3170 Dusty P3n!s Syndrome - Call In Show - January 1st, 2016
Question 1: [2:11] - I am an ex-Iranian immigrant to Canada. Is full integration/assimilation really doable for someone who immigrates to a new country past the age of 15 (i.e. around the age of sexual/linguistic maturity)?" Is it possible that there are biological obstacles that might make this highly unlikely if not completely impossible? Question 2: [1:39:15] - The subject I would like to cover with Stefan, is the topic of being a morally consistent Voluntaryism while, at the same time, supporting the current immigration policies that Stefan is in support of, in respect to Syrian and Muslim immigrants. I do not necessarily disagree with Stefan but I am having a hard time seeing how I could defend such a policy from the Anarcho-Capitalist, morally consistent position. I have therefore, not committed fully to either side. What I wish to get out of the call, is a conclusion to this that I can explain, once and for all that falls in line with my Libertarian beliefs.Question 3: [2:32:15] - One of the first conclusions derived from the fundamental precepts of philosophy states that synonyms are not allowed in rational discussions. Based upon this conclusion, what is your distinction, if any, between the words “State” and “Government”? If you make no distinction, shouldn’t you resolve this issue in accordance with the precepts of philosophy?
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Happy New Year to you.
Hope you're doing well.
Hope you had a great break, great vacation, fun with family and friends, and your liver survived intact.
Oh, we started off the year with a pretty interstellar bang.
Mike did cartwheels and cheered me on to heights of rhetorical excess I have not seen before, so I hope that you will enjoy the show.
The first caller was asking about immigration.
Is there a point after which you really can't integrate into your host society?
And whoa, did we delve deep into that one, baby.
IQ, sexual market value, cultural compatibilities.
We did the whole hog and had a great, great conversation about it.
So that was really, really enjoyable.
The second caller, I guess you could say that he embodied questions that maybe a few of you have had over the last little while, which is, Steph, aren't you supposed to be an anarchist?
What the hell are you talking about immigration and blocking people and this and that for?
So, without giving away the farm, we got that resolved, I think it's fairly safe to say, and I hope that it will clarify my positions in these areas.
The third caller...
Ah, the third caller.
Well, he basically felt that I was not very good at what I do, and he had a fantastic, fantastic solution as to how to make me a really good communicator, a fantastic and much better communicator.
So I would not be forgotten like past office and politicians have forgotten, even though they're considered eloquent at the time.
And you can listen to him as he attempts to spoon-feed me his vastly superior instructions as to what it is that I should be doing.
And I ask a few questions.
I guess you could say about credibility.
Let's move on.
Don't, don't, don't, don't forget, my friends.
FDRURL.com slash donate.
For donations, FDRURL.com slash Amazon to help us out if you've got stuff to buy.
Thank you for another fantastic year.
We just passed 10 years since my first article went out.
Looking forward to 2016, which is going to kick all kinds of interstellar philosophical ass.
You thought 2015 was great, and a lot of you did, and so did I. 2016 is just going to blow your socks off.
Let's go.
Alright, up first today is Brandon.
Brandon wrote in and said, My question is,
is full integration slash assimilation really doable for someone who immigrates to a new country past the age of 15, i.e., around the age of sexual slash linguistic maturity?
Is it possible that there are biological obstacles that might make this highly unlikely, if not completely impossible?
I've been exposed to a hypothesis that almost suggests so, but I don't know if I'm reading too much into it.
I would love to get your thoughts on this subject.
That is from Brandon.
Well, hello.
How are you doing?
Happy New Year, man.
Wow.
First caller on the first day of 2016.
This is quite a treat, Stefan.
Well, so this better be great.
Just kidding.
I'm sure it will be.
Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you, too.
Well, I have met you already, but nice to meet you in person.
Nice to meet you in person.
And how has it been going for you?
Let's get a wee bit of backstory if you're alright with that.
What are you doing here over alone and how has the assimilation stuff been going?
Well, like I said, I came here in 2010, and most of the time I've been living in Canada, I've spent somewhat isolated on a university campus.
The university I went to, let's not name it, but it's actually one of the same ones that you've gone to.
So that was easily four years of the five years that I've been in Canada.
Assimilation-wise, well, let's put it this way.
I live in a neighborhood that's 50% Asian, I'd say about 30% Iranian, and the rest is miscellaneous.
Now, hang on, when you say Asian, because it's a bit of a fuzzy category, so you mean sort of Japanese, Chinese, Korean kind of stuff, right?
Yes, East Asian stuff.
Okay, got it.
I don't know how assimilating is working out for me genuinely because even back home, I'm the kind of person who...
I'm a complete and utter grass eater.
I stay at home.
I don't really have any friends that I can go out with or talk to in any capacity.
I even avoid my own family these days, so I'm going to new extremes.
I don't know how it would have worked out had I actually been an extroverted person and wanted to go out and mix and mingle with people.
Right.
And how is the rest of your family doing with regards to integration?
My family is very non-homogeneous.
My sister and mother don't speak English that well.
I mean, they can get by, but It's not remotely good enough for them to be able to start a new life in a country independently.
They're always going to have to rely on somebody to deliver free interpretation services for them, i.e.
me or my brother.
My brother is very successful financially in Canada.
He's a pilot.
He was an engineer before that.
He had a radical turn of career.
Anyway, but as far as integration goes, I mean, I've got my own definition of simulation and full integration.
Would you like to hear that definition?
Sure.
I've actually written this down because I thought it might come up.
This is how I personally define full assimilation, gaining the capacity to engage with Society at large with the same social linguistic skills as anyone in that society who was born there.
It also entails conforming to fundamental ethical values and standards of that society.
That's my 100% personal definition of full assimilation.
Now, as far as if we take that definition to be relevant here, Standards and values, I think we definitely conform to, both I and my brother.
You know, human rights, free speech, all of that.
Going out with a bunch of guys watching hockey and cracking jokes around the table while chucking down Mawson Canadian, I don't know how that's going to go down.
I mean, I speak for myself right now.
I have missed out on tons of opportunities with my teens watching Canadian TV shows.
I don't get lots of the references.
There's a lot of hockey talk.
I only learned what the Blue Jays were like four weeks ago.
So I seriously didn't know what sports they were playing.
So...
Yeah, I don't see that part of it going that well.
But then again, it's confusing to me because I never even allowed myself to experiment with this thing, seeing how psychotically introverted and lonely I am in life.
But my brother, who is more extroverted, I can see him usually spending time with Iranian friends.
I mean, he's got a few very good Canadian friends who were born here.
But I don't really ever see him engage in that sort of profound dialogue or that ha-ha kind of moments that he might otherwise experience with people who speak the same language as him.
I mean, his own native language, though, being Farsi or Persian.
By the way, it's Iran, not Iran, Michael.
Iran.
Okay.
Yeah.
He's probably listened to too much Flock of Seagulls, but that's a joke.
There's another reference that's going to make you feel not assimilated to the song.
I ran, I ran so far away.
Anyway.
All right.
So did you want to add something else to that, my friend?
Or shall I? Actually, there's a lot about the hypothesis that I want to tell you about.
I don't know how much time I have.
I have to cram all this stuff in somehow.
We've got all year, man.
I mean, deadlines passed.
Take your time.
Okay.
Well, okay, let me step back in a second here.
The reason I came up with a question to begin with was I was watching a show by Gavin McInnes.
I'm sure you know him.
To anyone who doesn't, he's a comedian, and I'm not really trying to refute anything.
He said he was just doing a routine, and he's actually very funny.
He was talking about this Indian cab driver in New York.
And how cab drivers are always immigrants.
You always never find white cab drivers.
And how he was going something like, I've been living in this country for 30 years and, you know, whatever, whatever.
And he was saying that had I lived in India for 30 years, I would be composing poetry in Hindi.
And these guys are a complete and utter failure when it comes to assimilation and all of that.
And this whole talk about the immigrant kind of reminded me of this hypothesis, which I was exposed to many years ago in my first undergrad.
I took 10 credits of linguistics, and it's called the critical period hypothesis, the CPH. Have you heard of this?
No.
Well, everybody has seen this, even if they've never heard of it.
Children pick up their first language much more efficiently and effortlessly than adults.
Well, adults usually don't pick up a first language, but they pick up second languages with a lot of difficulty.
And the hypothesis is generally centered around the idea of accents.
So it argues that it is possible, though difficult, to develop a proficient grammar literacy or develop an extended vocabulary usage.
But it's always going to be a massive obstacle for you to sound the same as someone in the target language in a way that fools people.
In that target language, to the fact that you were actually not born in that community.
Now, there's a lot of reasoning why this could be true.
I really don't think I have time for all of this.
There's a brain lateralization, how different functions are assigned to different hemispheres in the brain.
The hypothesis argues that accent is a lower order brain function.
Its development is different from the parts of the brain that deal with grammar and vocabulary and lexicon and all of that.
This is the part I wanted to tell you about.
And this should be interesting to your listeners because we talked about the RK and, you know, the evolutionary stuff.
It makes sense from an evolutionary viewpoint for a species like us that defers I'm going to allocate my sources to everything that allows me to attract the opposite sex,
to everything that's going to allow me to be seen as part of the community, to become one with the tribe.
And once I go over that borderline of sexual maturity, now we're going to shut down those tendencies and talents, that readiness that your brain has for acquiring these skills.
And now we're going to be allocating the energy to spend production and going out there and obtaining the resources and whatever it is that we need to get laid.
Now, this whole thing makes a lot of sense to me, but again, this is a hypothesis, and I'm reading off the wiki page right now.
There is apparently a lot of debates going about the veracity that some people say is completely wrong.
If you simulate the same environment for a little kid, for an adult, language acquisition will happen as efficiently as then.
I think that's a lot of politics, personally.
Seeing how this could be true, maybe it is, in fact, impossible for that Indian cab driver to ever sound authentic, to ever master his language abilities.
And could we maybe extend this beyond just language?
I don't see why it should be just accent if it also pertains to everything else I said about how to be seen as part of the tribe, how to court the opposite sex.
Then the new immigrant who comes to Canada or the United States or wherever past the age of 20, you're going to be lacking in your linguistic skills, but you're also going to be lacking in your ability to attract the opposite sex.
And this is going to be a mess.
You're not going to have anyone to talk to.
You're not going to find anyone to have sex with unless you restrict yourself to your own little community.
But then again, you're leaving yourself to the odds of an equal number of males and females having immigrated from your own community back home, which is, by the way, not the case, I don't think.
Usually we have more males than females who come to new countries.
So, yeah, I think I'll shut up now.
I talked quite a lot.
Well, yeah, I mean, there's a lot to talk about in terms of immigration.
But as you were pointing out there, when you came over, In 2010, from Iran.
Iran was at a particular phase of development.
And Iran, to some degree or another, with any luck and with hard work, is going to continue to develop in some fashion.
Hopefully, perhaps getting back to the more secular Iran that existed in the 1950s and the 1960s that seemed to have more of a future and was much more friendly to female education and so on.
So what happens is when you come over from Iran...
You bring that bubble of 2010 Iran with you.
And then it stops developing.
Because you're not in Iran anymore, right?
So you bring this bubble over.
And meanwhile, Iran will continue to develop in some manner.
And I've seen this in immigrant communities, and I've, for a variety of reasons, been involved in a variety of immigrant communities over the years.
If you look at Greek people who came over 20 years ago, well, they have the values of Greece from 20 years ago.
But the values of Greece from 20 years ago are no longer held by Greeks now, in Greece.
So you get this little time slice That comes out and gets frozen in time and then ends up in some new place.
So even if there are sort of waves of people coming in, those people are all going to have different values based upon where their host country was when they emigrated.
And then they're no longer adapting to the continued changes in the host country.
And so you end up with these lost worlds, so to speak, these time slices, these bubbles.
Of history that don't change.
And so I think people really do get lost in space as far as that goes.
It's like detaching from the mothership.
You can't find the new planet.
The mothership keeps going.
Where are you?
And so I think that is a big challenge.
Sexual marketplace value of immigrants tends to be low.
I mean, you know, tell me if I'm awry.
In general.
I mean, I had some sexual market value coming over from England because, well, it's considered to be a better place to come in some ways, higher sexual market value, and the accent and all that makes you sound smart.
But, you know, I got to think, the kids coming in from Bangladesh, I mean, I remember there was a woman, I think she was Iranian, I won't tell you her name to check because, you know, I don't know if you could, but I remember she was, you know, shy and obviously overwhelmed by this new environment.
And there was this guy, he was just your typical coarse, not quite bully, but just coarse.
And he came up to her with a little screw, and he said, hey, X, want a screw?
Like, as he was going to hand, like, just, and of course, a deer in the headlights, like, how do I respond?
What do I say?
And of course, I think, like, if I were to move to Japan, and Japan has had a lot of Western influences, but let's, if I were to move to Japan, or if I were to move to Iran, how long would it take me to feel that I had fully assimilated?
Well, that answer would be, I would never feel fully assimilated.
And that is a big challenge.
You know, we're social animals.
Our relationships are knit together by culture and values and stories and religions and nationalisms.
That's the way it is.
You know, a couple of generations, if we all work hard, we can replace that with philosophy, but that ain't where we are right now.
And so when people move...
From places like Iran to places like Canada.
And as you know, that's kind of a one-way moving sidewalk.
There's not a lot of footprints and not a lot of mucklucks and snowshoes heading from Canada to Iran or to Saudi Arabia.
And not just for reasons of it's kind of impossible, but because most people want to live in the West, if they have the choice.
And so it is tough for the first generation, and I would argue pretty much impossible for the first generation, But then the weird thing that happens is for the parents, they have their kids.
Now the kids, and this I think has been fairly extensively studied, but kids, as I'm sure you're aware, if you have parents who come from Glasgow, Glaswegians I think they're called, or smelly, they have thick accents and they speak that way to their kids, but what kind of accents do their kids have?
Western?
I mean, North America?
Yeah, they have local accents, whatever they happen to be.
And that makes perfect biological sense, because we mate with our peers, not our parents.
So we want to fit in as much with our peers as humanly possible, and so we will adopt the accents of our peers rather than our parents.
Now, as far as sexual market value goes, there is a great question, which is why was, relative to other waves of migrations in the world, why was 19th century immigration to America so successful, relatively speaking?
And the answer seems to be that the majority of it was white.
In other words, you had a white country, and lots of white people came into that country.
And within a single generation of You really couldn't tell, right?
I mean, maybe you're living in Little Italy or maybe you're just a swarthy Irishman, I don't know, right?
But within a generation or maybe even two, no one can tell that you came from somewhere else.
But when you have, you know, Asians or blacks or people from the Middle East, then it's different.
The biological integration is impossible, if that makes any sense.
You can't blend if you are biologically different from the host population.
In other words, if someone from, you know, I'm probably painting this in too broad a brush, so I apologize to those who are nitpicky, but just as an analogy, if someone from China moves to Japan, within a generation, no one knows that they came from China.
Is that fair to say?
Sounds fair to me.
Yeah, I mean, because physically they blend, right?
They're not tall and blue-eyed, whatever, right?
Probably.
But if someone from China moves to Canada, and assuming that they marry other Chinese people, there will never be a generation wherein people think, That they're not from an Asian country.
So when whites from all the different white countries move to a white country, then they blend within a generation or two.
That's the melting pot, right?
But when people who are biologically distinct from a native population move That assimilation from a biological, I can't tell whether you're here or not from here, that doesn't occur.
And that's not to say that, you know, Chinese people or Iranian people or black people can adopt all the values.
That could happen.
But there still is a limit to the automatic nature of the melting pot, if that makes any sense.
Now, I'm always concerned about any society when People who have low sexual market value come into that society, as we talked about.
You know, the two things that civilize young men and reduce their levels of testosterone and increase their cooperation and their work ethic and so on is, number one, getting married, and number two, having children.
So whenever a large group of young men move into a society and those men have low sexual market value outside their group and within their group there aren't enough women, Well, you're just setting yourself up for a whole mess of trouble.
Like, a whole mess of trouble.
And that's not particular to any group.
It would happen whoever moved anywhere.
Men who can't get sexually satisfied, men who can't get married, men who can't settle down, men who can't have kids, remain, I don't know, undomesticated.
And not in a good way, necessarily.
