All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
59:52
3174 Weeping Hugroom Fascism - Call In Show - January 6th, 2016
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux of Freedom Aid Radio.
Oh yes, it's early 2016.
I hope you're doing well.
It's a short show.
What can I say?
I think you'll enjoy it.
But it's a very short show.
I guess balance is out with some of those four-hour monsters.
Without any further ado, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Please, please, please help us out.
Help us make this year the best we've ever had, at least until 2017.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Let's get on with the short show so that my intro doesn't pad it out too much.
Here we go.
Alright, up first is Kirk.
Kirk wrote in and said, The truths...
That not a single one of these issues can be classified into only the blackest black or the whitest white, only the billions of shades of grey between, but the many, many colors of the spectrum that are also being ignored.
I have a few other issues that I would like to discuss at some point in the future, but this one seems to be coming up for me.
I see a move from anarchist philosopher to conservative pundit.
How do you rectify these things?
Where is the demarcation between objectivism, standing firm on principles, or practicality in supporting the lesser of two evils?
That is from Kirk.
Well, hello Kirk.
How are you doing?
Doing great, Stefan.
How are you?
I'm well, thank you.
And I appreciate you bringing these topics up.
I'm sure you're the first person who's ever been disturbed by my seeming shift to Sean Hannity camp, which we can talk about, of course, but I appreciate you bringing these issues up.
Thanks.
So, why don't you take a moment and just describe the alarming set of circumstances that you feel I may be subjecting myself to?
You know, Wayne, I'm kind of a recent follower of your work.
I've really only heard of And in that time, I've consumed a great deal of what you have out there.
And it was this whole new, bright, wonderful world filled with reason and critical thinking and just logic.
And it was just great.
The initial thing that kind of bothered me with the e-books was, you know, how can you practically support anarchism and And I'm like, you know, oh, every time somebody brings up, you know, well, hey, it wouldn't work if this happened.
And what about this and that?
And, you know, and just kind of, I guess, in a way, it seemed like dismissing it with, we'll figure it out, or, you know, this or that sort of thing, in a way, was the first frustrating thing.
But at least it seemed like, well, there's a holding fast to the principles.
Now it's...
I certainly haven't seen where you've come out and said, vote Trump, or anything like that, but it does seem like you have been speaking positively, in a positive manner, about Donald Trump, which isn't an outright endorsement.
It isn't saying, vote Trump 2016, but it does seem like you would tend to lean towards I don't want to say necessarily supporting him, but that just seems a little bit surprising considering the anarchist view.
I understand we change, we grow.
I've changed my mind multiple times about who I'm going to vote about, about everything else.
When I get new information, when I reanalyze the information I have, I'm wondering how tightly you still cling to anarcho-capitalism, objectivism, Would you vote for Trump?
Well, there's a lot in there, so let's break it down piece by piece, if that's alright with you.
Please.
Okay, so I guess my question then would be, how is it that you would show me as having had or having put forward a false position?
So, associating me with positive things to say about Donald Trump...
Does not invalidate my arguments for anarcho-capitalism, right?
I agree with that, although...
No, I think that's a fair statement.
I mean, so for instance, I could say that there were some positive aspects to Winston Churchill without saying that all British colonialism was fantastic, right?
Certainly.
So having some positive things to say about a politician does not mean that I have abandoned all my principles of voluntarism.
Certainly.
And, you know, that's like a way to test to see if someone is truly thinking critically or if they're going to respond emotionally.
A lot of times I'll do kind of a little litmus test of saying, well, Hitler did have a couple of good ideas.
Instantly, their response is going to be, of course, the whole millions of dead people, not that Volkswagen or whatever it may be, that the train's running on time.
Obviously, the evil outweighs the good, but the good is not an endorsement of the evil.
Hang on, hang on.
Okay, so as someone who's immediately gone from Trump to Hitler, really?
No.
Do you not feel that Trump and Winston Churchill straight to Hitler?
Do you really feel that that, of course, we've had this a bunch of times on the show before, you say Trump, and I don't know if people think that I'm mispronouncing Hitler when I say Trump, but it seems interesting to me that you would go immediately to, well, you could say something positive about Adolf Hitler.
Trump is one of the very few politicians who has been more or less in the free market for his whole life, right?
He's not a lawyer.
I agree.
And I'm certainly not trying to equate the two.
Well, okay, you may not consciously be trying to, but to jump from one to the other.
Like if somebody says Hillary Clinton is a man, I'd say, I'm going to go with a no on that.
And that does not mean that I endorse everything that Hillary Clinton says.
So if people say, well, Donald Trump said that all immigrants were rapists and murderers, and I correct them, That is not an endorsement of everything that Donald Trump says.
If somebody says that Hitler was born in Germany and I say, no, he was born in Austria, that doesn't make me a Nazi.
So correcting misinformation or bad information that's out there is not the same as a ringing endorsement, if that makes any sense.
Absolutely.
I agree with all of that.
Would you agree that...
And again, actually right now I would have to say, given the choice, I would probably vote for him.
And I've changed my mind multiple times.
But it does seem like, let's say, gun to your head, you had to vote.
It seems like, and I could be wrong here, like you would also vote for him.
Like he is the lesser of two evils.
Well, let me put it to you this way.
Donald Trump is such an unexpected, unprecedented, and unknown factor.
