we drove away.
	That's one, you know, you're saying, well, what do you do?
	Well, that's one possibility.
	I'm not saying you should.
	I'm just saying that's one possibility.
	Yeah, yes, that's always a possibility, yeah.
	I mean, it's...
	I asked her, I mean, I asked her to, you know, maybe you should just call into the show and he can, you know, clarify for you a little bit better, but she doesn't, she didn't want to call in.
	I mean, she felt like you would attack her or something like that, and I was just like, to me it seems like...
	Wait, so she's attacking me, but she won't give me a chance to talk back, because then I'm somehow going to attack her.
	I see.
	Well, that doesn't sound manipulative at all.
	Well, yeah, I mean, to me it just seems like you don't want to be even proven wrong.
	You don't want your worldview to change at all.
	And...
	I think that that's a problem.
	It's problematic.
	I might have lost words, really.
	He says he's not talking about women.
	I think I know where she's coming from.
	She's coming from the perspective that I don't believe any women do that at all.
	I don't believe any women ugly or pretty beg for resources or whatever.
	For him to even say that any women do that...
	Wait, did I say beg?
	I don't think...
	That doesn't sound like me.
	Okay, so just for those...
	Hang on.
	So for those who haven't heard the show, this is off the top of my head, and I'm not going to say this 100% accurate, but...
	But basically, women who are super attractive physically, right, when they're young, Guys throw resources at them.
	I mean, Darius, tell me I'm wrong, right?
	I mean, go to the club, and who wants to buy, who gets the most drinks bought for them are the prettiest girls, right?
	Sorry, you know, ladies, it's the way it is, right?
	You can get mad at us, but, you know, then you're just getting mad at biology, which is the whole reason we're buying you drinks in the first place, so it seems a little weird to do that.
	And so, if you have a lot of physical qualities that men find attractive, then men will throw resources at you.
	Now, This doesn't mean that men won't throw resources at you if you're not super pretty.
	But then you kind of have to bring value in another way.
	And the other way that you bring value, and this can be as true for pretty women as anyone else and guys and whatever, right?
	But the other way you bring value is you're just nice and helpful and positive and encouraging and supportive and, you know, like a good, virtuous person.
	If you are not attractive physically and you're a nasty person, right?
	Like you can be a nasty person and physically attractive and guys will still throw resources at you.
	I mean, they might throw resources at you while they're running away, but they'll still throw resources at you.
	Yeah.
	And if you are not pleasant looking or average or ugly, then, you know, you can, you know, the old thing, you know, if you want a quality personality, don't go for the hot girl, right?
	Because it's like expecting royalty to be really good at hard work.
	It's just not how it works, right?
	Yeah.
	And so, as a woman gets, you know, the whole point of the bloom on the rose, the whole point of the woman's sexual attractiveness is to get a man to commit to her and then to make babies with her.
	And for the majority of women, after they have a series of babies, right, three or four or five or six babies, you know, historically that would not be out of the ballpark, They're going to be less attractive.
	Yeah, guess what?
	What, you know, when you've had a whole bunch of baby rodents sucking away at your boobs?
	Yeah, they're going to be something that you can teach sailors how to knot with.
	And, you know, your vagina is going to loosen up and your belly is going to have stretch marks and your ass is going to hang.
	And, you know, it's really tough to get in those cardio workouts when you have four kids crawling on your lap.
	So it's just true.
	It's a little bit less true for men, but it certainly is true for men.
	I don't know why this is a shock for people.
	Again, this goes back to the earlier call where a tiny bit of reality makes some women have paroxysms of outrage about basic reality.
	As you get older, you tend to get less attractive.
	That's exactly what nature should be doing because you don't want to be firing your blanks into a dusty cave without eggs, right?
	I mean, nature points penises at young eggs.
	Don't blame us.
	Blame evolution.
	It's the way it works.
	And so women get less attractive as they get older.
	Now they have a choice if they want to get their way or have an influence in a relationship.
	When they get older they can choose to be a whole lot more helpful and more nice and better people and good homemakers and all those good solid Mallory Tower style girls that used to be around in the past.
	Or...
	They can get the government to scare the shit out of the man and then nag him until he takes his own life, right?
	I mean, that is, these are the choices that women have.
	And, you know, some women do choose to become nicer and better people as they age and so on.
	And, you know, I don't know why this is a big shock for people.
	You know, guess what?
	Men get richer as they get older, which means they have more resources.
	And there comes a tipping point.
	Like, what is a midlife crisis?
	A midlife crisis is your penis saying, round two?
	You want to do this again?
	Round two?
	Because, you know, if I'm 40, let's say I got married when I was 25.
	Okay, so I had a couple of kids.
	I'm going to be when I was 20.
	So I got a couple of kids.
	They're getting into their mid to late teens now.
	Hell, I'll start again.
	I mean, that's an evolutionary great strategy, right?
	You got a lot of resources, and you just, you dump your wife, and you go off and you make a bunch of new copies of yourself with a younger woman.
	And that's a great strategy evolutionarily, which is why monogamy tends to benefit women more than men, because women's sexual market value declines over time, whereas men's sexual market value tends to increase in general, overall.
	So midlife crisis is your ball saying, whoa, ding, ding, let's try again, shall we?
	Yeah.
	That is natural.
	And women, of course, because they experience the high sexual market value when they're young and men don't, they're like shocked when it begins to fade away, when they hit the wall in their 30s or whatever.
	And so the fact is that, yeah, women become – there's a tipping point where women become less valuable and the man has – The distinct urge, you know, you can see this all the time, like Jude Law with his nanny and Arnold Schwarzenegger with his nanny and, I don't know, Ben Affleck reportedly.
