3143 The Critical Mass of Stupid - Call In Show - December 2nd, 2015
Question 1: [1:19] - I am in my second year of teaching in the UK and notice that you have been very critical of teachers in several shows, calling them lazy among other things and trashing state education in general. I personally think that (in the UK at least) teachers work grueling hours for little pay (hence teacher shortages) and that state education is a cornerstone of our economy and our society - though I accept that there are many issues with the system. I'd like to defend this point. My question is: "How would our economy and society fare without state education and shouldn't we show gratitude towards those who work hard to educate our children in difficult circumstances?"Question 2: [1:12:40] - How do you effectively balance work and social life? What are the symptoms of devoting too much time to work?Question 3: [1:29:29] - College and social media has become rife with propaganda that seeks to rally an uneducated youth to dismantle society as we know it. It seems that the vast majority of people my age are so incredibly indoctrinated that they simply will not listen to reason. They resist reason as if it is counter to their very survival. Is it too late to reason with these people? If it is not too late, how do we break through to these people? If it is too late, how do we get the world back?Sourceshttp://www.nber.org/papers/w7322http://www.nber.org/papers/w17159
First off, I got detention and extra homework, some lines and some naughty points from a teacher in the UK who said that I was bashing government teachers, calling them lazy, trashing state education in general.
Well, he says he works pretty hard, very hard in fact, and state education is a cornerstone of our economy and our society.
As you can imagine, we had a Relatively robust debate about that particular topic and some very interesting points came across.
Second caller, how do you balance work and social life?
Like we all want friends, we want a good relationship with our families, and we also have to get work done.
How do you know if you're devoting too much time to work?
And it was a very, very good conversation.
And then we had a college student calling in and saying, dude, political commentary is crazy where I am.
Like, you can't talk about anything.
Political correctness is everywhere.
Social media rife with propaganda.
People need hug rooms and they're freaking out over anything.
How do you get through to these people?
And if it's too late, how on earth are we going to get freedom of speech back?
It's a fine question.
So let's get this show poured directly into your brain.
All right, up first is Ben.
Ben wrote in and said, I personally think that, in the UK at least, teachers work grueling hours for little pay, hence teacher shortages, and that state education is a cornerstone of our economy and our society, though I accept that there are many issues with the system.
I'd like to defend this point.
My question is, how would our economy and society fare without state education?
And shouldn't we show gratitude towards those who work hard to educate our children in difficult circumstances?
That's from Ben.
Hello, Ben.
Welcome.
Hi, Stefan.
Thank you so much for having me on.
My pleasure.
Thank you for your interest in the show.
Yeah, I've been listening for about a month.
I was actually on the call last week, but we ran out of time.
So I really enjoyed listening to that Irish dude, Get Ripped Apart.
I reckon I'm going to get...
Oh, the guy who is breaking no Irish stereotypes by wanting free potatoes.
Yeah, exactly.
Future society.
Free whiskey, free potatoes.
So I'm sure I'm going to get ripped apart in a similar manner, but hopefully I'll be more polite.
That's up to you.
And yeah, probably in the week...
Since that, I've had some time to think, and I think probably my comment is less strong than I thought it was originally, but I'd like to see what you think on, yeah, state education.
How would you get around that in your sort of libertarian, I don't know, society?
Okay, so let's just go through, before we get into that, I don't recall, though you, of course, if you've listened to the show more recently, I don't remember having a strong criticism of government educators as...
Lazy.
Because I sort of recognize that there's no better way to get a teacher to go justifiably nuts than to say, hey, it must be nice if your job ends at 3.30 in the afternoon.
Because, of course, I recognize that it doesn't.
Although there is, of course, lots of professional development days and summer is off.
But I'm not sure.
And again, if I have, then just refresh me.
I don't remember having laziness as one of my sort of central criticisms.
I'm pretty sure there was one show, maybe about a month ago, where you did.
Maybe not in those words, but you definitely said, you know, I guess, yeah, some old days, we don't have long summers, that's true.
But maybe it was in jest.
And it wasn't actually related to education, that show.
It was just sort of like an off point.
But anyway...
Hang on, because you said you've been very critical of teachers in several shows, calling them lazy, among other things.
Now, are you backing off from that accusation that I called them lazy?
Because I don't recall it, but again, I say lots of things in the heat of the moment.
I'm pretty sure you did.
Whether you use the word lazy, I can't really vouch for that.
That's quite a long time ago.
But I'm 99% sure...
You spent probably about a minute, you know, just denigrating them.
In my opinion, unfairly.
Well, okay, except that the one thing that you say I've said...
Yeah, fair enough.
Maybe I have.
Again, I'm not saying I haven't, and I'm sure people in the comments will tell me.
I'm not saying I haven't.
Of the criticisms that I would have of government education, laziness would not be anywhere close to the top of my list.
Okay, fair enough.
Well, if you're not claiming that, then there's no need for me to try and get you to recant, I guess.
Yeah.
And it's one of the, because, I mean, in terms of criticisms I have of government education, you took one called lazy and then said, well, teachers work very hard.
And I looked it up and lo and behold, right, teachers work in excess of 50 hours a week during school years in the UK. And so laziness would not, like, if my only issue was laziness, then it would be easily rebutted by saying, but they work quite hard, which statistically seems to be the case.
Although, to be fair, four or five of those hours are paperwork for a whole bunch of nonsense, which most teachers think is just a bunch of nonsense.
I guess teachers get their homework as well.
I just wanted to mention that.
You asked how I would get around this government education if it was a free society?
Yeah, so, well, my thinking is that without some sort of state education, there'd be a sort of massive inequality between, you know, those who...
and a complete lack of social mobility.
So I'm guessing there'd be some sort of private education for those who can afford it.
Oh, hang on, hang on.
Okay, sorry, I just...
People say, oh, you keep interrupting people, but that's because I want to make sure we take it point by point.
So the first issue that you're describing is, and I'm not trying to mischaracterize you, I just want to make sure I understand it, is that if it wasn't for government education, there would be no social mobility and there would be a widening gap between rich and poor, between those who could afford their education and those who couldn't.
I don't see why that isn't the case.
Imagine the wealthiest who have already been educated themselves, value education, have the wealth to then educate their kids, whereas those who have missed out are not going to be able to educate their kids to the same level.
To me, that seems to lead to a widening of that gap.
And state education is a sort of equalizer, which helps stabilize society in some way as well.
And what is your evidence for that theory?
In other words, have you looked into the data about whether or not education has an effect on life outcomes?
I think it's pretty clear that, well, for instance, if you go to university, you're going to earn more.
That's a statistic that I've seen.
Well, yes, but we don't know whether that has anything to do with university.
Okay, fine.
Well, no, hang on.
Do you know what I mean?
I wanted to make sure we understand each other.
You're saying the correlation between it might not indicate causation?
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, so the argument is, very briefly, that very intelligent people tend to go to university, but we don't know whether it's their intelligence that's driving their income or the fact that they went to university.
And the way you would test that, of course, is you would take somebody of average intelligence and you'd have them go to university, and you'd take someone of high intelligence and have them go to university and see if they ended up making about the same amount of money.
In other words...
Is it education that is creating the value that people are bringing to the marketplace, or is it some sort of innate intelligence or some sort of capacity that they have?
Yeah.
Well, if you, you know, a kid who can't And who can't, you know, add up numbers and do basic arithmetic, they're not going to be able to earn or do as well in life as someone who can do that.
That just seems kind of obvious to me.
Okay, so then we need about six months of education to teach kids how to read and write and do basic math.
I'm not sure what the rest of the 12 years is for as far as that goes.
I mean, that can be done.
My daughter could do it and she's six, right?
I mean, that can be taken care of.
Very, very easily.
I don't know that we need a massive, giant infrastructure of huge taxation and child imprisonment into facilities they damn well don't want to be there.
So if it's just reading and writing, I mean, kids can pick that up very easily, particularly in the window sort of between the age of three to six for most kids, although for some kids it's a little bit...
Now, the data is very clear and it's very depressing in a way for people who really value education, which is that they can find absolutely no correlation between the quality of education and life outcomes.
Wow.
Zero.
Not even Italian.
You can go to the most elite 20,000 pound a year private school or you can go to some rundown government school down the road.
They can find absolutely no impact on life outcomes.
Homeschool, government schools, private schools, length of time in school and so on.
They can't find any correlation whatsoever between quality of education, type of education, and general economic and other kinds of life outcomes.
So what sort of country was that done in that study?
Is that a very general one?
My understanding is it's a US study, but we'll put references to it.
This is quoted by Charles Murray, the American social science researcher.
And...
They just can't find it.
Now, this doesn't mean that you can't have a better time in a nicer school, but the quality of an access to education seems to have no impact on how children turn out.
Well, I don't know.
I'm sure that's a valid study, but if you look at the British Parliament, for instance, and the Cabinet in particular, and look at how many of them went to Oxbridge and How many of them were privately educated?
Oxford and Cambridge.
Okay, I was going to say Oxbridge.
That's a town.
You go there and drink of the well of knowledge from the Oxbridge well, it will make you so much.
In our current cabinet, particularly Oxford, but I don't know.
Sorry to interrupt.
But the way that it seems to work, and it's more than seems to, again, I don't know the degree to which this stuff can be stated 100%, but the way that it seems to work is that what is being passed down from parent to child in these situations is IQ. Not Quality of education.
In other words, you don't take a kid of average IQ, put him in Oxford and becomes brilliant.
But brilliant parents are more likely to have a lot of resources and they will spend those resources on their children.
But it is not the spending of the resources that makes the children successful.
It is, in fact, the IQ that they have inherited genetically from their parents.
IQ is enormously heritable.
Income and IQ is enormously correlated.
I mean, like, ridiculously correlated.
It's one of the most straight-line correlations, higher IQ and higher income.
And so, to a large degree, status, whether we like it or not, and, you know, I don't like the implications of it, but we have to follow the data.
But status, income, prestige, capacities, is to a significant degree inherited.
Yeah, I think, yeah, maybe that's true.
It is a bit depressing if, you know, I'm putting all this hard work in.
We are not clay.
You know, social engineering is like taking a big giant boulder and putting it on a spinning clay table and then trying to mold it.
You're just going to scratch your hands and annoy the rock, right?
We're not clay.
I mean, of course, we like to think that if we change a child's environment, then we can change that child like a potter changing clay when it's spinning around and Unchained melody is playing in your ear and so on.
But unfortunately, sending a child to a better school so that the child will have a higher IQ is like sending the child to a better school so the child will become taller.
Height is significantly lower.
Genetic, and so is intelligence.
And that's not to say that education is not important.
All this does is say that it doesn't seem that providing good or bad or indifferent education...
I mean, I don't know about you, but I had terrible education for the most part when I was growing up.
And this is true.
I was in a private boarding school in England, and I was in government schools in a variety of different countries.
And then I went to semi-private universities.
I went to three different universities.
And I was at a theater school.
So I had a pretty wide spritzing of education.
And I can absolutely guarantee you that by far the best education I ever got was outside of school.
Because I'm an intelligent guy and I loved to read when I was a kid.
So I was just reading all the time.
I mean, I was the nerd who was cracking crime and punishment when I was 11 and a half years old.
I remember reading it at a friend of mine's mother's boyfriend's cottage up in north of Canada.
So I read voraciously.
As a child, and that's where I got my education.
Now, one of the reasons that I enjoyed reading was I'm an intelligent guy, and therefore reading was a great pleasure to me.
People who are less intelligent enjoy reading less, and then we like to say, well, if we can get them to read more, then they'll be more like the smart people.
But that's not kind of how...
I've used the analogy before, but tall people play basketball, but if we get short people to play basketball, they don't become tall.
Having the height is a sort of prerequisite.
Sorry, go ahead.
Could it not be that your parents and your school provided an ethos where you wanted to do well, you wanted to read for those kinds of reasons?
Because, well, you say that you're...
Oh, no, no, no, listen to me.
If you ever want to not be the cool kid, be the library nerd, right?
I mean, the idea that I had all of this encouragement in my reading and I gained maybe all this prestige in my reading and so on was not generally the case when I was growing up.
I mean, kids weren't like, ooh, Steph, tell us what you read.
I bet you it's super cool and exciting.
I don't know.
I feel like I was...
Maybe I was more fortunate in that case then.
And, you know, I went to a pretty good school.
The, you know...
You went to what?
A pretty good school.
There was a good ethos.
It was quite competitive in that everyone wanted to do well.
You wanted to outperform your peers.
And in that sense, there's more to school than just the getting taught the facts and the content.
There's also almost the pastoral side of it, where you're Almost being inculcated into a culture, into an ethos.
And that, in a way, that motivational sort of it is pretty much, you know, 70% of our job, I'd say.
Because as you say, you know, kids, if they're smart, they're going to read.
But they've got to be sort of shown the value of reading.
No, no, no.
Why do they have to be?
Hang on.
Why do they have to be shown the value of reading?
I mean, if you like to read, like, you don't need big classes on the good taste of chocolate.
It's really, really important that you like chocolate, and it's really, really important that you enjoy ice cream.
Okay, but, you know, there are some kids who, you know, their parents wouldn't have introduced them to books before they went to school.
They would not have...
Some kids, they need their horizons broadened in a way for them in order to come across.
Imagine if you were from, say, a less Advantage background.
I obviously don't know your background.
Hang on, hang on.
I was from a very disadvantaged background and I was not introduced to books.
I had to go out and find them myself.
Okay, fair enough.
Okay.
Now, look, obviously I'm not a statistical sample, right?
I mean, I'm a sample of one.
This doesn't describe...
You could be completely right and I could be completely accurate in my history.
It doesn't...
But another way of looking at it is that If your parents aren't interested in reading, it's probably because they're not very smart.
And if they're not very smart, then they're likely to have not very smart children, just genetically.
So again, this magic power of books, it's hard to find the data.
I know where you're coming from, and I have spent many, many years of my life Doing the same thing.
And of course, I put out all of this information, interview all of these experts, trying to get people to think more clearly, and I believe that it has a very strong and positive effect.
So I'm not dissing education.
But what I am saying is that it's really, really hard to find the data that shows that a better education directly leads to a better outcome.
I mean, in America, in the Head Start program since, I think, the early 2000s, they've dumped more than $100 billion dollars We're good to go.
Wasteful it has been.
They've managed to bump up the scores a little bit for a very short period of time, and then it just falls right back into the average again.
And there's been no movement.
And they've really worked hard with the very best of intentions, and in particular working with underprivileged youth and black youth and so on.
And they just can't budget.
Like, they've spent huge amounts of money trying to close this standard deviation IQ gap between blacks and whites in America, and they just can't do it.
It's all about closing the gaps.
It's a big buzzword, yeah, closing the gaps, but it's quite...
Difficult to do because the smarter you are, I guess, to begin with, the more progress you're going to make, whereas you wouldn't expect a less bright kid to make as much progress, yet they're almost taking progress as an additive sort of strategy.
Not a multiplicative one.
So where you'd expect maybe 50% progress from a level, let's say, that obviously 50% of a very high level is going to be larger than 50% of a very low level.
No, they can get 50% of any level.
Yeah.
I know what you mean.
Double 200 is more than double 20, right?
One is 100 more, the other is only 20 more.
But they can't get any of this stuff too much.
And the thing is, too, like, encouragement is important, but encouragement is dangerous, right?
I mean, there's a plus side to encouragement, and there's a downside to encouragement.
If someone is not a good singer and they want to be a singer, it's important not to encourage them, right?
Because it's not gonna work, right?
I want to play guitar with my forehead and create wonderful new music that's gonna displace Adele from the charts, right?
It's important not to encourage people to do that.
Like if I said, hey man, I'm gonna make it as a ballerina.
I'm 49 years old.
I can't touch my toes, even with a stick.
But I'm going to make it as a ballerina.
It would actually not be good for you to encourage me to do that, right?
Because it would be like a big waste of time, effort, and energy on my part.
Encouragement is a really tricky thing.
And the idea of substituting personal preferences with encouragement is tempting.
But if people are not smart...
And smart people, this is the great challenge, right?
It's the great challenge to picture what life is like if you're not smart.
And, of course, you and I, I mean, you listen to this show.
I assume that you're smarter than your average bear.
You know, we like the life of the mind is a great thing and the life of reading and the life of learning and the life of self-education or educating others.
It's a wonderful thing.
You want to become a teacher and I do my own little bit of amateur instruction on the planet and so on.
And so it is...
Sorry, you are a teacher.
So trying to figure out what life is like for people who aren't smart is one of the great challenges of intellectuals.
And it's the only way to bridge the gap because smart people really can't figure out what it's like.
Sorry, dumb people can't really figure out what it's like to be smart.
So it's really important for smart people to figure out what it's like to be dumb.
And I'm sort of concerned that...
We are encouraging people to take pleasure in something they're just not particularly good at.
Like, you know, whatever the higher level of educational attainment is.
Like, when I was growing up, you sort of went into three streams, like advanced, average, and basic.
And these were sort of, you know, top intelligence, medium intelligence, and low intelligence.
And I was doing so well in language that when I was in grade 8...