In politics that I don't know what to make of him because he does not match any of the standard status paradigms that I know of today.
So for instance, the fact that he is self-funding his entire campaign and by the way is 32 million dollars under budget.
So, so far so good, right?
So the fact that he is self-funding his whole campaign I think, if I remember rightly, Steve Forbes tried doing that, but just didn't have Trump's star power and charisma and so on.
So the fact that he's self-funding his whole campaign means that he is not directly beholden to special interest groups.
So that is unprecedented.
Like the idea that you would have somebody way ahead in the polls who is not...
Owned or operated by any special interest groups that we know of, and I believe him when he's saying he's running his own campaign.
That is unprecedented.
So, you know, I'm allowed to have a singular response to a singular phenomenon, if that makes sense.
And there is no history, to my knowledge, of someone coming into the political arena, Who has been fairly consistent, who beats the media at being the media, who is undaunted and unafraid by political correctness, who identifies cultural incompatibilities like, say, those between certain aspects of Mexican culture or South American or Central American culture, Sharia law and so on and Western traditions,
who is generally on the right for some issues and is way ahead, like actually who is generally on the right for some issues and is way ahead, like actually has a reasonable and Now, I don't want to go over everything I've said about him before.
So just very briefly, the reason that I'm interested in Donald Trump is because he represents an airstrike on the media.
It is the media who is constantly squelching debate about anything in this The media is like some neurotic aunt at your dinner table who just starts shrieking, clutching at its pearls, fainting, and then finally throwing dags at people who talk about things that she doesn't want to talk about.
The media is the verbal abuser that is constantly killing debate.
The media constantly says that they rely upon the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, but they're constantly attacking anyone who exercises freedom of speech that they disagree with and spread lies and slanderers.
I mean, it's endless and it's bottomless, and we can see this All over the place.
And so the fact that he's in there and that he is destroying the media, to me, is wonderful.
Now, if he gets into power, like if he becomes president, and...
He continues to undermine and destroy the mainstream media.
That certainly is going to bring a lot more people to what it is that I do, because there are still, I don't know, eight to 12 people out there in the world who think the mainstream media is doing anything other than manipulating them and slowly sway dancing them and line dancing them off an endless cliff to endless socialism.
And I'd like to get those eight to 12 people in my camp.
So the fact that this unprecedented phenomenon has emerged in American politics that is smashing political correctness, that is smashing the dominant paradigm, that is smashing the media as it stands, is to me somewhat exciting.
Now, there are two other things that have occurred since I was really doing a lot of anarcho-capitalism.
Well, three things that have occurred since I was doing that.
Number one is that, and I mentioned this before, the libertarian community has rejected my argument that peaceful parenting and non-spanking...
Will lead to a peaceful society.
So that means that, you know, if that's my way of getting to a free society, the libertarian community has rejected that, or rather they've done the mainstream media thing of simply not discussing it or talking about it, then I can't go, like, that's not how it's going to work, right?
I mean, if I say, and I do, peaceful parenting is the way to go, then if libertarians reject that, then we're no longer fellow travelers on the path to a free society.
That's just natural.
And so Donald Trump also is one of the small percentage of parents who is a non-spanker.
He is a non-spanker.
He never spanked his children.
And they enjoy working with him and they work with him in his business enterprises and he appears to have very good relationships with them and they appear to be competent and intelligent people who respect and love him.
So he, as far as I can tell, according to mainstream narratives, according to mainstream standards, he is an excellent father.
In fact, he's closer to my path for a free society than libertarian spankers are or libertarians who refuse to discuss spanking.
It's true, he does have divorces and that's certainly not great.
There's no question about it.
I don't know much about the details of his divorces and all.
But he was a non-spanker and a good father.
And so since I say, well, non-spanking, non-physical aggression, non-emotional aggression against your children is the path to the free society, I have more in common with Donald Trump than I do with some anarchist who wants to yell at and hit his kids.
I just, you know, that's just the reality and that shouldn't be too surprising to anyone who's followed my Arguments for a long time.
The other thing that's happened is the acceleration of the importation of child abusing cultures into the West has accelerated to the point where we don't have as much time as I thought we were going to have, right?
So, you know, when there wasn't mass migration of...
You know, millions of Muslims on the march, and Islam is not exactly gentle towards its children, to put it as mildly as possible.
And the importation of Central and Southern American cultures, which are also quite harsh on children, to put it mildly.
Well, that has shifted the time frame a little bit.
In fact, it's shifted the time frame a lot.
Because there are more people coming in who are harsh on children than I can possibly convince to be less harsh on their children, right?
So I'm emptying out the pool, but unfortunately a tsunami is pouring in and I have a bucket.
And so whereas I thought that we would have a fair amount of time, multi-generational change, the degree of...
Acceleration of child hostile cultures that is coming into Europe and to North America.
And the birth rate, again, which when I was first starting this thing like over 10 years ago was not as big or as public or as recorded an issue.
That doesn't...
That has changed.
Again, the IQ stuff that I know about in terms of IQs across the Middle East, peaking at around an average of 87 or 86, and in Central and South America, it's not that distant from that.
And recognizing the degree to which lower IQs are going to be more likely to use aggression against their children, it simply means that I don't have as much time as I thought I was going to have to convince the world to be nicer to their children.