	I don't know what the truth is about all these stories, but according to the stories are true, that yeah, when the kids grow up, the guys will often have a wandering eye and they'll want to plant their seed in somebody else's garden because evolutionarily, that's what men are designed to do.
	And so this is at a time when the women may be going through menopause, they may not be as sexually available, and in the past, before you could lube yourself up with half the North Sea bottom, then women could have experienced vaginal dryness, and sexuality would be less comfortable, and they're tired from not sleeping through menopause or whatever.
	So it's almost like nature is calibrated to get men to go start new families.
	And, you know, you see this happen from time to time in this sort of midlife crisis, which of course is marked, and that's...
	You know, is the midlife crisis considered to be something that men should be, you know, we should be careful or we should understand, we should have empathy for?
	It's like, no!
	He just, you know, wants to replace his dying teenage penis with ground-up sports car Viagra juice or something, right?
	There's no compassion, no empathy, of course, because it's a male's problem and therefore it's just silly and immature and stupid and...
	Right?
	And of course, no compassion or empathy for this whatsoever.
	Of course, a woman going through menopause, oh, you poor dear, right?
	Male menopause is...
	to point at some new ovum and Bob's your uncle as far as a new set of photocopies go.
	And so this idea that what do women do when they get older?
	Well, they should, of course, make their man even happier because there is this aspect.
	In the same way that when you have a woman who's very attractive in one form or another, it doesn't have to be physical, then you really have to work extra hard to get her to marry you, right?
	I mean, there's a reason why the cheerleader goes out with the quarterback, right?
	And this is why men have ambition.
	Ladies, we have ambition.
	I mean, why do we buy big houses?
	You know, a man is happy with a cave and an Xbox.
	We buy nice houses so that women will...
	Fill it with children.
	You know, men are ambitious because, right?
	And so where women don't need men, the ambition in that male community tends to decline significantly, right?
	Which is where you get things in Japan and the black community and so on.
	It's not as much of ambition because, you know, ambition is what you go out and get the coconut so that you can empty, I guess, both sets of nuts with similar material.
	But anyway, so when men are young, And women are young, then men have to work extra hard to get the high quality women.
	And this, you know, can tend to make women who don't understand this or whose own mothers have not told them about this or people who haven't really thought about this through at all.
	But hey, guess what?
	The tide turns, ladies.
	The tide turns.
	And you remember how hard men had to work to keep your attention when you were young and hot?
	Okay, now you're in your late 30s, you're in your early to mid 40s.
	The tide has turned, ladies, and now you have to work extra hard to keep your man happy.
	Now that is something that people don't seem to tell women very much.
	It's like, women, your sexual market value...
	Is plummeting so fast it's going to leave an impact crater when you hit late mid-40s bigger than the Arizona crater of giant meteor-ness, right?
	And so as women's sexual market value begins to decline and demands is going up, well then they become The teenage boys and the men become the cheerleaders.
	Like, that's just the way it works.
	The tide comes in and the tide goes out.
	Pendulum swings one way, pendulum swings the other way.
	And in the 40s, the woman is in the position of the sex beggar and the, you know, let me bring you some flowers and let me dance for you and let me compose poems for you and let me engage you and, like...
	The way that young men chase young women reverses itself in the 40s and now the women have to chase the men that they're with and have to make sure that they're super happy and have to do all the work that the young men did in their teens and early to mid-20s to get a hold of the quality women and the women have to do that when they get older.
	And this is something that, again, because anybody who whispers any kind of biological or even a physical reality to women apparently panics a lot of women with facts and logic and evidence.
	It's shocking to women.
	And women think that their sexual market value advantage should continue long after it has gone the exact opposite direction.
	It's like this elevator should only ever go up.
	Well, then you're going to end up in space with nothing to breathe.
	So women who are raised with, you're so special, you're a snowflake, you're wonderful, women are wonderful, everything should be brought to women on a giant political and penis roller conveyor belt.
	Well, okay, yeah, when you're young, absolutely, that makes perfect sense.
	It's not for you, it's for the eggs.
	But okay, nonetheless, you're sitting on a great treasure of humanity called the next generation, and who you're granted to is important.
	However, When those eggs dry up and blow away, then the man is going to feel the urge to go and start a new family.
	Why?
	Because DNA. Because biology.
	Because evolution.
	Because that's just the way it is.
	And your sexual market value is collapsing and his sexual market value is increasing.
	He's already proved his fertility.
	People can judge the quality of his fatherhood by, say, comparing Donald Trump's kids to Rosie O'Donnell's kids, you know, just as a possibility.
	He's already proven his quality as a provider.
	Kids are all still alive.
	Yay, he can provide.
	He's hitting his peak earning potential.
	He's still young enough to have new kids and still live to enjoy his grandkids if he wants to.
	So his quality as a father, his quality as a provider, it's not rolling the dice anymore.
	Right?
	So he's a proven commodity.
	He's high sexual market value.
	and he's got a lot of resources.
	So if he gets dumped, he's a rock star, he's a god, he's like, whoa, yes, absolutely, I'll take that grizzled old gnarly curly kanji-style penis, because it's well proven in the sexual market value component.
	On the other hand, the woman in her 40s who's dumped, well, I guess you're going to have to ride a lot of bicycles for sexual satisfaction and take up religion, because...
	You know, that's about it.
	I remember hearing, oh gosh, many years ago on a Tom Leica show, some woman calling in and saying, you know, I'm really having trouble finding a date.
	I don't understand why.
	I'm a professional woman.