They put me in a grade 13 writing class because I enjoyed writing so much and so on.
And I was like, you know, I was like a kid.
I was like 12 in a class for 18-year-olds and it was a great opportunity.
But if they put some other kid in there, like I had to show the ability already and then they allowed me to take that credit at the time.
But taking some other kid and putting them in that class wouldn't have worked out, I don't think.
So I've kind of got two points.
So firstly, on your idea that Encouraging kids can be dangerous at certain points.
I teach physics, which is pretty difficult for even bright kids.
I've got to teach physics to some kids who can barely spell their own name.
What's the point of that?
Of course, you wouldn't encourage them.
Oh, yeah, you can be a physicist when you're older.
You should devote your efforts to this.
But I think there is value in Getting them to try and deal with difficult ideas, get them to persevere when things are difficult, because not only are they learning the physics, which probably they're not going to ever use again, what they're learning is how to be resilient in the face of difficulty.
They're learning how to Keep on going and so on and deal with difficult ideas.
And that is going to be useful to them, I think.
So you can encourage in a way that doesn't destroy them when they go out into the real world and realize, oh wait, I can't be a physicist.
My IQ is 70 or whatever.
And the second thing, I think I've probably come to realize, yeah, I did and I probably do still have this...
Assumption, which is what's caused me to go down this route, which is maybe ideological, that we all can achieve equal outcomes, which is really just purely ideological.
I have no evidence for that, I've sort of realised.
And that is what's caused me down this route and caused me to stress.
And I guess I slowly have to knock away at that.
Oh, I love it too.
It would be great.
You know, those of us who like to put new ideas into people's minds have a very strong tendency to want to believe that environment fundamentally affects outcomes.
Because you're a teacher and I do my thing.
Yeah.
And therefore hoping to affect the outcome in their lives.
And so we're very invested in the environmental explanations because that's what our gig is, so to speak.
But sorry to interrupt, but go ahead.
No, no, exactly.
So that's all we can control.
Obviously, if you have high expectations of yourself, you expect that I can have an outcome on this kid.
Despite whatever the evidence is telling me.
Because that's what's going to help me do my best and do my best with these kids.
But, you know, I think there is, you're right, when looking at the larger picture, society in general, you maybe do.
I need to look at these statistics that you've mentioned and go into that in a bit more depth.
But if the reality is at odds with my ideological assumption, Then, yeah, I can't really apply that mode of thinking to society and what works best for society, yeah.
This is a bit of data.
This comes out of the 90s.
In 1999, economists Alan Kruger and Stacey Bergdale published a widely read study that compared the earnings of graduates of elite colleges with those of moderately selective schools, which is a nice way of saying third tier.
The latter group was composed of people who'd been admitted to an elite college but chose to attend another school.
The economists found that the earnings of the two groups 20 years after graduation differed little or not at all.
A larger follow-up study released in 2011 and covering 19,000 college graduates reached a similar conclusion whether you went to Penn or Penn State, Williams College or Miami University of Ohio.
Miami University of Ohio.
Boy, that's a mix and match of states.
Job outcomes were unaffected in terms of earnings.
And so...
The idea that there's no social mobility if people get higher or lower quality education, again, it's just, it's not supported by the data.
And much though, I would love it if people were like, you change their minds, you change their lives.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that there's a real place for that.
I'm not trying to dis-education as a whole.
But this idea that we're going to go end up with these two-tiered Marxist environment of Eloy and Morlocks or something like that is not supported by the data.
And as you know, there is a bell curve of intelligence, right?
And the vast majority of people fall within a standard deviation or half a standard deviation of 100.
And there are outliers at the top end and there are outliers at the bottom end.
And the market generally sorts very relentlessly by intellectual ability.
And we can't, nobody knows how to change that.
Nobody knows how to change somebody's IQ, at least in any permanent way.
We've talked here about more breastfeeding, and we've talked here about less spanking and more negotiation.
I think when parenting improves as a whole, we'll see some better outcomes.
But fundamentally, what we live with right now is a relentless bell curve that nobody knows how to move anyone else.
I guess you can, I don't know, give them a concussion to move them down or something, but nobody knows how to get somebody up the bell curve.
And so to me, that is sort of the reality.
A little or a lot heartbreaking.
Though it is.
Now, the things that we can do to increase social mobility, for sure, right?
I mean, break down barriers for people to enter into the free market, break down licensing arrangements so people can compete with others.
Lots of things we can do so that more people get more opportunities for social mobility, but I don't think that it's predicated on education fundamentally.
But, sorry, go ahead.
I don't know, but I think Britain is still very class-based.
So, you know...
All of the parliament cabinet has been to Oxford or Cambridge.
Most of them have been to private schools.
There's an exam called the 11 plus which gets you into secondary schools and some are selective and some aren't.
And to get into the good ones you have to take an exam and the wealthier parents will Very commonly pay for tuition for their kids to do well on that.
So I don't think it's just, I'm kind of getting where you're going and I'm moving to that side of things, but I still think, especially in this country, can't speak for the US, that if you have a smart kid from a lower socioeconomic background and a smart kid from a A more wealthy background, I still think that a kid from the worst-off background is going to find it far, far, far more difficult in this country to do well.
When I was at uni, I noticed that students had been privately educated who weren't particularly smart, but they just knew how the system worked.
They had internships through their parents and that kind of thing.
I still think there's a lot Okay, well hang on.
Let's slow that down for a sec.
There's a lot that's in there.
First of all, when you're in environments that are open to manipulation, then people are rewarded for manipulative abilities rather than raw intelligence.
So the two examples that you've cited, one is university and the other is politics.
You're talking about the House of Commons and so on, right?
And that they went to these Oxford, Cambridge, these elite colleges.
But you see, those are situations where there are no voluntary customers, right?
So what do you mean by no voluntary customers?
Well, if I go out, like, okay, so I go and provide this show to the world and ask people to donate to support that.
Now, if I do a good job and people find what I'm saying engaging, interesting, challenging, entertaining, whatever it is, right, then they'll pay for what it is that they consume.
So they're voluntary customers.
In fact, they're the most voluntary customers because they can consume as much as they want and then just pay me if they feel like it whenever they want, right?
Yeah.
And so I have voluntary customers.
Now, in university, you can manipulate a system and you are a paying customer.
You're not selling to someone when you're in university.
There's no market for you.
You are a paying customer.
Right?
So it's much more open to manipulation.
Now, because, you know, the customer is always right.
And in politics, you don't have a specific customer.
I mean, you can go and lie to people and be convincing.
You have basically the requirement for being a politician is to be able to lie with a straight face.
And never ever circle back, right?
Like in America, President Obama said about Obamacare, you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, and I'm going to save you thousands of dollars a year.
And...
It's all a complete lie, and it's the exact opposite of the truth, but it doesn't matter.
You just keep going.
Just never circle back, right?
In the same way that George Bush invading Iraq said, oh, it's going to cost us maybe $50 billion.
We're going to make the money back in oil, and it's only going to take a couple of months, right?
I think it's the same everywhere in the world, really.
The same, yeah.
I mean, I'm just...
I'm Tony Blair, right?
Evidence about what he knew before the invasion of Iraq, and is he being prosecuted for war crimes?
No.
Because...
So in politics, there's not a voluntary customer who has any recourse.
You may believe that the guy is going to do something, you'll vote for him, and if he doesn't, you can't get your vote back.
And so you're giving me two examples that are not voluntary customer-based.
Okay.
And from that standpoint...
That is going to potentially reward people who are manipulative more than they are particularly intelligent.
And I'm not saying politicians aren't intelligent.
And I'm not saying people at Oxford and Cambridge aren't intelligent.
They obviously are.
But it is a different kettle of fish when you have to provide value to people in a purely voluntary.
You have to get their attention.
You have to find a way to provide value for them.
They can return your good or they can leave at any time.
You have to motivate them into acting.
Rather than paying for something that...
It's sort of like the difference between if you go into a restaurant and you're a paying customer, well, they're going to bring you food.
You don't have to be smart.
You just have to have some money.
You can be as dumb as a bag of hammers, but if you've got money to pay for the meal, then they'll bring you the meal.
Whereas if you want to go into a restaurant and Sell philosophy for food.
You've got to be really good at what you're doing because they're probably going to be kind of indifferent to it as a whole.
So I think the real test of intelligence...
Shows up in the free market where they're voluntary customers and nobody cares what you're doing unless you can find a way to really show that you add value to their lives.
That's where real intelligence shows up.
All of this manipulative stuff shows up in the realms of education and in politics and to some degree in the media because the media is serving politics so much these days and serving the masters.
So that to me, the examples that you're giving, yeah, I fully submit.
Sorry, I fully accept.
There's a lot of manipulation and that is not exactly sorting directly by intelligence, but You'd need a free market example where that held true and according to the data in the free market Being manipulative and lying is bad for you like that Which serves you in politics is a huge negative for you in the free market because in the free market Your reputation is your economic value so I guess because yeah Sorry, let me just finish this up.
So, you know, on eBay or places where you can sell stuff from your little seller store, right?
If you have a, I don't know, 40% rating of delivering, people won't buy from you.
Whereas if you have like a 99.9% rating that you ship stuff, then people will buy from you.
So the real economic...
It's the difference between making a sale and not making a sale.
And if you enter into an arrangement with someone...
If they feel that there's a 50-50 chance that you're going to break that arrangement, they just won't enter it to you.
They just won't enter it.
So lying with a straight face and twisting words and putting up the weasel words and all that, it doesn't...
Like Hillary Clinton's got this email scandal going on at the moment.
Now imagine that this was occurring in a free market environment.
That she had been charged with keeping particular secrets...
And now I think that the number of classified emails that went through her server is close to or at a thousand when she claimed there was none.
Now, in a free market environment, all the jobs that pay good money require that you have discretion, require that you shut up and not say things.
You know, like if you're the CEO of General Motors, you don't go blabbing what your next big business plan is.
When you talk to a reporter, you shut the hell up about.
So all jobs of any economic status require that you, you know, shut up.
Right.
Like if you're a lawyer, you can't talk about your clients.
If you're a doctor, you've got confidentiality with your patients.
So keeping secrets is one of the fundamental things that gives you economic value.
Will people trust you with their secrets being a reporter?
Right.
If you don't reveal your source, if you reveal your source, you're never going to get another source, that kind of thing.
So just being able to keep secrets is fundamental to having economic value.
It doesn't really matter, I guess, if the dishwasher at a restaurant doesn't keep us or whatever, right?
But so if you look at Hillary Clinton, if she was in the free market and she would be aiming for a job that requires like the fundamental job description is keep secrets, right?
So she was Secretary of State.
The most important thing to do when you're Secretary of State is keep secrets.
That's pretty much the job.
If you can't do that, you can't do any of it.
There's other things you can do if you can keep secrets.
If you can't keep secrets, that's the whole point of the job.
Basically, she's a poker player playing with her cards facing whoever she's playing.
The one thing, you can play different ways, but you've got to at least have your cards facing towards you, right?
If they're facing away from you, You don't know.
You can't do poker in that situation.
So in a free market environment, she would be trying to get a job which required that she keep secrets.
And then people would say, how did you do with your last job where you were supposed to keep secrets?
I didn't do too well at all.
She wouldn't get hired, right?
So why is it...
That raises an interesting question.
question, why is it that politics is not like a free market?
How can we bring it more towards that sort of end of the spectrum?
How do we make rape like lovemaking?
Well, the first thing you've got to do is take the gun out of the equation, right?
Politics is enforced, right?
It's using the initiation of force to extract taxes.
And to compel compliance from people who've not voluntarily entered into a contract, right?
I mean, if I go and rent a car, then they have the right to ask the car that I return the car at the end of the rental.
I have to sign a contract and so on.
But politics is the black art of convincing people that they've somehow signed a contract because they're breathing.
Like, hey, you chose to have breakfast this morning.
That means you've got to have sex with me, baby.
I don't think that works, right?
But, oh, you live in this country, and so you've got to pay this money or we'll throw you in jail.
I mean, you simply have to take the violence out of the initiation of force out of the equation, but it's not politics anymore, right?
Yeah.
Is there some way of maybe getting rid of the black art side of it?
Educating people so they can see through it and so that voting has more of an impact?
I guess we've now moved on to another topic, but probably not.
Wait, wait.
Voting has more of an impact?
So as in...
Wait, wait.
Let's say that I... A chicken in every pot, right?
If you vote for me, I'm going to do X, Y, and Z. Okay, well, first of all, I have no idea who's voting for me.
I just know whether I won or lost.
And secondly, let's say I don't keep my promises.
What recourse do the people have?
Yeah, you're right.
Well, they can vote you out, but by then you've already made your fortune, you've had your power, you've been in for four years, and of course you've got a whole bunch of people who are dependent upon your continued power.
And so they're going to vote to keep you in, or they're going to set up super PACs to try and convince people to keep you in.
Or if you're on the left or a Democrat, then the media will circle around you like evil bandwagons of reality-repelling truth manglers.
And so as far as, you know, how to make people aware in life, well, this is what I do, right?
We just did four and a half million video views over the last 30 days, and that's sort of what I'm...
And here's the other thing, too, is that I am helping to stimulate the thought processes Of, I don't know, millions of people over time around the world.
And generally for free.
And I think that I provide the best stuff around.
I really, I mean, I do.
I'm not going to, false modesty is just another kind of hypocrisy.
We work really hard to make great shows.
And I'm constantly challenging myself to try and find better, more compelling, more entertaining, more enjoyable ways to explain things.
And it's free.
I mean, it's free to consume.
I like to, it's free.
You've got to pay for it.
Hopefully people will do that over time.
But when you say to me, well, how would people get educated in the absence of government education?
Well, you could get an example of some sort of model where, yeah, and with the, you know, the internet, I think a lot of education can be done in an automated fashion.
The only side that I think computers, the internet can't do is the sort of the pastoral, the motivational side, which we tend to be doing more of these days.
What do you mean in school?
Yeah, so, you know, Really, where I see myself adding value is where kids, generally speaking, I don't work in the best schools.
They're fairly disadvantaged.
They basically don't have role models, or very good ones anyway.
Where you actually feel like you've made a difference is when you've Showed them how to respond to something, how to act in a decent way.
And I think, yeah, we can automate education a long way.
And I think that will happen very shortly.
But there's still that other area.
And of course, good parenting would remove the need for that.
But I think currently our system seems to be basically daycare and teachers doing the job of parents pretty much.
Yeah, tell me a little bit more about that because I think that's one of the great challenges.
Yeah.
Not just the multicultural aspect, but you've got a lot of kids that are single moms.
You've got a lot of kids that have broken homes.
You've got a lot of kids whose parents are not getting along.
Yeah.
I mean, you're like this enclosed Mormon household.
One parent, 30 kids or whatever.
It's crazy.
I love it.
I enjoy it.
But it is pretty crazy.
You have...
Some kids who are basically not socialized at all.
And the school can't get rid of them.
They don't follow the school policy, but the school basically just puts them in another room.
They can't get rid of them because of basically where the school that they go to if they didn't get into the good ones.
And it's very hard to get rid of kids.
Hang on, hang on.
So I've been forever since I lived in England, of course.
When you say that You're the school they go to if they can't get into one of the better ones.
Okay, yeah.
Are you a privately funded school?
No, no.
It's publicly.
But, you know, it's in a very wide area.
Fairly affluent, actually.
However, there are grammar schools, which are selective.
There are private schools in the area.
And we essentially get the ones who are a bit less smart.
Some very smart ones do sort of fall through the net.
But we do get a lot of kids who...
Yeah.
They didn't get in.
They didn't pass 11 plus and they didn't get into the school or their parents didn't put them into a private school.
That's what I mean.
Should we skate past the word that you're trying not to say?
What's that?
What's that word?
You said, well, we learn a fairly white neighborhood, but the ones we get...
No, no, no.
If there's a word here that...
No, no, no.
My bosses are mostly white, actually, but there are still less affluent white people, too.
In fact, actually, the statistics on the socioeconomic groups that are doing poorly at the moment, white boys are the worst.
They're doing worse than Asians and even Caribbeans in the UK, which I think is quite shocking.
In London, especially, they've poured so much money into closing that gap.
I'm not sure whether they have closed the gap or whether it's for other reasons, but whites and males are actually doing worse.
Have they done anything really radical, like perhaps asking the boys how they'd like to learn?
Yeah, so there's a lot of ideological shifts in teaching, which, I don't know, maybe aren't right.
I think overall every teacher does what they think is best, regardless of what.
Every teacher does what they think is best.
These kinds of blanket statements mean that we're skirting quite close to an ideological volcano.
Okay.
You don't know.
You have no way of knowing.
I don't.
I don't.
What motivates every single teacher.
I don't.
I don't.
Every single teacher might be going through their whole day going, do not strangle the children.
It's only three months till vacation.
Do not strangle the children.
I hate these little bastards.
Right?
I mean, I don't know, but there's got to be some, right?
I mean, just based on the bell curve of preference.
What I'm trying to say is that...
Yes, I think what you alluded to was ideological pushes from the top from government that are meant to trickle down and affect teaching right at the bottom.