Undomesticated like tigers are undomesticated, and they just cause lots of problems.
And you can see, of course, a lot of Middle Easterners pouring into Europe.
Where, you know, in some countries they're setting up seminars called Don't Rape, Please, if you don't mind, you know, if that's alright with you.
Because they don't have the same ethic, they don't have the same respect for women, they don't have the same, you know, for them, the society limits their desires, so they've not got used to limiting their own desires.
You know, like all the kids who were never allowed to touch alcohol, they get to college and they go...
Blind on moonshine, whereas the kids who have had a little bit of exposure to alcohol, it's not such a...
And you can see the criminality that's occurring.
So I've got a second question for you, if you don't mind me asking.
For sure.
So you're shy, as you say.
I'm not shy.
I'm a misanthrope.
Oh, you just hate people.
Maybe that's not the right word either.
I hate socializing.
I feel suffocated past a certain time limit, which is usually one and a half, two hours of sitting around and making small talk with people.
I just want to run away and go home.
Oh, yeah.
No, small talk of the tiny black holes into souls, futures, and lives vanish.
So I don't blame you for that.
Now, there's an addition.
So when it comes to white women or white girls, what are your thoughts about them?
My thoughts or my sexual feelings?
Yeah, sexual feelings, thoughts, preferences.
You know, when you're around a bunch of white girls, what are your thoughts and what's your experience of the situation?
And your desires or preferences?
Well, sexually, I don't find myself attracted to white women.
I suffer a little bit of a yellow fever, if you know what I mean.
Penis points to IQ. Got it.
Yeah, but...
So, wait, wait.
Is it any particular Asian?
And you're not alone in that, of course.
I mean, Asian girls, I think, score highest in general when it comes to dating apps and so on.
And, I believe, the internet as a whole.
So, do you have a preference for particular kinds of Asian women?
First-skinned Asian women.
So, that would be Koreans, North Chinese, I guess, and all of Japan.
And have you approached these women?
No.
The name is Ryder, Flynn Ryder.
Are you exposed to them at all?
Well, I was exposed to a lot of girls, I guess.
I think the ratio was 60 to 40 over at that university I used to go to.
60 women for 40 men?
Yes.
Okay.
Again, not in the science department, but, you know, across the entire camp.
But they're around, yeah.
You just go to the sign which says, future dead slave, and you're set.
Well, maybe not with the Asian girls, smarter than that, but anyway, go on.
Right.
Sorry, what's the question again exactly?
Well, have you approached the Asian girls that you like?
Have I tried to ask one of them out?
No, I have not.
If that's what you like.
Right.
Okay.
So you prefer Asian girls or Asian women to other ethnicities.
Is that fair to say?
Yes.
Well, this really pertains to back when I really had a sexual drive.
By now, I think it's been about a decade of me since the last time I was intimate with anyone.
So really, use it or lose it.
I'm beginning to lose all interest, and I'm going fully Japanese.
Oh, right.
DPS. Dusty penis syndrome.
Got it.
It's a big challenge.
It's a big challenge.
So you're not particularly going to ask anyone out.
so and and do what do you think your sexual market value would be if you were interested in dating um gee what what a question I don't know how to answer this.
Let me preface it by saying this.
I definitely saw the drop in the market value.
The moment I stepped on Canadian soil.
I have university experience in Iran.
I had it here.
I can tell you, what is the opposite of a sausage fest?
A vagina fest, I guess?
That's what we had in my first university experience.
I think landmines is what some men would call it, but anyway.
Lots of landmines and lots of them were beckoning back when I was doing English language and literature was my first degree.
Not so much in Canada.
I think in the five years I've been here, three women have shown any sort of interest in me.
Two of them were fellow immigrants.
One of them was white.
She was from Quebec and she was completely nuts.
And she retracted.
Oh, sorry.
All you had to say was she was from Quebec.
Yeah, there you go.
The rest of it is.
I lived in Quebec for a while.
So yeah, okay.
From Quebec.
I don't know if it even counts as showing interest.
I mean, she just got drunk one night, called me, said, I want to fuck you.
And then like two days later, she retracted the whole thing and apologized and said, I have a boyfriend.
So that really doesn't count.
But yeah, the drop in sexual market value definitely is there.
Yeah, and that's tough.
And listen, I remember when I was in college, there was a girl.
Oh man, she was great.
I mean, I was attracted to her.
And she was smart and she was funny and sexy and all that.
And I was naive to the ways of the world.
And I couldn't figure out why I couldn't really get her to go out with me.
And then she ended up going out with some pencil neck theater guy.
And I was just like, oh man, come on.
But then it wasn't until later, and it was quite a long time later, I realized, boy, she was Jewish.
And he was Jewish.
And she wouldn't go out with me because I'm not Jewish.
Got a little bit of Jew way back in the family tree, you know, Germany, 1930s kind of thing.
But, yeah, that was the reality.
So, I mean, if I went to Israel, you know, I could probably get some recreational dates.
But as far as any serious settling down go, I would assume that most of the Jewish women would prefer to marry Jews.
A Jewish man.
And certainly that would be the case if I was A female and a Gentile trying to date a male who was Jew, because of course it's matrilineal for Judaism.
But yeah, so I, you know, because normally when I was younger, I mean, I was a pretty good looking guy, and I was like, you know, it wasn't like snap my fingers, but if I wanted to ask a girl out, usually I could find a way to make it happen.
But this, it was just like, you know, invisible glass of Judaic rejection.
And I didn't really understand it, of course, at the time, because as an atheist, what did I care, right?
So extrapolating that particular mentality to a much wider sphere would be very frustrating.
And it would also be, you know, one thing that happens with men who have low sexual market value is a lot of resentment and a lot of aggression.
Since you've got DPS, it's probably different for you, but there is a lot of aggression, a lot of resentment, a lot of frustration.
And that's just the gene saying, got to find a way to reproduce, and I don't care if it's not that nice.
Hello, Sweden.
And so, yeah, this low sexual market value is really tough.
And, you know, when you think of these, when I think of these Middle Easterners pouring into Europe and pouring into America and pouring into Canada and so on, it's like, well, they're, what, 74% male, young males, and not a lot of women, and they're not exactly going to go pick up the cheerleaders.
And it is going to be It is going to be a mess.
So, as far as whether you can integrate or not, I don't know.
I mean, it can happen sometimes, for sure.
I know, you know, I shouldn't say.
So, I mean, again, not getting into any details, but there was a man who was one of the most significant influences when I was growing up.
And he was from Iran.
Of course, he said that he refused to refer to it as Iran.
Do you know what he referred to it as?
Persia?
Yes, Persia.
Because he did not recognize what had happened.
And he was, without a doubt, and I get emotional even just thinking about him, he's since...
He passed away, another victim of the Canadian healthcare system, but he was a great man.
I would say a great soul, if people understand my meaning.
He was a wise and warm and funny and intelligent and curious and open-minded and a genuinely wonderful human being.
Who had an enormous impact on me throughout my teenage years.
One of these people that they probably never had any idea the debt that they were generating simply by being such a great person.
And such a great father.
Because I grew up without a father, right?
And they simply don't know To what degree they're positively influencing people just by being genuinely and wonderfully themselves.
And he was a man the like of which I have not...
An older man the like of which I've not met again.
And not just because I'm getting older.
But he was a genuinely wonderful human being who had an enormous impact on me.
And he was married to a British woman.
And...
And the kids, again, you know, again, when you start to sort of blend ethnicities that way, I guess they just look Italian for the most part, I guess.
New note.
Italy is England plus Ireland.
But he was very successful.
And he was, you know, what was so great about him, one of the many things that was so great about him, and I've really tried to mirror this in my own parenting, in my own conversational styles, but particularly in parenting, was the degree to which Thank you very much.
And, you know, growing up as a kid, just about anywhere in the world, the idea that somebody's going to ask a question of you that's not rhetorical, that's not sarcastic, that's, you know, I genuinely care about your response and really take it in.
It was like, wow, I felt myself materializing from the ghost of being ignored as a child.
This man incorporated me.
He brought me into something that was physical and tangible simply by being curious about my thoughts and opinions.
So I will be forever in his debt and the degree to which...
His being resonates through me into the world.
The world is forever in his debt, and I wish I could speak about him more clearly, but he was a genuinely fantastic and wonderful man.
And this is the kind of, you know, influence that people can have, even if they're unconscious of it.
And...
So he, of course, you know, moved and was successful and...
He had a wife and kids, but he was also exceptional relative to his own host culture, which he also would have said, I'm sure.
You know, the average IQ in Iran, do you know what that is?
No idea.
The average IQ in Iran is 84.
That doesn't sound good at all.
Well, in fact, not only does it not sound good at all, it's catastrophic.
You know, one of the great mysteries to me about the world, oh, the amount of time I poured into this prior to understanding the simple realities of the planet is shocking and appalling, but...
You know, when my daughter says, how do I draw a circle?
When she was younger, I'd say, look, here's how you draw a circle.
She says, well, how do I draw a really great circle?
It's like, let's get a yogurt.
Look, we can draw around an apple, an orange, a coin.
Here's how you draw circles.
How many times do you think I had to tell her that?
Once?
Yeah, once.
Once, once, once.
And from the West, from the pinnacle of what has so far been achieved as human freedoms on the planet, which is the Western countries, even as they stand, though they are sinking.
In the West, the work has been done.
Hey!
How do you create a relatively free and civilized society?
Okay, here's a coin.
Draw around it.
You don't have to invent the circle.
You don't have to invent the number zero.
You don't have to invent mathematics or physics.
We've made it user-friendly.
You're not the first person to invent the cell phone.
You're the second person to use the cell phone.
That's quite a lot easier.
And this is what's so frustrating is that in the West, of course, there have been things that have been developed.
The free market, separation of church and state, respect for women, respect for children and all that.
And using reason and evidence rather than superstition and aggression to resolve conflicts.
These things have been developed.
We put a smooth, user-friendly GUI on the underlying philosophical physics of freedom.
And so the whole world is saying, how do we be free?
How do we be free?
We love the West.
The West is the best.
We want to get to the West.
We want to get to the West.
And people like myself, who are in the West, who understand how all of this works, say, here's how you...
People, oh, I just want to draw a circle.
Man, if I could draw a circle, I'd die happy.
I say, okay, here's a coin.
And here's a pencil.
Right?
And then they stab me in the eye with a pencil, and then they go buy a candy bar with the coin.
That's not how you draw a circle.
It's how you draw a chalk outline around where I was.
And that's what's so frustrating.
It's like, well, why the hell don't people just do what the West does?
Because when you think everyone's equal, then you think, well, just do what I do.
It's sort of like not being able to tell differences in body mass.
You know, like I wear 34 jeans, right?
And if I think everyone is, you know, just under 6 foot, 190 pounds and wears 30 size 34 jeans, I'm like, here, I've got some jeans you can wear.
You know, and Jared from Subway lumbering out of prison can't fit into them.
Doesn't make it.
And sometimes I feel as if I'm trying to jam them on the fins of a blue whale.
I'm telling you in whale speak how to get into my jeans.
Because we don't get that people are different.
My bra size may be different than your bra size because you're younger.
I have the bro.
The man's here.
And so...
Why is it that everybody who's got brains in these countries, and of course you sound like a very intelligent fellow, why is it that everyone who has brains in these countries, these third world countries, and these Middle Eastern countries, and these South African countries, and even to some degree these South American countries, why is it that everybody runs to the West rather than making their countries look like the West?
And I know this sounds like a distance from your question about integration.
I don't think it is.
So tell me why your family's very smart.
Why don't they work for change in Iran?
And please tell me.
I'm not saying, well, if you like freedom so much, just go home.
I'm not saying that at all.
It's a genuine question.
I think I may have an answer, but obviously you're the Iranian.
I want to hear from you.
Why come to the West rather than turn the East into the West?
Well...
I can tell you a bit about my family, and I can tell you about it.
No, I don't want to hear about your family.
I want to know why come to the West rather than...
You know, like, let's say, like, when I grew up, I lived in an apartment and didn't have much money, and we couldn't afford an air conditioner.
Now, then, when I had a little bit of money to buy an air conditioner...
And I'm like, wow, there are air conditioners.
And actually, I ended up getting a third hand from someone whose father was in the HVAC business, but it doesn't matter.
So I didn't sit there and say, well, I got to move from Toronto to St.
John's, Newfoundland, so that I can get an apartment with an air conditioner.
I got an air conditioner and I put it into my apartment.
And so my question is, if the smart people around the world, and sorry to make you represent them, but just give me your opinion, why come to the West rather than try and turn Iran into the West?
Because there is no foreseeable potential within our lifetime.
Of course, but why?
Yes, of course, because you didn't think it could happen, but why do you think it can't happen or why can't it happen?
Well, I can think of two reasons just right off the bat.
First of all, there is an avenue open for the richer or, as you put it, the smarter Middle Easterners to look west and say, "Hey, I don't have to deal with this shithole.
I can just pack my bags and go look elsewhere." So if you have that avenue open to you… When you say shithole, do you mean that in any kind of negative ways?
Sorry, I'm just kidding.
But shithole, that is a very strong phrase to use for the very country that gave you birth.
And apparently birthed all of civilization according to people from the Middle East.
I mean, would you refer to that?
Iran?
No.
Shithole is not a reference to the country that gave me birth or gave me life.
Shithole is a reference to the country that...
Treated me like I didn't exist.
As a 15-year-old atheist going to high school, I got death threats from fellow students.
Oh no, I was going to say, being treated like you didn't exist, wouldn't that have been a vast improvement over what happened?
Probably so, yes.
You're definitely right.
Let's rephrase.
They treated me like I was a pile of cow dung that needed to be stampede on or something.
Correct.
I got kicked out of high school.
I got very close to getting into serious legal trouble because I was constantly having these back and forth with my teachers at high school.
I was challenging them on the bullshit that they were teaching us about the government structure, how the head of the state is a divine representative of God and all this crap and the Quranic teachings and whatever, whatever, whatever.
Sure.
I mean, you can always stay if you don't have the option to leave that country.
And had I stayed in that country, I don't know, I probably would have died or something, fighting the government.
Well, you would have been likely imprisoned or brutally punished, and we'd be looking at you on an amnesty newsletter, right?
I think seeing how I cannot shut up when I am around people, which is, by the way, part of the reason I don't want to be around people, because I talk too much.
I think by now I would have gotten myself in some sort of serious legal trouble.
If they hadn't killed me, they would have fined me or something.
I don't know.
Okay, so why is it that in Iran this is such a dominant mindset?
Is it a dominant mindset?
It was dominant enough to run the country and drive you away, right?
No allies, no one to help you out, the wall of blank bigoted ignorance being pointed against you and threats and all that.
I misunderstood.
I thought you were referring to my mindset as the dominant one.
Well, yes, this mindset of let's persecute Jews and atheists and drive them out of the country or drive them out of the existential realm, Is because of Islam.
I blame Islam for this.
95% of it is Islam, and 5% I would say it's the backward Iranian mentality.
And it's funny you brought up IQ. Iranians regard themselves as one of the smartest people on this planet.
And they constantly have to throw in this crap about how 2,500 years ago we had Cyrus the Great and people didn't have bathrooms in the Western world.
Yeah, it's like how the Greeks bring up Socrates.
It's like, you know you all killed him, right?
It's like the Jews bringing up Jesus.
Anyway, sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, so it's a combination of nationalism and Islam.
Iranians in the West are very generous when it comes to facts and figures about how many people support the Islamic Republic.
I've listened to crazy people who tell me that 80% of Iranians don't want the Islamic Republic, they're just very scared.
I don't think so.
If you ask me, I would estimate that at least 60 or 70% of people in Iran definitely want some sort of an Islamic establishment to run them.
I don't necessarily, I'm suggesting they want the Islamic Republic, the Islamofascism that we have right now in its current form.
But I really fail to see how people would get behind the idea of a fully secular, you know, religion this way, state that way sort of a system.
No, they really want Islam.
And as long as you have a majority of people in any country that want religion to be involved in their power structure, people like me have to pack their bags, put their tails deep inside their rectum and run away.
I don't think that's what dogs do, but I think I followed the analogy.
I don't know if you spend a lot of time around dogs.
I hope not.
Anyway, sorry, I shouldn't laugh.
I don't know where you came from.