	You know, I own my own house.
	And he's like, men don't care that you have your own house.
	They care that you're young and hot.
	Like, you don't have sexual market value.
	Why didn't anyone tell you this?
	And so on, right?
	And so, yeah, go ahead.
	Well, you know, she would say that I should be offended by, you know, the previous statement she made as far as, well, men only want hot women and all this other stuff.
	And as they get older, they're going to have a wandering eye and stuff like that.
	She would say, I should be offended by that.
	And I feel like...
	What does offended mean?
	What does that mean?
	Well, offended in terms of, you know, you're lumping all men into one category and...
	Even though you're speaking in general terms.
	Does she deny evolution?
	Is that the issue?
	No, no.
	She believes in evolution and everything like that.
	Hang on.
	Does she deny that men retain their fertility long after women do?
	No, I'm sure she wouldn't deny it.
	Would she deny that it's evolutionary advantageous for a middle-aged man to start a new family in terms of having more copies of his genes?
	No, I don't think she would deny that.
	Then what the hell?
	I'm offended by facts.
	Are you kidding me?
	If you're offended by facts, you need to find a little jacket to hunk yourself with and get some medication.
	If you're offended by facts, you're kind of crazy.
	I'm not saying this is what all men should do.
	I'm just saying that there's this biological reality.
	I don't notice women complaining that much when their sexual market value is really high about how unbalanced it is.
	But when it switches the other way in the 40s, suddenly it's offensive.
	I don't know.
	It just seems kind of silly.
	I don't know what being offended actually means.
	Well, me neither.
	But, I mean, I'm just saying what she said.
	I mean, stop talking to that guy, because he might hand you back some balls that I currently have in my class purse.
	I feel like she's internalizing a lot of stuff in terms of, she feels like that maybe when I get older, you know, when we're still together or whatever, maybe when I get older, I'll have a wondering guy and all this stuff.
	If I believe...
	You will!
	You will, because biology...
	I mean, expecting men not to have a wandering eye is like expecting women not to have a period.
	Yeah, but...
	Clench, honey!
	Clench!
	It's offensive to me that you're bleeding and not dying, so clench!
	I mean, come on!
	Women have periods and men have wandering eyes.
	That's basic biology.
	And there's nothing wrong with knowing that means that she's just got to be such a great wife and girlfriend that you'd never, like, than some young, luscious thing who wants to You know, hook her stilettos behind her hoop earrings and let you go to town like a monkey on a Petri dish.
	I don't know what the hell happened to that metaphor.
	I'm sorry about that.
	But it's like, so she just has to be so great in the same way that guys have to work extra hard to get the attention of the cheerleader.
	She just has to work extra hard to keep your attention.
	Like a monkey on a cupcake.
	Apparently Mike just checked his Google history and he gave us the right analogy.
	Thanks Mike and thank you Google.
	But no, she's just knowing this ahead of time.
	See, she's nagging.
	She's doing exactly what I predict.
	That she's looking down the tunnel of time to when she's less sexually attractive because she's older and she's starting to nag and break your balls.
	Rather than say, okay, well, if my sexual market value is going down and my husband's sexual market value is going up, I've got to work extra hard.
	Guess what?
	That's the way it works, ladies.
	And men know this from the beginning.
	You know, if you're some middle-aged guy and you're kind of coasting in your job and they hire a whole bunch of new young guys who are willing to work night and day, they're going to outstrip you.
	You know what you say?
	Shit, competition's increasing.
	I got to work harder.
	I mean, this is what my guys do, right?
	I mean, if you're running in a race and some guy starts to pass you, what do you do?
	Just fall over and then nag him?
	No, you run faster.
	That's what you do, right?
	And so she's fulfilling and can see why she doesn't like what I'm saying because she's fulfilling exactly what I predict for somebody who is resentful at the fact that the shoe has turned and that women actually have to work hard to keep male attention at some point.
	And what she's doing is she's making you feel bad rather than increasing No, she's not making me feel bad.
	She's not making me feel bad.
	I still watch the show more than ever.
	Really?
	No, no, I'm not feeling bad about it.
	Really?
	Are you saying that you're the only man alive that nagging doesn't work on?
	This evolutionary strategy of women to break balls rather than empty them.
	You're the only guy who's immune to this.
	You're the only heterosexual guy who can look at an attractive woman and say, I like that freckle.
	Well, I mean, the only reason why I would feel bad about what's going on is because she's not listening to anything else you're saying.
	She won't listen to When you talk about economics or truth about Bernie Sanders or any of these other things...
	Really?
	Unless you're planning on having a fucking threesome with Bernie Sanders, I think her opinion of my Bernie Sanders video is your least important topic at the moment.
	What should be my most important topic?
	Well, she's not...
	She's not responding rationally.
	I would have been happy to chat with her on the show.
	She's not responding rationally.
	She's getting huffy.
	She's stamping her feet.
	She's getting upset.
	She's getting offended.
	She's not curious about your thinking.
	She doesn't respect something that you're interested in.
	She's just trying to shit on you.
	There's a woman trying to cut a man off from another man who's giving him some interesting perspectives.
	Boy, we've never seen that before.
	Never been any listeners to this show that ended up getting involved with women and then not being happy with the show after that.
	I mean, come on.
	This is very common.
	I mean, this is what happens.
	Men get cut off from one another.
	Men get cut off from their...
	We're always complaining, oh, you don't keep your friends around.
	It's like, well, okay.
	try being in a relationship with a woman and being around another man who's feeding you a whole bunch of red pills and waking you up to things and then see how that woman reacts.
	Is she like, wow, that's very interesting what you're thinking about that.