And is that what you were sort of mentioning?
No, I mean, just when you said that all teachers try to do their best or whatever, I mean, that's...
You don't know.
You don't know.
I don't know.
And there are teachers, and I know teachers who just try and do the bare minimum and get through the day and absolutely hate the job, and those exist too.
What I was trying to say is that even if there are these – I thought you were alluding to ideological – Sort of imperatives from the government down that teachers will, if they don't agree with them, they'll, you know, tick the boxes, but they'll be doing what they think is the best anyway.
That's what I'm saying is we can be quite resistant to changes from high above just because we are all individuals.
We will have our own ideas of what works best.
But anyway, yeah, to go into more about the difficulties and the pastoral side.
So I've got I had a day where I just had to meet all their parents.
There are some parents who, if they see the school is going, they won't pick up.
They really bring their kid into school.
As a result, the kids...
You know, very disrespectful.
It's going to be very difficult for them, I imagine, for them to sort of get a job where they have to actually speak respectfully to their boss and deal with people.
And in a way, the challenge is there.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they learn this physics equation.
Sorry, why do they have to get a job?
Can't they get fairly well by on welfare and can't they just get pregnant?
One of the reasons that education is important is because otherwise you don't do well in life, right?
But you can do fine in life in most of the Western countries by getting welfare or getting pregnant or maybe selling some drugs on the side or whatever.
I don't think it's a very satisfying existence.
No, no, no.
I get that.
But what I'm saying is that so they don't learn how to speak respectfully to a boss.
They'll make more money for most of their life, particularly lower IQ people.
They'll make more money for most of their life by just being on welfare and getting benefits.
Well, I guess then there's...
I'm trying to help them in something that's a bit more important than that.
Of course, they could just live off welfare.
But there's, you know, the idea that you can be part of a society, you can...
Act in the interests of others, be respectful.
I think that's another role that obviously should be down to the parents in an ideal world, but which often you, in acting as a role model and by explaining things, modelling behaviour, pass on.
I think really the role of a teacher in this day and age is, in the type of school I'm in anyway, is more to do with that side of things than to do with You know, teaching the content.
I had no idea of that when I went into this profession.
And I'm still fairly new to it.
But that's what it turned out to be.
And actually, I don't mind it too much.
I think it's quite...
I do think it's quite valuable.
Yeah.
So, I mean, there's a lot of...
Schools are a lot to do with social engineering.
And I don't mean you.
I mean, I just mean the structure as a whole, right?
So, I don't know about how it exactly is played out in the UK. But it's probably not dissimilar.
That there's this general belief that school was short-changing girls.
And particularly around their sort of early to mid-teens, girls began to slip behind boys.
And well, now, of course, it's the opposite.
And the reason why this is a challenge is for a variety of reasons.
But generally, biologically, that which develops faster ends up less complicated.
This is sort of a biological reality that nature is slow to build that which is the most complex.
I guess like the crystallization of something.
Yeah, or like horses can walk within a day or two or a week or two of being born, but they can't do ballet.
Whereas human beings take forever to learn how to walk, like a year or more for a lot of kids before they can walk comfortably.
But they can end up doing hurdles and ballet and all kinds of Cirque du Soleil stuff, right?
So that which takes longer to develop usually ends up more complex.
And a basic biological reality is...
Is that girls will have some advantages over boys, but that's at the expense of girls' long-term intellectual development.
In general, overall, lots of exceptions and so on, right?
And so, yeah, girls did fairly well, and that was fine, because, you know, everybody, women are wonderful, girls should, right?
But then what happened was the girls began to slip behind the boys in their early to mid-teens.
Well, yeah, because the boys took slower to develop, which means they end up outpacing the girls later on.
Hmm.
And so everybody, like, did these studies and say, well, you know, in their early to mid-teens, the girls start falling behind the boys.
Ah!
I mean, the fact that the boys were behind the girls earlier on didn't make everyone panic, but now that the girls are in trouble and they thought it was, you know, well, body image stuff and they're insecure and they're getting negative messages about math and they just get too interested in boys because of advertising.
It's like, no!
The girls' brains developed faster, which made them look smart when they were younger.
And then the boys...
Brains develop more later because they developed slower earlier because the bigger the base, the higher the house.
And it takes a long time.
You know, if you want to build a high tower, you've got to dig down quite a long way first.
If you want to build a house, you can build a house in a tenth the time it takes to build a high tower.
I don't see boys catching up in school.
Maybe they do in the U.S. They're still lagging behind.
All the way into university.
Maybe in the world of work, they do catch up.
So where are you getting this idea of that boys catch up academically compared to girls?
No, no, I never said academically.
I said that, and I don't know what it is now, because of course the solving of this imaginary problem of girls lagging behind and so on, it's changed everything.
I mean, it's changed absolutely everything.
Can I just give a little anecdote which is sort of relevant to this?
There is someone who's getting paid by the government basically to come into the school.
She works like two hours a day and her job is to do a study on gender stereotypes and gender balance.
So she's basically, imagine this, She's given assignments to kids to watch our lessons and basically note down when we don't use gender-neutral language.
I'm not even joking.
She's pretty nice, harmless, one-on-one.
She's not that crazy, but she's getting paid literally to do that.
I think, why couldn't they spend that money on something more useful when actually the group that's doing worst academically is white boys.
This is a purely ideological concern, which they're then spending money on and driving in.
So yeah, that's just something that's relevant to what you were just talking about.
Which I think is quite funny, but also very sad.
Yeah, the fact that the boys...
The boys are suffering.
I mean, who cares, right?
Males are disposable, and all we do is worship the giant altar of femininity and to help with the boys.
You know, no matter how many boys' faces we have to step over in order to elevate girls, who cares, right?
I mean, and that's just a basic reality of this weird social engineering, you know.
Oh, gender inequality, blah, blah, blah.
You know, I don't see a lot of feminists saying, well, the problem is there's way too many workplace deaths that are male.
You know, like 95, 98% of workplace deaths are male.
So we've got to balance that out.
Ladies, there aren't enough of you down in the sewers.
There aren't enough of you up on the hydropoles.
There aren't enough of you running the coal factories.
There aren't enough of you coal miners.
You've got to get in there because there's two hazardous that men are disproportionately shouldering the danger of running.
A civilized society.
So ladies, you've got to get out there.
It's way gender imbalanced when it comes to hazardous, difficult, dangerous, and dirty occupations.
No.
We need more female CEOs because I like air conditioning.
I don't know.
It's so one-sided.
It's just embarrassing and ludicrous to even talk about it.
It's just a, you know, hey, there's nice stuff over there that men have.
Let's go get some.
Ooh, the men over there are scooping shit.
Let's just not ever talk about that.
I mean, that's just nonsense, right?
So...
Yeah, so I mean this is sort of basic failure of knowledge of biology.
A boy's brain doesn't stop developing until his late 20s, whereas a girl's brain stops developing in her early 20s, right?
So it's six, seven, eight years difference where the boy's brain is still maturing and still growing because that which is slower to build usually ends up more complex and is more random, right?
Which is why with the bell curve of intelligence, women are more narrowly clustered around the middle and men have a greater spread at the edges.
There are more really low IQ men and there are more really high IQ men.
And when it comes to like super high IQ, we're talking eight to one males to females.
And the same thing with super low IQ, eight to one males to females.
And so this is why you have more male homelessness and more male Nobel Prizes, right?
Now, I don't think...
A lot of feminists are like, we want more female Nobel Prizes.
Sure, they're shiny and come with money.
But you don't hear them saying, well, we need more female homelessness because that's not pleasant, right?
So they want all the nice stuff, but none of the risky or negative stuff.
So, you know, how this is solved, well, I mean...
We need to not have social engineering with children.
You know, the sentences that you have to say in the modern world are ridiculous.
We need to not have social engineering when it comes to children.
That is important.
And the only way to stop social engineering is to stop having the government fund all of these social engineering gulags that are constantly going back and forth about this way to learn or that way to learn.
We've got Common Core.
We've got see and say.
We've got phonetics.
It's all just a bunch of fads.
And nobody measures it, and nobody suffers, and nobody makes money, and nobody, it doesn't cost anyone money, whether it succeeds or fails.
You know, we need to move education into the same economic paradigm that produce things like cell phones, right?
And video calls all around the world, and computers, and this is what the free market, or at least what's left of it, can do.
Yeah.
And the fact that we have the government running education...
I mean, can you imagine what it would be like if the government was running the telephone service?
Do you think we'd have cell phones?
Do you think we'd have 4K cameras in something a little bit bigger than a cigarette pack?
Do you think that we'd have, you know, 5G cell phone signals emerging?
Do you think we'd have any of this stuff?
No, of course not.
We'd still have smoke signals and a Pony Express.
So the fact that we have turned over the education of children...
To a coercive, non-customer-responsive playground of horrifying social engineering institutions like the government is horrendous.
I want children to get educated.
Of course I do.
I benefit and you benefit and everybody benefits when people can think more clearly and when they can read and write and when they can analyze problems and when they can do all of these wonderful things.
I think it's great, which is why I hand over the knowledge and the knowledge of the people I interview in this conversation to people without charge.
Absolutely.
I like it when people get educated.
But dear God, man, you can't imagine what's going on in government schools.
Is real education, can you?
I mean, after you teach them how to read and write and you grind them through all the boring stuff to do with mathematics and so on, are you really teaching people how to think?
Are you teaching people how to be philosophers?
Are you teaching people how to understand moral philosophy, how to process reality?
Of course not, because you have all of these different cultures and religions and political philosophies all jammed into the same place.
And can you, let's say you've got a bunch of Muslim kids in your class, can you teach an accurate history of the Crusades?
Like, can you say, well, you know, the Christians finally hit back after four centuries of endless Islamic incursions into Christian lands, and after being chased out of the Middle East, and after being chased out of North Africa, they finally fought back to try and retake Jerusalem.
If you say that, if you actually give an accurate history of the Crusades, we've just got a presentation that's uploading as we speak about this, this is why it's on my mind.
People can check out the truth about the Crusades.
But imagine if you were to say that, what would the Muslim parents say to you?
I actually don't think it would be that bad.
Yeah, you might get some complaints, but at the end of the day, if you're teaching them facts, you can defend that, I think.
And if there ever came a point where I couldn't say something because of complaints of that nature, I wouldn't work there, honestly.
I can't see it getting that bad.
Maybe it has become that bad in some parts of the West.
Do you have a lot of Muslim kids in your classes?
In my fourth group, I've got two, I think.
One who has about 30 kids.
They are actually quite well integrated, honestly.
They're very friendly with white kids.
We just went on school trips, actually, in there.
These guys are pretty integrated.
That's not the case in some parts of London.
I would not want to work in London, for sure.
Right.
Well, you can obviously give it a try if you find our presentation on the Crusades compelling and provokes it.
Do you think that you could say, for instance, that the government is an agent of force?
Do you think you could say that the national debt is stealing from children?
Do you think that you could say that a lot of the black-white problems in America are the result of the fact that blacks on average in America are a standard problem?
I could teach them the skills.
I could teach them the skills.
Um, I reckon I could.
I've had discussions with, um, in fact, yeah, a Muslim girl.
You reckon you could?
No, no, a Muslim girl, you know, I have a Muslim girl after another completely unrelated lesson in a Christian, a black Christian kid as well.
They have, I have entered in discussion with them.
Um, I don't really think religion is necessarily that, uh, No, no, no, I'm not talking about it.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
I'm not arguing whether.
I said critical thinking skills.
I made no mention of whether religion is destructive or not.
I was saying, can you teach the critical thinking skills that would lead people to question the existence of deities?
I mean, that wouldn't be the goal, but a lot of skeptical and critical thinking skills, you would want to apply it to something that's relevant to the child's life, not whether there are unicorns on the backs of leprechauns, right, but something more relevant to their life.
But you'll teach something right now by just having this conversation with me, asking me questions, pointing out where I've gone wrong, and Why would you do the same?
Probably not as well in conversations with these kids.
I would like to think, and I think I've done this, I'd have an open conversation.
I wouldn't lie or anything or hold my words, but I would just question them.
You can't force things down their throat.
Obviously, as you know, you have to sort of break it down bit by bit.
But yeah, I think there is scope for that sort of discussion in schools.
Obviously you can't do that...
Wait, wait, hang on.
When you say that you think there is scope...
Well, as in I have had that sort of discussion on two occasions that I can think of.
Obviously it can't be...
Probably couldn't be done in the curriculum.
But as I say, teaching is now more so pastoral.
It's so much to do with relationships between the teachers and the kids.
But I think it depends on the quality of the teachers, really, and what the teachers think.
But you couldn't make it part of the curriculum?
No, you couldn't.
I don't think so.
Right.
Now, Ben, you said that you don't want to force the kids, right?
I don't want to force them.
I want to help them to think.
Yeah, you don't want to force things down their throat.
You don't want to force them, right?
Are they there by choice?
No, they're not.
That's true.
Do their parents pay for your services by choice?
No, they don't.
They pay by tax.
So they're there by force and you're paid by force.
This doesn't mean you can't be a good teacher, but when you say, well, I don't want to force them.
Yeah, you're right.
Well, that's the environment.
The situation is that they're forced to be there and their parents are forced to pay.
So what's the solution?
Move to a private school.
Well, no, no, no.
The solution, there's a whole other difference.
The accuracy of the statement is important, right?
Yeah.
Now, I'm not saying, look, I get, listen, Ben, let me, I get that you don't want to force the children.
Yeah.
And you and I are on the same page as far as that.
I don't want to force the children either, which is why you came up with, like, let's go back to sort of your original question, right?
Yeah.
So you said, you're very critical of teachers in several shows, calling them lazy, among other things, and trashing state education in general, right?
Now, these are not philosophical terms.
No.
You're critical, you call them lazy, you trash them, right?
And it's interesting to me, I mean, you're obviously a very intelligent fellow, but it's interesting to me that you don't seem to have acknowledged, accepted, or processed that I'm not trashing anyone.
I'm not calling anyone lazy.
What I'm saying is that the foundation of government education is the initiation of force.
Yeah, no, I understand that.
And that's not my fault, right?
That's not something I've just made up, right?
I reject the initiation of force as a communicator, as a thinker, as a philosopher, as a reasoner, as an empiricist.
That's right.
A thinker reasons and communicates like you and I. We're not taking out shivs and trying to dance around each other to stick each other with a kidney to win the conversation.
We're not even trying to win the conversation, either of us.
But we're having an exchange of ideas and an exchange of thoughts and arguments and data.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
I can't countenance, I can't condone the initiation of the use of force.
And I've got a whole book called Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, which people can get and should get at freedomainradio.com slash free.
You can get a PDF, HTML, MP3, whatever you want.
So because the non-initiation of force is a foundational moral principle, and because government schools violate the initiation of force, I have no choice but to condemn it from a moral standpoint.
It's not up to me.
It's not up to you.
It's not up to my particular perspective.
I'm going to take an extreme example here, and I'm not putting you in this category, but just to...
Pound the nail in for the listeners.
If I'm, as I'm sure you are and I, if we're against human slavery, right?
Steph, I've noticed that you're very critical of human slavers.
You call them lazy.
And you trash slavery in general.
Yeah.
Right.
You know, slavers get up very early in the morning and they've got to catch people.
And sometimes their blow darts...
The wind just takes them away and then they have to chase them down and chew in their calves by hand.
Sometimes they pull their legs.
Sometimes they overextend their backs trying to catch someone who's, you know, trying to scramble through a bramble bush to get away.
It's hard work.
They're tired, dusty.
They stagger home, you know, and the next day they've got to get up and do it all over again.
They work really, really hard.
And in fact, sometimes it's really hard to get slave catchers and slave drivers to even want to be slave drivers.
It's such hard work.
They're not lazy.
And by God, how could society function if there weren't slaves?
I mean, the cotton isn't going to pick itself, you know?
I mean, how are we going to possibly...
I mean, we've got to pick fruit without slaves.
All that fruit is going to rot on the trees and human beings by the hundreds of millions are just going to starve to death or get scurvy or both.
I mean, if we don't...
I mean, slavery has been around forever.
The slave catchers work really, really hard.
And don't call them lazy.
And don't just trash them.
Would you want the job?
You don't even have that job.
Do you know any slave catchers?
Do you know how difficult it is for them to get their job?
You know, sometimes people just turn around when they're cornered and bite the slave catchers.
And then they've got to go get tetanus shots.
I mean, it's really a difficult, difficult job.
And if we don't have slaves...
Mass extinction of all the people who depend on the labor of slaves will occur.
Is that what you want?
Like, again, I'm taking a very silly and extreme example, but the violation of the initiation of the use of force is common to both scenarios, though, of course, I'm not putting government education in exactly the same moral category, but the foundational principles remain the same.
I know.
I get your point.
My question was, as you say, not phrased in philosophical terms.
And it was really just to bait out to go on the show, really.
Oh, I know.
I know.
So anyway, these are just things to mull over.
Like when it comes to your career and all of that, I mean, you can obviously do good in the system.