Yeah, listen, I mean, what I would argue is that stupid is a predator and brains are the prey.
Stupid is a gene set.
Dumb is a gene set.
Or you could say it's a deficiency of the genes of intelligence and the work in identifying the genes for intelligence is progressing despite all political correctness and sort of semi-socialist leftist slash communist hysteria.
But stupid is a gene set that works best in a bigoted, prejudicial, violent, totalitarian society.
Stupid people love totalitarianism because they do fine.
There aren't all of these annoying people around making them feel stupid.
And so, there's an old saying that Sigmund Freud had when the Nazis came and burnt down his office, where he did a psychoanalysis, and they burned all of his papers, and he fled to America.
And he said, the significant advance is that a generation or two ago, they would have burnt me, not just my papers.
This is as far...
But you see, I mean, for whatever we think of Freud, he definitely did work pretty hard to bring self-knowledge and self-analysis to the forefront of thinking.
And that doesn't exactly help Nazis very much, right?
So, stupid is a predator and brains are the prey.
So, of course, they have to drive you out.
Because if your brains end up creating the kind of society that smart people like to live in, how do dumb people do?
So yeah, societies, IQ 84 societies, and for comparison, the average IQ of blacks in America, who aren't exactly doing in a stellar fashion these days, the average IQ for blacks in America is 85.
So 84, well, for those with an IQ of 84, that's one less.
That's tragic.
But you see, IQ 84 societies are stupid and primitive and brutal and violent and misogynistic and superstitious and all of that because what other society would they want?
And they don't have usually the capacity to defer gratification.
Like what does freedom of speech mean to someone with an IQ of 84?
Why would they even want it?
It's not like, well, if there's freedom of speech, I'm going to publish a wonderful novel.
I mean, they can barely finish shopping lists.
And so dumb is a predator and brains are the prey.
And this is the win-lose situation.
Because I would argue that, and, you know, confirm with me what you think of this, of course, but I would argue that emigrating from a country is fundamentally, or at least primarily, an act of despair.
It's giving up on the country of origin.
And I think that needs to be sort of fundamentally understood by people as a whole.
That it's not some great adventure.
Like when Europeans emigrated to America in the 19th and early 20th century, it was a complete act of despair.
Right?
They had given up on any kind of reform within their own countries to the point where they're willing to travel for months and risk death just to get to a new country with, you know, four dollars in their pocket.
It's a decoup.
You're uncountrying of origin.
You're decountry of origin.
You're decouing.
Which sounds like you just killed a dove.
But anyway...
This act of despair, I think, is really important, and I think it kind of remains unprocessed.
Like, the reason your family left is, you know, you're smart, able, competent people, and you were smart enough to recognize that when you're dealing with a population with an average IQ of 84, you aren't going to set up some new free society, because those people will viciously and virulently usually fight against a free society.
Because of free society.
Now, if they had brains, like if you could somehow magically combine a low IQ with the capacity to see into the future and recognize long-term value, which is the complete opposite.
I mean, IQ, I think, develops as a byproduct of the need to defer gratification in a colder climate over winter in particular.
But if you could somehow get stupid people to look over the horizon of future and possibilities...
What you'd say to them is, okay, so let's say you just let smart people run society, you have a free society, you got a free market, you separate church and state, freedom of religion, you know, all of the freedom of speech, battle of ideas, let the best idea win, and so on.
Yeah, okay, you're going to lose some power and authority and bossy dominance in the short run, you're going to feel disoriented, but in the long run, your society will do a lot better.
Then, because in the long run, poor people do a lot better, dumb people do not, not that they're the same, but dumb people do a lot better in a society that gains more wealth, but gaining more wealth means that dumb people have to stop thinking they're smart and able to run things, right?
You know, I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to build my own house, so...
Other people do that for me, because as a smart person, I'm fairly good with my own limitations.
So if dumb people were smart, they'd recognize that dumb people will fare better in a smart society over the long run.
But in the short run, right, it's...
Uncomfortable and disorienting.
Dumb people are very bad at knowing how dumb they are.
This is the foundational physics of human interaction.
As you say, the group with the IQ of 84, which means half of them are dumber than that.
We're starting to approach not a human population, but a geological collection.
Bags of hammers saying how smart they are.
It's like, no, no, no, you're not archaeologists.
You're stuff archaeologists dig out and dust off.
So, you've got an IQ 84 population saying, we're the smartest people in the known universe.
Only people with an IQ 84.
Anyway, would even think that.
So, I think that you're fleeing a vacuum Of idiocy that you can't win against because you can't physically take on a large and assembled group of idiots.
And you can't talk them into being smarter because they're idiots.
Just like you can't talk people into being taller if they're short, right?
And so this foundational aspect of decooing, of emigration, is despair.
It is, there's nothing for me here.
I gotta go.
I mean, Luke left to Tatooine because his step-parents got murdered and there was nothing left for him and there was some guy saying, hey, let's go kill together.
But, I mean, it's the same thing with the Shire.
I think this foundational despair is something really, really important.
Because if you can convince people, or not convince them, that sounds like, if you can get them to accept that they come to the West because there's no practical hope of improving their host countries, Then I think you can get people to commit to the West.
Because that, you know, to me, with immigrants, it's like one foot on the pier, one foot on the boat.
It's like, pick one.
And this is why when people say, and it's not a nice way of saying it, I don't like the phrase, love it or leave it.
You know, if you come to the West, and you don't like the West, go home.
Right?
This is this in-betweeny phase.
Like, if I hated my home country enough to go all the way around the world, learn an entirely new language, entirely new culture, risk low sexual market value and belong, then leave that shit behind!
And I know you have.
I'm not talking to you.
I mean, get that, right?
You left it behind before you even left, which was incredibly brave of you to do.
But leave that shit behind.
Like, one thing I don't like about England is the class structure.
Now, of course, the England I'm talking about, it's 38 years since I left England.
I have no place to go back to because England is not even remotely the same now than it was in 1977.
I go back to London.
London is now a minority white city, but it doesn't exist.
Where I left is vanished.
There's no going back to it, and there's no going to England as if it was ever close to what it was in the past.
But one of the things I disliked about England was the class structure.
You know, the accent and the...
I mean, when I went to boarding school, my dad was basically just buying a plummy accent so that I could get out of the hellhole of my history at some point in the future.
That's your jetpack.
That is your Millennium Falcon.
It's like upgrading your ghetto-speak of cockney to something that approaches, you know, Christopher Plummer with a plum in his throat.
And so when I came to Canada, I don't like the class stuff.
And it comes out of still this addiction to the royalty, you know?
Best murder princess in the universe!
They've had children.
Let's put on pretty pictures of them.
And so you leave that behind, and it's gross.
And this is the problem, I think, that a lot of people who leave their countries, which is an act of despair, They leave their countries, they come to a new country, and they feel nostalgia.
No.
No.
You need to take your nostalgia out like a rabid dog, hold it down with your boot, and shoot it in the face.
And I'm not saying this to you, I'm saying this to people in general.
Do not feel nostalgic for the country you abandoned.
That's like getting to a fucking lifeboat off the Titanic and saying, you know, that was a really, really wonderful vessel.
Wow.
I really wish I was still on it.
Because...
I could be burping bubbles right now.
I mean, no, leaving, like you get off the Titanic because it's going to sink and kill you.
And so you leave and you go to the new place and you've got to love the new place and you've got to hate the old place because you were driven out, because you were a better person.
They drove you out because you were a better person.
And stupid has like a big tidal wave This is stupid, has washed over that country.
And the smart people, just as is happening in North America and in England and in Europe now, the smart people are all sentimental.
And the smart people are letting low IQ people wash all over the continent, thinking, well, everyone's got the same size pants, we can just trade.
No.
No, you see, if the population currently washed, the Middle Eastern population currently washing into Europe and North America, if they were capable of achieving freedom, they would have done it already.
If they were capable of drawing a circle, you already showed them how to do it.
You gave them the pens, gave them the coins, gave them the yogurt cups.
You gave them 10,000 videos for 150 years or 200 years on how to draw the circle.
If they were capable of drawing the circle, they already would have done it in their host countries.
First pill to be made is very difficult.
Second pill, really quite a lot easier because you already have the recipe.
And so the first group to invent modern freedoms, the white Western Christian Europeans, that was a bitch and a half.
Let me tell you, not from personal experience, but you know, as somebody who studied history, that was a bitch and a half.
Make those free societies.
Copying that?
That's a whole lot easier.
It's the difference between drawing and tracing.
And if people are too fucking stupid to even copy the freedoms that were developed in the West, Then inviting them into the West.
Anyway, what can I even say?
You're not going to turn people with an IQ of 84 from a brutal, destroyed, and destroying culture that's misogynistic, hateful, violent, atavistic, superstitious.
You are not going to turn them into Europeans by bringing them to Europe.
You're going to turn Europe into where they came from!
Again, I'm not putting you in this category, a very smart guy, and you got out and all that.
No, I mean, the stuff you're saying about having one foot on the boat and one foot on the pier, I wish that was the case for at least the majority of the immigrants that come from, let's say, Iran to Canada.
I don't think that's most of us.
I got into an argument once, first year I was in Canada on campus, there was this Iranian guy And, you know, I was studying a festive calculus with this guy.
He was a study partner.
And he was listening to Iranian pop music on his phone.
He was dressing as though this was not Canada.
Like, you know, I mean, he was wearing jeans and shit, but like the way he wore it was very Iranian.
And like his hair and everything else, everything about him screamed, I'm an Iranian.
And like his circle was 100 percent Iranian.
I told them once, I said, why did you come here?
If you wanted to simulate Iran in Canada, and if you're essentially living in Iran in Canada, what was the point?
Just go sit on an ice bucket in the desert, if that's what you want.
I really don't remember what he said, because I'm pretty sure whatever he said was something very stupid.
But you're definitely right on point.
On my part, it was an act of despair, and it was more than just a suspicion that I might get into trouble.
My family has gotten in trouble.
I came close myself.
I didn't quite get there myself.
My dad was thrown in jail for a year for being in possession of a book that had blasphemous ideas in it against the peaceful religion of Islam.
Right.
And my grandfather was thrown in jail under the shop, but maybe dad was deserved because he was a communist.
Right.
So, yeah, I wish it was despair.
It isn't.
Many Iranians are going back home every chance they get.
They send money back home, and they have their mosques over here, and they have their halal markets, and it's...
It's crazy, and it's profoundly disappointing and depressing to me.
But they want the best of both worlds, right?
They want all the cultural support without any of the lack of freedoms that that cultural support inevitably would lead to.
Exactly.
Right.
Now, here's a challenge, though, right?
Let me ask you a question.
If you really want a tall child...
And you were a woman.
Let's go with two theoreticals here.
If you wanted a really tall child and you were a woman, would you...
Like, if that was the number one thing for you to have a tall child, that's the only thing that you care about in terms of being a mom, is you want a tall child.
Would you marry and have a child with a tall Chinese guy?
Um...
Probably.
Well, I mean, that depends on how the genes for tall are passed around.
Like, if it's the sort of gene that skips a generation, then probably not.
Right?
If you had the choice between, say, a tall European guy, or like, who's the tallest, the Nordic race, I don't know, whatever, right?
A tall European guy and a tall Chinese guy, who would you choose?
The tall Dutch guy.
The Dutch are the tallest people on the planet, I know.
To the tallest, okay.
That's why it's the phrase double Dutch.
So...
Yeah, definitely.
And why would you want the tall Dutch guy rather than the tall Chinese guy if they both were 6'3"?
Because the Chinese guy might be an accident, quote-unquote.
What do you mean, might be?
Do you know anything?
You've studied statistics, calculus.
You know what a bell curve looks like.
Where's the 6'3 Chinese guy on the bell curve?
Far to the right.
Far to the right.
He's so far right-wing, he'll be voting in the next French elections.
Anyway.
I know.
Sad rim shots.
It's a new year.
Let me tell you what my New Year's resolution was not.
To make better jokes.
So, if you want a tall guy, if you want a tall kid, you're not going to marry somebody on the right-hand side of the bell curve, who is a statistical anomaly because of regression to the...
Sorry, but I completely blacked out.
Regression to the mean, right?
Yes.
So regression to the mean, for those who don't know, means that tall people, they're likely going to have taller kids, but they're going to be shorter than they are.
Whereas short people are likely to have taller kids, but they're not going to be as tall as the average.
That's the regression to the mean, which is why you don't end up with super tall people and super short people and, you know, families that just, it goes on and on.
There's a cycle.
There's a mix-up, right?
Yep.
So here's the challenge.
Where are you on the bell curve of Iranian intelligence?
I don't know, Stefan.
You're asking such impossibly difficult questions.
I'm really not.
How can I possibly know that?
You can know that.
You can know that.
I assume you don't know your own IQ, right?
I haven't taken a test, no.
Okay, that's fine.
Can I give you a guesstimate?
Go for it.
You have completed undergraduate?
Two of them.
Two undergraduates?
Yes.
And they were STEM related?
First one was English language literature, the second one was biology.
Okay, first one will give you 105 to 110, second will give you 115 to 120.
You listen to this show, right?
Extensively.
Boom!
Booyah, baby!
10 extra points.
I can just hand these things out because I'm not even remotely an expert.
Everybody gets 10 points more of IQ. Actually, they will, I think, if they follow the peaceful parenting stuff.
So let's say you've got 120 to 125.
Just, you know, this is all bullshit, but it's not total bullshit, all right?
So let's say you've got 125 IQ. Now, in an average population of 84, where does 125 IQ land?
Banishment.
Well, yeah, but I mean, it's, uh...
What is beast feed?
Mike's giving me a note.
He says, plus 15 points if you beast feed Steph.
What does that mean?
I eat a unicorn's ass?
What is beast feeding me?
What the hell is that?
Sometimes Mike's comments in the show are enormously helpful.
This is not one of those times.
I thought he was playing some, like I thought you were playing World of Warcraft at the text adventure.
Plus 15 points, beast feed the Steph.
You made me so want to help you, Steph.
I know, sorry.
Wait, what's I talking about?
Gratification being of great value anyway.
So, look, I'm no statistician, right?
But to go, let's just take 85.
85 to 100 is one standard deviation.
85 to 115 is two standard deviations.
84 to 125 is within the stone's throw of three standard deviations, right?
Now, again, I know you maybe haven't done a lot of statistics.
Maybe, Mike, you could look this up if you don't mind.
If it doesn't involve beast feeding me something, which is a snake in my belly button or something.
But what percentage of people fall into the third standard deviation away from the mean?
It's got to be tiny.
Oh, Mike's going to...
Mike apparently is unionized just in the last 35 seconds.
This is one of the few times we actually could do a show in the same room.
And I'm gassy.
But it is a very, very small percentage of people who fall into the third standard deviation.
I believe it's 1 in 500 or 1 in 1,000.
I think IQ of 154 is 1 in 1,000.
But IQ 154 is one in a thousand off a base of 100.
IQ of 125 off a base of 84...
I don't know, I'm beyond...
I can't do that in my head, I don't know if I can, but...
You're very rare, right?
That's fair to say, right?
You would definitely be the elite of the elites within the Iranian bell curve of intelligence, right?
If you say so.
Well, no, I mean, you know a little bit about math, right?
It's okay.
Like, false humility is just another form of hypocrisy.
You know how, like, when dumb people are so dumb, they think that everything's easy, and other people who are smart are idiots, and they can do anything they want, and then they get really surprised and angry when the world as a whole doesn't agree with them.
That kind of vanity is the mirror image is the false humility of smart people.
Look, if you're tall, don't hunch over.
If you're tall, you're tall, right?
Okay, so here...
Okay, so two standard deviations.
Yeah, so, I don't know, let's just go for roughly around 0.2% of the population.
Now, an IQ base of 85, it's not the same.
IQ base of 85 means that an IQ of 125 is much rarer than just going 30 points up from 100.
In the same way that the average, like a six foot tall person is not that uncommon among Europeans, but it's very rare among Chinese.
Because pushing the edge of the bell curve, it gets, as you know, exponentially rarer.
Not just a little bit rarer, but a lot rarer.
And so, you know, there's arguments that say that because women tend to cluster around the center of the IQ scale, that women who are very unintelligent are extremely rare.