	Do tell me more.
	She's like, that's a bad influence on you.
	That person is, I'm offended.
	I'm upset that you would even think that.
	I can't believe that you're going back.
	Don't you listen to that guy anymore.
	Here, I'm going to do this without my top on.
	Here.
	Don't you listen to that guy anymore.
	He's bad for you.
	He's bad for you.
	He's turning you against me.
	He's making you think for yourself.
	He's reducing power I have over you.
	He's de-titting me.
	I can feel them shrinking and going back inside my reverse robot titty imprints.
	Well, I mean, yeah.
	I mean, she found out about the de-fooling thing, and she wasn't really happy about that either, as if I would even consider that.
	Yeah, or voluntarism in relationships.
	Who the hell is afraid of voluntarism in relationships except exploiters?
	Mm-hmm.
	That's interesting.
	Yeah.
	I would really have respected her if she'd come on the show.
	Yeah, come on, tell me where I'm wrong.
	But, you know, because she knows that just, you know, she doesn't have any sexual spell over me, right?
	I mean, I'm not a starving guy at a buffet of...
	Kama Sutra position airplane folders or whatever, right?
	So she doesn't have any sexual power over me.
	I'm gloriously happily married and not interested in any other women sexually.
	She has no sexual power over me.
	So if she can't bring her sexual power into her conversation with me, the fact that she would be offended with me or upset with me, I don't care.
	Give me your arguments, honey.
	Give me your arguments.
	You know, be a big person.
	Put on your big person panties and talk with the adults like a real person.
	But because she wouldn't come on the show, it means that she's got Some sort of power over you that she doesn't think she's going to have over me.
	And that's a problem.
	I'm just, you know, I'm trying to think.
	I mean, as far as your show is concerned, what kind of power she would have.
	Because, I mean, she grew up in, you know, a very liberal area.
	I grew up in, you know, more Republican.
	And we disagree a lot on a lot of different things.
	And it's never been a case where I was just like, you know, disagree with her just to agree with her.
	You know, we just disagree on things and I bring up certain aspects of our disagreements and she'll, you know, research it and she'll come back maybe a few months later and be like, okay, you were right about that and everything like that.
	I don't feel like she has a certain power over me.
	I know what you mean.
	But I don't feel like that's the case with me.
	I actually started donating to your show recently, and I'm going to keep on doing that.
	I don't plan on stop listening to you just because she's not going to listen.
	She's not going to stop me from expanding my knowledge base and things of that nature.
	Whether she agrees or disagrees has no bearing on where I'm going to get my information and how I'm going to draw my conclusions.
	Okay, but listen, man.
	If she doesn't have curiosity and she doesn't have a counter-argument, but she's simply spraying off offense like something out of a skunk's ass, then you have a problem.
	In that she's got a negative reaction to something that she's doing, but she won't tell you what it is.
	That's fundamentally a manipulation to begin with.
	In other words, you should change your behavior because I'm offended is granting life-changing power to a temper tantrum.
	Well, she never said I should stop watching your show.
	She never said I should stop watching your show.
	No, I get that.
	I get that.
	Women usually don't offer ultimatums who are this way inclined.
	What they do is get huffy and increase resistance and make little digs and just make it more and more difficult.
	Like, it's tough to pass Speedy Gonzales when you're in a Porsche and there's a whole bunch of road bumps, right?
	Speed bumps.
	Right, so they don't actually tell you to get out of the car, they just make it impossible to get anywhere because there's nothing but speed bumps.
	And you think that'll happen in the future?
	I think it's happening now.
	She's giving you a negative experience of this show without telling you why and without being curious about the value that you find in this show.
	See, this show, like, you find this conversation interesting and I appreciate that and I certainly appreciate your donations.
	Yeah.
	I'm now on your side.
	So this show is a possible way, it's definitely a way for her to open a window into your soul, right?
	So you respond to this show, you find this show interesting and engaging.
	She can learn a lot about you in a non-judgmental way simply by being curious about your experience of the show.
	Tell me what's of value for you.
	Tell me what you find that's different.
	Tell me what you find that's interesting.
	Tell me what you find that's exciting for you.
	You know, why are you investing so much time?
	What's the payback?
	You know, what are you getting here that you can't get from?
	She could learn a lot about you.
	By being curious about what you find valuable and interesting.
	And it could be stamp collecting, but in this case, of course, there's aspects of relational concepts in this show as well, right?
	Of course.
	So, number one, she could instead of trying to shut this down by being negative and hostile towards it, she could use it as a way to get to learn about you a lot better.
	And she's not doing that.
	She's neither curious, nor does she have counter-arguments.
	Listen, if you said, hey, I'm going to join the KKK, right?
	I mean, you know, she might use that as a window into your soul, but it probably would be something she'd have some valid counter-arguments about, right?
	Well, yeah, of course.
	I mean, we have conversations about what you talk about.
	And I've made her watch your show, you know, Quite a few times.
	And she will ask me, you know, different questions or whatever, but we just disagree fundamentally about, you know, large government, big government, big government, small government, and things of that nature.
	I mean, one of the questions is...
	Okay, but does she have reasons?
	Well, I mean, one of them would be, you know, I'm a big monopoly, like, you know, Standard Oil was when it first came around, and...
	And how would, if you remove a large government, if you remove the government altogether, the government was the ones who broke up that monopoly.
	So how would you in the future break up, you know, future monopolies?
	So she's afraid of a monopoly that's voluntary.
	Like Standard Oil, why did they get to be so big?
	It's because they were the best at satisfying consumer demand.