And so that has all changed.
Now, of course, the solution isn't going to come through politics directly, but if Donald Trump is able, like, since I require or insist upon the necessity of child-friendly people to get to a free society, if there are child hostile cultures pouring into Let's just say America.
I don't live in America, but let's just say that for the sake of argument since he's not running for Prime Minister of Canada.
So if the path to a free society requires child-friendly parents and if there are pouring into America hundreds and hundreds of thousands if not millions of child unfriendly or child hostile cultures If Donald Trump can put a stop to that, that buys some time to convince people closer to the child-friendly paradigm to change their behavior so that a more peaceful society can come about.
So, for me, it's not, oh, well, gosh, we're going to get to a free society because Donald Trump is going to get into power, but if he can stem, to some degree, the flow of child-hostile cultures into society, then that's going to help on many, many different levels.
So, immediately, of course, it's not like he repeals the welfare state, but if he can, I don't know if he can, but if he can, then...
Immediately, the tax burden is going to be lightened on people, which means they're going to be able to work less hard, spend more time with their kids, and hopefully be better parents.
And since couples do, to some degree, talk and fight about money, work stress, workaholism, and having not enough time for their family, then their children are probably going to have a better time.
Of it with them improve the quality of childhood and you improve the quality of society.
This is also not to mention that a lot of these cultures because they are quite harsh on their children their children are quite harsh on other children so the horizontal bullying that is coming in from Child-unfriendly cultures is a significant part, I think, of what is going on for people's childhoods in America.
And so if that can be stemmed or even reversed, of course, he wants to deport as well.
So again, this isn't anything to do with Donald Trump is going to make a free society.
But if the floodwater is rising...
Then you put the sandbags up, right?
So that the water doesn't flood into your home and destroy your home.
And so I don't view Donald Trump as someone who's going to bring about a free society.
I think there is a potential that Donald Trump can buy enough time for the peaceful parenting message to spread ahead of the mass influx of millions of child unfriendly cultures and histories coming into I think we're good to go.
The quality of families as a whole tends to decline, and that makes the culture more child-unfriendly, even for the people who are native European history to America.
I hope that makes some kind of sense.
I'm not saying that's a perfectly convincing argument, but just from my perspective, this is the new information that there is this rise, massive increase.
Like of the millions of immigrants, I think, that have come across to America in the last eight years, half of them have been Muslims.
And it does not strike me as an overly child-friendly culture.
At least I've not had a whole bunch of people from Muslim communities saying, gosh, tell us more about this peaceful parenting stuff, which does happen from other communities.
So that's sort of my perspective.
So, yeah, he's not beholden to special interests.
He can smash the media, which I consider the only possibility for us to have a civilized debate about anything is for the mainstream media to back the hell off.
And according to his own particular goals and preferences, he is aiming at stemming or reversing the importation of child-friendly cultures into the United States, States, which is buying time for the peaceful parenting message to spread without trying to empty out the swimming pool with a thimble when it's raining buckets from the sky.
About the special interests, and again, you know, I'm coming from, I'm trying to keep an open mind about everybody.
I would prefer a much more free society.
I agree.
You know, we're not going to be there right after he gets elected.
But just historically, it seems with him, you know, on the one hand, there's just, of course, the skill, the intelligence, probably unmatched with not just the people he's competing against, but with previous presidents, really.
You know, and so I look at that, but I also look at how almost everything he's done, he's been adept at getting things for himself and for, you know, building his empire.
And his empire, I guess you could maybe call it...
Oh no, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
What's your profession or how does it, you don't have to give me any details, but in what area is your profession?
I'm a robotics engineer.
Robotics engineer.
Okay.
Now, as a robotics engineer, if you didn't please your boss, would you keep your job?
No.
Okay.
If you pleased your boss, but your boss did not please the customers, or what your boss produced with your help did not please the customers, would either of you keep your job?
Definitely not.
If Donald Trump built...
Golf course not say in Scotland apparently the origin of golf, but in say the Arctic Would he make any money?
Of course not.
Right, so the idea that he's made however many billions of dollars that he's made By only acting for himself and getting things for himself is axiomatically false because he must have pleased an enormous number of people in order to be able to make that money you satisfy customer demand in order to make money in a free market and so I'm not sure what it is that you mean when you say and I'm happy to you know be corrected or hear more but I'm not sure when you say well he's made his money by getting
things for himself or only satisfying his own preferences or whatever I just I don't know how that's possible when there's any kind of free market around.
Sure.
No, I'm certainly not saying that's a bad thing.
And the positive side...
Hang on.
Hang on.
Sorry?
That's not...
No, you didn't say it was a good or bad thing.
You said he made his money by only satisfying his own needs.
And it's because there's a free market involved.
I'm happy to hear how that's possible.
Boy, if you...
I mean, because I have to satisfy the needs of my listeners and callers every week.
And sometimes that's a balance between what I want to do, what the news is, and what people are demanding or asking that we cover on this show.
So if there's a way for me to just do...
Like, I'd love to do a lot more really technical, detailed, logic-tree, philosophical analyses...
But that's not what people are asking for.
So I have to meet the customer demand in order to get views and donations and so on.
So if you can tell me, Kirk, how I can satisfy all of my own desires and preferences for exactly what I want to do with this conversation and still grow and reach more people and get lots of views and get the odd donation or two, please tell me how if you know.