But women who are super intelligent are also just rare because they thin out at both ends of the bell curve.
So at the highest end of the bell curve, women show up, you know, 10% or 5% as much as men, which is why there are fewer homeless women and there are also fewer women who get Nobel Prizes and so on.
So, you're extremely rare.
One in a thousand, one in ten thousand, and so on.
Now, here's the challenge, and this is, again, just going after the immigrants as a whole.
So, how many really smart people want to get out of Iran?
Anyone who can, and has the financial need, I would suspect, would like...
So, 100% of the smart people, the really smart people, want to get the hell out of Iran, right?
Probably, yes.
At least for a temporary time.
a brain drain, right?
It means that there aren't smart people left committed to changing Iranian society because they're all hightailing it off to the West, right?
Definitely.
Now, clearly, that's taking advantage of all the people who did not hightail it out of the West, but stayed and fought Because, you know, the West was as stupid as Iran in the past.
It's just that things changed.
People sort of stayed and fought, right?
And look, I'm not saying come back to Iran.
I'm not saying that at all.
I'm just sort of laying out the general consequences, not for each individual, but for the societies as a whole.
Is that I completely understand, and I said this in my show about the European migrants, I completely understand why you as an individual would want to get the hell out of Iran.
But you understand that when all the smart people are leaving Iran, it's not like the society is going to get any better.
Like one of the reasons why the third world is not improving is all the smart people in the third world are getting the hell out.
For sure.
And so it is an act not just of despair, About your country, and more than despair, resignation about your country's capacity, but it also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Like, if the West, and I'm not saying it should, or would, or ever will, but if the West said, no one else who's not white or Western is going to come into the West, and there was no way to get out of Iran, then the smart people would have to turn around and figure out how the hell to make Iran a better place for them to live, right?
And what form that would take, I don't know.
But this constant brain drain, I mean, it's kind of funny how the West takes all the smart people out of these hell holes and then turns around and says, we've got to give foreign aid because these countries are doing so badly.
It's like, well, yeah, of course they're doing badly.
If you take all the tall people out of China, the basketball teams are going to suck, right?
And so not only is it an act of complete despair, When it comes to resignation, when it comes to the host country, but it is also an act almost of contempt and hatred for the population you've left behind.
The doctor who abandons the country in a time of plague is without a doubt sentencing people to death, so to speak, right?
And again, I completely understand what you're doing, and I'm not saying I'd make any different choice, but that is the practical outcome.
Of the kinds of choices made by immigrants, right?
And it means that it's going to have to continue and continue and continue and continue and continue, right?
Yeah, the country is taking a plunge into the...
And it's going to keep going because all the smart people get out, which means the country gets worse, which means that even less smart people want to get out, which means the country gets worse, which means even less smart people want to get out.
Boom!
You're driving down the IQ of the host population.
And again, I understand it.
I really like, I mean, your father got in prison, sent in prison by the religion of peace for having a book.
I get it.
But the practical result is that it is because people in the West fought rather than ran that you have some place that you can run rather than fight.
Right.
And that's the kind of commitment I think that immigrants...
Should have to Western values.
Here's the basic reality.
You know what it's like to live in a complete dung heap of superstitious totalitarianism, right?
I sure do.
So, what always amazes me is that, look, I grew up really, really poor.
And I know I'm talking to someone from around, but, you know, around here it was really, really poor.
Like, eviction notices, no food, like, really poor.
Now, when I made a little bit of money, oh my god, did I kiss that money and hold it to me with gnarled Gollum-style hands.
Ah, my precious.
To the point where it's, you know, yeah, yeah.
Mike's going to turn on a studio light and I'm going to get a facial tick because I'm just seeing dollars going up in flames.
It costs money!
Don't even get me started on Christmas lights.
Anyway.
So I really, really appreciate...
Having money or having made a little bit of coin in my day.
I got really sick and then I got better.
Mmm, that's tasty.
You know, one of the great things about getting really sick and then getting better is people are like, hey, do you mind turning 50 this year?
Nope.
I really don't.
I am thrilled to be turning 50 and 60 and 70 and 80 and hopefully on and on.
Because my goal is to make myself the most valuable human being in the known universe, so when they discover immortality, well, I have to be first.
That's the whole business plan.
Thank you for your donations to my madness.
But the immigrants who, like yourself, they should be the ones...
Leading the charge for a freer society.
The infusion of immigrants should be the infusion of a reminder of just how valuable freedom is.
The immigrants should be screaming bloody murder at the social justice warriors and the thought police and all the people who censor and need their safe rooms.
You guys know what this shit turns into in the long run.
The guy who barely survived lung cancer should be yelling at the smokers, right?
This is what's surprising to me about the immigrants.
When they come into a country that is fast losing its freedoms, that they're not forefront saying, no, no, no, no!
Keep these freedoms, otherwise our journey was for nothing!
Like, why there aren't more Muslims saying, no, no!
We just left that!
What are you doing?
Don't know!
Because some of the Mexicans are, and some of the Mexicans are, and some of the Hispanics in America are saying, no, no, no, we left!
We left their mind!
Stop bringing them in!
Otherwise, this journey was for nothing.
I move, and everywhere I move, they build a jail cell.
Well, there's really not much point escaping then, is there?
So, just to return to this sort of height analogy, right?
So one of the reasons I think why certain groups have a lower sexual market value is that if you're a tall Chinese person and a woman wants a tall child, you're going to be lower on the list, right?
And so if you come from a country with an average IQ of 84 and you're very much an outlier, good for you.
But I think there's unconscious concern among women that if they have a kid with you, then the regression to the mean is going to cause challenges in terms of the child's long-term IQ development.
Does that make any sense?
Makes perfect sense.
And I don't know how to answer that.
I mean, and people could say, well, there's nothing to do with genetics, in which case they got to go argue with the geneticists who seem to be increasingly showing that it is.
But this explains why some guy from Somalia, which has, you know, an average IQ in the 80s or lower.
Mikey, if you wouldn't mind checking that, sorry.
But Somalia has it.
So the Somali kid comes over and he may be a very smart, brilliant, whatever kid.
But if he's the equivalent of the tall Chinese person, and intelligence is what Western societies run on.
Like, most parents would say, yeah, I'd rather have a pretty kid.
I'd rather have a tall kid.
I'd rather have, you know, whatever, right?
Outside of sort of like a healthy kid.
But no one ever says, it'd be great if I had a kid with an IQ of 85.
Because people with an IQ of 85, they may be average in Iran, but they're certainly below average, and a standard deviation below average in Western societies, at least among whites, and even more so among Asians.
Oh!
Somalia!
Boom!
Iran, in your face.
That would be 68.
Well, it's fantastic that...
That the reason America has Obamacare is because Somalis with an average IQ of 68 voted for...
Al Franken, the comedian who was the deciding vote in Minnesota for Obamacare.
Excellent!
And people say, well, if you love a free society, why don't you move to Somalia?
Yes!
Because a population with an average IQ of 68 has really worked through all of the theoretical implications of a voluntary society.
They didn't just happen to be in a building when it fell down.
Look, they're demolition experts.
No, they leaned against an old building.
Anyway.
So when you get people from low IQ populations coming to high IQ places, then what happens is people are worried about having kids with those people in case the regression to the mean produces a less intelligent child.
And it just struck me now, in the moment, that this was my problem with the Jewish woman that I was hot for in college.
Because I'm white.
She is Ashkenazi Jew, so she's got an average IQ of 115, and I'm a standard deviation below on average at 100.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, okay, she might, you know, I mean, for her, it's like, I don't know, one step up from bestiality.
I'm just guessing, right?
Hey, look, we got beast feeding in, Mike.
It was a foreshadow, right?
So, I mean, she's just like, I don't know.
I gotta tell you that orangutan is pretty hot, but I don't know if I can do it.
I just, those shaggy arms, I don't know.
But yeah, so I mean, and that of course is, you know, a whole story that we've gone into on this show before about Jewish, Ashkenazi Jewish IQ. But that may be one of the challenges that you have.
And it's interesting to me that your yellow fever might be a compensatory mechanism in an attempt to balance out a potential low IQ genetic history with a high IQ genetic history such as an Asian woman.
Does that make sense?
It can, or it could be that I'm not particularly tall, and maybe I'm interested in girls who are on average shorter than, let's say, white women.
You ever whacked off to National Geographic's pygmy specials?
I don't think I have, no.
Well...
Is there something you'd like to tell us?
I think I just did.
It's like that old David Spade joke, you know, I can't masturbate to the surgery channel.
Or can I? No, listen, if you haven't, you know, rubbed one out and buckled your legs over women who, you know, while standing sex, you could rest a beer on their heads, I would imagine that it's not necessarily just shortness that's in your penis sites, that it may be something else, right?
You're most likely to get the highest IQ because Asian men have the wider bell curve and so on.
It's more of a roll of the dice.
But Asian women are highest on people's sexual market value and they have the most stable and high IQ. And who is lowest on sexual market value?
Black males.
Black women, I believe, have slightly higher IQs than black males.
And again, they won't have that sort of wide deviation and so on.
And so if you actually look at...
How sexual market value works and you map it to IQ, it actually works pretty well.
Which is not to say it's fair, but, you know, if Mother Nature casts her favors around randomly, you can't blame anyone for pointing it out.
I mean, you can, but it just means that you're on the lower IQ. Part of the spectrum, but it's interesting from that standpoint.
And this regression to the mean is a big, big deal.
I mean, we had Dr.
Jason Richwine on the show who did a whole study on this.
And Charles Murray was, Dr.
Charles Murray, to be fair, was one of his thesis advisors.
And he pointed out, he said, look, because immigrants fool.
Fool people all the time.
Don't fool the Japanese who won't let Muslims in to save their life.
But immigrants fool people because you say, wow, you know, these...
You know, Hyann Hersey Alley, who is a freaking brilliant woman.
Like, oh my god, incandescent brains in her Grace Jones-style head.
I mean, just fantastic, a fantastically intelligent woman.
But it's the aggression to the mean is the problem.
So the first wave of people who come over, say, from sub-Saharan Africa, well, they're the most energetic, they're the most ambitious, they're the people who've got the resources or the intelligence to find some way to get through all the paperwork and get through all of the barriers towards immigrating to it.
Those people are going to have high IQs.
And people are like, wow, these people are fantastic.
I can't imagine why Africa is doing so badly.
Let's dump plane loads of foreign aid on Africa and blah, right?
It's like, no, they're very much the exceptions.
The tall Chinese guys in the NBA don't mean let's build an entire NBA team out of randomly selected Chinese people.
It's not going to work.
They're the exceptions.
And Jason Richwine has done studies where he says, look, the IQ of first-generation Hispanics and their success is higher.
Because the second generation Hispanics are doing worse than the first generation Hispanics because of the regression to the mean.
The first generation of Hispanics, I think Mexico has an average IQ again in the 85s to 90s.
And so the first generation of the IQ 110, 115, whatever, they come over, they do well.
But then the regression to the mean, especially if they're marrying within their own culture, if they can, I guess, corner some Japanese ladies and woo them with sombreros and...
Little tiny guitars.
Good, right?
Whatever, right?
But the reality is that the very intelligent Hispanics come over, the very intelligent Blacks come over, the very intelligent Middle Easterners come over, and everyone's like, wow, this is great.
Let's get more of these people.
But if there are genetic elements to IQ, and they marry within their own communities, in particular with the Muslim community, which there's no ban on marrying cousins, yay, genetics, then what happens is the next generation does really badly.
And then do you know what white people get to hear until the end of time?
Racism!
Racism!
And it's like, it's not, it's just Mother Nature's a bitch.
Sorry, can't help you.
People separated by 50,000 years of wildly disparate environments end up with different things in their heads.
So, yeah, so I just wanted to sort of point out that, and of course, very smart people, I mean, people don't get their kids' IQ tested in general unless there's some very obvious dysfunction.
So really smart people...
You know, two Hispanics with an IQ of 110, they get together and they have kids, and the kid's going to have an IQ, I don't know, maybe 90 to 95, and then the kid doesn't do very well.
Kid doesn't do very well.
Kid's not getting really good marks in school.
And because they don't know anything about genetics or IQ or regression to the mean, they're like, well, the problem is with the school system.
The problem is with a racist society.
Then the kid doesn't get hired and the kid doesn't get a job at Google and the kid can't get into college and everybody gets really mad because these people say, well, it's got to be racism.
Well, if it's racism, why can't I get into college because there are 400 Japanese guys ahead of me?
Because it's not racism, it's IQ and genetics.
And I wish it wasn't.
I desperately wish it wasn't.
But it's important to know, listen, I'm a smart guy.
Is my daughter likely to be as intelligent as I am?
No.
Is she likely to be more stable than I am?
I fucking hope so.
As does everyone around her.
But the reality is she's not likely to be as intelligent as I am, assuming that I'm on the upper end of the curve, which I don't have any doubt because, you know, I'm bold and I'm smart.
I've got to be honest about things that I can do and things that I can't.
So knowing that, you know, if she takes a while to learn stuff, that's perfectly natural.
That's perfectly natural.
And to expect it to be, you know, you don't, if you've got a D1000 dice, you don't roll a thousand twice in a row usually, right?
I mean, so a basketball star's kid is not likely to be a basketball star.
Maybe he will.
You know, Natalie Cole, Nat King Cole's daughter, who had a lovely voice.
She died after, I guess, she had hepatitis C from needles and substance abuse and all Whitney Houston-style decadence.
But, yeah, she had a great singing voice.
However, the child of a singer may be slightly more likely to have a good singing voice.
But, like, I guess there's Achy Breaky Heart Guy and his...
I guess newly fanged satanic hellspawn Miley Cyrus.
And she's got a very nice voice.
Very nice voice.
So happy together.
There's a little clip of her on YouTube doing it with some comatose hippie band.
And very nice voice.
And so they both got good voices.
But you don't want to put a lot of money on the son of a...
Famous singer having exactly the same kind of voice.
Now when I went to see Queen and Adam Lambert, the drummer, Roger Taylor brought out his son, who I guess is 13 or 14, and his son was drumming, and drumming well, from what I can tell.
I mean, not Bruno Mars-style well, and not a drummer from Rush-style well, but, you know, well.
Now, that's, you know, a little...
You don't need...
With the voice, you need the actual physical instrument.
You can train it to some degree, but you need the physical instrument, and that's different from drumming and so on.
That's more genetic.
Drumming is more environmental, I would assume.
So, that, I think, is one of the great challenges of immigration.
And the last thing I wanted to mention, and I appreciate you letting me have this room to share my thoughts.
For sure.
But, I was thinking about your question, of course, today quite a bit and chatting about it, and...
These days, I used to go back to just philosophy, but now I go back to evolutionary biology.
It's not the only place to go.
It's a good first place to go to.
And I guess, Brandon, my question would be, why would we develop the capacity to integrate with other tribes?
Why would...
Because everything that you get...
It's opportunity costs.
Evolution is all about opportunity costs.
Everything you get is something you don't get.
In fact, it's everything else you don't get.
I mean, if I've got a left arm, it means I don't get a tentacle in the same place, which is obviously a shame sometimes if I'm sliding down something.
But why, and particularly males, why on earth would we develop the ability to integrate into foreign races, ethnicities, and tribes?
Because we'd have our own tribe, and certainly in the hunter-gathering phase of our existence, tribes were very, very scattered.
Like it took hundreds and hundreds of square miles to support even one small tribe.
So we were very scattered.
And if you ran across another tribe, you usually didn't either fight them or just kind of maybe a little bit of trade or whatever.
But that was not you didn't integrate with them.
Now, when tribes got bigger, agriculture happened and tribes began to overlap.
You didn't integrate with other tribes for the most part.
If there was conflicts between the tribes, the men would be killed and the women would be taken as concubines.
Because kill the sperm, steal the eggs, that is the weird fairy tale that society has gone through.
So why on earth would men ever have the ability, or genetically have the ability, to interact or adapt to a new culture?
And if you were taken as a slave, Certainly if you were taken in a slave to the Islamic countries, you would be most likely castrated and your kids, if you had any, for whatever reason, would be killed.
And so there was no genetic advance for that kind of integration.
So why would there be any...
Brain development that will facilitate the integration into new tribes, because I can't ever see in history when that would happen.