But the important thing is that you are, you know, I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
And since you're a relatively new listener, you've not heard this.
All is permitted with enough self-knowledge.
All is permitted with honesty.
All is permitted with honesty.
Like, I don't tell people what to do in this show.
I'm not going to tell you stay or go.
This is your choice.
But you need to be honest with yourself about the system that you're in so that you're making moral decisions based upon the reality that the kids are forced to be there and your pay comes from people who don't want to pay you but are forced to.
Now they might want to pay you in a free society just like a woman might want to have sex with me if I don't rape her but we'll never know at least not in the current situation.
So self-honesty is important.
You need to accept the situation that you're in and the system that you're in and once you can do that Then whatever choice you make after that is fine.
And genuinely, I mean that.
Whether you stay or whether you go, it's just important to know the situation that you're in.
Yeah.
Well, the government does seem to be moving towards harnessing these free market forces with what they're called academies, where basically the school can do whatever it wants with funding.
They run a bit more like businesses.
So maybe we are seeing with this government...
No, hang on, hang on, hang on.
Yeah, it still is paid by tax.
Whatever you want is not the definition of business.
No.
I understand what you mean.
The definition of business is you don't get to force people to consume your product at gunpoint.
That, to me, would be doing what you want.
It's not the definition of business, right?
I've got to tell you, only a government employee would think so.
The reality is people have to be there by choice.
I don't know how much education people need.
I don't know whether 12 years is way too much.
I know that Shakespeare went to school for six weeks a year and seemed to be a pretty good writer overall, and it wasn't because someone encouraged him.
It's just because that's what he really, really wanted.
So I don't know how much education is necessary.
I don't know how children should be educated any more than I know how cotton should be picked in the absence of slavery.
I know what will be shown will be incredibly cool and people will look back and say, I can't believe we ever thought that slavery was efficient.
Now we have these giant acre-sized robots that are able to pick fruit by hand and pick cotton, sorry, pick fruit by machines and pick cotton by machines and God knows what.
I mean, the fact that we have these giant tractors and we have airplanes that can Put out particular water sprays.
The amazing things that happen in the absence of slavery, I don't know.
I don't know 50 years after the end of slavery how cotton and fruit should be picked.
I have no idea.
I don't know how the pyramids should be built.
But the reality is that we'll find out when things become voluntary.
When people have a choice.
And then the children can actually get instruction on Morality.
Right now, government schools can't teach morality because it's going to be wildly offensive to significant portions of the population, which is why moral standards have been completely stripped out of the equation of government schools.
And yes, you guys, you're like the Samastatt teacher who's bringing Ayn Rand's writings and photocopies into Stalin or something, right?
But you are doing it under the table, so to speak, right?
You're bringing values and critical thinking and so on, which is, you know, great.
But that's...
That's not how it should be.
How it should be is that your values and the values of the parents and the values of the kids should all coincide.
All right.
Thank you so much for having me on, Stefan.
I think I've learned a lot.
I'll let you move on to your next corner now because I don't want the last person to not have time like I did last week.
But thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
And thanks for the good work you're doing, man.
Take care.
Take care.
Bye.
Alright, up next is Thomas.
He wrote in and said, How do you balance work and your social life?
How do you get the perfect balance in your time for both work, achieving professional goals, and creating stable family life and relationships?
What are the symptoms of devoting too much time to work?
That's from Thomas.
Hi, Stefan.
Thomas.
How you doing?
I'm great.
How are you?
Good, thanks.
How many hours a week do you work?
I think it's rather to say by daily.
I work around 10, 12, sometimes 14.
Six days per week right now.
And do you have kids?
Do you have family?
No, no, no.
I'm 21.
Okay, so it's a good time for you to work, right?
No, I'm 23.
I'm 23, sorry.
23, all right.
Wow, that's a long conversation.
So, I mean, the idea of perfect balance?
Yeah, I know it's impossible.
It may be a bit of an impossible standard, right?
Perfect balance is when you don't...
Like, think of somebody crossing...
Niagara Falls on a tightrope.
What's perfect balance?
Well, anything that doesn't have you fall into the...
That's perfect because you're...
What's perfect health?
Well, you're not dead or sick, so that's good enough, right?
And so perfect balance, I don't know.
When you're young, work is more important than when you're older, in general.
Lots of exceptions and so on.
And when you have kids, you know, you can pull a lot of people pull that kind of Mark Zuckerberg thing and say, well, material possessions aren't as important, and so on.
And so the fact that you're working hard as a young man makes sense to me.
You're going to get your...
Resource is going to get your career, going to get all of the great stuff that you can get as a young man.
You can gather all that stuff together.
And then the point of that is that when you have kids, you can probably cut back a bit or a lot and spend more time with your kids.
I was reading this study the other day that kids and parents, parents of kids, spend about three years Minutes, I think it was a day, three minutes a day having any kind of substantial conversation with their kids.
Three minutes a day.
A little small, I would say.
Three minutes a day?
That's a sex life.
And that's tragic.
That is absolutely tragic.
And then people say, well, you know, parenting doesn't really seem to matter in the outcome of kids.
It's like, well, yeah, it's three minutes a day of substantial parenting.
So...
I find that if I work out for three minutes a week, it doesn't really have much effect on my health.
So when you have kids, yeah, save some money.
And then when you have kids, you take some time off for the first couple of years and you spend time with your kids.
And then you obviously, you can't just sit there and stare at your kids the whole time because they also need to have modeled for them what a successful and productive life in the world looks like.
So, you know, you stare at your kids the whole time, they're going to grow up thinking, okay, well, my job is to stare at my kids, you know, and at some point, somebody's got to go out and mow the back 40.
So, you work hard, you get your resources together, you build up some savings, and then you cut back, hopefully considerably, when your kids are young.
And then you show them the world of work as they grow up.
And I think that is a sort of a bounce, right?
You start with lots of work, lower it when the kids are young, and then gear up as they get older because they need you less if you've done a good job when they're young.
And they also want to see you being effective and productive in the world as a whole.
So that to me would be the best way.
What are the symptoms of devoting too much time?
That's like the major thing right here, right now.
Because I'm in a relationship from five years now, so that's kind of a lot.
Especially for me.
Oh, with your girlfriend?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So, last two years when I was working around that, but lower, right?
So it wasn't like 12 hours per day.
It was like 10 and I had three weekends.
So, in the case of that, it was easier, right?
And now my girlfriend is also...
Hang on, Thomas.
Okay, okay.
Do you not like her very much?
No, I like it very much.
Come on, five years.
But then why are you working so much?
It's kind of like an economic place right now in Poland.
It's not very bright.
The taxes are really high and basically if you want to have your own space, for example, you have to take credit for like 30 years, right?
Oh, you mean if you want to get an apartment or something like that?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, something like that.
Does your girlfriend, I'm sorry to interrupt, but does your girlfriend work?
Yeah, my girlfriend works.
So, two people working and you can't get a place?
Okay, so, yeah, yeah, you cannot buy the place with your own money, even with like five years of saving.
So, there's a situation here.
And can you leave the country?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can leave.
My girlfriend doesn't want to.
Because it's hard, right?
And because at some point...
What's hard?
Leaving the country, kinda.
Because she doesn't know languages so well.
So that's kind of a major drawback on that.
But come on, come on, just let me also explain the situation a little bit better, okay?
I'm currently working on starting my own company and as it comes from now it's like for zero payment.
So I work so much just for like a promise.
I have an investor set up but we have to deliver some milestones and before that we won't get much of the money he will give us.
And so basically right here I'm with massive amounts of work to make it happen later, right?
And I'm really, really tight in schedules, right?
So I'm always like a month behind of what I was supposing I will achieve by this point.
And when working with that kind of like in three months you have to have that, that and that.
It's really difficult to not devote so much to work so you won't see it falling behind so much that you cannot repair it.
You cannot achieve your goals.
And the relationship thing, right, it's kind of gradual.
You sometimes will not see the differences before they are so big that you will perhaps be not able to cover the extra amount of work you have to do to negate them.
So I didn't ask the question at the end of that, but...
Yeah, so the short version is that you've got a strong incentive to work very hard at the moment.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But I'm not getting paid anything right now.
No, I get it.
I've been an entrepreneur.
I didn't get paid for the first lot of time I was doing this show, so I get how that works.
So right now, you are in hamster wheel mode, right?
You've got to put a lot of work in because you've got a job, plus you're trying to start your own business.
So now is the time to push for that if that's what you want to do.
Like if you can't survive on your salary and you want to become an entrepreneur and your girlfriend doesn't want to leave and you want to stay with your girlfriend, well then, what choice do you have, right?
I mean, this is the only thing that you can do if this is what you want.
Yeah, yeah, but I'm afraid that I will somehow lose her, right?
She's very supportive, but...
Well, then you can leave the country, so...
Yeah, yeah, it's like kind of like a triangle.
You saw that.
Well, how many hours a week does your girlfriend work?
She has 20, 20 couple of hours.
But the bad thing about that is she works in the evenings from 5 o'clock to 10 o'clock because she's covering in some fitness club reception.
So that's not much of a money and she can't really also study.
Wait, she's a receptionist?
She's a part-time receptionist at a fitness club?
Yeah, yeah, that's true.
Why?
Kind of because this is the job that you have a lot of free time in.
No, but, I'm sorry, I mean, is she not very bright?
I mean, how can that be something that she's okay with?
I mean, it's kind of a brain-dead job, isn't it?
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
The thing is, when you are studying, you have to also have some free time to do your studying, right?
Oh, so she's in school?
Yes, she's in school.
I have a semester, two semesters off.
I have some kind of vacation.
And what is she taking in school?
Marketing and...
Oh, come on.
I don't know the...
Five years, dude.
You've got to know this.
Yeah, no, no, no, no.
I know the name in Polish.
Okay, okay.
Fair enough.
So it's marketing.
This is not like really, really high prestigious.
This is not STEM fields, right?
Well, yeah, but marketers can make a lot of money.
I mean, advertising companies make a lot of money.
So is...
So she's going to school full-time or part-time?
No, full-time.
So she's working a lot too then, right?
She's got a full-time course, plus she's working at the...
Yeah, and we kind of fail to have a lot of time together right now.
We're sure.
And how long is this going to go on for?
Honestly, I don't know right now.
I know that...
Wait, wait.
When does her school end?
Ah, okay.
So that's what you're asking.
Okay.
This is half a year right now.
Oh, so she's only got six months to go, right?
Or half a year to go?
Like, just let me think.
It's okay.
It doesn't matter.
But it's not eight years.
It's not six years.
Okay.
And is she paying for her own schooling?
No, in Poland you have this kind of utopian thing when you don't pay for schooling.
Right.
And is she looking for work in her field given that she's going to graduate in six months?
Not right now.
She was doing some internships before that, but right now she's not looking.
And I think she didn't set it straight, right?
Because of that.
But you have to have some time for studying.
And I think she's doing the wrong thing.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
So she had some internships.
Will those companies hire her when she graduates?
No, probably not because of the internship, if ever, right?
What do you mean, because of the internship?
Because she took it in the middle of the studies, right?
I know, but basically she's auditioned for the job, and if she did a good job as an intern, surely they'll want to hire her as an employee.
I say this because when I was running the software side of a tech company, we had interns, and then the really good interns, we made sure that we snagged them as soon as they graduated.
Yeah, that's true.
I don't think this is the case in this one.
So she has no job prospects that you know of?
No, no, no.
It's not like she's even looking because she has some time there that she can sit and learn and read.
She's fine with that right now.
She's working as a receptionist in a health club.
I'm sure she's got a little bit of time to send some resumes in.
But she needs to do that now.
If she's graduating in six months, she should be working hard to make sure that she gets...
A job, right?
I mean, you don't want to stop looking after you graduate because everyone who's done it sooner will...
So that will help, right?
Yeah, yeah, sure.
I would also say that graduating, because you have to write the thesis, that's like the kind of first goal, to write the thesis and to actually graduate if you want to degree.
Yes.
Yes.
So, yeah, my guess would be that for the next six months, she's got her job, she's finishing her studies, and she's looking for work.
That's going to take a lot of her time.
And you are working at a job and trying to start a new business.
That's going to take a lot of time.
And you just have to talk it out and say, look, for the next six months, we're going to be lucky to see each other for five hours a week, maybe.
I don't know, right?
Whatever you can manage.
But this is the goal, right?
I mean, it can be temporary.
As long as it's acknowledged and discussed in the relationship then you can handle it.
But if you feel like you're working too much and you might lose her then you need to go and talk to her about that.
Because if...
If what you're doing is going to threaten the relationship, like if you're working 14 hours a day, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, if that's going to threaten the relationship, then you need to know that and you need to have that discussion up front.
Like if she says, I can't do another 6 months of you working this hard, Then that's important because we can handle anything as long as we know what the parameters are for the most part, right?
And so if you, like, don't sit there and worry about it.
Sit down with her and say, can we do this for six months?
Because here's the goal.
Here's the plan.
You're going to get a job with a lot of money.
I'm going to start a business with a lot of money.
We're finally going to be able to get our own place.
We're going to get our lives started.
Maybe we get married, whatever it is, right?
That's our goal.
And then we're going to spend a couple of years working really, really hard, maybe five years working really hard, saving money, getting our careers started, and then maybe we have kids, or whatever it is that you want to do.
But if you have these discussions ahead of time, and you know what the plans are, it doesn't mean you can't change them.
But you need to know what the plans are.
And so if you're in a time, and I've been in this, you know, I was in relationships when I was an entrepreneur, and Sometimes I had to work, you know, I want to get macho on how much I worked, but I worked, you know, brain blistering numbers.
I mean, you know what it's like.
I remember being up for two nights straight, like three days and two nights without a wink of sleep, followed by 14 hours of sleep because you just got to get things done.
And so if you are in that mode, you're not going to have a lot of balance.
That's OK, because you're focusing on one in order to be able to achieve the other.
Like if you guys are both treading water in your careers and you're not making much money, then it's going to be really hard to save up the kind of money you need to be able to spend more time with your kids or with each other when you get older.
But if you're in the phase of, you know, if you've got to go out and hunt together, you've got to go out and hunt and your your Stone Age wife is home.
You say, okay, I'll be out for a day or two with the boys hunting bison, but I'll be back, right?
I mean, and do you agree with that plan?
And she's like, yeah, I like bison.
Go get me some bison.
And then you go and get the bison.
You bring it home and she's kissing Raoul, the pastry chef.
Anyway, that's his topic for another time.
But so you just have these discussions and there's nothing wrong with life being a pendulum where you do a lot of this and then it swings back to a lot of that.
We got to be flexible.
And as a young man at the start of his career who's trying to build a foundation of skills and entrepreneurship and so on, yeah, work is going to call you pretty hard and it's going to have you under its heel.
That's a choice.
If your girlfriend is okay with that choice, then that's great.
But don't assume it and don't just cross your fingers and don't feel bad for going to work.
You have to talk this kind of stuff out and get agreement on the plan or change the plan.
Yeah, that's a really nice advice.
Thank you, Stefan.
All right, thanks, man.
All right, well, up next is Josh.
Josh wrote in and said, I'm a 19-year-old college student.
However, I am not your typical college student and spend hours of the day poring over political commentary.
Broadly, I would like to talk about the assault on free thought that has invaded colleges all across the United States.
The recent events in Missouri come to mind.
Social media has become rife with propaganda that seeks to rally an uneducated youth to dismantle society as we know it.
It seems that the vast majority of people my age are so incredibly indoctrinated that they simply will not listen to reason.
They resist reason as if it is counter to their very survival.
Is it too late to reason with these people?
and If it is not too late, how do we break through to these people?
If it is too late, how do we get the world back?
That's from Josh.
Well, whether it's too late or not is not dependent on whether people listen to reason individually.
Right?
So it's not like, well, we've got to get these million people to listen to reason or it's too late.
Right.
Because most people are fundamentally followers.
And the one thing that is...
Right.
not leaders, but followers.
Because they recoil and you know exactly what's gonna come out of their mouths.
And you can't be a leader if you need a safe space from contrary opinions.
You just can't be a leader.
To be a leader means you've got to have a bit of a spine, you've got to have a tiny little bit of a thick skin, or at least something akin to eggshell covering your body.
The fragility, the special snowflakeness of the politically correct, amygdala-stimulated hysterical bots means that they can't be leaders.
And if you can't be a leader, but you want to have an effect, there's only one thing you can be, which is a manipulator.
And these people are not leaders.
Neither are they followers.
They are manipulators.
And as manipulators, they need the participation of society as a whole.
And they are pretty rapidly, I would argue, running out of any conciliatory interest from society as a whole.
I think the University of Missouri in the future may be a bit of a turning point.
Where society just said, you know what?
This political correctness stuff?
No.
No.
You know, when you're in a movement, and I'm certainly in a movement, but when you're in a movement...
You forget the self-correcting nature of society.
It's not perfect and sometimes it's not pretty.
But pendulums tend to swing back.
Now, they don't necessarily do it of their own accord.
You've got to get behind them and push.
But this sort of growing naked thought police semi-fascism of the politically correct leftist hysterical robots is becoming kind of clear to society.