Let me explain.
Sorry if I misspoke.
What I was trying to relay is that he has, of course, built his own empire.
His empire, I'm saying, you could perhaps call that the special interest and just go with me for a second here on this.
You know, I'm not saying he hasn't done anything for anybody.
Certainly, he's employed many people.
He's certainly made many, many of his customers happy.
I've been a customer of his.
I've been to his casinos.
And the positive side I see of all the great things he's done is that, yes, he does have the skill.
And I'm thinking, okay, he's at the point in his life, he's thinking legacy.
And this would be the fulfillment of being the leader of the free world.
Where could you possibly go from there?
And so that's why I have hope that he would do just a bang-up job Better than anybody else.
I think it'd be hard for him to do too much worse, certainly.
But the potential pitfalls I see is that, okay, how when you look historically at the things he's done, which I'm not saying there's anything wrong with capitalism, with the self-serving, any of that.
And I'm sure he's had many charitable things he's also done for society and contributions too, but is that there does tend to be It looks like a pattern of, you know, he builds these large things, and then, you know, of course, does what any person would do in that situation, makes the profit, but when he steps back out of it, it's usually right before it fails, and he hands off, you know, a grenade with the pen pulled.
And these things, it could be argued, of course, that they fail because he's not managing them anymore, but the...
But you mean, hang on, hang on, hang on.
I'm sorry, you just...
So much in what you said.
So, first of all, it doesn't look like you're going to back off your statement.
You're just going to say that you misspoke, which is fine.
Okay.
Secondly, you're talking about, are you trying to unfathom his motives for doing what he's doing?
In other words, you're saying, well, he wants a legacy and he wants to be president.
Are you saying for reasons of personal vanity?
Or, like, I'm trying to understand, is it you're trying to figure out his motives for doing this?
That would be part of it, certainly, is wondering what it is.
Why?
Why does it matter?
Because he wants to be leader of the free world.
You do recognize that it is in fact possible that he loves the idea of a more free America and that he's appalled at where the country is going and he wishes to do something that is going to reverse that trend.
It's possible.
It's at least possible.
That he's doing it out of a passion for a freer America to hand to his children and grandchildren.
Absolutely.
No, I do not disagree with that at all.
Because people, I mean, speculate about my motives for doing what I'm doing.
Often it seems to involve me loving the sound of my own voice.
Yeah, like as if anybody ever, I don't know, maybe Freddie Mercury and...
I don't know who else has a lovely voice.
Maybe Richard Burton.
Love hearing the sound of their own voice.
James Earl Jones!
So, it's possible that he's doing it for some higher reasons, but we won't know.
So, that's mere speculation.
Now, as far as His business is that sometimes he would sell his business and then the business wouldn't do as well or he would, like I think he got out of Atlantic City as he said a bunch of times before Atlantic City.
Crashed and so he got out of certain businesses or out of certain industries or out of certain areas before the value of those businesses go down.
I'm trying to think how that is a bad business decision.
Like if I sell my Apple stock before Apple stock goes down, isn't that evidence of me being good at making money rather than Bad?
Being good?
If you get out of a business before it crashes, isn't that a good thing?
Like, the last guy to get out of the rotary dial telephone business, I don't think would be called a business genius, right?
Certainly, no.
It's very prudent to do so.
And, I mean, certainly in his case, I mean, again, if any of us were there, I'm sure we would do the same thing.
So I'm just curious why you're pumping out things like Hitler and vanity and he hands over failing businesses and all these kind of vague negative things that whenever I ask you for, or he's in it just for himself or whatever, these are all vague negative aspersions.
And when I ask you for more details, you kind of back off on them.
I'm just curious, why?
Does that not seem hard to you?
Well, no, to explain a little more, the Hitler thing actually, and again, no equation there.
I'm not at all saying he's in any way related or anything like that.
That's just, like I said, that's a litmus test I use for any conversation where if there's, I'm trying to see if someone is thinking critically.
I'll just...
One of those things, it's not the easiest thing to slip into a conversation, but it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
No, I understand the Hitler thing.
It's a logical argument.
It's just that you could have done it with anyone other than Hitler.
And what about these other things, that you've got these negative things, and I ask for more details, and you kind of back off them or say...
Well, no, he's not doing it just to himself, or he's a good businessman instead of dumping bad businesses on others.
It seems to me that you just seem uncomfortable by Trump as a whole, and you're trying to come up with stuff that's negative, but when pressed, you don't really have much detail.
No, I wouldn't say that at all.
I'm certainly trying to not talk over you, but I wouldn't even say it's negative things I'm trying to say about him.
Certainly not a negative opinion I have of him.
I know he's I really do, again, truly believe that he would do a better job of running this country than probably anybody else that's running.
I had kind of been going for Rand Paul at the beginning.
I actually, you're going to kill me here, switched to Bernie because I felt like he was at least honest enough and I felt like if he could repeal things like Citizens United, maybe future presidents would, and just politicians in general, if we got some of that I'm sorry, I'm just picking myself back up off the floor here.
You went from Rand Paul to Bernie Sanders?
And did you feel that Bernie Sanders wants to get money out of politics?
Isn't all of Bernie Sanders' platform pretty much a massive bribe fest where he's paying for voters' allegiance with other people's money?