And the interaction of races separated by thousands of miles, by giant oceans, by, you know, unpossible mountains and crazy rivers and so on.
Like, races just would barely interact as a whole, so why on earth would we have this magical capacity to interact and integrate with other races?
I just don't know how that could ever have even evolved.
And I think that goes towards your earlier theory, the name of which escapes me, around sort of, you know, 15 and after.
Now, of course, we want to adapt.
We're born blank slate as far as culture goes.
We want to adapt and integrate into our local cultures because we don't know whether we're going to be born into...
A Laplandic culture or Islamic culture or an African culture or whatever.
So we're going to adapt early on.
But later on, I don't see why we would have ever developed the capacity to interact with wildly divergent cultures given how rarely they interacted and how when they did interact, it was kill or be killed, not integrate away.
Does that make any sense?
Makes perfect sense.
There is no evolutionary justification for having any sort of vacancy on your brain to allow you to accept more data.
If by the age of sexual maturity you don't have what you need to conform to the rest of the tribe, Then what's the point of, you know, keeping that active to allow you to integrate to, say, a secondary or a tertiary, right?
It doesn't make sense to me either.
Yeah, you get two sets of teeth, not this conveyor belt of teeth just keep coming along, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, because, I mean, as a man...
If you lose the fight, you're either enslaved or killed, in which case you're not integrating.
And if you win the fight, then you take the women by force and it's not like you have to woo them then, right?
And so, I mean, you see the Islamic State at the moment is putting out, oh, they found lovely little brochures about the rules for having sex with slaves you've captured in battle.
It's lovely.
It's just delightful.
So...
I know we had a big tour.
Is there anything that you wanted to add before I move on to the next caller?
And I really, really appreciate the call, and I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
I appreciate your time as well.
I guess I'm going to put myself in the shoes of the listener and make two quick conclusions before I say goodbye to you.
So conclusion number one is if you immigrate to a new country as a first generation, you're going to have a very, very tough time.
And I hope some people are listening to this who are thinking about immigrating.
Your second generation, you're going to have lots of tension and arguments around the house because your kid is going to be exposed to a whole bunch of stuff that you haven't been exposed to.
By the third generation, maybe you will have some sort of Integration, whatever the hell your definition of integration is.
Second conclusion is...
One value we could bring to Western society, and by we, I mean we from Middle Eastern countries, or any country that's run under some sort of theocracy, religious or political...
Is that we can tell you what it's like to live under all these beautiful things that you think are beautiful.
Islam is peace.
Communism is brilliant.
If you let us tell you, and nobody wants to talk in Western countries, people run away from you the moment you want to tell them anything.
Wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean?
So people don't want to hear about what it's like to live under the joyful caliphate of the desert?
What that means is whenever I try to engage anyone in a conversation about, hey, you know how you have Muslim friends?
Did you ever ask them about freedom of speech, this sort of thing?
They go pale.
The moment you bring up these questions, the moment I say something that's slightly negative or seems to be negative about Islam, people run and run the other way.
They never want to listen to any of it.
And at work, their excuse is, we are here to work, we don't want to have this sort of conversation.
At university, their excuse is exactly the same.
And okay, so where do we speak?
At dinner parties, it's supposed to be small chats and jokes and let's all have fun.
So when the fuck is the time to have any sort of real dialogue?
Do you want to take that now?
I'm happy to give you the time.
If you've got stuff that you've wanted to say to people, this is a pretty good platform for reaching millions of people.
If you want to tell them, I'd love to hear because this is the kind of stuff I'm fighting for and against.
So you have the platform if you want it.
What was it like?
Well, I'll say one thing, and I really hope the second quarter isn't hating me profoundly too much right now.
Muslims and communists have...
Similar arguments in many respects.
One of them is 1,400 years and we still haven't had Islam.
What you see in Saudi Arabia, what you see in Iran, this isn't Islam.
We still haven't gotten it right.
And communists will pretty much tell you the same thing, 200 years of communism.
We still haven't gotten it right in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, blah, blah.
So what do you want?
Would you like to give you, say, two more millennia and let you finally figure out?
Here are three human lives.
Go out there and experiment.
Islam doesn't work.
In Iran, I really don't see how any of the things that are happening are in direct contravention or contradiction to anything that we have in the Koran.
If anything, sometimes they deviate from the Koran in the good direction, meaning they leave behind some of the horrible stuff.
So it used to be the case that if you were The word escapes me.
If you have some sort of extramarital relationship, what's the term for that?
If you have an affair?
No, the legal term.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
It used to be simple, like the first 10 years after the Islamic Revolution, they would flog you and they would possibly kill you.
Nowadays, they seem to be More inclined to you know fine you for it or get you in some sort of legal as opposed to Sharia oriented trouble So yeah, I mean if you I'm sure many people in Canada have Muslim friends and they will tell you Endlessly how these people are nice.
They're moderate and did they want that they want no part of you know extremism or whatever well Do a little test, okay?
Everybody is peaceful.
If you're working with them, typing on a keyboard for 10 years and you never engage them in any sort of dialogue, engage them.
They have valuable information to share with you, I'm sure.
But don't tell me that these people are all moderates and they're all peaceful and you've never subjected to any sort of test.
Because I think that's kind of necessary.
Oh, no, and I have no doubt about that.
I mean...
Just ask, is Sharia law the right way to run a country?
And if they say no, that's an interesting version of Islam that I'm not particularly familiar with, but I'm sure it may exist.
And if they say yes, then you say, okay, so if Sharia law was imposed tomorrow, you'd be very happy, right?
And then when they say yes, it's like, well, that's not exactly wildly compatible with Western values or No, I think that those conversations do need to be had, but for very obvious reasons, people are chicken to have them.
And of course, you know, there are people who've tried to have conversations with Muslims in the workplace.
I believe there was a Jew recently in San Bernardino who tried to have a conversation about Islam with a young Muslim in the workplace, and it did not end super well for him.
So I appreciate your conversation.
You're welcome back anytime.
And thank you, Stefan, for having me on the show.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And keep us posted about how you're doing.
And if you have any other topics, you're welcome back.
Have a good New Year.
Take care.
Happy New Year.
All right.
Thanks, Brandon.
Up next is Steve.
Steve wrote in and said, the subject I would like to cover with Stefan is the topic of being a morally consistent voluntarist while at the same time supporting the current immigration policies that Stefan is in support of.
Wait, hang on, hang on, hang on.
Wait a second.
Are you saying that there are people out there confused about my stance on immigration?
He's the first!
Sorry, go ahead.
All right.
In respect to Syrian and Muslim immigrants, I do not necessarily disagree with Stefan, but I am having a hard time seeing how I could defend such a policy from the anarcho-capitalist morally consistent position.
I have therefore not committed fully to either side.
What I wish to get out of this call is the conclusion so that I can explain it once and for all that falls in line with my libertarian beliefs.
That is from Steve.
Hello, Steve.
Welcome, welcome.
Happy New Year to you.
Hey, Happy New Year, Stefan.
Thanks for having me on the show.
My pleasure.
So, I do know that you haven't actually came out and said that this is what you're in support of, but I do watch pretty much all the videos, and that's the idea that I get from them that you are in support of, you know, closing the borders.
Is that accurate?
Am I in support of closing the borders?
I'm not sure what that would even mean, because that would be to say that I am in support of the government doing something effective towards whatever end I might have, which would be to accept that the government could do something competently.
So I don't know what it means to say closing the borders.
Well, exactly.
Actually, I've actually...
So since I wrote that email, I've changed my stance.
I've committed to, you know...
I don't think you could be morally consistent and still in support of closing the borders.
With the potential exception of one DJ Trump, With the possible exception of Donald Trump, even if you were for restricting immigration into the United States, the Democrats will certainly never advocate it, and the Republicans in general will advocate it and then betray you anyway.
So it's sort of like, I really want a unicorn to cover my visa bill.
So what?
I mean, I try to discuss the stuff that is even remotely relevant.
Now, the question, of course, is whether Donald Trump Now, given that that is a potential insofar as he is an absolutely unprecedented phenomenon, not just in the United States political history, but to my knowledge, all political history everywhere.
Let's say Donald Trump could do absolutely wonderful things and end the welfare state and end the war on drugs and bring the truth.
Let's say that could happen.
That would be no argument for the state.
Because saying, well, America's been around for 275 or 280-odd years, and one guy who's incredibly rich, incredibly charismatic, very famous, well-known to everyone, and happens to hold these beliefs, steps into the fray, completely self-ponsors, that's never going to happen again, right?
So even if I were to make an exception to my general skepticism toward the government doing anything, if I were to make that exception for Donald Trump, It would in no way be an endorsement of the statist system as a whole.
That would be like, you know, you really should...
Steve, you've got to save for your retirement, man.
You've got to save for your retirement.
You've got to save for your retirement.
And then...
You pick up a lottery ticket for $10 million, like you pick it up off the ground, right?
Would I then say, fuck that, man.
Saving sucks.
Just go around looking on the ground for lottery tickets worth $10 million.
It would be like, well, that's an exception that kind of proves the rule because now we know how rare it is.
Does that make any sense?
Yeah.
Okay, so what do you advocate that we do about Well, hang on, hang on.
So first of all, what I dislike about, not you, because I know we're having this conversation, but what I dislike about libertarians who get all kinds of weird about immigration, like if you say we're closing the borders, then somehow you're a statist.
Well, like, hang on, hang on.
So, first of all, I've been talking to libertarians about the non-aggression principle with regards to spanking for 10 years, almost.
And they've never taken me up on that.
And then they somehow think that I'm inconsistent for some of my positions, which I can't affect.
I'm not even American.
I can't vote.
So I'm putting out ideas and arguments, and they're claiming that I'm inconsistent.
But these same goddamn libertarians have been studiously avoiding the subject of spanking And the initiation of force and violations of the non-aggression principle against children for the past 10 years.
So excuse me if I find their outrage at inconsistency just a little fucking precious and full entirely of so much bullshit you could grow 40,000 pounds of corn out of a fucking thimble.
That's how much bullshit comes out of this stuff.
If you want to be consistent about the non-aggression principle, start talking about children spanking and child abuse.
But if people get completely outraged about some imaginary position they think I've taken on immigration, while having spent 10 years studiously ignoring my recommendations to confront spanking in the libertarian community, I don't know what to say with them other than your ears are so full of bullshit that I'm surprised you can even hear yourself fart.
So they've got to go back and say, maybe we've missed something important about child abuse, and maybe we should not nitpick at some theoretical thing that Steph's putting out when we've just spent 10 years allowing children to continue to get abused within our own community and around the world because we're too chicken shit.
Too chicken shit to take on the subject of spanking and its violation of the non-aggression principle.
So that's number one.
Number two, there is another inconsistency in libertarian communities which is the number of libertarian people who take state power, state benefits, and state protection in the form of being in academia and working three hours a week for $150,000 and granting degrees to other people which are licenses to print money by doing the same thing by taking advantage of the same state monopolies that they are currently feasting upon And then these same libertarians have the goddamn nerve to say to people, well, you should reject government benefits because it's bad for the economy.
Well, how about you lead the way, you people incredibly educated in free market theories, by coming and joining me out here in the free market?
I read a whole book on this, and it's been out for years, and hundreds of thousands of people have listened to it or read it.
It's not a new argument.
Why don't you join me out here in the free market, you free market fetishists, you free market lovers, you free market wannabes?
Come join me out here in the free market.
Let Let go of your government power!
Let go of your monopoly!
Let go of your unholy, evil, granted power to give other people the knighthood of PhDs so they too can fuck the system while robbing from the poor and claiming to love the free market like you do!
And the fact that nobody confronts these people with their hypocrisy but they focus on me talking about Donald Trump while avoiding spanking and avoiding the hypocrisies of libertarian academics?
Jesus dear God!
I mean, I just thought this is why it's so tough to take this movement seriously.
Anyway, that's sort of neither here nor there.
But so that's sort of one issue.
And I just wanted to get that off my chest until, you know, I'm perfectly willing to talk about other things around sort of closing the border and so on.
So...
What bothers me about the critiques of what I'm saying is that it's taken in isolation, right?
In other words, people say, well, if people are not allowed to come into the country, that is the initiation of the use of force, right?
Now, I completely agree with that.
I completely and totally agree with that.
However...
If the actions of someone by entering a particular area result in a greater initiation of force, it's not as simple as people think.
My problem is that they're showing it in isolation.
So, let me give you a tiny example.
If I go into my own house, I am not initiating the use of force, right?
If some guy with a gun wants to come into my house, well, guess what?
He's, you know, initiating the use of force.
If he comes in while I'm sleeping and steals from me, he is initiating the use of force.
Now, if someone wants to come into my house, I've invited them in, we're going to socialize, we're going to play Yahtzee, we're going to play Monopoly, or he's going to come fix my toilet because I had Indian food.
I don't know, right?
Then he's coming into my house voluntarily and he's not initiating the use of force, neither are his actions initiating the use of force against me.
So, the reality is, That statistically, by and large, and by far, both legal and illegal immigrants coming into America vastly increase the use of force in America.
And so simply by looking at putting a barrier around America to prevent people from coming into America and saying, well, that's the only initiation of force that matters.
That's ridiculous.
That's like looking at George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin and saying, well, he was just stalking a guy and shot him for no reason.
Zimmerman to Martin.
Immigrants into America.
You know, there's a little thing called the welfare state, which I believe I've seen a few libertarians talk about.
But immigrants into the welfare state use welfare at vastly higher rates than domestic citizens.
So, 51% of immigrants are using the welfare state, compared to 30% for natives.
And those natives also include high utilizers of the welfare state, like blacks and Hispanics.
Blacks more so, of course.
Among illegal immigrants, it's even higher.
It's more than twice the rate of natives.
So the reality is, and this is a basic mathematical reality that you can only escape by sticking your head so far up your own ass that you can drill through your nipples and call them telescopes.
The reality is that immigrants in general, on average, recently, coming into America, are both going to use, be dependent on, and vote for increases in the welfare state.
If you care about diminishing the welfare state, you need to diminish the number of people dependent on the welfare state.
This is not brain surgery.
People do not vote to get rid of or even intellectually oppose that which puts bread on their table and keeps a roof over their heads and which they believe is necessary for their survival.
And the fact that this is even debatable or debated is, I don't even know what to say.
You know, as the old saying goes, it's very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends upon him not understanding it.
Now, when you bring a bunch of people in with no history of free market thinking in their culture, who come in, and for illegal immigrants in particular, Get on welfare at a rate of 62%, 62% of illegal immigrants go on welfare.
Those people, in order to survive in America, require massive amounts of government spending, and indeed, the only reason they can stay in America, as Dr.
Stephen Camerata has pointed out, we've got interviews with him on this show, is by voting for an ever-increasing welfare state.
When you get people coming into a country who can only survive and stay within that country because of the dependence on government spending, what do you think they're going to vote for?
Do you think they're going to vote for or support An expansion or a contraction of government power.
Now, I'm perfectly fine if libertarians say, well, what the hell does voting matter?
Right?
Voting is not how we're going to do it.
Well, look, there's only three ways to change things in a state of society.
Peaceful evolution through peaceful parenting, which I've made the case for repeatedly.
I'm not going to make it again here because you can go and check out the presentations.
So, you're going to change things.
Peacefully in an evolutionary way by treating children better and applying the non-aggression principle in your personal relationships.
Number two, a violent revolution which is going to be brutal, disgusting, bloody and futile because the government simply has too much power or libertarians might argue it's voting.
So let's step over into the libertarian corner.
Since the libertarians have rejected my proposal in general of peaceful parenting, let's step over to the libertarian corner and look at it politically.
So if you bring vast numbers, tens of millions of people into a country, the majority of whom are utterly dependent on the welfare state, what the hell do you think they're going to vote for?
How open and receptive are these people going to be towards a shrinking of the welfare state, to a lowering of taxes, to a small, minarchist-style government?
And among refugees, The number is a triple whammy of 100% dependent upon government welfare.
Because they're refugees!
Often they can't even work, so they have to rely on government welfare.
This is borne out by the statistics that the vast majority of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants vote left.
Vote big welfare state, vote Democrat.
Without a doubt.
Without a doubt.
And they've swung the elections towards the left considerably.
Now, I know that there's some sympathy that libertarians have to the left and so on.