	So she's afraid of a big voluntary monopoly, but a big violent involuntary monopoly she thinks is just great.
	I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but she will say to that, well, they pushed out the little guy and lowered their prices in certain areas of the country and increased them in other areas just to push out the little guy and grow larger and everything like that.
	So she would say...
	It wasn't voluntary in the sense that they would completely alliterate the small guy.
	Did they have an army?
	Of course, small guy, big guy, it's the customers who choose the success of a company.
	If the customers want a Walmart instead of a mom-and-pop store, then the customers will get a Walmart.
	And the only way to prevent that is to hold a gun to the customers' heads and force them to shop where they don't want to shop.
	Yes.
	Right?
	I mean, so who cares, right?
	Is the alternative to that some big giant monopoly government that can start wars and enslave people and sell off future generations into debt slavery?
	It's all bullshit, man.
	And I'm sorry to be so blunt about this.
	We've got to understand women's relationship with the state is it's a backup husband.
	It's where they go when they get dumped or when they dump someone.
	It's their soft place to land.
	This is why women are so pro-state.
	It's got nothing to do with she cares about the customers of Standard Oil from 100 years ago?
	Are you kidding me?
	Come on.
	I mean, it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
	It's not even remotely.
	Women need a backup husband in case the first one goes AWOL or breaks or dies.
	And they didn't feel like buying life insurance, right?
	Like, I mean, does she really lie awake at night saying, wow, you know...
	120 years ago, I wonder if the people buying oil got a good price or not.
	Gosh, you know, that's a really important issue in my life, right?
	Come on.
	No, women have a visceral relationship with the state because the state is in the way of male ambition and the state is a soft place to land for a woman's failure.
	We're annoyed by the state because we have high capabilities in its inner way.
	And the government right now is preventing quality men from getting higher quality women because it's taking money from quality men and giving it to lower quality women.
	And women have a very, very tough time letting go of the state because then they have to rely 100% on a man.
	And that means they've got to find a good man and they've got to keep a good man even when their sexual market value goes down quicker than bits of Sally right after the Challenger explosion.
	Right?
	That is a terrible, terrible situation.
	It's a terrible joke too, but that's a terrible situation for women.
	Because as a woman's sexual market value goes down, she has got to up her quality.
	She's got to up the quality of what she brings.
	And she can do that.
	This is how women used to do it.
	They used to do it with getting involved in their communities.
	And being essential to their communities, volunteering, helping out at food kitchens, taking in strays.
	They used to start humane associations to take in stray animals.
	They used to take in kids sometimes who were in need.
	They used to really get involved in their communities and bring so much value to the community that the idea of leaving someone for someone with slightly less gravity-challenged tits would make no sense at all.
	As Paul Newman said about his wife, Joanne Woodward, when people said, well, you know, you're a sex symbol, how come you never have affairs?
	He's like, why would I go out for a hamburger when I got steak at home?
	Exactly.
	You've got to be the steak at home for the woman.
	But women have been pumped so full of this vanity.
	Like, your value as women is just so wonderful and so embedded in how great and wonderful you are that the idea of having to earn value is incomprehensible to a lot of women.
	It's like when she's older.
	Oh, okay.
	When she's older, I mean, now I don't know how old you guys are, but, you know, if she's, I don't know, a young Beyonce, yeah, she don't need to stay, right?
	But as she gets older, it's more of a problem.
	Because the women have a choice.
	They can say, okay, well, I can finally accept that my value was not mine, but it was my eggs.
	Right?
	Like, I mean, you know that old, there's an old Sam Cooke song, but nobody knows you when you're down and out, right?
	It's like, hey, you know, when I had lots of money, everybody was my friend, and then I lost all my money, and it turns out people only liked my money that didn't like me.
	And that's, you know, men start off with low value when you're used to scrabbling, you know, like a frog trying to get out of a banker's box.
	Scrabble to get up.
	We scrabble to get value.
	We straggle.
	We scrabble to compete.
	We put on our sexual displays, our helmets, our nerdiness, whatever it's going to be, whatever it's going to be, our sexual market value, we're used to scrabbling for it because men are born poor and grow rich in sexual market value and women are born rich and grow poor.
	And so when, as a man, you have low sexual market value, you've got to work like hell to bring other value to the equation.
	Whether you play guitar, or you invented a rocket, or you discovered a mine, or you built a company, or you did 6,000 push-ups for the R-selected women.
	I don't know.
	Whatever it is going to be, you've got to be a me-plus when you're younger, as a man.
	Especially because the young women, you know, it's eeny, meeny, miny penis.
	They can just choose.
	As I said before, it's a giant forest of like spiky penises pointing at them wanting to shoot gold on their heads.
	And so men work really, really hard to add to their low sexual market value in order to compete for the high quality young women.
	But the young women believe that they're just so great because, you know, women are just wonderful.
	It's got nothing to do with eggs or sexual.
	And when that begins to fall away, we are setting women up for psychological catastrophe, which is why it's like insane.
	It's like a quarter.
	Of middle-aged American women are antidepressants.
	Why?
	Because no one told them the truth.
	It's the eggs we care about.
	That's what we're programmed for.
	You're not that wonderful.
	You're just fertile.
	And it's not that women can't be wonderful, but they can only be wonderful if they recognize that they did not earn the eggs and they did not earn the male hormonal attraction to their eggs.
	That's just something that happens.
	You're born hot, you're born attractive, you're fertile and so everyone's clamoring for your attention and everyone's praising you because they just want to, you know, tongue praise their way into licking your inner ear and making a baby with you.
	That's just the way it is.
	And then nobody tells this to women.