Like the study just recently came out that 40% of college freshmen would be very, very fine with free speech being banned if it offended certain people and in particular minorities.
And I think when people see that, they recoil.
And they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
This is not what we all fought and bled and died for to build this civilization of free speech.
And free speech fundamentally is the foundation of civilization because if there is no free speech, there is no civilization.
Civilization is when you use your words rather than your fists.
So civilization is not dependent on free speech.
It doesn't require free speech.
It doesn't benefit from free speech.
Civilization is free speech.
There's an old John Milton essay called Areopagitica which was very influential in basically arguing that Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
You never want to ban bad ideas.
You want to bring bad ideas to the forefront.
And so they can be debated and everyone can see how bad those ideas are.
And so on this show, as you know, I bring people in who I significantly disagree with.
And if they're not doing a good job shooting themselves in the foot, then I will step in to help.
If they are, I just let them keep going.
But civilization is freedom of speech.
And civilization, intelligent people only find civilization bearable when they do not have to aggressively self-censor for fear of coercive retaliation.
Right?
Intelligent people will go on strike in the absence of free speech.
Society is only bearable for people of intelligence when they can speak their minds.
Because people of intelligence do better in verbal debates than physical coercion.
And so it plays to the strengths of intelligent people for there to be free speech.
And so when you ban free speech, you're banning intelligence.
And when you ban intelligence, society turns into a third world hellhole.
So civilization and free speech are synonyms.
And what's going on in college campuses right now is people...
Who shouldn't be there?
Who are there?
There's this...
Every society has this magical pixie dust of cold solutions, right?
And it almost always involves coercion.
All we've got to do is...
And paradise!
All we've got to do is force everyone to buy healthcare insurance and paradise!
All we have to do is force kids to go to school and paradise!
All we have to do is eliminate racism and sexism and paradise!
Even though nature seems to be quite racist and sexist in its apportionment of things like intelligence and bell curves and stuff like that.
All we have to do is get rid of money and potato tasty paradise.
It's deep fried paradise.
Home fries.
All we have to do is put robot machines in charge of production and paradise.
All we have to do is have a dictatorship of the proletariat and paradise!
All we have to do is make sure that no one gets offended and paradise!
And it's all just nonsense.
I mean, a lot of religious people feel that all we have to do is die and paradise!
Yet still, they're not happy when they get a terminal diagnosis.
You're going home!
I don't want to go home!
I don't want to go home!
So, there is this fantasy that people just dangle this thing.
Oh, you see, all we have to do is X and paradise.
And there is no paradise.
There is no paradise.
Paradise is the dream of the infinite mommy tit when you were a baby.
And people are only compelled to it by the degree that they didn't get the infinite happy joy juice mommy tit dripping sweet nectar of femininity down their gullets.
That fantasy of paradise is is from death-worshipping depressives.
Right?
That's all it is.
If you are fundamentally depressed and incompetent and mourn a love and a comforting and a holding and an affection that you never got, then that wound, that scar, right in the heart of your heartlessness, Or rather your parents' heartlessness most likely.
That scar sprays itself into the future like this giant evil leprechaun rainbow fart called paradise.
Called heaven.
One day I'm gonna create a world where I can pass through this giant vagina fur coat portal.
I go back to the crib.
I'm gonna get everything that I should have got then.
And it's gonna be beautiful.
And this is why all paradises are fundamentally about regression.
Fundamentally about regression.
Robots will bring you everything you need.
You won't have to work.
Mommy's gonna bring everything you need.
You won't have to work.
Well, of course, as a baby, you shouldn't have to work.
And people should bring you everything that you need.
And...
If you look at the politically correct people, it's the same fantasy of broken regression to future happiness.
I'm going to cry.
I'm going to have a tantrum.
I'm going to yell.
I'm going to hold my breath.
And then I'm going to get what I need.
Well, you know who thinks like that?
Babies think like that.
Babies think like that because all they can do is cry and laugh and yell.
Emotions will magically bring me what I want.
Emotions will make everything better.
That is a regression to infancy, not even toddlerhood, but infancy.
And this fantasy that the actions of an overgrown baby will somehow bring solace to the needs of the baby that were never met is the most fundamentally dangerous fantasy that there is.
You know, all of the students...
Sorry for the monologue, man.
I appreciate your patience.
Oh, you're fine.
Don't worry about it.
I completely agree.
One of the like the students who are out there who are taking these bullshit degrees And look, people can say, well, Steph, you've got a history degree.
And it's like, well, okay, first of all, I had to learn me some French.
That's not that easy.
Secondly, I had to learn me some statistics.
Not super easy.
I had to learn how to do rigorous analysis, logically deconstruct things.
I learned some economics.
I learned a lot of philosophy.
I worked hard for that.
That was a trivium-style education.
So this is not hyper-offensive minority studies or whatever goes on in this stuff right now.
But when you think of these kids, when you have grown up in a society that lies to you, the truth is going to feel scolding.
When you have grown up in fantasy, the truth is going to feel like a wound.
Crazy people are always offended and enraged by the truth.
Because the truth reveals to them when someone comes up to someone who's been lied to and tells them the truth, what they're revealing is everybody who lied to that person did not love them.
Because you don't lie to people you love.
And people who've grown up deluded have grown up in a significant and staggering and hollow-hearted deficiency of love.
And they can only feel loved by continuing to Stockholm Syndrome-like cling to the people who continue to lie to them.
And anyone who comes along to tell them the truth enrages them because it reminds them that they're not being loved.
They're being manipulated.
They're being used.
They're useful idiots.
So you come along and you tell people the truth.
And I've had so much experience with this in my life.
It's ridiculous.
Come along and tell people the truth.
And you're the first person to care enough about them to tell them the truth.
And they do not react with relief.
They react with hatred, obviously.
Not all the time, but a lot of the time.
So you think about somebody who's ended up doing these ridiculous protests.
Christina Hoff Summers goes to talk to a bunch of people about feminism.
And people are screaming, they're protesting, they're phoning in bomb threats.
I don't know if this happened to me when I gave a speech in Detroit.
People phoned in bomb threats and stuff.
Well, why?
It's just an argument.
It's just a set of ideas.
If they're that ridiculous, right?
A bunch of feminists were complaining, Christina Hoff Summons, they were complaining that there weren't enough women in STEM fields.
Right?
Science, technology, engineering, math.
Not enough women in STEM fields!
And what does she do?
She says, well, what are you in?
Said these women.
And I said, well, we're in women's studies.
Right?
And she said, well, if you want more women in STEM fields, why aren't you in a STEM field?
She probably didn't yell.
She's got quite a bit of class, that lady.
And they freak out.
Because this is the first time someone's cared enough about them to tell them the truth, to call them out on their contradictions.
It is an act of supreme and sublime hatred for another human being to humor their delusions, to exploit their delusions.
Delusions are a remindable resource.
And the media is all over this all the time.
This is the function of the media, is to keep the truth at bay from people dependent on the lies of the media.
The media in general, mainstream media, is a doper.
They are people who get people hooked on lies and then keep those lies coming.
When you see this, you'll see little else when it comes to the media.
And there's some honorable exceptions, but this is in general the pattern.
So when you think of the lives of people who've ended up in this situation, just to take a feminist, it doesn't really matter who it could be, any number of these protesters.
So she doesn't, you know, she has big problems with men.
Feminism is not about equality.
Modern feminism, certainly third wave feminism, not about equality, it's about female supremacy.
Anybody who doesn't understand that just hasn't been paying attention, and I'm not going to make the case here, I've made it elsewhere.
But clearly she's grown up without a father she loves.
Because you can only believe in fantasies like the patriarchy.
Oh yes, so patriarchal to suffer significantly higher workplace deaths, to die many, many years earlier, and to go to war.
Nothing says privilege like getting your face blown off in some useless conflict halfway around the world.
So if you grow up with a loving father, then you're at least going to be skeptical of the patriarchy.
And you can't be anti-men.
And you can't hold men in contempt.
You can't say that there's a rape culture and all this nonsense and lies.
There is a rape culture.
It's just in overseas countries that feminists don't like to talk about because they don't pay the bills.
You go and complain to other rape cultures around the world.
Well, you see, that might put you at a tiny little bit of risk.
Of negative feedback as opposed to guilty white handing over of testicles and gold, which generally is the way that Western European men have been responding for the last 60 years.
So just think of these women, right?
So They've not grown up with a man that they love and they've been filled, you know, the poison.
If you want to know what feminism is, feminism is the giant venom sack vomited on children by single moms.
Because single moms could not get or keep a good man.
And because they're single moms, they don't generally tend to take a lot of responsibility for that.
What they do is they say, well, there's something wrong with men.
It couldn't have been me.
I'm great.
And there was no way for me to know what this man was going to be like before he knocked me up and then abandoned me.
No way.
Couldn't possibly have known.
Men are bastards.
They're unreliable.
They have all the power.
They don't listen.
They don't do the dishes.
They don't pay their child support.
And they run away from me.
I don't know why, but they run away from me.
Right, so the rise of feminism, the rise of single motherhood, well...
Single moms chose to have children with a man who either was great and they drove him away, or he was terrible, but they thought he'd be a great father for their children.
Either way, they suck.
Actually, if they sucked, they wouldn't be single moms.
So, this man hatred from Beta women's failed choices and their endless reliance on the state instead of a male provider means that women have grown up in the absence of masculine father love.
And so they don't really know men very well.
And so when you don't know people very well, you can project onto them without fear of actual facts getting in the way of a hate-filled narrative.
If you get to know people, you can't project all your venom and hatred onto them.
And so these girls have grown up in a gynocentric universe because they all grow up in government schools and daycares where it's 98% female until you get at least to puberty.
And then, of course, they go from a gynocentric universe to To all of the infinite power that youthful female sexuality has as the holder of the most fecund eggs on the planet.
And so they then don't have any kind of sensible advice usually coming from their single moms, right?
They don't have sensible advice.
The single moms aren't saying, well, you know, you really need to look ahead.
And you really need to figure out whether you can get a job.
And you really need to be sensible about your money.
And you really need to do your research and figure out whether the degree that you want to get is going to be market valuable.
And it's going to be this.
And maybe you shouldn't even go to college.
Maybe take an IQ test and figure out what would be...
Because if single moms had the capacity to plan that far ahead and think over the horizon...
Of Wednesday, the hump day, well, they wouldn't be single moms now, would they?
Because they would have chosen a good man, or they would not have had sex with a bad man.
So, they're not real good at looking over the horizon of, say, 8 to 12 minutes from now.
I don't know.
I'm revealing my sexual prowess.
But...
So, they don't grow up, and they don't grow up with a man saying, well, I don't know, who's going to pay you for it?
Right?
I mean, how's this going to work out?
How much money are you going to borrow?
What are the interest payments going to be when you graduate?
How much money are you going to have to pay back every month?
What's the average after-tax salary in the occupation?
What are the odds of getting a job?
And are you actually going to be able to make it work?
It's not that hard to figure out.
And they don't have, because that's something that in general, not all, but in general, that's a dude thing to do.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's nice that you want to do it, but what are the actual facts that is going to make it possible?
So these people have just kind of wandered along, nobody telling them the truth, full of all this man hatred from single moms.
Just as a lot of the Black Lives Protesters Matters are filled with hatred of whites that's fed by the media.
And, you know, like...
You know, white people.
I've watched the movie Trainwreck, and the doctor says to the Amy Schumer character, do you have any black friends?
Yeah!
Do you have any pictures of them on your phone, right?
And they go through this whole thing, right?
I don't think I've ever seen you go to the Black Lives protesters, say, hey, do you guys have any white friends?
Show me some pictures on your phone of your white friends.
See, it's a one-way street, right?
And so they get to this place where they're kind of freaking out.
They don't have any clear view of reality.
They're living in this caged, hysterical, misandric hive mind of single motherhood and the compliant media which feeds single mothers all the hatred that they want.
Mainstream media in general has the same relationship to men that the German media in the 1930s had with Jews.
The stimulation of caricatures and stereotypes and imaginary power in order to build up The capacity for retaliation.
And of course, those who you exploit, you hate.
Those who you prey upon, you hate.
You have to.
You can't prey on people you love because you love them.
You've got to hate people if you want to prey on them.
And in general, single moms use the state to prey on men.
Which is why women who are married to men tend to oppose Socialism and the welfare state and high taxes and so on because they want to keep the money in their family.
Single moms are like these financial vampires.
Borrow up through penises and suck gold out of balls until you've got nothing left but dust and vague memories of John Wayne manhood that is long dead and buried.
And so in order to generate money, The hatred of men that single moms and others need in order to prey upon men because the taxes or the child support or the alimony or the palimony, whatever, generally comes from men to women because government loves getting money into the hands of women because it stimulates economic activity because women are basically a giant pipe through which money flows from men to a mall or whatever, right?
And no impedance, straight flow through.
It's a fire cannon of consumerism.
I don't know what happened to the environment, but I'm sure it's men's fault.
Coal!
Yeah, that's it.
It's not coal used to heat malls or make a nice pair of shoes or whatever.
And so, because in order to exploit men through the state, you have to hate men.
Feminism supplies the hatred so that Whatever vague conscience may be left in the minds of single mothers is undisturbed by their pillaging of the state-held-down prostrate form of men being pillaged.
You've got to hate the people you pillage or you can't pillage them.
And so the hatred of men that is so common in culture, hatred of boys, hatred of men, is just what single moms need so that they can, with a relatively guilt-free conscience, pillage those who they feel betrayed them.
You know, like women complain about violence in the world as, you know, I don't know, maybe stop banging violent men.
That would be great.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Because violence is to some degree genetic.
And so every time a woman has procreative sex or sex at all with an aggressive or violent man, she's just feeding the fire that burns the world.
And oh, also wanted to mention this by the by since we're on the topic.
I don't understand why the world isn't a paradise yet, because women are in charge of just about everything.
Women are in charge of voting, women are in charge of schools, women are in charge of the law courts and the family court system in particular.
They're unduly benefited by that court system, particularly family court system.
So women are kind of getting everything that they want, and so the world should pretty much be a paradise now, because we were always told, well, you know, if women were in charge, it'd be like all the unicorns you can eat and...
Free cunnilingus every second day, and all the men will be built like Jamie Dornan.
How is it working?
You know, hey, Angela Merkel's in charge of Germany, and Germany is a giant nation of cucks for the most part, and so how's it working out?
I don't know.
Maybe they ran out of men, so they've got to import, I don't know, Middle Eastern men.
Still more masculine, sadly.
So this process whereby you end up With a useless degree and a mountain of debt is because people have lied to you.
People have lied to you.
And one of the most destructive lies is that women are wonderful.
Some women are wonderful.
Some women are not.
And there's this stupid thing that, you know, every time you criticize any aspect of any woman, you hate women!
No, I love women.
That's why I tell them the truth.
I was raised to treat women as equals, not to treat them as fragile snowflake flowers that the merest breath of reality can suddenly turn into a giant pixie dust of fleeing estrogen hysteria.
No, I was raised to treat women as equal and I have massive respect for women.
Some of the biggest intellectual influences I've ever had on this planet are I refuse to look at these fragile little flowers and say that this is anything other than a hysterical caricature of femininity.
I refuse to look at Blanche Dubois and say, well, that's what Ayn Rand was really like.
I mean, come on, it's nonsense.
This is...
All you do is you feed this hysteria by responding to it in anything other than a Sean Connery-style mental slap across the face of hysteria.
Mental.
And so this is just a particularly extreme end of hysteria.
And women have gotten their way politically and through the law courts and through the educational system.
Women have got their way and it's gone way out of balance.
And as a result, resources have been stripped, right?
As I've said before, the welfare state is the single mother state.
The welfare state and the single mother state combined with the hatred of men and the hysteria of feminism which single mothers need in order to pillage the men that they have to hate in order to do it without feeling guilty.
It's all part and parcel of the same thing and it's all based on fiat currency.
It's all based on the government's ability to lie to the population by pretending they have money when all they have is paper.
And all they have is stuff typed into a bank account.
You know, I type numbers into spreadsheets.
I don't get a castle in Tuscany.
I just get carpal tunnel syndrome.
And so the fundamental lie in society is central banking.
The fundamental lie is fiat currency and debt and all of the manipulations that make the government appear to have the capacity to give people something for free.
The magical power, the sort of Mickey Mouse having the brooms do all of the sweeping, the magical power that the government seems to be this volcano or this old faithful or this Vesuvius of free goodies that it can shower on everyone is the fundamental psychosis that we're trapped in.
Free stuff is a psychosis because it's like standing in a desert and just imagining things.
That there's an oasis.
Imagining that there's water and not moving because you just so believe that your wish can become reality.
That is what a crazy person does.
Once we are trapped inside the biodome psychosis of infinite stuff based on debt and debt instruments like bonds and fiat currency and all of that...
Once we're trapped in that psychosis, the psychosis sadly has to play itself out.
People won't listen to reason until they've run out of crazy.
I can't say this often enough.
People will listen to reason only after they run out of crazy.