But if you care about the welfare state, people have come to America who don't have either the intellectual or educational or work ethic or whatever it is capacity to make a lot of money.
Come to America and they've had five kids and they can only feed those five kids Because of government welfare programs.
And by welfare, I'm talking about, it's not just direct.
We've got the truth about illegal immigrants.
It's on this channel.
We'll link to it below.
It's all the data.
I'm not going to go through it all here.
But those people have literally had children that they can only feed because of food stamps, because of SNAP, because of welfare programs.
Now, if you're talking about cutting those welfare programs, those people say, I cannot feed my children.
Now, I don't know if you're a parent or not, but people kind of like to feed their children.
Again, I don't know why this needs to be said, but apparently it does.
And we've got the truth about immigrants and welfare for welfare usage.
Again, we'll link to all these below.
People like to feed their kids.
They're really quite preferential to that way of thinking.
And so if we take the libertarian approach, which is that voting and politics are going to work, Then how the hell does importing people who are massively dependent on the welfare state help you to get rid of the welfare state?
I mean, I just don't even know what to say.
I mean, if that's a plan, I don't know how they get out of bed in the morning without putting their head through a wall because they don't know which way is up or which way to pee when it's windy.
I mean, what can I say?
I mean, just God, I mean, I've been to tons of libertarian conventions.
Do you see a lot of turbans?
Do you see a lot of Hispanics?
Do you see a lot of blacks?
No, you don't.
No, of course not.
So, I mean, these people, it's so retarded, I don't even know what to say.
Bringing huge numbers of people dependent on the welfare state into a society, it no help me, you eliminated their welfare state, splodyhead people.
I mean, this is just numbers.
Sorry, go ahead.
I mean, I absolutely agree with you, but in order to keep those people out, I mean, you need to initiate force in order to keep them out.
No.
No more than anything else.
Well...
No, no, no.
Listen, listen.
First of all, America from 1925 until 1965 had a virtual moratorium on immigration.
And, by the way, it was in fact one of the more prosperous times, if not the most prosperous times in American history.
So, America is not obligated to open its doors to everyone who wants to move in.
And I'm talking about the statist, minarchist, libertarian majority paradigm here, the small government paradigm.
Citizenship in a country, according to the statist paradigm, is not a right to be extended to everyone, any more than if you buy a house, you're obligated to put everyone poorer than you up in your house.
So, right now, you cannot move to any country in the world, anywhere in the world, without running into status interference.
It is impossible.
So, as far as allowing people to gain access to your political process, to vote, to gain access to your welfare, look, Jesus, I don't know what the hell is wrong with people.
Like, it's your children's future that they're taking away.
It's your children's future that they're adding their debt to.
You have Obamacare because of immigration.
Not for any other reason.
Because of immigration.
Mitt Romney would have won that election if it was not for immigration.
In other words, if immigration, if ethnic demographics had remained the same in the late 2000s as it was in 1980, he would have won by as big a landslide as Reagan.
So you got Barack Obama because of immigration, and as a result, Barack Obama is cranking up immigration.
Half of the immigrants over the last eight years to America have been Muslims.
I have not seen a single Muslim at a libertarian convention.
It would be shocking to see a single Muslim at a libertarian convention.
I mean, I don't mean somebody who was a Muslim.
I mean somebody who's currently a Muslim.
John Locke, Sharia law?
Not simpatico, as they say, to put it mildly.
So when you have wave after wave after wave of people coming in who are ideologically and foundationally, and in terms of lived experience and dependent on the welfare state, pragmatically wedded to big government, how the hell do you expect to turn that into a small government movement?
I simply have no idea.
I'm happy to hear the arguments.
But we have done the research.
I've spoken to the experts.
I'm not just talking out of my ass here, people.
We've got data.
We've got presentations.
We've got sources.
We've had half a dozen experts on talking about this, talking about rigorous data.
That if you want a free society, bringing in people ideologically opposed to a free society is not a great idea.
I mean, everybody gets this except libertarians.
I don't know why it's so hard to fathom.
So, if somebody wants to come and live in a country, fantastic, go live in a country.
But when there's a welfare state, and when there's government-run education...
Then people moving to your country who are going to go on welfare are initiating the use of force against you or your children and require and necessitate something like Obamacare.
Why is there Obamacare?
Because there are about 30 million illegal immigrants in the United States who constantly have swarming the emergency room every time they have a problem.
It's one of the reasons healthcare costs are going up so much.
Oh, there's all these uninsured in America.
And mostly immigrants.
So if you don't like Obamacare, well, if immigration had been prevented or at least limited to countries from the Freedom Club, as I call it, from sort of Western European tradition of free speech and separation of church and state and free market principles, at least as they are, still practiced to some degree in Europe, Well, you wouldn't have Obamacare.
You would have a much smaller welfare state.
And the quality of government education would be far, far higher because the amount of resources that I diverted From education to deal with multilingual, multicultural, diversity issues is staggering.
You are sacrificing the quality of your child's education in order for your fetish for open borders.
You are sacrificing the opportunities for your children to actually get jobs because of your fetish for open borders.
And people say to me, well, as you say, right?
Well, it's the initiation of force to have people not live in the country.
It is.
It is, and it is to prevent a greater initiation of force.
Because if they come into the country, statistically, they are going to cause a greater initiation of force by massive consumption of the welfare state and dedication to a party that itself is dedicated to expanding government to the nth degree, which is the leftists.
Sorry, go ahead.
Right, so...
Not all of them are going to be going on welfare, though.
So in order to stop all this from happening, you need to initiate force upon innocent people.
And isn't that just using...
No, no, no.
See, again, you're sorry, man.
You're just pulling the same bullshit trick, which is you're only focusing on one side of the equation.
Which is that the debt is all on innocent people because the debt is intergenerational.
100% of the debt is going to fall on the next generation, virtually.
So if you say, well, you know, there are a couple of percentage points or 10 or 20 or 30 percentage points or more of the illegal immigrants or immigrants who aren't going to go on welfare and blah-de-blah-de-blah, okay.
But 100% of the debt that the remainder are generating is going to go on 100% innocent people called the kids.
So you can raise me 20 or 30% of innocence and I'm going to trump you with 100% of innocence, which is we do not have the right to First of all, nobody can tell who's going to go on welfare or not, although there could be an IQ test that would help, but it's illegal to administer it, so who cares, right?
But what about the kids?
Is it fair to say to the children, the quality of your education is going to be significantly diminished?
Because half the resources in your school district are going to go to figure out how to teach traumatized kids with an IQ of 85 in Farsi.
Do you have the right to inflict that degradation in the quality of education on children across America?
Are they not innocent?
Do they not deserve as good an education as can be provided to them?
Are you not stripping them of possibilities and futures?
Plus, what about poor black kids who are having a significant degree of trouble competing with illegal immigrants who aren't having to pay taxes or follow regulations to get jobs?
I mean, what about the black kids?
What about the native people?
What about the whites, the Hispanics, the Native Americans, the blacks, who can't get jobs because wave after wave after wave of people are coming in and driving up the costs of legal jobs because of the amount of welfare taxes that have to be paid, and driving down the costs of under-the-table jobs, which the immigrant networks are all set up to exploit, and the non-immigrant, like the native, no networks exist.
And so, what about the young black kid who can't get a job because it's being taken by an immigrant?
More immigrants have come into America over the past decade than jobs have been created.
So statistically, immigrants...
Are taking away jobs and driving down wages.
It's supply and demand.
Libertarians, free market economists should understand this.
Huge numbers of low-skill, low-education and possibly low-intellect people all coming into a country.
What is that going to do to the price of low-skilled, low-educated labor?
It's going to drive it down.
It's supply and demand, bitches.
You can't fight it.
I mean, you can, but then you just reveal that you're an idiot.
And I'm not referring to you, Steve, here.
I'm just talking about others, right?
So, what about those people?
Are you going to stand in front of 100 million children in America and say, sorry, you don't get music lessons.
You don't get to play outside.
Your playground doesn't get repaired.
You have to sit with old textbooks in cold classrooms.
Because I want people who don't speak your language, know your culture, or value your values to come in.
And by the way, you'll be in debt another $50,000 for each of you because of my preference for open borders.
Look, I mean, if people can say that, okay, I admire their consistency, if not their ethical integrity, but these are the stark realities of the effects of immigration.
Well, What it is, though, is I think the welfare state and immigration are two separate issues.
I mean, isn't that just using statism to justify more statism?
Wait, wait.
How are they...
Did you not hear the data I was presenting earlier?
61% of illegal immigrants are on welfare compared to 30% of the native population.
How are they separate issues?
Well...
Immigrants vastly vote for welfare.
Right.
How are they...
I'm sorry, how are they...
I mean, I get that they're not the same, but they overlap, wouldn't you say, at least to some degree?
Well, okay.
Wouldn't that be like saying that the state's claim to all the land is legitimate?
Which...
Coming from a voluntarist point of view?
No, no, no, no.
I told you I'm talking about the libertarian perspective.
Okay.
Well, I was asking about...
Because you are a voluntarist, right?
Right.
Which means I want a free society.
Right.
Now, the way to get a free society is for people to treat their children better.
So, if I think that a free society requires a country or a geographical area where people treat their children better...
Do you think that Europeans treat their children better or do you think that, say, Muslims treat their children better?
Do you think that a culture that has really focused on banning spanking or at least reducing the amount of aggression in childhood is something that I would prefer to be surrounded by in my quest for a free society through better parenting or, say, people who think that sawing off the labia of 12-year-old little girls is a really fucking great thing to do?
Which group do you think is going to be better equipped to lead society to a free society through better parenting?
Your average white Western European Christian or your average IQ 85 Islamic?
Right.
And I don't...
No, no.
Answer the question.
It's not just rhetorical.
Right.
So if people from Europe who have since Rousseau and, you know, 100, 150 years of focusing on improving the relationships between parents and children, I believe it is absolutely, functionally and totally necessary for peaceful parenting to bring a peaceful society and a free society.
So if I want to live in a free society, do I want people around who are better parents or worse parents?
Better parents.
Better parents.
It's perfectly consistent with my goal for a free society to want people around who are better parents rather than more aggressive, violent, abusive, and clitorectomy-based parents.
Right.
But in order to accomplish that, you need to initiate force against innocent people.
So what?
In order to not go to jail, I have to pay the state?
What the fuck do I... It's not a moral situation.
It's not...
Like, don't fucking put the morals on me.
I'm the guy fighting it.
Go yell at the IRS. Go yell at the people on the...
And why don't you go and yell at the people on welfare and tell them about the morally compromised situation they're in?
Why the hell are people bringing it to me?
Well, I mean, I was just curious as to...
Because, I mean, usually everything...
You say is very morally consistent, and I just think that it breaks away from that.
I am morally consistent!
Sorry to interrupt, Steve.
I have said in a situation where there is coercion, where there is violence no matter what, there are no moral standards to be applied.
There is no moral choice to be made in a coercive situation.
You know, somebody puts a gun to your head and says, walk left or walk right.
Whether you walk left or walk right is not a moral choice.
No morality exists when there is coercion.
When it comes to immigration, there is no possibility of a consistent moral choice at the moment.
In the future, free society, open borders away.
Fantastic!
Because then we have a choice.
Right now, we have no choice, because immigration is a giant government program.
And if the immigrants come in, huge amounts of violence is going to be enacted against the young, against those on fixed incomes, and not to mention the very high rates of crime among immigrant populations, which we've talked about before.
So, if the immigrants from third world countries come into America, it will result in a vast escalation and has resulted, statistically, demonstrably, according to the experts with all the data you can imagine, it has resulted in a vast increase in the initiation of force in society.
And you say, ah, well, keeping them out also requires the initiation of force.
Yes!
Let's say that it does!
So what?
The initiation of force is going to happen under any context you can consider other than a magical unicorn-based free society that will never occur tomorrow because libertarians won't focus on peaceful parenting, right?
So there's going to be coercion no matter what.
There's coercion to keep them out, and if they come in, there's even more coercion.
Right.
So I have, look, if people want to say, I like the immigrants to come in, great, okay, then just be honest and say, I'm willing to accept the coercion of the immigrants coming in.
But it is dishonest, again, I'm not talking about you because I know you're playing devil's advocate position, but it is dishonest and tendacious to the maximum to only focus on one small isolated potential act of violence called keeping people out.
And to completely ignore all of the massive violence that is occurring by letting people in.
I mean, if libertarians can stand in front of a group of hundreds and hundreds of Swedish women and say, yeah, it's fine that you got raped, because I don't want to have border guards push you back, fine, go talk to the Swedish women and say, you're bruised and battered in blonde faces because you got raped.
Fine.
It's for my moral self-congratulation.
It's because I'm afraid of being called a racist.
It's not because I have any consistent application of the non-aggression principle.
Otherwise, I'd be all over that spanking thing Steph's been talking about forever.
I want to feel good about letting people in.
I don't want to be thought of a racist.
I want to be thought of as cosmopolitan.
I want to be thought of as an egalitarian.
And I just want to focus on one tiny little aspect of the initiation of force and ignore all of the other initiations of force that occur just in order to satisfy my moral high ground.
Pathological altruism.
We talked about it recently on the show.
Dr.
Barbara Oakley, people can check that out too.
But if people are willing to say, yeah, I want to let people in.
And the result is far greater crime, much worse educational outcomes for the children, massive increases to the national debt, and a complete entrenchment of the welfare state and all of the intended destruction of the poor that the welfare state entails.
Great!
Fantastic!
Say, I don't want that border.
I don't want that initiation of force at that border.
I'm willing to take a far greater initiation of force elsewhere.
Fine.
Say it.
Just say it and be honest about it.
But don't be one of these people who are like, oh yes, well you see this government program created 500 jobs so we're now richer.
The whole point of libertarian thinking and economic thinking and just plain thinking is to not look at the obvious benefits but to look at the hidden costs.
And there are huge, violent, coercive, destructive, direct, repetitive, government escalating costs by allowing third world people to come into a first world country.
And if people want to have open borders to third world immigrants, They have to be honest about the violence that causes in society.
The social conflict, look, multiculturalism is a complete and total failure, and I say this as somebody who was completely dedicated to multiculturalism literally for decades.
But when the data is there, only fools and dogmatists, but I repeat myself, Ignore it.
We all have to accept the new data.
The data is multiculturalism destroys societies.
It doesn't just make them difficult and tense and there's some racial...
It literally destroys societies.
We can see this occurring in Germany.
We can see this occurring in Sweden.
Sweden is now violently pushing back at all these immigrants because the society is fucking breaking down.
Because you got IQ 84 people with a violent history of Islamic abuses and abusing swarming into a country, and they have to be lectured not to rape people.
It's illegal here, you know, it's really...
Jesus, God!
I mean, just go and look this up.
Look up immigrant crimes in Sweden.
Look at how expensive it is.
Look at how destructive it is.
Look at the...
You want to see a rape culture?
Jesus!
Do you think these people should get raped?
Because...
Because libertarians don't like fences?
Are libertarians willing to go to save these women?
It's like, yeah, it's good that you got raped, but at least I wasn't called a racist.
I mean, really, which is worse?
Sorry, go ahead.
Well, because wouldn't that be, I mean, defensive force against, you know, individual aggressors, but that's initiating force against like an entire category of people.
Yes, but my God, man, you're still only stuck on one side of the equation.
As I said before, when they come into the country, you are initiating forces against entire categories of people.
Who is paying for the Islamic immigrants in jail and their trials and all of the traumas inflicted and the lost productivity and the emotional trauma?
Who is paying for all of that in Sweden?
Everyone.
So letting the people in is also...
Initiating force against an entire category of people called taxpayers.
So I'll see your initiating force against one group of people and say, well, it's initiating force against another group of people.
That's why there's no moral choice to be made.
You may look at certain pragmatic and practical choices, which I choose to do, but saying there's some kind of principle you can apply here is madness.
Right.
There's no principle that's possible because everywhere you turn is a gun.
Yeah.
Now, I choose to turn to the less rapey gun.
You know, call me crazy.
I prefer to look at the gun that is not stuck in some woman's vagina at the moment, with the safety off.
I mean, that's my particular fetish.
Maybe other people have other particular fetishes.
I choose to turn to the lesser of two evils.
And people say, well, it's still evil.