How is that getting money out of politics?
If you want to get money out of politics, don't promise free stuff to people.
I mean, as far as getting money out of politics, Donald Trump is far better and empirically infinitely better than Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is this giant socialist bribe machine.
That's all he is.
He's like, you know those, I don't know if you've ever practiced tennis, but when I was a kid and I was practicing, there was these arm, big robot arm tennis throwing machines.
And that's Bernie Sanders and Hillary, all the people on the left and some of the people on the right, too.
All they're doing is just firing stuff at people.
Now, Donald Trump, to my knowledge, and I'm working my way through his new book, so I'm not finished it yet, but he's not said, I'm going to...
Elect me and you'll get X, Y, and Z free stuff.
What he is saying, as far as I understand it, is elect me and I'm going to negotiate well to get better trade conditions so that more jobs can be created.
I'm going to reduce red tape.
I'm going to all of this kind of stuff.
And so I don't know that he's firing a whole bunch of money at people.
I think what he's saying is that he's going to work to try and increase economic freedoms or favorable trade conditions or whatever.
So, you know, he's like the rising tide will lift all boats, not I'm going to deliver a crate of whiskey to your yacht or your dinghy.
So as far as keeping money out of politics, other than saying he's going to work harder to take care of the vets, I haven't seen a lot of vote for me and you'll get X, Y, and Z goodies.
Now he has, I think, said that he wants to reduce taxes.
He's not for a flat tax because he thinks that people who pay more should pay more, not just as a result of 10% of a million is more than 10% of a hundred.
But he wants to reduce interferences to people's capacity to trade, buy and sell.
And also to get the Chinese to stop devaluing the yen.
And he wants to get the Mexicans to pay for the border.
And he's pretty specific about how to do that.
Pay for the border fence.
So as far as...
Getting money out of politics, who is promising less individual free stuff than Donald Trump?
Certainly not Bernie Sanders.
It's just endless wave of free stuff for people if you vote for Bernie Sanders.
Absolutely.
And that's just kind of restricted to lobbying things like Citizens United, Super PACs.
Stuff like that.
The straight bribes for the politicians themselves.
Because it does feel like there's no chance that anything, just even approaching any kind of just, I don't know, ethics.
When, you know, everybody, you can just whoever, everybody has their price, they say.
And you just keep raising your price to meet.
I mean, we've seen Hillary has, with the Clinton Foundation, the millions.
And I mean, just untold millions for everything from Getting countries nukes, to freeing murders, the things that she's taken these dollars for and then lobbied for, it's just...
There's no way to justify that.
Bernie, at least it seemed...
And again, I've moved on from Bernie, but it did seem like at least he's always done what he said he would do.
And while the guy has no idea about just basic math, it still was...
I liked that at least he...
It seemed like he would do what he said he was going to do, and one of the first things he said he would do is do everything he could to try to get the lobbying dollars and things like Citizens United repealed, which I understand would be the other two ostensibly co-equal branches of government would need to be involved in the Supreme Court in getting that repealed.
I don't know.
It seemed like a start.
A flawed one.
And again, the math and the, hey, free everything for everybody, you know, just is just so far from reality and any kind of logic and fiscally sound anything that I had to move away from him.
And I have moved towards Trump.
Mine now, again, it's not I'm speaking negative towards Trump.
It's just, I would like to think a healthy skepticism and That includes, yeah, questioning what his motives are and if it is just personal gain in power or if it is trying to make it better.
Whatever the motives are, I do believe the end result, at least at this point, and I may change my mind again, but I do believe that he would be better than anyone else.
It just...
I don't know.
It just...
I guess to bring it all the way back, it just...
Kind of surprised me that, and it shouldn't, and now that we've talked it out, I see exactly where you're coming from, but kind of surprised me that it sounds almost like an endorsement coming for you for a statist, for, I'm not going to say statism, and like you're suddenly, you know, espousing the wonders of statism, but it was just surprising.
You can understand why, can't you?
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I mean, I can certainly understand it.
And that's why I've spent hours and hours explaining it to people.
And if people feel that the information and arguments and evidence that I put forward is wrong, then they're certainly free to, you know, if there's a person who is going to better advance the course of peaceful parenting, I think that'd be fantastic.
I'll be 150% behind them.
And so that is my particular explanation.
And yeah, I can certainly understand it.
But, you know, when an entirely new thing comes along, then you have to absorb that new thing.
And that's a challenge.
I appreciate you bringing this topic up and I appreciate you having these questions.
It always is enjoyable to figure it out.
And listen, I check myself too, you know, my acting with integrity and I recognize or measure what it is that I'm arguing for relative to my long-term goals for a peaceful society.
But I... I really can't see how we're going to get it from to a free and peaceful society by bringing in a bunch of average IQ 87 in the long run Hispanics and Muslims who are dedicated to pretty much ancient tribalism and Sharia law I just don't see how that's gonna happen and that's new information from when I started I would not have imagined of course that this was going to be the next step in I
really appreciate your call.
Thank you so much.
And I'm sure we'll talk again.
Mike, who is up next?
Okay, up next is Chris.
Chris wrote in and said, Growing up during the 80s Cold War wasn't a lot of fun.
I remember it being a time of great worry, and I couldn't understand why leaders of countries were constantly threatening each other with warmongering language.