And we are in the process of running out of crazy, which is why I'm working so hard on this show and communicating all of this stuff to people.
Because when we run out of crazy, when we run out of psychosis, when the cocaine high of infinite free bullshit finally...
Leaves our system and we start to go into the paroxysms and spasms of withdrawal, that's when the people who said, this is a bad drug, people, that's when they will have the greatest credibility.
People will turn to philosophers and to rational thinkers in desperation and in disappointment and in rage that the fantasies were never true.
And so this hysteria, this You know, we want to get rid of free speech and we're going to hold our breath and stomp our feet until we get what we want.
This is only possible because we are not in a voluntary situation.
The schools, the universities are not funded in a voluntary way.
We're not in a voluntary situation when it comes to hiring and firing because of affirmative action and fear of lawsuits.
We're not in a voluntary situation when it comes to government schools and public schools as I talked about in the first call.
We are in a psychosis of infinite resources.
And there are people vainly beating their hands bloody on the outside of this crazy dome of psychotic infinite resources, this fundamental death cult fantasy of heaven, right?
If you can...
Create or produce the illusion of infinite resources.
You've created the kind of heaven on earth, but the only way to create heaven on earth is to create hell for some in the short run and hell for everyone in the long run.
By pillaging to the point where the productive give up and you get MGTOW and you get the grass eaters in Japan and the dried fish ladies and so on and people go galt.
They just give up and they get out.
So this is all cracking.
This psychosis of infinite resources all falling apart.
And then, and only then, will people begin listening to reason.
And then, and only then, will reality begin to assert itself, and we will have a much healthier society as a result.
We are in the dying stages of a terminal psychosis.
And people are flopping around like a fish in the bottom of a boat, desperately trying to get back To the sea of their delusions.
It's not going to work.
Now for some people this is going to feel like death, but for other people it's going to feel like resurrection.
It's going to feel like the restoration of hope.
It's going to feel like the restoration of reality.
And as a society, and as all societies tend to go through this from time to time, you know, just think of these various manias, the South Sea bubble mania, the tulip mania, the various...
And I went through this as kids.
We'd go through these manias hitting chestnuts, and then the next couple of weeks it would be...
Paper airplanes, who could fly?
They're like, we just go through these crazy things.
And they just kind of have to run their course because people won't listen to reason when they're in the grip of psychosis.
You can't do therapy with somebody who's high on cocaine.
Because like, problems, I don't have any problems.
It's the best day ever.
I couldn't possibly have any problems.
You're totally bringing me down.
I'm out of here.
And they leave this wily coyote hole in your wall as they go off to the next hooker and blow party.
But when they crash, okay, now it's like, okay, remember I said that this wasn't going to work?
Remember how you got really mad at me and you told me I was a terrible person and I just didn't want you to have any fun?
And well, this is, you know, now that you're in a fetal position vomiting up your own kidney and crying for the mother you never had, well, this is kind of what I was trying to help avoid.
But now that we're here, let's start building something more sustainable out of the wreckage of your poor, shattered, deluded fantasies of omnipotence and infinity, right?
I mean, it is psychotic to believe In infinite resources and that of course is the psychosis that fiat currency is designed to produce.
The fundamental drug that's being pumped into the diluted veins of the species is fiat currency and that is the drug that people are dependent on which is why they turn to people to tell them lies rather than reality to give them facts and limits.
And with better parenting, we won't have all these unmet needs where people regress to infancy in order to try and get what they want because they will have gotten what they want with infancy and they won't feel this desire to go back and to repeat that which was never provided or completed when they were young.
So, this just leaves us to, okay, you know, when you've got South Park on your side, you're doing okay, and South Park is being pretty brutal towards political correctness right now, and that is to their credit, but once you've got South Park, you've got it all.
So, these people are going to have these fantasies that Bernie Sanders is going to get rid of my debt.
Well, no, Bernie Sanders doesn't have the capacity to get rid of your debt, because He's not the banker.
He didn't borrow the money.
I mean, he can pass laws and he can do whatever.
He can tax people and give you money or whatever.
And that's why, you know, that's why these people who are, who've been promoted way beyond their station, right?
If you don't believe in free speech, you shouldn't be in college.
Like, I mean, you shouldn't be in college.
I'll give you sort of a tip.
Like, If you believe that it is evil spirits that cause illness, you shouldn't be in medical school.
That's just fundamental.
If you believe that all houses need to be constructed out of Lego, you shouldn't be sitting next to Howard Rourke in architectural school.
You just shouldn't be there.
Shouldn't be there at all.
If you think that the best way to get rid of garbage is to eat it, you shouldn't be a sanitation engineer.
You know, just basic tests, you know, that you shouldn't be there, right?
If you believe that swallowing cherry bombs is a great way to get tumors out of people's bodies, you should not be a surgeon, right?
So these are just sort of the basic realities.
And if you don't believe in free speech, and if you find ideas that are different from yours, frightening ideas.
You should not be in university.
That's sort of the point.
That's sort of the point.
If you think that the best way to learn stuff is to eat white glue in preschool, you really shouldn't be a teacher or maybe even a student there.
And so the whole point of college is to expose you to ideas that you don't already have and to challenge your way of thinking.
And we shouldn't need to do that in college.
That should be done all the way through government schools, but because they're government schools, nobody wants to take on that difficulty.
Now, what is college?
It's a way to sit around.
It's a way to email racist threats to yourself and then pretend that you're under siege.
It's a way to make up a patriarchy, and it's a fantastic way to To get an STD. All it's become is this petri dish that hates free speech and loves gonorrhea.
That's where we are in the modern world, tragically, you know.
I don't want any free speech, but can I get some bacilli?
Would that be a, can I get some god-awful virus?
Yes!
Good!
Okay.
Free speech, highly offensive.
Virus...
Can I get some Obamacare for that?
And then the radical feminists and the PC people and the people with these weird sociology degrees or the anthropologists who believe there are no physical differences between species and everybody who denies every kind of reality and the bankers and the stockbrokers and a whole bunch of really smart people who should be using their math to build me an iPhone rather than building chains for my daughter's neck.
They'll have to get real jobs.
It's going to happen all over the place.
And single moms are going to have to get over their man hatred and find a way to get and keep a man because they're going to need some money and there's not going to be a giant dick that they can suck of a politician to get some gold down their throat which they can crap out as an EBT. No!
They're actually going to have to go out and be nice people and get nice men so that they can survive.
And they will.
They'll be fine.
They'll be fine.
It's like, oh, wait.
A tantrum isn't going to get me what I want.
Okay.
Well, I guess no more tantrums.
Hey!
It was a fun deal while it lasted.
It was a good gig while I had it, but, you know, I guess reality caught up with me.
You know, you'll...
People will just adjust and it'll be a drag, but that's alright.
They'll adjust.
You know, when I was in the 90s, the tech industry was huge, man.
It was booming.
And then, you know, and then it wasn't.
There weren't a lot of riots.
People didn't...
Strip the drugstores bare of everything that wasn't nailed down.
You know, just figured something else out to do.
And same thing will happen.
People will just adjust.
But while we're in this crazy fantasy, you can't talk.
You can't talk reason to people because they're entirely inhabited by the psychosis of infinite resources.
And they've been told that they're the equal of smarter people.
Because that's how you get people dependent on you, is you tell them lies.
Particularly if you over-inflate their egos, then they're totally dependent upon you to maintain that.
And you can do that as long as there's infinite resources.
When there's infinite resources, you can pay people to go to school, or you can lend them money to go to school.
Doesn't matter if they can pay you back or not.
Why?
Why do you need to pay back?
Infinite resources.
You know, if I'm in a room, I don't have to mail you the air I breathe later, because...
There's more air.
I don't have infinite resources.
I'm paying back.
Give me a break.
And so as long as this fantasy continues, you can't reason with these people.
Now, when the money runs out, then higher education will become a cost-benefit calculation for society.
Because among certain people, it's just like...
Well, if we get more people educated, magic and heaven, you know, as we talked about at the beginning.
But when society runs out of free stuff, when it runs out of the psychosis of free money, well then education becomes a cost-benefit calculation.
Is it worth it?
Well, yeah.
I think for some things it's worth it, you know?
Got a neck scar from somebody who wasn't spending all of his time practicing on me rotating on a big giant star in a Russian circus act, right?
He trained and did a really great job and got everything out as far as I can tell.
So, good job.
Thank you so much, Oklahoma Surgery Center.
Good to be breathing.
And when it runs out, there's going to be a cost-benefit.
And you're going to have to actually try to figure out whether what you're doing is going to be profitable or not because it's going to be voluntary.
Some people, they might choose to save up a bunch of money and go take a history degree because it's fun for them and that's fine.
It's still cost-beneficial because it's not being shoved onto society as a whole.
But this is why the people are so hostile to the free market because in the free market you actually have to provide value.
Whereas in the psychotic world of politics and infinite resources, all you have to supply is a tantrum.
And if you supply the tantrum, you get resources.
You don't have to supply value.
You just have to have a giant pout.
You just have to hold your breath.
You just have to go on a hunger strike.
And you'll get what you want.
Because the media will make everyone feel that caving is inevitable.
So, you just got to ride it out.
You just keep reminding people this can't last.
Keep reminding people this is dangerous and psychotic stuff.
But the idea of going to these people and saying, okay, you've got an IQ of 95 and you're in college and you're frightened of free speech and different ideas because apparently alien concepts are dangerous ghosts.
I mean, oh no!
Is that a zombie libertarian thought roaming the campus about to eat the brainlessness of any socialist it finds?
It's going to go kind of hungry, actually eating brainlessness.
It will feast on socialists.
Right?
So this idea that there are demons of thought that float out there, it's like voodoo.
Oh no!
There's somebody who questions the narrative of female victimization.
They're dangerous!
No?
They disagree with you.
That's only dangerous if you don't have the ability to think.
And if you don't have the ability to think, you're in the wrong place.
Because, you know, originally that's kind of what it was for.
So, no, I wouldn't try and change people's minds.
Just wait for the drug to wear off, wait for the psychosis to collapse of its own irrationality, as psychoses always do, and don't even try and catch people when they fall, because their impact will hopefully...
The suffering of when this all comes to an end will hopefully be why society won't let it happen again.
So, you know, we all have this, oh, we want to cushion the blow, and we all want...
No, no.
You know what they do with drug addicts in Japan?
They throw them in a jail cell and they let them sweat out their detox.
And the recidivism rate is actually kind of low because nobody wants to go through that twice, right?
You make it kind of comfortable, give them all the methadone.
I don't know what the answer is from a sort of medical standpoint, obviously, right?
But If you shield people from the consequences of their actions, all you're doing is encouraging them to do stupid things again.
Oh, did you lose your money at the casino?
I'll pay your bill!
Wait, did he go back to the casino?
Of course he did!
Right, so...
That's sort of the end of my particular thoughts about it.
I appreciate your patience during the lengthy rant, but what do you think about what I'm saying or what you brought?
Oh, you're fine.
That definitely belongs on the list of top Stefan rants.
Well, first of all, I've got to apologize for my voice.
I coughed up my left lung yesterday and the right one's barely hanging on.
I'm telling you, man, it's sultry.
Right.
It's sexy.
Right.
Well, you know, if you're in college, man, you can make a little money on the side.
Well, hey, you're missing the charming southern accent that's normally there, at least for the most part.
But anyway, I want to say, you missed something on the paradise portion of your rent.
You forgot how they're going to pay for it.
Remember, you just have to ask the rich for more money with a gun, right?
Well, yeah, and this is, I was going to mention that, though I got off track, but this is why they all hate the 1%, because you have to hate people you want to exploit.
Right.
And it's a very intangible thing, too.
They can't really put their finger on it.
They hate it, but none of them really know what it is.
It's just this big enemy they kind of build up to attack.
And it's okay to attack because everyone hates it.
Yeah, stupid is a gene set that wants to fuck.
It's true.
It's true.
You know, stupid is a set of genes that wants to fuck.
And in a free market, stupid ain't hot.
Whereas in socialism, stupid is hot.
And I've done this whole podcast series on sexual market value.
But yeah, stupid is a gene set that wants to reproduce.
So it wants to fuck.
And the way that it raises sexual market value is to use the government to transfer resources from smarter and richer people to poorer and dumber people so that they can compete in terms of sexual market value.
And...
It is a gene set, and it wants to reproduce.
Sorry, go ahead.
That falls back to your RK gene selection theories.
It has to reproduce more in order to survive.
I mean, you can't have five stupid people and five smart people and expect them to end up in the same place.
You're going to need 50 stupid people to even compete with it.
Oh yeah, because the way it works in a free society is smart people make more money and have more children.
And dumb people make less money and have fewer children.
And this is how it's worked for the most part throughout history as a whole.
Which is why people's intelligence has increased over time.
Well, not anymore.
There's significant evidence that intelligence has reached its peak and is beginning its inevitable decline because now we're taking money from smart people.
And we are giving money to stupid people.
And since money is gene reproduction requirements, we are Digenically destroying the gene reproducibility of smart people and we are through coercion and theft and borrowing and debt slavery where you are enhancing the reproductive capacities of dumb people.
And that's great for the dumb gene set.
That's like, ka-ching!
Good stuff.
And it's because smart people don't empathize enough with dumb people.
And by empathize, I don't mean sympathize.
I mean understand.
how it works.
Dumb people can't compete with rich people and smart people.
So what they do is they manipulate through guilt and pretended helplessness.
And it wasn't my fault.
And we're fundamentally no different.
And if you gave me all the resources you have, I'd be just like you and all of that.
This is all just a bunch of manipulation that arises out of a simple desire for wealth transfer.
And it's limited in charity, right?
It's It's limited.
But in the state, it's not limited.
And it's basically just tilting the whole lava lamp of resources down to the less intelligent gene pools.
And they flourish at the expense of the smart people.
And the smart people end up as a hated minority in a culture that they originally built.
And we just have to wait for the pendulum to swing back.
Right, and the dumb people don't realize that when they do that, they're like building their own gallows.
I mean, when you're destroying the upper class, they're destroying what's paying for all their stuff.
It's like they can't make that connection.
Because they're dumb!
Right, right.
If they weren't dumb, they wouldn't be on the receiving end of all of this cheddar.
Right.
Like reasoning with these people, it's kind of like the proverbial zombie question.
It's like, how do you kill something that's dead?
It's like, how do you reason with something that has no idea what reason even is?
Well, you don't.
You don't.
You simply make transactions voluntary.
Right.
And that's how you do it.
But of course, the dumb gene set doesn't want to die off any more than any other gene set wants to die off.
I mean, your eyeballs aren't feverishly working to make sure that there's no more eyeballs in the future.
Their job is to help you make new eyeballs.
Okay, I'll give you sight, but only if you fuck someone and make some new eyeballs.
Yeah, just don't drive me into a tree or anything like that.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, so, you know, eyes aren't feverishly working to make you blind and unable to reproduce.
Their whole point is so dumb is just another organ in the body that wants to reproduce as much as possible and the best way to do that is to manipulate smart people into feeling guilty and giving you resources and then using the state to hurt anybody who tries to escape that charitable net so that they're forced to.
Right.
Well, um...
And by the way, this is nothing negative.
It sounds like dismissive or whatever, but short is a gene set that wants to reproduce.
Bald is a gene set that wants to reproduce.
Smart and dumb are gene sets that want to reproduce.
More power to the, you know, good for the, you know, the dumb people ain't so dumb if they're doing so well, right?
Maybe smart is just evolutionarily maladaptive.
Maybe we should just basically go back to the aborigines of Australia with an average IQ of like 67 or whatever the hell it is.
Maybe that's just natural.
Maybe there's this weird biological dead end called being very smart that just doesn't work out because smart people just can't seem to maintain any self-confidence that's so easily guilted And they look too far down the road and they're more empathetic and they're more virtuous.
And it just seems sometimes to be, frankly, a complete maladaptation to the realities of life.
In that it's just this weird thing that happens to have produced civilization that then is a gathering of resources that everyone then wants to pillage by doing the exact opposite of everything that gave rise to those resources.
So I don't know whether intelligence is just this weird little...
thing that emerged and is going to get washed away by the general sea of idiocy.
I mean, I hope not, and certainly that's part of this show, is to have smart people say, no!
Get your fucking guns out of my face, you creeps!
You want to go get resources?
Go get resources!
If you're in real big trouble and you want to ask for my help, ask for my help!
Get your fucking guns out of my face, you creepy, dumb, gene bastards!
Right.
Well, um...
I mean, you answered the question for the most part.
It actually wasn't nearly what I expected, in a good way, about, like, what to do with this.
I guess my main concern was, like, what happens when it reaches critical mass?
But you said, you know, it's going to fail, which is right.
It will fail, and they'll, you know, eventually come running back to the ones that are smart enough to actually, you know, survive on their own.
But one thing I wanted to talk about was part of the reason it's so hard for us to...
I don't have any say at all.
You can't step out into the limelight, especially here, without being called a racist if you want to talk about race.
For instance, you brought up feminism.
That's a great example.
And so is the current race relations in America.
I actually wrote my question before the thing at Missouri and Dartmouth happened.