Okay.
Then you tell me where there is no evil in this situation, and I will award you the Knight's Cross of Perfection, and I will follow you and turn my show over to you.
And I don't mean that facetiously.
If people can tell me how letting third world immigrants in is a no-violence situation, then they can show how there are no illegal immigrants on welfare, or at least that illegal immigrants don't use welfare at a higher rates.
than domestics, right?
'Cause you could say, well, you know, but you can't allow people to have kids because, you know, 30% of them will end up on welfare.
It's like, yeah, but the numbers are different.
Plus, there is the capacity to stop immigration into America, there's no capacity to stop people breeding, right?
So, despite Planned Parenthood's focus on the minority communities, it doesn't really seem to work, and not that it should, right?
So, no, there's no moral answer to this.
But anybody, I mean, with any pragmatic brains whatsoever has got to recognize that bringing in people who have no history in the free market, no appreciation of the separation of church and state, 25% of whom want to use violence to impose Sharia law, 50% of whom want to live under Sharia law, and that's coming from a group of people whose religion commands them to lie to outsiders and to hide their intentions, how the fuck is that supposed to result in a free society?
Import millions of people in who want to stone adulterers.
I mean, how is that going to get you your free society?
Import people in who, a lot of whom believe in honor killings.
And by the way, who vastly outbreed the domestic population.
And the reality is, and you know this as well as I do, the reality is, That they're only here, in general, overall.
The bell curve.
There are exceptions to the bell curve.
Tall Chinese guys.
Right?
They're only here for the social benefits.
Right.
They're only going to Europe.
Well, for the potential European jihad that some of them believe in.
But, as Dr.
Camarata pointed out, let's just look at Hispanic immigrants.
For a family of four...
Your healthcare insurance alone is going to cost you maybe 20k a year.
$20,000 a year.
See, the expense of things in a free society is what keeps the low IQ people out.
Because if you have...
And again, I'm not saying it's a free market, but let's just for the moment, right?
Just go with me on this, right?
So let's say your health care cost is so advanced and so powerful and so productive and so all healing, which in many ways the health care system until recently America had some of those characteristics.
Let's say your health care in America cost you $20,000 a year for insurance.
What that means is that people who can't make at least $30 an hour Can't come in.
Because they can't even afford the health insurance.
Not even counting deductibles, not counting things like rent and food and car and gas and life insurance and braces for their kids and school.
So when you have a free society, or a relatively free society, things are kind of expensive because there's high quality.
And so...
People can only come illegally to immigrate into America because the government pays the bills that they can't afford to pay.
Because to pay $20,000 for a family of four for health insurance in America for a year means if you make $10 an hour and pay no taxes and have no deductions, you can barely Afford to pay even for the health insurance, let alone any other expenses.
Which means that if you don't make much money, in other words, if you're not well educated, if you're not smart, then you don't go to that country.
Because you can't make it.
You can't make it.
And if you had to pay for your own kids' education, you can't make it.
And this is how a free society has a natural shield against low IQ people coming in.
And why do I say low IQ people?
Because a free society requires high IQ populations.
Because you cannot point to me one single goddamn place on this earth, Steve, where you have a low IQ population and a free society.
Because a free society requires a high IQ population.
And those high IQ populations can come from Somalia, as we see with Hai and Hersey Alley.
They can come from Japan, as we see with lots of Japanese people.
They can come from Scotland.
They can come from Eritrea.
And a free society...
It's expensive enough that low IQ people need not apply.
Now, if you violate that free society with forced association and government immigration, and immigration is a government program, stopping immigration is ending a government program.
Say, ah, end welfare!
End immigration.
It's a government program.
And until we get things sorted out as a society, I think it's very easily arguable that it has to end because right now it is a government program and the government program fundamentally relies upon the violation of freedom of association called forced association.
In other words, you may not like it that someone who doesn't speak your language and does not respect your values and wants to impose horrible Horrible, immoral laws upon you and your children, and in particular, any women in your family.
You may not like that.
And in a free society, you can choose not to interact with that person.
But in the government program called immigration, you are forced at gunpoint to not only interact with that person, but to pay for that person.
You are forced to pay for people, half of whom want to replace Reasonable descendants of Anglo-Saxon law with god-awful primitive medieval barbaric Sharia law.
You are forced to pay for them.
You are forced to associate with them.
You are forced to hire them.
Because if you don't have proportional representation, you can get sued, you can get in trouble with the government, you can get the diversity cops crawling down your throat.
You are forced to hire them.
You are forced to rent to them.
You are forced to sell to them.
You are forced to interact with them.
You are forced to pay all their bills.
You are forced to pay for their doctor's bills and their dentist's bills and their housing bills and their food bills and everything.
You are forced to pay for people who, at least half of whom, if they got their way, you'd barely want to get out of bed in the morning because your life wouldn't be worth living.
So, immigration is a government program.
Immigrants are here for the subsidies in general.
And so when I oppose immigration and people think that I'm somehow pro-government, that's like saying I'm against the welfare state.
Oh, you must be pro-government.
I'm against immigration because it's a government program.
Now, in a free society with no welfare state, free association, all of that kind of stuff, fantastic.
People can come, people can go, I could give a shit.
I don't care who moves in three streets down the road in a free society.
I don't care who moves in next door, hopefully, for the most part, in a free society.
But when people pouring across the border right now interfere with my daughter's ability to get a quality education if she were in government schools, Interfere with my daughter's ability to get a job in the future.
Interfere with my daughter's ability to live life free of being called a racist.
Because the vast majority of these people come from low IQ populations.
They're gonna fail.
Because it's a high IQ society.
They're gonna fail.
And who's gonna get blamed for that failure?
Genetics?
I don't think so.
White people are gonna get blamed for that failure and my daughter's gonna get called a racist.
I take that pretty fucking personally.
And I take the fact that she's going to end up in debt for people's moral self-congratulation and open-mindedness.
And suddenly their love of government programs.
Libertarians who, like, for all, let's get all this immigration.
Immigration is a government program.
You are pro-state if you are pro-immigration because there's no free market in it whatsoever.
And people say, oh, yes, well, the immigrants, they do pretty well.
You know, they create jobs and so on.
Yeah, of course they do.
There's no free market in that either, for the most part.
Because they get giant government loans and subsidies to start their own businesses.
And now suddenly libertarians are great for the welfare state and great for Obamacare and great for government subsidies to immigrants because they start businesses, you know, and they create jobs.
Yeah, so does the military-industrial complex.
I don't see libertarians blowjobbing Lockheed Martin and Blackwater.
Jesus.
It's a government program.
Opposing immigration is opposing a government program.
If we said, tomorrow, let's stop subsidies to big businesses, fantastic.
People would say, well, you know, it's going to cause suffering, it's going to cause pain, but it's what's needed.
And if we say, stop subsidies to immigrants, okay, great.
But there's no way you can stop subsidies to immigrants when more and more immigrants come in dependent on those subsidies.
That's like saying, let's get 80% of...
Let's get 80% of governments...
Sorry, let's get 80% of companies dependent 90% on government money, and then we're going to lobby...
Companies to cut government spending.
I mean, how could that be a sane proposal in any rational universe?
Immigration is a government program.
By saying, let's stop immigration, sensible people are saying, let's stop the government program.
Let's stop people coming in who are going to want more and more government so we can have a civilized discussion about the role of the state in society without massive dependent self-interest completely skewing the conversation.
You cannot have a sensible conversation about drug addiction to someone who's currently addicted to cocaine.
They have to be off cocaine before you can have any kind of sensible, right?
Right.
Immigration is a government program.
It requires massive spending, massive social controls, massive violations of freedom of association through forced association.
It destabilizes communities, it lowers the quality of life in those communities.
We've got a whole presentation coming out about this.
And it is currently tearing America apart.
Race relations now, this is partly under eight years almost of Obama, race relations now are at the lowest ebb since the 80s.
Only 30 or 33% of Americans think that there's anything positive going on between race relations at the moment.
Oh, plus, America's at war with the Middle East.
That's another important factor, which I'll just touch on briefly.
Immigration from people you're currently at war with?
It's insane.
It is insane.
It is unprecedented in human history that anyone would say, well, we're currently fighting wars in the Middle East, so let's bring a lot of young, military-aged Middle Easterners into America.
I mean, it's like, Jesus God!
I mean, I don't know whether they also are selected.
It's like a pirate's convention on steroids.
I don't know.
But you do not bring in young military-aged people from countries you're currently at war with.
I mean, the fact that this shit even needs to be said is mental.
And the government has clearly stated.
And when the government says it can't do something, you should listen.
Because most times they claim they can, but they can't.
The FBI director has clearly said, yeah, we can't vet these people.
We have no idea...
Who's coming in?
When you have a group composed of a lot of people who say they want to really destroy your society and that you're the great Satan, letting swarms of them in without vetting, and the vetting is impossible because the vetting itself is another government program, is insane.
Is insane.
Are people willing to go and talk to the victims?
And the families of the victims of the San Bernardino shooting and say, no, no, it's worth it.
Because I'm against the initiation of force, you see.
So the blood soaked into the carpets and the dead people and the funerals and the missing fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and children.
All worth it.
Are people willing to go to the concertgoers in Paris?
130 plus who were slaughtered.
And say, no, no, you see, it's worth it because I'm against the initiation of force.
That is not a rational situation.
We must abandon the hope of a purely moral situation in an immoral environment like this and work as hard as we can for the long-term minimization of the growth.
All we're trying to do now is stop the growth of violence.
And if stopping immigration is the least of the evils when it comes to stopping the growth of violence, if we stop immigration, at least we stop the number of people accumulating on the welfare rolls.
At least we stop the continued dumbing down of American education because it's turned into a Tower of Babel while you have 13 kids and 15 languages you've got to teach in.
And it reduces the amount of criminality because Immigrants, particularly from third world countries, are vastly over-represented in the ranks of the violent and the ranks of the criminal.
So right now, stopping immigration is stopping a giant government program.
And if libertarians are against stopping government programs, They ain't libertarians at all.
They're just cowards and cucks and people terrified of the media and of being called racist.
And they should just admit that.
I'm chicken shit.
I don't like to be called racist.
I don't like to think that any culture is superior to any other culture.
I'm a total egalitarian.
I'm a fucking cultural communist.
And that's all I have to say.
And then just drop the mic and get the fuck out of the room.
Yeah.
I'm not talking to you.
Do you know what I mean?
No, and I mean, you can't deny that all those aspects of bringing them in.
I was just having a hard time justifying it in my own head.
But no, I didn't think of the point that you said that there is no real moral decision to be made if it all ends up in violence.
So yeah, that makes sense.
I definitely...
Definitely have a better understanding of where you're coming from.
Thanks, Stephen.
I really appreciate you bringing up the topic.
It's a huge, I don't think there's a much more important topic going on in the world today.
And there's times for farming and there's times for clearing brush so that you can farm.
And my concern is that enough people are coming into Western countries who are thoroughly opposed to Western values that the entire discussion is going to come to a premature end because there's nobody left to talk.
So thanks very much for the comments and the question.
You're welcome back anytime.
Thank you.
Alright, take care.
Alright, up next is Ben.
Ben wrote in and said, One of the first conclusions derived from the fundamental precepts of philosophy states that synonyms are not allowed in rational discussions.
Based upon this conclusion, what is your distinction, if any, between the word state and government?
If you make no distinction, shouldn't you resolve this issue in accordance with the precepts of philosophy?
That's from Ben.
Hello, Ben.
How are you doing?
Doing pretty well.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year.
Sitting here listening to you for the last couple of hours discussing with these issues, I'm impressed with you standing up for what's left of our civilization.
Thank you.
You don't sound very hungover.
No.
I haven't had anything to drink for years.
I had hepatitis a long time ago and it destroyed my taste for alcohol, so I haven't had anything for a long, long time.
Right.
No, it's funny because I went tobogganing with my daughter today and people were saying, oh, do you think there'd be a lot of people out on the hills?
It's like, I don't know.
I mean, it's Canada.
It's not known to be a light drinking country and it's pretty bright out and pretty bumpy.
I don't think people with hangovers, like tobogganing, it's like the worst conceivable thing.
Like I'd rather get an ice cream headache at a rave for most people.
Anyway, I just want to mention that.
Yeah.
So, what's the thing about synonyms in philosophy?
I don't know if I've heard, I don't think I've heard that argument before.
If I have, it's in another context.
So, can you break that one out for me?
Oh, certainly.
Starting with Occam's razor.
Occam, well, let me first qualify what I'm about to say.
I've listened to all of your discussions on philosophy, and I consider them magnificent.
So, I'm touching on subjects I know that you're quite familiar with, but I wouldn't assume that, but I appreciate the thought.
All right.
I've heard you refer to Ockham William of Ockham in the discussions, and basically he said essentials must not be multiplied beyond necessity, or in more modern terms, keep it simple, stupid.
Yeah, and he also says that in any two equivalent explanations for the same phenomenon, the simpler is likely to be the most correct.
It's not a rule, it's a guideline.
Correct.
Correct.
And the second principle, which you did a magnificent job when you were discussing between recognizing the difference between the state of sleep and the state of wakefulness, is the principle of constancy.
That when you're asleep, you can dream and go from one moment swimming in the ocean, under the deep ocean, and the next minute flying through the air, When you're awake, the universe has fundamental precepts of constancy built into them.
Laws of gravity stay constant throughout your life.
Laws of electromagnetism and the rest of it.
And the third concept is I listened to your discussion with regards is government immoral and you started by saying that you must start with semantics.
And if you combine those three, you end up with some rather interesting rules.
The first step is to recognize that if you apply Occam's razor to developing semantics, you have to realize that you need one concept to one word.
If you don't, you're in violation of keeping it simple or you're multiplying essentials beyond necessity.
And if you take a look at physics and how it's applied, how Newton developed physics, he developed a one-to-one correspondence between his words and his semantics.
And if you're developing a rational discussion, You must keep the terms simple, or in this case, you must keep a one-to-one correspondence between the words you're using and the concepts.
Okay, so I think I understand that.
I'm not sure I agree with it completely, because poetry and the beauty of language sometimes can involve itself in synonyms.
But again, we're talking philosophy, so you'd want to try and minimize things as much as possible.
Unless people understand that there's a general synchronicity between the synonyms, in which case using one or the other.
Like, if people say, well, you can either use the word government or state for the same thing and everyone understands that, then it's usually not that confusing, unless they have subtle differences that people aren't aware of, in which case it can be.
But I just wanted to sort of mention that.
And when Arkham says that entities or instances or concepts should not be multiplied beyond necessity, I've used this example before, but he would be referring to something like the Ptolemaic system, where the Earth was the center of the solar system, planets all went around the Earth.
Because of the retrograde motion of Mars, you've got to have these circles within circles, whereas if you just move the Sun to the center of the solar system, it all resolves itself, and therefore you have two explanations, the Copernican versus the Ptolemaic system, and the Copernican is much simpler, requires fewer iterations.
You can basically do it all with one or two equations, as opposed to the hundreds of equations that you need to predict the movement of the planets in the Ptolemaic system, so...
I just wanted to, for those who aren't aware of the archemic approach, that's mostly it, if you agree with that.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
And Copernicus, it ended up actually being three laws when Kepler resolved it.
And then Newton came along and basically used two laws.
And what he ended up demonstrating is that actually the Sun isn't the center of the universe.
it's the center of gravity which in our particular system happens to be within the sphere of the sun but it still is not the center of the universe our solar system it's actually the center of gravitational masses so yeah because the planets exert a small gravitational pull on the sun which pulls the gravitational center out from the epicenter of the sun right yeah
and and and and when you go into binaries binary systems with two stars then the gravitational center is not in either of them so We're back to Tatooine.
We've got a theme for the show.
Orbiting Tatooine.
All right, with Dusty Dick syndrome, or whatever it is, Dusty Fiena syndrome.
All right, so is it your issue that there's differences between the words the state and government, or we should not use...
Yes.
If you begin to take a look at the situation and you separate out the concepts, you can begin to start evolving down intellectual paths that did not exist before.
I'm sorry to rush you along, but we've had a long show and I need you to get to a question because I have a feeling you're gearing up for a long monologue and I just want to make sure we get to the question in time.