My teen years were littered with a sense of hopelessness, which I now know was the reason I rarely went to school after the age of 13.
As the mid-80s arrived, the AIDS hysteria began.
The BBC screamed, 10 million in Britain will die of AIDS within 10 years.
Today's children are bombarded with many dangers, such as terrorism and global warming.
How is this affecting our future generations?
Surely this is creating a fatalist generation.
That is from Chris.
Right.
How are you doing, Chris?
I'm good, Stefan.
How are you?
Well, oh, nice mic.
I appreciate that.
Good.
I put in a little extra effort.
Good.
Good.
All right.
So, what's your question?
How is it affecting our future generations?
Well, it's making them feel small, insignificant, and subject to random forces beyond their control for which they need a giant The R versus K stuff that I've talked about in the Gene Wars presentations,
which people should really check out, the R leaders are creating an R environment, which is an environment of random dangers, where you need a big, powerful government to protect you from terrorism and global warming.
And of course, back in our day, We were going to run out of oil.
I remember mass starvation being predicted for England in the 1980s, and this was in the 1970s.
And then, of course, there was the AIDS hysteria that it was going to cross over into the heterosexual population and kill millions of people and so on.
And, yeah, I mean, you see these dangers regularly.
I mean, there was the Ebola.
There was ALR in apples.
There was just, you know, a wide variety.
There was acid rain.
There was a hole in the ozone layer.
I've got a whole presentation on this, all the media scares I could think of in one breath.
And they do this for a variety of reasons, but basically it's just to make you feel afraid.
All the time.
It's to make you feel afraid and helpless.
If you can get, like fight or flight, is what this stuff is designed for, but if you can get people to be terrified and helpless then they are very very easy to rule.
Terrified is not enough because that's fight-or-flight.
Helpless is not enough because then they're apathetic, but if you can get them to be scared and feel helpless then their fear will fuel the expansion of state musculature and that is what is That's what it's all designed for, of course.
And this is why, fundamentally, outside of reasons of immediate profit, this is why governments sell massive amounts of arms around the world and then complain that there's danger in the world.
I mean, if the police fund and arm the mafia and then say, well, of course, we need to raise your taxes because of the mafia, well...
That's understandable from the point of view of the police and the tax collectors and the mafia.
It's just not that good for everyone else.
The degree of terror and anxiety and helplessness and dependence that is foisted upon children, it is the oldest game in the book.
Terrify children and make them helpless and then make them dependent and then make them dependent upon an Outside power for salvation it all of this stuff directly mirrors as I've said the the priests went into the media if you want to look at the new religion It's the mainstream media the priests abandoned they went into communism and then they went into the media at least in the West as the presage to socialism or communism and so in the Olden times
so to speak and even in some sections of modern Christianity and other religions There is the devil and the devil has you in its grip and the devil is in charge of the world And you are helpless you must pray you must donate you must subjugate yourself to the authority of the priest Because the devil is out there attempting you with evil and you're helpless in the face of it And even if you do all the right things without the blessing of the priest you're never going to get into heaven So terrifying people but these omnipresent devils in order to get them to subjugate themselves to
a priestly class or a media class or a political class is natural.
Sadism is extraordinarily profitable and the most profitable sadism is that directed against children.
Yeah, absolutely.
So would you agree that during the 80s this whole Media thing on the AIDS virus, that was intentional even back then.
It's instinctual.
It's instinctual.
I don't know, intentional, do they sit there and say, well, what's the next thing?
But it's instinctual.
I think that everybody kind of gets that if you can scare the crap out of people.
Well, first of all, we're attuned as animals, we are attuned to danger.
And the risk of ignoring danger is is far higher than the reward of ignoring danger, right?
So if you are in the woods and you hear a snapping of a twig behind you, well, it's probably just, you know, you step somewhere and the twig is popping up or a branch fell or it's a squirrel or something like that.
So how much effort does it take for you to turn around and look?
Not much.
How much effort does it take for you to start gearing up a little bit of the adrenaline and the cortisol and the fight-or-flight mechanism?
Well, it's not very costly to you.
However, if you just decide to shrug it off and say, oh, that's nothing, right?
And it is a bear or a saber-toothed tiger or something else that's going to rip your face off for lunch, Well, bye-bye, right?
You've lost crucial seconds by which you can run, climb a tree, fight back, do something, right?
Yeah.
And so, as biological organisms, we are attuned to be constantly scanning for danger.
And particularly as K-selected human beings, the more K-selected you are, the more anxious you are about long-term problems, right?
Eating your seed crop over the winter and stuff like that.
And so, particularly the The Asians and the Caucasians are very much attuned to potential dangers down the road.
And so when the newspaper says 10 million might die of AIDS, now you could say, you know, there's this old Paul Simon song where he says, I don't believe what I read in the papers.
They're just out to capture my dime.
And you might say, oh, well, you know, who cares, right?
I mean, it's just trying to capture my dime.
It's just a bunch of nonsense and so on.
If they are correct, that there's this massive immune system destroying virus making its way through the population, and you ignore it, you might die.
So it's all just Pascal's wager.
Hey, we might be full of bullshit.
But if we're not, as opposed to, well, there might not be a God in heaven and hell, but if there is and you go to hell, that's really, really bad.