I don't know if you saw it happen to Dartmouth with them running around the library screaming and calling white people all sorts of names.
Did you see that?
I didn't see it, but I read about it.
Right.
And so that was kind of what had spawned the question of, well, what do you do if they don't reason with you?
But, you know, even me, like, I could get up and read off the FBI government website and be like, well, you know, African Americans commit 51% of the murder, and they'd scream, you're a racist, even if I was just reading it.
So, you know, that makes things...
Which makes them the racists.
Right, but you're the one that's going to get torn apart on social media and probably killed if I, you know, didn't keep an AR-15 in my truck.
But there's a...
No, but see, race relations are, like, the relations between men and women are, sorry to interrupt, but fundamentally distorted by the psychosis of infinite resources.
Right, right.
And keeping from women the basic facts.
That men are more disastrous and much better at thinking than women overall, right?
Because, as I mentioned, the sort of bell curve is flatter for men.
And with blacks, you know, until the media, and I'm not expecting this to happen, until the media says, well, remember, standard deviation lower in IQ. Right.
Well, remember, standard deviation lower in IQ. Well, remember, standard deviation lower in IQ. Like, I watched a show called The Good Wife the other day.
And they had this, yeah, they had this chum hum company.
I think it's supposed to be some analogy for Google or whatever, right?
And, yeah, so, I mean, I won't get into the whole details of it, but, you know, they go to this company, and it's all white people.
And that's simply because you can't bring Asians into the mix of race questions in the United States.
Because the reality is that Asians are vastly overrepresented in terms of the proportion of population at Google.
Why?
Because Asians are fantastic at visual spatial skills, very high.
Visual spatial skills are to Asians as language skills are to Ashkenazi Jews.
They're fantastic at it.
And so Asians are a huge proportion of Google's workforce.
But you see, they couldn't put any Asians into the pseudo-Google workforce in the show.
Not one Asian that I saw.
Maybe it was one in the background or whatever.
But they're all white people.
And they say, well, just look around.
And they're all white people.
And that's because you can't bring Asians into the equation.
Because when you bring Asians into the equation of race relations in the United States, the question of racism, the racial narrative...
It gets blown apart.
Right, because they generally commit less crime to white people.
They generally score a little bit higher on the IQ scale.
They generally make more money.
I mean, it really just blows up everything they say about white people dominating everything.
I mean, it's like you've got this penguin enclosure and, well, you know, no one but penguins can live here.
And then...
I don't know.
There's like four emus in the back who are taking all the food.
It's like, wait a minute.
I thought you said only penguins could live here.
Well, except for the emus.
And it's like, okay.
And so, and West African blacks and immigrants often have higher per capita income than whites.
So, and they're physically indistinguishable from native blacks, African Americans.
So, you have to just eliminate the Asian narrative.
And of course, the Asians are sort of fighting back against this and saying, well, how come?
Wait a sec.
It's not fair that our SAT scores are lowered and blacks are raised.
Right?
Right.
And so, until...
Until this reality comes in, one is infinite resources.
Okay, well, let's get a bunch of blacks to go to school who can't get in there on their own merits.
And that are probably going to fail and then be in debt because it didn't pay for all of it.
They still had to take out some form of loan.
And then when they fail, they have no degree and they're in debt.
So it really hurts black people at the end of the day.
But the whole thing about misinformation is like, it seems like every, and I don't mean to generalize at all, it's the vast majority of blacks that vote Democrat believe that the Democratic Party is the one that saved them.
And, you know, you've heard Biden during the last election, he says something like, they want to put you back in chains, talking about the Republican Party.
And it's like, am I the only person that read that the Republican Party is the party that ended slavery and the party that brought about the civil rights?
Help the civil rights movement to pass.
Oh, the Democrats delayed the civil rights legislation for almost 100 years.
Right, right.
And it's like...
Now Trump, sorry, to be fair, Trump is getting a lot of support of the black community because the black community recognized that illegal aliens are depressing the wages of blacks.
Right.
It's funny because a lot of these people my age, they fight for, you know, all these illegals to be allowed to stay and they fight for all this.
And then they're also fighting for higher wages.
Which those two could not be more against each other, because all you're doing is out-competing yourself with that.
But I wanted to read you something I figured you would...
I'm sorry.
I thought.
I figured there's a Tennessee in me coming.
Listen, you know what?
You can get all kinds of twangy on me.
I've done a lot of business in the South, and I really enjoy the colloquialism, so go for it.
Right.
Well, I figured you might get a kick out of this because I actually recently...
This is on a social media app.
It's called Yik Yak.
It's common around college campuses.
And it's great in a way.
My girlfriend makes fun of me, but it's great in a way because it is...
It's anonymous.
So you can actually get on there and you might throw out some facts about differences between the races.
And again, not saying one race is better than the other.
Each race is better at different things.
But you can actually put out these facts and your shot at having a job one day isn't immediately destroyed, which is great for me.
If you want a job where you can't speak the truth, yes, that's true, but go on.
Right.
I'm an accounting major, so...
Yeah, I mean, why did I end up doing this show?
Because I got tired of not being able to tell the truth for a living.
But go on.
Sorry.
Right.
Well, this argument had kind of arisen on there.
Someone had asked people to talk about white privilege.
And, you know, it's a huge topic.
And I had suggested that, well, maybe we should focus on the perceived white privilege of how blacks versus whites are treated by police in different situations.
And I got in an argument with this person on here, and I basically read him verbatim, by the way, because I'd written him down, all of the FBI statistics regarding murder in particular.
And I mentioned the crime victimization survey and all that, but I mentioned the ones regarding murder.
And he starts saying, well, your stats are useless.
They show a racially biased society because they reported that.
And I was like, no, wait a second.
I'm pretty sure if you murder someone, you go to jail.
I don't see how that can be racially biased.
Well, and sorry, society didn't report it.
Mostly, other blacks reported it.
Right, right.
And that's something I'd like to get to in a second.
But the best thing that this guy said, and I just wanted to show you the level of stupid that is rampant on the college campuses around here.
He said...
Murders and attempted murders are of equal evil.
One has simply failed while the other has succeeded.
Does the FBI study include attempted murder?
In other words, it takes the same psychological ill to compel someone to murder another Whether or not that person succeeds is sort of irrelevant.
You want to prove black people are...
Sort of irrelevant.
Hold on, it gets better.
Oh, so wait, so if some guy's coming at him with an axe, he doesn't care whether he succeeds or not?
Sorry, go on.
Listen, he says, you want to prove black people are mentally damaged when their Freudian normality is disrupted by unconventional childhoods, because I mentioned single motherhood.
Okay, well, it's equal psychological damage to murder as it is to attempt a murder.
This is what he said to me.
And I said basically you're saying that the statistic is skewed because it doesn't include attempted murder.
So you're saying if it did then it would be more balanced between whites and blacks.
So either you're saying that whites are less capable of actual murder or that blacks are better at it.
Neither one of those is particularly pleasant for black people.
And it just blew his little mind and he really didn't say that much else.
He just said that's not what I was saying and really just kind of ran away from it.
But I mean can you imagine having that thought process?
You know, you may be very generously using the word thought process.
These are just emotional defenses.
And, you know, people say, oh, we want an honest conversation about race, which is a complete lie.
It's like Chairman Mao in the 1960s saying, yes!
Criticize the Communist Party.
We want an open dialogue about how to improve communism.
And I found you, and you, and you, and you, and about a million other people, and we're going to kill you all because now you've revealed yourself.
So this honest conversation about race is...
Nobody wants an honest conversation.
Well, you and I, and I guess the listeners to this show and some other people's show.
But, I mean, nobody wants an honest conversation about race.
An honest conversation about race is, you know, white people feel bad and give us stuff.
That's...
It's all it comes down to.
Right.
Well, them saying that, it's like the mouth thing.
It's like Hitler walking around with a bullhorn saying, hey, just come out, I'll talk to you about it.
It's like, no, it's a trap.
Oh, no, absolutely.
And it's like Admiral Ackbar is, it's a trap.
I mean, this is the reality.
Nobody wants an honest conversation about race.
Because the honest conversation about race would start with the facts.
Right.
It would start with those evil racist numbers that the FBI records.
Right.
And it would require that, because there's a, you know, six degrees of separation, you know, everybody's separated by somebody in the world by six people or whatever, right?
And it's a fundamental game, which is how long until whites are blamed?
How long until white males are blamed?
Or how long until men are blamed as a whole, right?
So we're Women are underrepresented as CEOs.
Well, it could be because of the IQ spread.
It could be because it takes a huge amount of travel, energy, and dedication for at least three decades to usually become a competent CEO. Worldwide travel, 24-hour days, sometimes six days a week.
And a lot of women, of course, want to settle down and have kids before their eggs expire, and that takes them out of that high-ambition gene pool.
Plus, women have lower testosterone and I'm glad like there could be any number of reasons, right?
And you know, is there sexism?
Yeah, I guess there's sexism too, but it seems to be mostly on the part of mother nature and how mother nature is as a woman sexist against women only a feminist can explain to me and it won't make any sense even then.
So but the question is, okay, well women are underrepresented.
So what is the reality?
Well in some I think it's in in one country in Europe.
I can't remember which one CEOs or corporations now have seven years to comply to get their numbers up to match.
So basically men are going to get fired and women who haven't deserved the position are going to get put in their place because the government will otherwise throw people in jail.
Apparently that's called empowerment for women.
It doesn't seem that way to me.
But how long until it's just sexism?
How long until men are blamed?
And when there's problems in the black community, how long until white people are blamed?
And you can really, like, it's like, it's like, it's like this Mission Impossible countdown that starts at, like, eight seconds, right?
Right.
It's like, well, you know, blacks aren't doing that well in school.
Well, it must be because of sexism and racism on the part of the white people.
And good job, right?
Well, you see, black people commit more crimes.
Well, there's a low socioeconomic status, fewer opportunities to white people over the races.
Done it!
Right!
Yay!
Under the wire, white people get blamed.
And usually you can see these steps, and it's like watching water go downhill until you just get to, wow, it's white people's fault.
And white males' fault, that's the double bang for the buck, right?
And you can just see this, and it's horrible and so disrespectful to blacks and to women.
You know, you want to break down barriers to people advancing, but you don't want to get behind and push them and lift them up because that's saying they can't do it themselves.
Okay, sorry, go ahead.
Well, no, I was just going to point out they use the same timer when there's, like, for instance, the Vester Flanagan shooting of the two reporters.
I think they use the same timer when they found out it was a black person that did it because they were white.
It's gone.
And there's something that I guarantee you haven't heard about.
I'm in school in Mississippi, around the Jackson area.
And just recently, it happened at a gas station.
Two white women were shot.
And when they captured him, he was a black male, said, I did it because they were white.
And that was three, four days ago?
I mean, have you seen that on NBC News or anything like that?
No, of course not.
And there were two black cops who shot up a father and a six-year-old autistic kid in a car.
Right.
And the two black cops are being charged with murder.
You can't find this.
In the media.
Oh, the degree, you know, there's lots of challenges I have with the candidacy of Donald Trump, which aren't particularly interesting to get into right now, but I just love him as a giant sledgehammer death sentence to the mainstream media.
Like, I just, I can't get enough of that.
Like, the fact that he just says stuff, and they all freak out, and he just gets stronger.
And he just laughs at them when they say something to him.
I mean, don't think this is unintelligent, because trust me, it's just for the funny part of it.
Larry, the cable guy, was being interviewed about who he liked for president or something like that.
And he said Trump, his analogy was, because he's driving a knife into the chest of the political process, which is exactly it.
I like that about him.
Personally, if I was going to vote tomorrow, I hesitate to vote for Trump just because I think he leans towards big government to solve some things.
That's the only problem I have with them.
But one thing I wanted to talk about that I had written down was concerning my generation is the fact that we all, with the exception of a few of us, and again, maybe mine's my IQ, which hovers slightly above 140, but they all seem to have the attention span of a gnat, which I've...
Take this as an example, too.
Most commonly shared news agencies I see on any sort of social media or anything like that from people my age that lean Democrat, which is, by the way, nearly all of them, are AJ Plus and NowThis.
Have you seen either one of those on anything?
What's AJ Plus?
It's AJ Plus and NowThis.
They're both very similar.
Basically, they're extremely left-leaning Social media, news organizations, which is where the vast majority of people are getting news nowadays anyway.
But they, I've noticed, are especially common amongst people my age.
And the reason why, I think, is because the videos are between 30 seconds and two minutes long.
They never, they are.
They are.
They never run longer than that.
There's no actual speaking.
Usually it's a video of, you know, insert candidate here, usually Trump as of late, but it's a video of a candidate talking with his voice dubbed over with, you know, some cool whatever music playing in the background or clown music if it's Trump.
And them posting little snippets of words on the screen like, this is how you should feel about this.
And it's really kind of frightening because people take it as news and they're like, oh gosh, I should feel that way.
And, you know, because I call my generation, I call them the headline generation because it's true.
They want to read the headline and, you know, run on down the road.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, the.
Right.
And when your prejudices get reinforced, you get a little dopamine hit.
It's a drug.
And so they're just looking for a quick snort of propaganda that reaffirms their bigotry, their prejudice.
Right.
And they move on.
Right.
I mean, they literally are just like they're rats, well-trained leftist rats pecking for their pellets.
And it's got nothing.
You can't get any substantial argument or perspective across in 30 seconds.
And certainly you can't get anything across that is going to challenge anybody's pre-existing notions.
And every time they go back to that well, they get weaker.
So once they've got this dopamine and they've got this reinforcement and reinforcement and oh Donald Trump is a clown and oh Bernie Sanders is a wise elder of the tribe and all this kind of crap, what happens is they get progressively weaker and more hysterical when it comes to any kind of confident opposition to their prejudices.
And so it weakens you, it weakens you, it weakens you fundamentally to go to that which affirms your existing bias.
And this is why I'm constantly pushing back on stuff, you know, where I don't even have any fundamental positions like on climate change.
I don't know if it's true or not, but by God, we've got to get some counter-information out there so that this is some kind of balanced conversation.
Right.
There was one specific thing that happened recently with one of those news...
I can't remember which one it was, whether it was AJ Plus or now this.
I do encourage you to go look at those because it's interesting.
Why?
Do you dislike me at some level?
Well, it's payback for the 25-minute ran earlier.
How's that?
Oh, yeah.
No, that's fair.
You got me there.
Well, just because it's amazing to watch.
It is very blatant indoctrination saying, you need to feel this way.
You don't need to know what was actually said.
But one of them posted a rebuttal – again, this is about 45 seconds long – of that thing that Donald Trump retweeted the other day that got all the publicity about the crime statistics.
Now, was it my – sorry to interrupt, but was it my understanding that this was an incorrect tweet?
It was very wrong on some of the statistics and only slightly inflated on others.
I completely disagree with the post, because it was incorrect, and I don't want incorrect information going out to five million people at a time.
Of course, they connected it back to a neo-Nazi Twitter account, which they promptly threw up in the media.
Basically, the tweet said, It was percentages, it was crime statistics, and I knew it was wrong right off the bat, because it said crime statistics 2015, which we're still in, and it was by the San Francisco Crime Bureau, something like that.
And just some of the statistics, you could tell it was wrong, because listen to this, it said that only 2% of blacks are killed by whites, only 16% of whites are killed by whites, 81% of whites are killed by blacks, and 97% of blacks are killed by blacks.
The whites killed by blacks one I knew was wrong right off the bat.
That's the reason I knew that there's something wrong with this statistic.
But the interesting one that they seemed to focus on when they posted their rebuttal of it was the blacks killed by blacks one.
Which the actual number for the percentage of blacks that are killed by blacks is 89.9%.
Not 97%.
But they're posting it like it's such a big deal that it was off by that much.
But I was kind of like, that's like...
That's like saying, no, you're wrong, you evil racist.
My dad doesn't beat me five days a week.
He only beats me four times.
You know, I mean, I just didn't.
But to me, it's just amazing.
They're trying to convey a feeling to people, not a thought.
Well, you know, it's funny because if I were to ascribe Machiavellian genius to Trump, Which I don't know about, right?
I mean, I don't know much about the guy.
I don't think anyone knows a whole lot about him.
He's just kind of...
No, but it's interesting to me, because if you wanted to get the left to reveal statistics about race, you would intentionally put out the wrong information so that the left could correct you.
That is interesting.
I hadn't...
Right, so, you know, because he knows, like, he's been dealing with year ends his whole business career.
And he knows that it's not the end of 2015 yet, right?
That's true.
So if he puts out incorrect information about racial crime statistics, then the left posts the correct information.
Well, look at how many, everyone's talking about it, and the left have put out the correct information, and that becomes part of the whole news cycle.
And the left, by putting out the correct information, Is giving people a lot of information that they probably wouldn't have.
I mean, I bet you it got much more cycle and sharing because it was incorrect than if it had been correct.
And again, I'm not ascribing any, I don't know.
But if he was a Machiavellian genius, that is how to get the left to reveal the facts about race.
That is true.