	And so they don't build a backup plan called, hey, I'm also going to be a nice person.
	I'm also going to be a reliable person.
	Being fertile is not that hard a job.
	I've got a business plan called being fertile for young women.
	And it's fairly lengthy, but I'll try and squeeze it in really, really quickly.
	This is the business plan called having high sexual market value for women when they're young.
	Are you ready?
	Here it goes.
	Chapter one, keep breathing.
	That's it.
	That's all you gotta do.
	Be alive, have a pulse, keep the eggs going.
	Just walk around a little bit, have some water, eat a power bar once in a while, Just keep breathing and look at that sexual market value.
	But you try being a guy, you know, I came from a pretty poor neighborhood and all that.
	Try being a guy, you know, average looks or whatever.
	You go up to women and say, I'm alive!
	Who wants me?
	It doesn't really work that way.
	And so women, yeah, I mean, that's like a bad joke, right?
	I mean, I'm here.
	You know, I mean, who wants me?
	I don't know.
	I'm here in a Lamborghini.
	Okay, whatever.
	Or I'm here and I'm super smart.
	Or I'm here and I'm Mark Zuckerberg or whatever.
	Okay, right.
	But the reality is that nobody prepares women for the decline in sexual market value.
	And so they panic.
	They freak out.
	They get depressed.
	They get anxious.
	They start nagging.
	And then the guys can't stand them.
	They divorce the guys and run to the state.
	So that they never have to face the fact that the value came from their eggs, not their fundamental innate quality as human beings.
	And because when women are young, when their personalities are formed, no one's telling them the truth.
	We have become a society where women select delusion genetically.
	Right?
	Because normally if you praise people too much, anybody with any common sense is going to throw up a little bit in their mouth and back away slowly and get a verbal restraining order against your sycophantic bullshit.
	But women right now, try being, I can say this, I'm happily married and middle-aged, right?
	Try being a young man and telling women the truth these days.
	How's that going to work out for you?
	Right?
	Women aren't that great.
	You know, you just got a bunch of eggs and so, you know, we're programmed to want you, but it's not like you're that valuable.
	It's just that, you know, this is what nature has programmed us so we get more people.
	Imagine, because everyone else is telling them you're a wonderful special snowflake and your femininity is just so great and, you know, women are wonderful and men are big.
	Right?
	And, you know, so women right now, they are programmed to select liars over truth tellers, which is why being a truth teller is so often a genetically failed strategy, which is why we're so rare, right?
	I mean, we're kind of a regression, so to speak, right?
	Or a progression, I hope.
	So nobody prepares women for this.
	And so because women deep down know that their sexual market value is going to plunge, and nobody's taught them how to be good people, and the necessity of being good people, and please understand, I'm not saying there are no good women.
	This is generalities, right?
	That they can't let go of the state, which is why unmarried women in particular tend to vote so hard left.
	Because they need the backup system.
	Penis jack of unearthing gold in the ground, right?
	Can't get a man's penis to do it.
	Got to get a politician's penis by proxy to get me the gold that I need to survive as I age.
	And this is why it's so hard.
	For women to let go of the state.
	Letting go of the state for women means that they have to find a way to bring enormous value to men at a time in their 40s and 50s when their sexual market value is collapsing.
	And that is a fundamental reorientation.
	And what they do instead is they fucking bitch on men to no end, a lot of them.
	So that the man never realizes his sexual market value.
	And then they set up a family court and alimony system to the point where if any man ever tries to exercise his sexual market value because he can't stand the increasingly bittered and shrewd woman he's living with, she'll use the state to cut his balls off and then he can't get anything else.
	Right?
	So women are not saying...
	Women should be saying, oh, God, get rid of this alimony, get rid of this child support and all that.
	Forget all that crap.
	I want to keep my marriage by being...
	An irresistibly great woman.
	It's embarrassing.
	You know what a confession of unattractiveness it is for women to make divorce so unpleasant for men?
	What they're confessing is that middle-aged marriage is such a vicious and soul-destroying and ball-crushing enclosure for men that they have to have lawyerly snipers shoot the balls off any man who tries to escape.
	I mean, if women were really confident in the value that they're bringing to men, they should want to get rid of all of this stuff because it's humiliating.
	It's humiliating.
	Imagine, you know, you're on a date and you see that the woman is chained to the table.
	That's like, what a horrible human being this is, right?
	Let me help.
	And because women are so...
	I'm focused on people who flatter them out of all common sense.
	That all of these, you know, pedestal polishing, pussy begging beta males are just swarming all over them like rodents trying to climb up a...
	Anchored rope into a ship of infinite vagina goodies sailing off to China.
	So this is a whole trend that's going on in society.
	And, you know, please, like, understand, again, all the caveats.
	Nobody listens to the caveats who's dedicated to being upset and all that.
	Lots of great women out there.
	And I'm just, these are general trends that you can really see showing up in the culture a lot.
	And I'm concerned that you have a woman who's not curious about what you're saying and Who doesn't have good arguments?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	She cares about the quality of Standard Oil's customers from 120 years ago.
	And she lies awake because some mom-and-pop store might have closed down in Des Moines, Iowa because Standard Oil shop moved in next.
	I mean, come on, you don't care about that.
	What she cares about is, well, I have a choice.
	I can vote left or I can vote Democrat.
	I can vote big government, which is going to take care of me if my husband finds me unbearable.
	Or I can be such a great woman that he'd never even think about leaving me.
	Huh.
	And you can see which way she's going.
	And that's going to have real consequences for you.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	You think that they're voting that way and they're consciously thinking about their sexual market value?
	Who cares?