Pascal's wager, of course, is, well, the downside is so huge and the upside is not that costly, so forget it, right?
Or another way of putting it, the downside is so huge...
But the costs of ignoring the downside are even worse, right?
So, like, you know, if there is a God and I don't believe, you know, I don't have to get up early on Sundays and I save a little bit of my money for donations, but then I go to hell.
You just make the negative so huge that you get people's attention.
That, I think, just hooks into hardwired biological aspects to our personality.
And...
The problem is, of course, the boy who cried wolf, right?
And the reason it works so well on the young is the young are not experienced enough to know, right?
This is the first time they've ever heard this boy crying wolf.
So they're like, oh, wolf, we're going to go out and...
Right?
Whereas, you know, when you get older, you know, I'm going to be 50 this year.
And when you get older, you're like...
I've heard this so many times before, you know, and there is this general transfer of bitter wisdom as you age, where you just realize that the fear mongers are so full of lies and so full of sadism and all that, that it's ridiculous.
Because the young people, well, they're all, and I haven't heard Wolf that much.
And it's kind of...
For those who have a decent conscience, and I think that this fear of future negative consequences has something to do with empathy insofar as you have to have empathy for your future self, which is why empathy and worry tend to go hand in hand.
And so where there is greater empathy...
Greater worry the people who are most susceptible to this kind of fear-mongering have a very tough time putting themselves into the mindset of People who would scare children for money and power because if you have empathy You probably don't really want to do that and it's hard to recognize that we're not all the same species You know we might look the same But we're about as similar as the cyborgs and the human beings on the new Battlestar Galactica.
And it looked the same, except for that whole glowing spine orgasm thing, which I actually think would be pretty cool, but topic for another time.
So if you are most susceptible to caution, to fear, to worry, to planning for the future and being aware of alarming information and acting on it, It means you have more empathy, I would argue.
But because you have more empathy, it's unimaginable to you that these people could just be making stuff up for fun and profit and power.
So I think that's one of the weaknesses.
Absolutely.
And just going back to something you just said there, which group of the R's and K's would be the most susceptible to the fear-mongering?
Well, the R's are good at fear-mongering, and the K's are susceptible to fear-mongering.
That's what I thought.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
And the case...
Because the case deal with reality and the R's manipulate people and so the R's are better at that, right?
And would you call...
It's basically what the media do upon our children is low-level terrorism.
Yeah, I mean, I don't...
Terrorism, I mean, that's the use of violence for political change.
If you would count verbal abuse as violence, fear-mongering as violence, I think you could certainly say that.
Psychological terrorism?
And it certainly does...
It does create, you know...
There is a show called Orange is the New Black.
And there's this...
I think what's colloquially called a diesel dyke in it.
And she's talking to this low-rent...
Crooked-tooth character called Doggett, and she goes into this whole explanation about how basically it's good that your kids died because they would have grown up to be criminals, right?
And the question is, who do these concerns work on the most?
The young people.
Who do these concerns work on the most?
They work on the most conscientious people.
And...
They work on the people who have the greatest sensitivity to future disasters.
And I would also argue they work on slightly less intelligent people.
And, you know, that generally tends to be whites.
Whites, slightly less intelligent than Asians, considerably less intelligent than Ashkenazi Jews.
And whites have evolved to be very cautious about future disasters, very scared of future disasters.
And this, I think, is particularly true because whites were a roaming group, right?
I mean, they explored the world, they did lots of trade and so on.
And so because of that, there were issues with disease and biocompatibility and so on.
And so I think that environmentalism, you know, I don't think it works on anyone really with an IQ below 90.
I just don't think that it does.
It generally is more intelligent people, more concerned and curious about the future.
And so I think environmentalism in particular, it sterilizes smarter people.
And this feeling of, well, the future is kind of risky.
You know, there's fiat currency.
There's a lot of national debt.
I don't know.
I don't know if I want to have kids.
There is that sort of caution, you know, the beginning of idiocracy.
This sort of portrays it very well.
Well, the way the market is, I don't know if it's the right time to have kids.
And then by the time they want to have kids, it's too late and all that.
So putting this general fear and anxiety and future disasters out there, it doesn't affect your IQ 85 people who are just like, let's fuck!
Yeah, yeah.
But the smarter, it's a way of...
Of sterilizing smarter people.
Smarter people, of course, represent a significant threat to the powers that be.
So I think there's a wide variety of reasons for these fears.
But there are genuine reasons to be concerned.
It's just none of what they, none of what the media or anyone else talks about.
But I think during the 80s, there was an actual threat there with the Soviet Russia and America, you know?
Or was that all just made up?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I think there was a threat there, but the real threat was not that there was going to be nuclear war.
The real threat was that Communism was being brought in through the back door in the West, which is basically what's happened.
I mean, what's Obamacare other than halfway communism?
What's fiat currency other than government control of the currency, which is a communist practice?
So what is central banking other than Communism.
What are public schools other than communism?
What is the military-industrial complex other than exactly what happened under communism?
What is government control of the land other than communism?
What is government control of food production other than communism?
What is government control and creation of the roads other than communism?
So this idea that there was this great danger from the Soviet Union, it's like the Soviet Union fell, but the virus had already transferred through the intellectual, through the public schools, through the Through the artists, well, it had already come over.
And so that to me was the real danger, which of course was never talked about.
