Jan. 16, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:40:31
3177 A Fetish For Conspiracy - Call In Show - January 8th, 2016
0:00 – “Do you see something strangely amiss in the fact that three buildings collapsed at the WTC on September 11th when only two were even damaged by airplanes flying into them and even then the fires were not hot enough to melt steel; and the media seems afraid to come forward to discuss the details?”1:22:35 – “Using Stefan´s definition of love as an involuntary response to virtue if one is himself virtuous: Why do parents love their children? Since newborns, toddlers and young kids in general aren´t able to be virtuous for at least multiple months or years from birth on, are the positive emotions on the side of parents falsely described as love and should rather be called bonding or preference of the own gene set?”1:32:48 – “I’m starting my own philosophy show; do you have any advice?”1:51:50 – “Climate Change is a huge topic nowadays. In all of my university science classes, I have learned that it is a 100% fact that humans are a large cause of climate change and that this will be a huge problem for our future children, etc. What do you say to that? And why is it that anyone who is skeptical is so aggressively shot down as a “climate change denier?”2:15:20 – “Since the IQ test was created by white men, does that mean it is somehow skewed towards the type of intelligence that white men have?“
John wrote in and said, Do you see something strangely amiss in the fact that three buildings collapsed at the World Trade Center at 9-11 when only two were even damaged by airplanes flying into them and even the fires were not hot enough to melt steel?
And the media seems afraid to come forward to discuss the details.
That's from John.
Well, hello John.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing?
Good.
Can you hear me?
So, yeah, I can hear you fine.
When did you first start to get into the 9-11 stuff?
Oh, it's probably been at least a year now.
About a year.
And how did you first come across it as a phenomenon?
Yes, I'm not even sure how I got on to it, but I went further and further down the rabbit hole, as they say.
Right.
And how much time would you say you've spent on this topic?
Well, probably 100 hours at least.
And was there something in particular that swayed your thinking in this way?
Well, there were a lot of things that people could call a coincidence.
But then when you start looking at the physics and evidence of...
Very small iron particles, little spheres that only come from molten metal.
And the side of molten metal pouring from the side of the building.
And then traces of some, well, what's been termed nanothermite.
Little red particles that look like they've been made up from a molecular level, which a typical chemist couldn't do, which there's some evidence that it might have come from a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory or Los Alamos, the same place where the anthrax that you're probably familiar with if you remember was traced to.
Now, sorry, just to interrupt, but this won't mean anything to people not in the know?
Right.
I mean, I remember some years ago looking into this stuff, and we used to discuss it on the Free Domain Radio message boards and so on.
And again, I'm, you know, not to put you exactly in the same category, but when it came to, like, people who have unusual ideas, like Flat Earth and so on, I'm like, you know, I'm sure that my ideas strike people as crazier or more unorthodox sometimes than things like Flat Earth or controlled demolition of the buildings in...
On 9-11, but the way that you're talking about it, somebody who's not in the know wouldn't be able to, I think, understand what it is that you're talking about.
So I wonder if you could, so the thermite issue, I wonder if you can explain that to somebody who doesn't know anything about it.
I just took one year of high school and one year of college chemistry, so I'm no expert.
But when I was a child, I was able to mix gunpowder quite easily.
I could do it by sight without a measuring spoon.
I could tell by the colors.
And I could make thermite, I understand.
But nanothermite is a different issue.
Apparently it's made in very, very thin layers, which a typical chemist couldn't do.
And there are reports that the United States government has been experimenting and using such things since about 1995 or so.
I'm sorry, but I'm sorry.
Again, just for those who are not familiar with it, the fact that you say the words microthermite or the word microthermite, people don't know what that means.
Is it the idea that microthermite was found?
It's nano, which would it really...
Means that it's made on a much, much finer level.
Normal thermite would just be mixing powders together and it was used for many years to weld railroad tracks from about 1895 on.
But this nanothermite was not invented until maybe 1995 or so, perhaps by only the United States military.
And what does this have to do with 9-11?
It can cut steel beams in just one second.
It's very logical, I think, that nanothermite was placed in those buildings.
Most people shoot that down without really looking at very many details, but when they consider things like the president's brother, was very high up in the company that did security at the World Trade Center and that the elevators were being repaired for about a year before and dogs that smelled explosives were kept out of the World Trade Center for the weeks
leading up to 9-11 and there was a lockdown on the buildings where all the security was turned off just before Before 9-11 where anybody could have come and gone with explosives or setting up charges.
So anyway, that's part of what's behind where I'm coming from.
Sorry, let me just make sure I understand.
So the theory is that the...
The building was detonated from the inside and the evidence for it is this nano stuff, is that right?
Yes, and that the planes were just something to make it look logical to 99% of the people.
But there are thousands of engineers and architects who say, Those planes could not have brought the buildings down by themselves.
And the buildings fell too fast.