	I don't care why they're voting that way.
	There's clear explanations for it.
	Whether people know something consciously or not is immaterial to me.
	It doesn't matter whether someone knows something consciously or not.
	Because...
	Either they do know it consciously, in which case that's really terrible, or they don't know it consciously, which is even worse.
	It means that they've not even asked themselves why they have any particular political leaning.
	They haven't even had the basic curiosity about their own motivations that might lead them to ask why they vote a particular way.
	Which is even worse.
	It's one thing to crash.
	It's another thing to drive drunk.
	And people without self-knowledge are voting drunk.
	And that's even worse.
	That adds insult to injury to crime.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	But I feel like they would also think...
	I mean, this is what I always hear.
	I mean, they always say stuff like, you know, people on welfare, so you want to cut their welfare or at least minimize it somehow and make them go out and work.
	And as far as Social Security is concerned...
	Wait, wait.
	Hang on.
	So, wait.
	Are you saying women on welfare would have to go out and work?
	Yes.
	Or just people as a whole?
	Well, I mean, there's mostly single moms on welfare, right?
	As far as I know.
	Yeah, no.
	They don't have to go out and work, of course.
	What they have to do is they have to be such great women that they snag themselves a guy who will take care of them and their kids while he goes to work.
	That's all.
	They just have to up their sexual market value to the point where people will put up with their kids, the kids of another guy.
	It's as simple as that.
	I mean, they don't have to go to work.
	You cut off welfare.
	They'll just find guys and be just...
	Great sandwich making, back rub giving, foot rub giving, you know, scented bath with candles giving, great listener, great conversationalist giving, people who will, man will be like, yeah, I'll take your kids.
	You're so fantastic.
	I love you so much.
	Wonderful, right?
	That's all.
	They don't have to go to work.
	They just have to be great partners for some guy.
	Well, I mean, besides that, I mean, I agree with But besides that, the argument against small government would be a bunch of people, I don't know, whatever the liberal argument is, I can't think of it right now.
	They always come up with some...
	They always come up with some reason as to why we need government to do certain things for us, like roads or healthcare or whatever.
	And personal responsibility is never part of that argument.
	But I feel like it has to be.
	Okay, well, fine.
	Okay, so let's say we'll deal with the roads last.
	Fine.
	If people are lying awake wondering about the quality of tarmac in the future, I don't even know what to say to them because it's bullshit.
	Nobody's like, oh my god, there's a pothole in Des Moines.
	I can't sleep.
	I can't think.
	I can't eat.
	I'm worried sick.
	I mean, what if somebody cracks an axle?
	What if a toddler's tricycle goes?
	The people don't.
	Okay, fine.
	Let's deal with the roads last.
	Deal with the welfare state, the military-industrial complex, national debt, fiat currency, inflation, the rampant pillaging of the environment through massive government spending.
	Let's deal with all of that.
	Fine.
	The roads will be dealt with by our grandchildren.
	We'll start with the welfare state and other things like that, right?
	Okay.
	So, have your road paranoia if you want.
	Have your road rage if you want.
	Be a road scholar if you care.
	I don't care, right?
	But let's just deal with the immediate stuff.
	And people, well, they're going to find the transition kind of difficult.
	It's like, well, yeah.
	Welcome to the world of being a guy.
	Lots of transitions, pretty difficult for guys.
	And nobody cares about that, right?
	I mean, manufacturing jobs have collapsed.
	50,000 jobs a month in America lost every single year during most of this century, this decade and a half.
	Men's wages have collapsed relative to women's.
	They've gone down even farther.
	I mean, I'll have sympathy for all of the bleating women of self-victimization the moment I see them really caring about what's happening to men, what's happening to boys in the educational system, what's happening to men in the post-apocalyptic,
	post-apocalyptic I will really, really care about women when I see women bursting into tears about the plight of boys, heavily medicated for not being girls.
	When I see women crying about the plight of boys who don't have male role models.
	When I see women criticizing women for choosing shitty guys to have kids with.
	And then those guys leave and putting burdens on other men and women who are more responsible.
	When I see women marching down the streets for candlelit vigils for the high number of male suicides, particularly after they've been through the ringer of the family court system in the United States, when I see women weeping their supposedly copious tears for the plight of men in the modern world, then I will care what happens to single moms after the welfare state goes away.
	But until that comes, until I see women actually portraying and living in an actually vivid way, in a lived, vivid way, all of the compassion that women are supposed to be so famous for, all the compassion that they have, they're such sensitive, feeling creatures.
	Okay, well, men are having a very tough time in society at the moment.
	Men are having an incredibly tough time, and boys in particular.
	They're spanked more, they're downgraded more, they're medicated more.
	They're punished more.
	They're hurt more.
	They're abused more than girls.
	When I see women saying, sorry sisters, we've got to get some men into this early education thing because these guys have no mentors and we're so sensitive to the lack of mentors as I talked about in the previous segment.
	When I see women really beginning to focus all of the supposed laser-like estrogen-driven tears of sympathy, empathy, and gratitude, and sensitivity, and openness, and warmth, and caring, and concern, and love, and Compassion and support.
	And when I see all of this supposedly giant boobs of compassion eclipsing the harsh sun that is currently drying out the eyeballs of lonely, desert-wandering, apocalyptic boys experience in the modern West, then I will really begin to care about women.
	But I will not grant one iota!
	More of compassion than I receive in this life.
	That is the great lesson that men need to relearn.
	Do not grant more compassion than you receive.
	An excess of compassion, as I said before and will say again, is a sin and a crime.
	Yep.
	You know, I agree with you completely.