Yeah, and Western culture isn't inherently...
This is my concern, really.
Western culture isn't inherently faithless.
Who is it?
Max Weber...
I argued that capitalism first emerged in Protestant countries and not elsewhere because as religions go the Protestant faith was less faithfulistic than others.
Which then brings me to Western teenagers today.
So are we becoming our young generations?
I mean, obviously, I got affected a little bit by it.
I mean, I grew out of it.
You know, if I didn't, I would have became a liberal.
Because, you know, even at the age of like 13, because I was frightened of all these governments, I thought, what would be the solution?
I thought, right, what we need is one leader.
And one government of the world.
And this is, you know, I was completely non-political at all at the time.
I'm just sort of basing that thoughts at the time on what I was hearing in the news, you know?
So basically, back to the point again, are our younger generations becoming more fatalistic?
And fatalistic to the point, and this is what does concern me a little bit, that fatalistic, that they won't take any action.
It'll just be pure inaction.
With what I think is coming over the horizon.
That's really it, you know?
I think we can all grow out of it, because obviously we're more susceptible to that when we were younger.
But, you know, it can take some people a bit longer, and some people never grow out of it.
Yeah.
There's a great quote from H.L. Mencken, M-E-N-C-K-E-N, who almost always rewards Anybody who reads him with great insights, this is a famous quote, but it encapsulates what we're talking about.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
All of them?
All of them.
Imaginary.
Well, yeah, good quote.
Yeah.
And as far as fighting it goes, I'm not sure the degree of enthusiasm and activism that young people, I don't really have much contact with young people who are activists, but it's not looking good.
You know, there was this study, I think it was at Yale, it's not a study, but a sort of On the street thing where they were more than happy to give up their rights of freedom of speech.
And we have all of this nonsense about safe spaces and hug rooms and triggerings and all this, a bunch of hysterics.
And hysteria is fundamentally fascistic.
Hysteria is when opposing ideas so provoke your anxiety that you wish to lash out and destroy them.
And it is childish.
It is, dare I say, single mom womanly.
And this is, of course, you know, this is a bunch of young people all raised by women.
All raised by single moms or with women in power, with women in their daycares and in their primary schools and in their junior highs.
So this is a generation of men raised by women and women raised by women.
And they're all hysterical and they can't handle contrary opinions.
Which is not unknown to some women.
Let me put it to you that way.
So, you know, they've always said, well, if women are around the world, it'll be a paradise.
Well, let's, you know, we are now in the process of finding out exactly what the world looks like when women are basically in charge of just about everything.
And, you know, the rough and tumble of male play where you don't give quarter, you fight hard and you win and...
And you debate and you argue and you make fun of anybody who takes it so personally that they burst into tears.
That's how I grew up.
I don't know if that's how you grew up.
You sound Scottish, though I assume so.
Yeah.
You know, it's like, I'm sorry if you're crying because you lost the argument.
Roundly mocked.
And that's how it should be.
That's how it should be.
Because feelings are not tools of cognition, as the late great Ayn Rand memorably said.
Feelings are not.
Tools of cognition and the fact that people are upset is absolutely irrelevant and all it does is signal that they're not capable of mature and Reasoned debate that doesn't mean don't get upset.
I mean people can get upset passionate they can yell and scream I know I do but if you feel that the other person should stop talking because you're upset then you're a cry bully right you're a Weeping fascist, you know, you've got Your fist is curling underneath your wet handkerchief in order to punch people who are upsetting you.
And it means that you have no self-mastery.
You have no self-governance.
You have no capacity to manage your emotions.
You are less than a child.
You're actually an infant.
Children know how to manage their emotions.
But at least if they're taught well, but babies simply can't be talked out of feeling bad They have overwhelming stimuli and it simply means that they've these people for reasons of parenting and reasons of Media reinforcement.
They have simply not Realized that other people's offensive statements can't kill you but wishing to squelch other people's offensive statements will kill civilization Yeah There's only one solution, really, is it?
Free society.
Peaceful parenting.
Yeah, that's how it's got to go.
Yeah, that's how it's got to go.
Alright, man, can I move on to the next caller?
Great questions, though.
Alright, thanks for having me.
It was great.
You're very welcome.
Come back anytime.
Alright, bye.
That's it for tonight, Steph.
Get out of town on a pony.
Uh-huh.
Had someone cancelled the last minute, sometimes that happens.
That's alright.
You know, we can balance out some of the four-hour shows with the hour-and-a-quarter shows.
I've got no complaints with that.
My daughter will be thrilled if I can read her a story for bedtime.
Alright.
Well, have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week.
Happy New Year to everyone.
FDRURL.com slash donate or FreeDomainRadio.com slash donate to help out the show, to help us survive and thrive.
We really, really need your help and your support.
Sign up for a subscription.
It is...
It's more than important.
It's essential.
We can't do it without you.
So please go to freedomainradio.com slash donate.
We've put out a bunch of great shows lately.
There's one on the German crisis, which I hope that you will like and share and subscribe.
And for those of you who haven't checked out the videos on the Oregon...
Rancher situation.
There's two there that I think are also very important to check out.
So thanks everyone for your support.
It is a genuine joy, pleasure and honor to be having conversations with you about these most important subjects in the known universe.
Have a great week.
▲
Export Selection