And just for the sake of clarity, you know, it did say blacks killed by whites was 2%.
The real number is 7.6.
Whites killed by whites, it said, was 16.
The real number is 82.3.
Whites killed by blacks, it said, was 81.
The real number is 14.7.
But one thing that's also telling, and as you said, the liberal media had to report it, is that the percentage of whites killed by blacks versus blacks killed by whites is double.
Which is, you know, and I think people, whenever I talk about race, it...
And I do have black friends.
And he is in my phone number.
You can check if you want to.
But anyway, I think the thing that many people on the left maybe don't misunderstand, but they try to ascribe to us, is that we're saying that people are like this because they're this skin color, which is not at all the case.
I mean, I think you and me both are saying it's because they've been...
The welfare state...
It destroyed the black family, and as you said, it created rampant single motherhood, and it encourages it in this vicious cycle.
And I tell a lot of people before, you know, at the end of Jim Crow, the black family was arguably, not financially, but as far as just straight family, was more successful than the white family as far as marriage success rate, or was it not?
Well, and imagine where the black community would be now if that trend had continued.
Right.
And the way I kind of look at it is, they were very oppressed in the 60s in the South.
And trust me, I get reminded of that all the time, being from Tennessee and now living in Mississippi.
I get reminded of that all the time.
I guess I forgot the time that I had a servant that was black, but who knows.
Anyway, gosh, where was I going with that?
We were talking about where the black community would be if the marital stability rates had remained as good.
As Tom Sowell has pointed out, the welfare state did what even slavery couldn't do, which was to destroy the black family.
Right.
And the thing with that is, I just can't imagine...
I'm really sorry, Stephan.
I completely went blank about what I was about to say.
No problem.
Let's take another Trumpism.
He said that thousands of Muslims celebrated after 9-11 in New Jersey.
Right.
Now, I don't...
Nobody knows the exact number.
Giuliani said maybe 40 when he was trying.
Giuliani has no idea what the exact number is either.
I know, but that's what I mean.
Right?
Because, I mean, some of them would have been celebrating indoors, right?
Where, you know, they may have toasted quietly.
Like, nobody knows.
Right.
Nobody knows.
Now, the media said it never happened.
It never...
Not one person, not one Muslim...
Which is difficult.
Now, it turns out that there were many celebrations, and the newspapers who were saying it never happened are exactly the same newspapers and media outlets that broadcasted it happening.
And I remember on 9-11, I was working, I don't think I've ever told my 9-11 story, but I'll keep it very brief.
I was working, and one of my friends, a programmer, came in and said that the plane flew into the Trade Center.
And this happened before, like a little plane flew into the Empire State Building.
You just think, just bad, whatever, right?
And then the second one happened, and we managed to get onto one of the last...
This is way back in the day.
Of course, this is like almost over 14 years ago now.
But we managed to get on one of the last feeds.
There was no television in our office, but we managed to get on one of the last feeds.
And I remember seeing...
Muslims celebrating.
Like, with my own eyes, I saw it on television.
It only happened once, and it was cut very quickly, and it never came back, of course.
So, yeah, maybe Trump exaggerated.
I don't know.
I mean, nobody knows, for sure.
Like, politicians aren't guilty of ever exaggerating something either.
Well, you know, let's say he said it was hundreds or dozens or whatever, right?
The point is that the media are exposed as hysterical liars.
A lie is worse than an exaggeration.
A lie is worse than an exaggeration.
Like if I say I went skydiving from 5,000 feet, but it was only 4,000 feet, that's not as egregious as me saying I went skydiving when I never went skydiving.
In fact, I did once, but I think it was only 2,000 feet.
But anyway, so...
If he was a complete media Machiavellian genius, which if anyone is in America, it is Donald Trump.
That's true.
Then he would say thousands and then the media would actually cough up the real number.
And if it turns out it was only hundreds or a hundred or fifty...
It still makes people think.
Well, then the media is confirming that Muslims were celebrating in New Jersey after 9-11.
Right.
He's kind of forcing them to answer the question.
Right.
Now, so if they correct him, then they're still admitting that it happened, right?
Right.
It's like the when did you stop beating your wife question.
No, but if they correct him by saying it never happened and people have been coughing up reports from the police and news reports and media reports and all this, that, and the other...
That it definitely happened.
Then the media is revealed as liars.
And people forget about Donald Trump's possible exaggeration and they're reminded once more that they're being programmed by a bunch of soulless sociopaths in the media who will lie to advance their particular narrative and political power hunger at any cost.
And they have no interest in the truth whatsoever.
That is a very intelligent thing.
Again, I don't know if he's doing it consciously.
I have no idea.
I have no idea.
To your point, if anyone is, he is.
If anybody would be doing it, it would be Donald Trump.
If there's anyone who would be that Machiavellian, he is a very, very smart man.
And he has more media savvy in his little finger than just about everybody else in the media combined because he's just been at it so much longer and so much more successfully than anyone else.
Like he's – they tried to create all these other apprentice shows and so on.
It never worked.
I mean he is the guy when it comes to the media.
And so I think that the media is continually falling – this is my opinion.
I have no idea what the guy is really doing.
But I genuinely believe that the media keeps falling into these traps.
You know, oh, he said it's this many black murders.
Well, it's only this many.
And people are like – Which is still a horrible number.
Still seems like quite a lot to me.
I mean even if you're right – I'm not feeling better.
Well, thousands.
No, there were none.
And it's like, well, your own reporters reported it and you have these archives and I can find it very easily.
And I just did a quick search and then the police were reporting it and the media, the newspapers, it was on TV. So did you not run the search?
And so he is exposing the media as liars by exaggerating.
And again, I don't know what the answer is, but I have my thoughts on the matter.
It's a well-thought-out position, and I would not put it past him.
You have to be a certain kind of cunning to be worth $10 billion or however much he's worth.
You don't just accidentally do that.
No matter how much white privilege you might be able to ride, you can't do that.
And he knows a huge amount about the media that you and I will never know.
Because he's just been in the belly of the beast for like 50 years or 40 years or however long.
He's bought politicians before.
He knows it can be done.
So he's got this certain kind of experience that's certainly interesting.
And he had a long time to plan...
He's been talking about this for years.
He's been talking about this for years, and I guarantee you, you don't just build a casino by dropping some bricks out of an airplane, right?
You have to really plan it.
And the planning for building these towers goes on for years.
So he planned, and I bet you he's got a game plan, he's got a schedule, it's top secret.
He does not act on impulse.
I don't think that much happens that's just whim-based for Donald Trump.
Because that's just not how you accumulate that amount of money.
That's how you maybe win the lottery.
Oh, I just felt like buying a ticket.
But that's not how you get to his position in the business world or the political world.
So he has been plotting and planning this for years.
He knows exactly what he's walking into.
And I guarantee you that he has a strategy that the media doesn't know about.
About exposing the media because he can only win if people distrust the media and he's not a man who's used to losing.
And so his I guarantee you that the core of his game plan for winning the presidency is to expose media bias.
And he is relentless at it.
And I would assume that nothing is happening without it being part of some larger plan.
I mean, he likes to give off this kind of like, well, you know, I'm just shucks out here doing my dum-de-dum-de-dum.
And that's an appealing, you know, kind of carnival siren barker persona.
But this is a very intelligent, very calculated, very experienced, very forward-thinking, very ambitious, meticulous planner.
And I don't assume that much is happening that the media is reacting to That is at all whim-based.
And I think a lot of it was probably decided.
He didn't just wake up one day and say, hey, I think I'm going to talk about illegal immigration, right?
I mean, I think I'm going to talk about criminality in the immigrant population.
He doesn't blurt.
He may give the appearance.
But he no more blurts than his casinos assembled themselves out of thin air.
I mean, this is a lot of planning.
He knows how to do multi-year projects.
This is the big culmination goal of his life.
He knows what he's doing.
He's got more experience in the media than just about anybody else in the media.
And he's smarter than most of them put together.
So I don't think...
Trump makes a tragic misstep.
It's like, I would not say that is my first thought when something like this happens.
Because he always comes out stronger and the media looks more ridiculous.
This is not an accident.
He's not blindfolded and just landing weird lucky punches, right?
Right.
I mean, that just really sums it up right there.
I mean, I just...
I haven't thought of it like that because I've been kind of, I guess, in the same boat as a lot of other Republicans kind of going like that.
And I use the term Republican very loosely, trust me, because there's a lot of things the party's done that I'm not proud of.
But anyway, I'm like, God, I can't believe he said that.
He's got to think that that's going to hurt his credibility.
But it doesn't.
His popularity rating just keeps going up.
You know, the way you lose in war is you underestimate your enemy.
And the media think that he's just some buffoon.
And so have all the other Republicans.
That their magic typing is going to make go away.
Like they just have some little spell that's going to make this annoying little imp vanish.
And, you know, they think he's a pushover.
They think he's a buffoon.
And it also, you know, that very perspective shows how wildly out of touch they are with the American population.
Because among themselves, it's like what Pauline Kyle, the New York Times movie critic said.
She said, I have no idea.
I have no idea how Nixon got elected.
I mean, nobody I knew voted for him.
They live in this bubble of leftist fantasy land, and they genuinely do not understand the American population.
And that's the most fundamentally alienating thing, is that when the media goes after Donald Trump, and he's wildly popular among significant portions of the American population...
The media reveals that they're against that which is important to a lot of Americans.
That they are the enemy of...
They stand between what a lot of Americans want and their goal.
And they are an enemy of what the American people want.
And this continues.
The American public gives a big shit about Hillary Clinton's emails.
Like, they give a giant dump worth of care and concern over Hillary Clinton's emails.
Why?
Because a lot of them have people in the military.
Right.
And if Hillary Clinton is spilling secrets, that is really bad for people in the military.
Right.
If her email is not secure, which it doesn't appear to be...
And when she doesn't seem that she cares, either.
And she doesn't write...
So the people in the media don't have people in the military because there are selected lefty weasel bags.
They don't have people in the media, which is why, you know, the South is notorious for or famous for the quality of the fighting men and women that it produces, largely men, right?
And you don't hear a lot of Southern accents in the hallways of the New York Times, right?
They are not a case-selected warrior class in the media.
They're the weasel bags, right?
And so for them, it's like, oh, so whatever, she spilt this, that, and the other.
It doesn't actually affect the survivability of anyone they know.
But a lot of people, of course, you know, you can't spit in a lot of places in America without your goobers landing on someone who has someone in the military or someone in their family or someone in their brother-in-law, someone in their extended family.
Even if it's, like, up in your family, like, I mean, no one in my immediate family has, but I have a tremendous respect for the military.
I will...
Even if I didn't have anyone in my family, my granddad, for instance, was in the Navy, just that link.
There's this very American thing in respecting the military.
Not necessarily all the things that they get sent to do, but in just...
No, no.
And that's why he keeps talking about the VA and his love for the vets and his respect for the vets and all of that.
This is something that...
You know, liberals can never convincingly be pro-military.
They're like, you know, I like the uniforms and the shoes are shiny.
And sometimes when they run in unison, it looks pretty cool.
It's like some kabuki thing.
But you just never really believe that they get it as far as the military ethic goes.
And so the fact that people really care about Hillary Clinton's emails and the fact that case-elected people don't want anyone to be above the law, whereas on the left, the whole point is to be above the law, right?
I mean, the whole point of power is to exclude yourself from its execution, whereas the whole point of power for a K is to have everybody subject to the law.
And the fact that General Petraeus ended up with his life destroyed because of some tiny little thing, and then Hillary Clinton, and it's not just Hillary Clinton.
The whole point with the email thing is that it's everyone who ever received a goddamn email from her knew that it didn't have a.gov extension, for God's sakes.
Right.
I mean, this is not just, oh, well, Hillary was just secretly and there was no way to know.
And it's like, no.
Everyone who got an email from Hillary Clinton knew or should have known or was responsible to know that it did not have a.gov extension.
Maybe someone tried to say something and then shot himself in the back of the head.
You know, that's happened.
But this is systemic.
This is the whole bunch of them.
This is not fundamentally about Hillary Clinton at all.
It's about all of them up there.
All of them up there.
Trump gets that.
I don't think Hillary Clinton does, and the media certainly doesn't either.
The media has stated, I don't get how important this is, because the media is all about creating rules for the Republicans and exceptions.
And it's just one more example of zero accountability for those in power, like Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting of the conservative groups that arguably swung the election from one side to the other.
No accountability.
And illegal immigrants, no accountability.
Yeah, you want a driver's license, you want welfare, fine, no problem.
Okay, well, what's the point of having laws then?
Right.
Well, I'll say one thing about Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is being coordinated, despite Bernie Sanders having, what, 30% of the polls?
She has 60%.
I'm pretty sure she could stand up on the stage with the scalps of the Benghazi victims hanging from her neck and win the nomination.
I'm pretty sure that she could.
Yeah, because they're about power.
They're not about standards.
Now, I'm not saying the Republican Party is big on standards either, because otherwise they would have made some different decisions.
But I think that people get a sense that if Trump gets into power, there may be, may be some accountability.
Right.
For some of the people who, by some appearances, are not on the sunniest side of legality, to put it as nicely as possible.
Right.
And so the thirst that the American public has...
for accountability for those in power is so great that they're willing to use Trump to destroy the Republican Party.
Trump is not a weapon against the Democrats.
He's a weapon against both of them.
Right.
Because the degree to which the Republicans or the conservatives in America feel betrayed by the Republican Party can scarcely be imagined.
It is foundational the degree to which the Tea Party was like the last shot.
It was their last shot at any kind of honor and accountability for the Republican Party.
And the Tea Party is done.
The Tea Party, because everybody just went and stuck their nose in the trough like everybody before them and everybody after them.
So Trump is literally the last hope for any kind of conservative voice in American politics.
And of course, if the continued immigration continues and the continued extension of We'll never win another election.
It's him or nothing.
Right.
We'll never win.
Never win again.
And even if we win this election with like a Rubio who then gives them amnesty and then they get the right to vote, we're still not going to win another one after that because whenever we run to the middle, it's like, well, all of a sudden we think all these Democrats are going to agree with us, but they never do.
They just vote Democrat and then half the Republicans don't show up because they don't care.
Morality can only ever fail by refusing to recognize a legitimate enemy.
Right.
Hey, I remember what I was going to say about...
Okay, last point, then I've got to close it down because I want to make sure I keep my focus and I'm running out, but go ahead, make your point, man.
Right, I was going to say I was fixing to let you go.
I know it was running kind of long, and I think caller number four gave up.
Anyway, the welfare state in the 60s, as Jim Crow ended and all that, I kind of look at it as the blacks were heavily oppressed, and I almost look at it as if it's like they had their legs broken.
Out from under them just because everything was so hard for them at the time.
But it's like the welfare state came in and it's like they gave them a crutch.
They didn't fix the leg.
They gave them a crutch.
And you're thinking, oh, hey, this is nice.
At the time, it's going to help me get around.
But they never took it away.
They never actually fixed it.
They just gave them this thing to exist and be dependent because, well, if you take away the crutch, we're going to take away the crutch if you don't vote for us.
Or the other side is going to take away the crutch, so you better keep voting for us.
You know, so I mean that's just the analogy I was trying to make earlier that I forgot it really wasn't relevant.
Yeah, no, and I get that and I certainly don't mean to take away the incredible and legitimate sufferings of the black community in America.
That having been said, most people would rather be slaves than dead.
Right.
And the 600,000 to a large degree white people who gave their lives in the Civil War who died for what they believed at the time, of course, was that cause...
It should also not be forgotten that there was a huge amount of suffering among the whites for the cause of slavery as well.
And, of course, the reality is that this is all a long time ago, and nobody alive has ever been a slave owner or a slave.
And, you know, again, something that you've preached and that I try to remind people, too, is that it is Western culture that ended it.
Yeah.
Do you like not being a slave?
Yeah.
Thank a British Christian.
Right, and it wasn't Western culture that started it or that was, you know, maybe they were the biggest practitioner of it.
I don't know.
No, no, no, no.
The death count for Islamic slavery was over 100 million.
I was going to say, I knew the Middle East was definitely in Canada.
I just didn't know enough about the numbers to say anything.
And I don't know that they've ever apologized, so it's time to stop apologizing.
They're probably too busy hanging homosexuals to apologize for that.
Well, listen, man, thanks a lot for the call.
Always a pleasure.
And I appreciate that we can have these kinds of honest conversations for those out there.
Go and shop in this Christmas.
Go and shop in for stuff coming up.
FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
It doesn't cost you a penny and gets us a little bit of a referral fee, which we appreciate, of course.
More directly, it is, of course...
The Christmas season is upon us and it's carols or donations.
It's your choice.
If you value your ears, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
We need your subscriptions.
We need your donations.
We need your support to continue to grow.
As we've said before and we'll say again, as I'll say, again, there's nothing we can't do if we do it together with enough energy.
If you don't have money, just like, share, and subscribe.
the videos at fdrpodcast.com to get a hold of the podcast.
You can also find us on iTunes.
Thanks, everyone, so much.
Thanks to the callers.
Have yourself a wonderful, wonderful couple of days.