	It's, you know, I'm just...
	I'm just trying to convey this line of thinking to people around me.
	No, no, no, no.
	You are not ready to be an evangelist as yet.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not trying to be an evangelist.
	You got some stuff to tidy up in your relationship.
	Yeah.
	I can provide articles that will support my argument.
	And she can provide articles that support her argument, but we're really just dealing with symptoms of problems.
	We're not dealing with the moral issue.
	Just mull it off, right?
	I mean, you need to have a conversation about being valued and respected, and you cannot bow down to somebody being offended.
	No, no.
	You know, this is really, really important.
	You know, you can be curious and say, well, look, I'm sorry that you're offended.
	I mean, that's a shame and so on.
	It has no bearing on the content of what it is that I'm talking about.
	And I'm happy to talk about why you're offended.
	But, you know, you cannot give in to bullying in this life.
	You cannot give in to people just being offended.
	Otherwise, you're feeding the worst and most manipulative squid tentacles of brain-sucking estrogen-based bacteria.
	Mind vampirism that society has to offer.
	You can't do it.
	I mean, be curious and all that, but the fact that you're offended is interesting to me, but you can't possibly change your behavior based upon people being offended.
	Whatever you feed grows in your life, and whatever you starve dies, and you need to starve people changing your behavior because they're upset.
	That is not good for them, and it's not good for you at all.
	Yeah, no, my behavior hasn't changed.
	I mean, I started watching the show more.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't feel like my, I mean, I know my behavior hasn't changed based on how she feels about it or about you and, you know, your show.
	I watch it more.
	Well, you might just want to have us and say, you know, does she know?
	You can just ask her, you know, and she wants to call in.
	I'm happy to chat with her.
	Okay, so you know your sexual market value is, you know, you know your sexual market value is going to go down.
	What's your plan?
	Yeah.
	This is what women used to know and moms used to tell them and dads used to tell them, but the dads are gone and the moms are sucked into the, I don't know, the mental vacuity of resentment feminism or just general avoidance or they're playing into the vanity assault of advertisers or whatever.
	Yeah, your value is going to go down.
	How are you going to become a matriarch of valuable wizard-like wisdom in your community?
	How are you going to hang on to your man when your tits fall off?
	You know, there's a method of communication that is guy-based.
	And of course, a lot of effeminate men or emasculated men, they don't understand that this is locker room talk, this is guys talking.
	And I'm sorry if it offends you, but it's okay.
	Sometimes when women talk to each other, I get offended and bored as well.
	But this is guy talk and this is also hyperbole and it's a way of communicating that is designed to leave a strong impression and to break through particular kinds of propaganda through a certain amount of shock value.
	I just want people to understand that, that this is just a way of communicating that's kind of guy to guy.
	Although, of course, women can participate as well.
	It's a kind of hyperbole and it's a kind of exaggeration and it's for effect and it's to get a point across in a very powerful way.
	And the stronger the propaganda people have faced and the anti-male propaganda, pro-female propaganda is so pervasive, it's actually well documented in psychological circles.
	It's called the WAW, the women are wonderful effect.
	And it's propaganda that is so insidious, so invasive.
	It's such a brain parasite.
	It seems it's actually replaced the brain for most people in society.
	And this was the case for me too.
	I'm not, you know, this was the case for me as well.
	I remember participating.
	Oh, I'm going to lose all credibility now.
	But I'll be honest, I was participating in Take Back the Night Marches and all that.
	And, you know, I was there and I, you know, was filled with the same vacuous brain polystyrene of inconsequential nonsense that I'm sort of fighting against now in others.
	And I know the shock value of a well-placed and inflammatory phrase.
	Just so people understand that That this is a way of communicating.
	I'm not trying to explain or be defensive.
	It's just, you know, people don't often hear guy talk that is anything other than a cliche and sports and whatever, right?
	Appreciate the call.
	I hope you'll let us know how it goes.
	And, you know, please say, like, I'm saying this to your girlfriend so that she'll be happy when she's older.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, if your doctor says you're fat and you smoke when you're young, he's not just, oh, I'm so offended.
	It's like, yeah, well, how about your future self is alive?
	You know, that's a good thing.
	And so when I say this, it's because I care about women as they age.
	And the longer you persist in a vainglorious delusion, the harder you crash to an emptier place when it falls apart.
	And so by helping women have a soft landing into lower sexual market value, they'll be a lot happier for the 50 or so years they have to live after the tit drop.
	You know, that's a long stretch of life.
	It's a long desert to cross looking back at the narcissistic image of your hot youth.
	It's no good.
	So I'm saying this because I want women to be happy into their middle age and older.
	And, you know, after they run through the wall and they can't gain the attention of Of women and they've got, you know, hordes of crow's feet radiating out from the sides of their eyes.
	And they've got to jam themselves into pantsuits and go trolling for guys.
	It's not how it should be.
	It's not going to work out for them.
	I don't want women to get depressed in middle age and end up on these antidepressants.
	This is so common throughout the West.
	But to do that, you need to say the harsh truths up front so that they can prepare for the drop in sexual market value and the rise in their mans.
	That means you've got to pedal a little harder, you know?
	Yeah.
	No longer coasting downhill, now it's uphill.
	And that is rewarding work if you know it's coming.
	Thanks everyone so much for calling in.
	You know, it's always a real pleasure to chat with Yowl.
	And please remember to drop by freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	It is essential for you to, you know, hopefully do the right thing and support that which you value and care about and that which I think we can objectively say is doing a hell of a lot of good in the world.
	So freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	Thank you my brothers and sisters so much for watching.

▲