Okay, the question I have is, on a philosophical basis, Om, by the way, I'll get to the question real quick, but when I wrote to you, you mentioned poetry and literature.
I wrote that in my email, that in literature and in poetry, synonyms do have a significance, but in long-term rational discussions, Unless there's justification for them, simplification always leads to a deeper rational understanding.
So the root of government, of course, is to govern, and to govern does not mean the state.
The state is a subset of governing, because you can govern yourself.
It's a bit of an older use of the term, but it was certainly around when I was a kid.
Govern yourself means to control yourself, to not act out, and so on.
So govern simply means to control or to regulate some process that's open to that behavior or that control.
Government is that instituted at a coercive social level, but I don't think we would ever say, you could say, govern yourself, but you'd never say, state yourself.
And so state is the particular political manifestation of the principle of government when co-joined with monopolistic coercive control in a geographical area.
So government, govern has got ambiguous meanings.
Government, I think, is that principle applied to politics.
And the state is, I think, singular to, in that context, singular to politics.
The coercive political control we call the state or the government.
Again, in fact, listening to you for the last couple of hours, you jump back and forth and in many ways use them for synonyms.
So again, what I'm asking is, do you have...
A operational definition that provides a delineation between the two.
Because what you're referring to with the origin of the word is correct.
That govern goes back all the way to the Latin, which is equivalent to the Greek of cybernetic, which means a control mechanism, a feedback mechanism within the system.
Well, I'll tell you that my operational definition is does the other person know what I'm talking about?
And if the other person knows what I'm talking about, I'm not going to fuss about exactly which word is the and say, well, I can't use the other word and so on.
So if the other person knows exactly what I'm talking about, then I don't see the need to necessarily use the same word.
If they're synonyms enough that it's basically two sides of the same coin, well, it's still a coin and you can spend it any way you want, if that makes sense.
Again, if you're – that is the standard approach to how the words are used in present day.
If, however, you're going back to a philosophical position for developing a rational discussion for the development of a civilization that has the ability to be stable and durable over not A short period of time,
but a long period of time, then you need to take and move beyond convention and begin to look at the words and analyze them and give them singularity in their definitions.
Sorry, why do I need to do that?
I mean, if I'm trying to get people to understand that the state is an agency of violence, why do I need to differentiate the word if that's not going to help me achieve my goal?
It's like saying I've got a bridge that carries my truck, but if my truck was piled high three times, I'd need a stronger bridge.
It's like, but I just need to get my truck across the bridge.
If the words are functional enough to get the truck across the bridge, is it the ideal bridge?
Well, it's the ideal bridge for getting the truck across, which is the purpose of the bridge.
Is it the ideal bridge in some abstract platonic sense?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter because I can get the truck across.
What if, within the use of the two terms, people are naturally associating concepts that are associated with one to the concept of the other?
Okay, but tell me what the difference is in people's minds as a whole between the state and the government.
The state, as you and I, the way you have defined the state is the form that I take of it.
The concept of government, which is where, and how you just described it as it was when you were growing up, is a mechanism of self-control and feedback.
And the question then becomes...
No, no, no, no, no, sorry.
I said, sorry to interrupt, but I didn't say that when I was growing up.
Govern was a word, but government not only was a nightclub, but government meant the state.
To self-government and so on, to self-govern was to be in control of yourself.
But government has always meant the political, monopolistic, violent entity.
And the state is a synonym for that.
So government and the state, at least in my conversations, I've never had people say, well, wait a minute, which do you mean, the government or the state?
Like I've had thousands of these conversations, probably tens of thousands over the years, and like since the age of 11, and maybe thousands.
Yeah, thousands probably.
And I don't think anyone's ever been confused by this, so I'm not sure why I would want to adjust something that's not providing any confusion when there's so many other things that are providing confusion that need to be worked on.
The confusion is that there are built-in cybernetic mechanisms built into the civilization that are essential for its continuing operation.
And there's a whole list of them that have nothing to do with the state.
That in some ways have been taken over by the state in order to keep their power base.
But if you push to the bottom of the discussion and you start looking at what is going on, You begin to realize that when you use the two terms, state and government, you're merging two concepts that should be separate.
And if you separate them, then you begin to see the world in a different perspective.
It is the same way that before Isaac Newton came along, before Galileo and Copernicus...
That you had a view of the world and the semantics were not locked down.
When Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, all the rest of them began to hone their semantics and then develop from their semantics a scientific, a philosophical, a rational development of the concept.
Then you went from the Ptolemaic approach to the solar system with 40, 50, 60, 70...
Okay, so sorry to interrupt, but what was the word...
That Copernicus differentiated that changed things.
I thought it was like the bath and the proof, the predictability, the fact that he could locate Mars without going through the Ptolemaic system to a greater degree of accuracy.
I don't think it was a word that he changed.
I think it was a proof that he brought to bear on the problem.
In other words, once he'd made the case scientifically, mathematically, rationally, That's what got the new...
He didn't just take the word and redefine it or fragment out some prior definitions, and he actually went out and made a case, mathematically and scientifically and empirically.
And the accuracy of that case, just as with Einstein's theories, the accuracy and predictability and reproducibility of that case is what convinced people not a change in semantics.
Actually, well...
So Copernicus shifted the perspective from the Earth to the Sun.
Yes, but he did that not through semantics.
He did that through math and science and reason and evidence.
All right.
When he shifted the perspective, his assumptions...
He reduced the number of basic assumptions by only about 20 epicycles.
Copernicus, when he made the shift, made only one jump, and that was the movement of what was constituting the center of the movement of the planets and the Earth.
He continued to hold to the concept of perfect spheres and that the planets moved in perfect motion.
Listen, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I'm trying to care about this issue.
I'm working my caring muscle like a man freezing to death trying to get a fire going with his bellows.
I can't get there.
You know, like if you just listen to these last two conversations, would they have been better if I'd stopped and argued semantics with people or if I'd made my passionate speeches with reason and evidence?
Because my concern is that seems a lot like self-censorship.
Oh, I got to use this word.
I got to use that word.
I got other people to agree with this definition and not that definition.
And they've got to get this finely differentiated.
I just want to speak from the hearts using as much reason and evidence as I can.
To convince people, and I don't know that stopping and self-censoring myself about exactly the right semantics to use is going to help me achieve that.
Well, let me...
Okay.
Kepler...
So give me a case.
Appeal to my greed.
Give me a case.
Hang on.
Just give me...
I'll give you another minute, and otherwise I've got to move on, but give me a minute wherein this is going to make my life better and happier and is going to make me a more effective communicator.
All right.
It wasn't Kepler...
And it wasn't Copernicus who convinced the world of the sun was the center of the universe.
It was Isaac Newton.
And Isaac Newton started with the semantics.
He started with mass, length, and time, developed an entire semantics from those base, and then developed the postulatory structure that became the system of the world.
That is what changed the world.
All of the things that came before that were a prelude and we would still be living in 16th century standard of living but for Isaac Newton.
And the semantics was started with Isaac Newton and it was from his semantics that the modern world came.
And he'd established, and he called it a natural philosophy, he developed our modern world from semantics followed by a postulatory structure derived from the description of those semantics and then extrapolated out everything that he called the system of the world.
So everyone up to him was a prelude.
We would still be living in 16th century, 15th century Europe, European standards, the poverty you see around the world.
If you want to change the world, the first place you have to focus, the philosophy when it was applied to its fullest force, and that was Isaac Newton who was the one that first did it, You must start with your words.
You must focus on your words.
Then from those established terms, you can then build out an intellectual infrastructure upon which you can build worlds.
If you want to play games with words and bounce back and forth, what will happen is you will end up continuing to have the discussions that I have just listened to for the last two hours and nothing will be achieved.
We will continue to watch...
Wait, wait, hang on.
Sorry, sorry.
Are you saying that nothing was achieved in my last two conversations?
In the backdrop of building civilization...
The answer is yes.
So you're telling me that I didn't change anyone's way of thinking or change anyone's minds at all in the last two conversations?
Nothing was achieved, not a tiny bit.
Against the backdrop of saving?
I don't know.
No, no.
This is a yes-no question.
I'm not trying to corner you, but you made a rather surprising statement to me because it seems to me that people did agree that they're...
Sorry, go ahead.
Okay.
If you mean on a small scale in a small area?
No, no, no.
You said nothing was achieved.
You didn't mention anything about scale or historical backgrounds.
You said nothing was achieved.
All right.
In a small way, yes.
Against the backdrop of civilization, trying to build a non-coercive civilization in which the human race can evolve into...
What it can be.
Evolve into a species that can leave this planet and develop into stable, growing population.
Okay, so what you're saying is that you're a much better communicator than I am.
And that's perfectly possible, of course, right?
I mean, there's no monopoly on it.
And so if you were to say, as you are, A saying that you're a better and more effective communicator than I am.
What evidence would you provide for that in terms of, you know, we've got 150 million plus downloads.
I've spoken all over the world.
I've been on television.
I've been on radio.
And we have hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
And we have employees who work for the contractors who work for the company doing research and so on.
So we've got a pretty tidy operation going here that's Getting, I think, the most injection of philosophy into the world as a whole.
And if you were to say that you're a better communicator than I am...
Hang on.
If you're saying...
I'm not trying to corner you or anything.
I'm just like, okay.
You can make that claim in the same way that you can make the claim that if...
Isaac Newton had not done something with semantics.
We'd still be living in 16th century.
I mean, that seems like a rather outrageous claim.
I thought it had more to do with the free market and so on rather than calculus.
But if you want to say that you know a huge amount more about effectively communicating to change the world than I do after these last two-hour conversations, which you say have only changed things in a minor or inconsequential way or whatever it was, what evidence would you provide to me that...
You are a much better communicator than I am.
Okay, can I flip the tables around?
Not without answering the question, because it's kind of rude to be asked a question and not answer it.
The answer is, is on the short term, no.
In the long term, who was the most effective communicator in the 1680s?
If you ask the average person walking on the street in 1680s who was the most effective communicator, you would have gotten A whole list of politicians, orators, all the rest of them, whose name have now disappeared into the dustbins of history.
Oh, so what you're saying is that you will be the most effective communicator in a few hundred years, but I'll be forgotten.
You're jumping onto me.
I'm answering your question.
No, you said in the long run.
I said you're a more effective communicator than I am, and you said in the long run.
I do not...
That I do not know as yet.
What I'm saying...
But you suspect so, enough to say that I'm not an effective communicator or that I'll be forgotten like a 16th century or 17th century politician?
This is fascinating because I was hoping that we would have a more free conversation with Look, I'm not offended.
I'm genuinely trying to understand what it is that you mean.
And I'm trying to understand...
If you say that my conversations don't add up to much and I'll be forgotten, like some 17th century politician, while you'll stand the test of time like Isaac Newton, that seems like a pretty big claim to make.
What I was saying was that historically...
The biggest orators, the most effective orators in the 1680s were all sorts of politicians, theologians, all the rest of it.
The most important orator, the most influential individual Of 1680s as measured in 2015, without an exception, is Isaac Newton.
He published his Newtonian Principia Mathematica in 1686, and he published 300 volumes, and it sat on the shelves.
It took over almost a hundred years before someone to finally figure out what he meant by it and he introduced the concept of energy.
Then from his works and those, Laplace, Lagrange and Hamilton, they then moved into thermodynamics and very soon Faraday came along and that began the ball rolling.
By 2015, Newton's works are taught in every university in the world.
What we find is that if you want to talk about your immediate impact, wonderful!
You've talked to a million people.
Do you have any hope of ever seeing you on camera?
I don't know what that means.
But what I'm saying is that if you want to talk about your effectiveness right now, my goodness, yes, wonderful.
You're reaching millions of people who are looking for an answer to get out of what we are facing right now.
We're facing a terminal crisis.
The human race has now gotten the ability to kill itself in about a half a dozen different ways.
It's got nukes.
It's got biological weapons.
It's basically turned most of the human race, as you've been talking about it for the last two hours, the human race has been turned into a weapon of self-destruction.
We're facing A terminal crisis for the human race.
And it has all come because we know what Newton has said.
It has been leveraged up and has been created into a system that could A, carry us to the stars, or B, turn us all into dust.
That is what we're facing.
And you've got an audience right now That is looking everywhere for an answer and you're getting close.
You're close.
But close in this game doesn't count.
You either get it right or you're just going to be like all the rest who are not going to solve this problem in the time that we face.
Okay, well, look, I mean, you really should.
And I don't mean this in any negative way, but Ben, you've really got to just start your own show and outshine me.
Because here's the thing, right?
Like, we've been talking, I don't know, 30 minutes or so.
I still have no clue what it is you want me to do.
So if you're an example of somebody who knows about effective communication...
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to know what it is that you want changed or want me to do.
And hang on, hang on, hang on.
I'm still talking.
So if you want to be into an effective communication, one of the things that's important with effective communication is also listening rather than interrupting.
Although it can occur at times if it's important.
But, you know, I've really been listening and been trying to understand what it is that you suggest, and I have no clue.
And, you know, I try to sort of not throw, in a sense, bad money after good.
In other words, if I've listened to you for half an hour...
I think you've said some not exactly insulting things, but things that are pretty diminishing to what it is that I do.
And that's, you know, that's fine if you've got really great alternatives.
You know, Freddie Mercury can teach me how to sing better.
Great.
But if you're an example of an expert in communications, and after a half an hour, I have no idea what it is you want me to do, I'm going to just suggest, this is my suggestion, have a listen back to this conversation and And figure out what you might give me as practical suggestions on what to do.
And then let's call back in and we'll have a shorter conversation where you can instruct me.
But right now, I have no idea what it is you want me to do.
So I'm not going to continue because after half an hour, if I have no idea what you want to do, I don't think half an hour and five minutes is going to make any difference.
I really do appreciate the call, though, and I certainly agree with you that language and definitions are extremely important, but I think so also is flow and passion and the degree to which that can get tripped up by policing your own language to get exact definitions, I think can be, you know,
scat is as important as choral singing sometimes when it comes to communicating the glories of music, and the glories of philosophy can, I think, be tripped up and interrupted by too much of a focus on, um, Whether the exact precise words are used and whether the other person understands their exact precision and so on.
So I think I'll try and content myself with 150 million downloads at the moment.
And, you know, if there's ways to improve that, I'm certainly happy to listen.
But after half an hour of not knowing what you want, maybe you can.
Hang on, I'm still finishing.
Yeah, you want me to improve my semantics.
I still don't know what that means, so I'm not going to invest more time in it right now, but hang on, I'm still talking.
I'm not going to invest time in it right now, but if you want to listen back to this conversation, maybe you can write a note, and maybe you're better written than spoken.
You can write a note and tell me how it is that you want me to improve, and I'll take that under consideration, or if you find a better way of communicating it to maybe my limited intelligence and limited capacity to...
Surmount the average 17th century politician or sophist, then you can call back in and we can talk about it further.
But right now, I'm afraid I'm going to just have to cut my losses and move on with the closure of the show.
But I really do appreciate you calling in.
It was a great pleasure to chat.
So thanks everyone so much for listening to this, the very, very, very...
Did I say very?
I think I did.
Very first show of 2016.
I'm telling you, I'm old enough now that 2016, it still feels like jets and land.
It still feels like I should be doing the show on a jetpack over a lunar crater on my way to Mars.
But we'll have to wait for the free market to provide those rides that right now are only reserved for the aristocratic astronauts that currently orbit us saying, hey, it's really fun up here, so you can't join us, but you have to be taxed to pay for our floating.
So have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful early part to your new year.
We'll continue to put out great shows.
We've got fantastic, fantastic stuff in the pipeline for the shows coming up.
Stuff to really blow your mind.
I thank you so much, so much, so much for your continued support of the show.
Donate is how you keep us afloat.
How we can get to Ben's magical land of perfect semantic excellence, which we're looking forward to.
FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
If you've got any shopping to do, we really request that you do that.
You know, man, if you guys thought that 2015 was great, and there's a lot of you who wrote to us Who said that 2015 was the best year of the show.
Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The stuff we've got planned for 2016 with your support.
And, you know, if you can't support us financially, at least like, share, subscribe, whatever it is that you can do.
We really appreciate it.
But if you thought that 2015 was great, man, you ain't seen nothing yet.
You can look back on 2016 and 2017 and say, man, 2015 sucked.