It broke Newton's, a couple of Newton's theories on gravity, for instance, like a building cannot fall in free fall when there's resistance underneath it.
And pieces of the building were shot out and stuck in other buildings a couple hundred yards away.
Huge pieces of building were No steel building in history has ever had a total collapse like the Twin Towers.
A person views it, they'll actually see pieces flying out with what supposedly has been measured 70 mile per hour arrows flying through and sticking in other buildings 200-300 yards away.
It does not look like a collapse like you might imagine from an earthquake.
very much looks like an explosion.
Right.
Now, of course, this was fairly unprecedented in the history of architecture and engineering to have two planes with a fairly significant amount of fuel flown into these skyscrapers.
I don't know about the nanothermite.
I mean, you know, when I'm told stuff that I can't verify for myself that's sort of counterintuitive, my general position is skepticism.
As far as, you know, bits of the building flying out and embedding itself in other bits of building, I can certainly see that, you know, as something buckles, there's a huge amount of outward pressure that forces things out.
But again, I'm no engineer and I'm no architect and so on.
Now, is the idea that there were people in the airplanes that flew into the World Trade Centers, or is the idea that there were no people in those airplanes?
Well, there's different discussions, and I hate to speculate on it.
There's people as famous as John Lear, the son of the inventor of the Learjet.
Who's got, you know, 20,000 hours or something flying and he says there are no planes and there's some behind that.
There's people who definitely contend that and they have quite a bit of evidence.
Wait, so there were no planes in the Pennsylvania field, no planes in the Pentagon and no planes that flew into the World Trade Center?
Yeah, I wish I wish you had a hundred hours to study this.
Yes, I could go one by one.
I mean, there's a lady in Pennsylvania who actually, and she sounds very real.
I've seen her on video.
She looks very, very much just like, you know, your mother might.
Very honest, telling you what, describing something going over her car that looks very much like a cruise missile and then plane parts eight miles apart, pieces of the plane.
Eight miles apart, which doesn't sound like it just nosedived into the ground.
And the coroner said he saw no reason to have a coroner there when he got there.
There was not a drop of blood or not a sign of a body.
There are just lots of little things that didn't quite add up.
But as far as the actual World Trade Center itself, one of the things that caught the attention of quite a few architects and engineers was Building 7.
Which the NIST report really just ignored.
Building 7 would have been the tallest building in 33 of our states if it had been there.
It was 47 stories high and several hundred yards from the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2.
And they claim the government report, which almost ignores it completely, but they do Contend that the falling buildings one and two somehow lit it on fire,
and the fire alone brought down this 47-story building that had approximately the size of a football field, and it felt perfectly just like a controlled demolition from fire alone is what they're claiming.
But one big problem with that is, if you don't mind me going on a little longer, there was a man called Barry Jennings who worked on the 23rd floor of that 47-story building alongside Giuliani normally.
But on that particular day, he got up there just after the first plane hit, and there was nobody there.
There was coffee steaming on the desk, sandwiches half-eaten, and nobody was there.
He got on the phone and was told to get the hell out of the building.
What I'm saying right now is all on a video.
You can actually watch Barry say this in his own words.
He ran down the stairs with another man named Hess.
They got to about the eighth floor and there was a huge explosion.
I believe that the stairwell actually went out from under him and he Thought he was a goner, he thought he was dead, but eventually him and his fellow person leaving there broke out a window with a fire extinguisher and the fire trucks said,
you know, we'll get you down and they started to attempt to rescue him, but then the first building fell and they all ran for it and then a few minutes later they came back and they were going to help him again and then the second building fell.
Well, Barry's testimony actually says that his building had these huge explosions before either of the other two towers fell, which contradicts the government.
And then as Barry went down through the lobby of building number seven, firefighters helped him out eventually.
He said he was stepping over bodies, which weren't supposed to be there.
And then Barry mysteriously died at a very young age.
And I think it might have had something to do with him claiming that the buildings had multiple explosions before the Twin Towers ever came down to damage it.
So that's one issue there.
Okay, and now we can't just keep going on and on, right?
Because I'm sure as you're skeptical of the government story, skepticism does have some validity.
Let's start with the no planes theory.
That seems very surprising to me because, of course, there were many, many witnesses, eyewitnesses, a wide variety of camera angles, planes that were missing, people who never came back down to the ground after going up in a plane.
So the argument that there are no planes, that's such an extraordinary claim that the The burden of proof would have to be extraordinary, because that would be a conspiracy not just of the US government, but of all the people who claim to have witnessed it, and would the argument be that the video footage itself was also faked and so on?
Well, yes, part of it is, actually.
No, no, no.
Part of it couldn't be faked.
It would all have to be faked, right?
Well, yes, but I believe you asked the video, and then you were asking about eyewitnesses, two different things.
One of the shots that we all remember, I mean, I was there that day myself.
You know, I thought I watched the second plane hitting the tower.
But it's very interesting if you study it.
And most people don't bother studying it.
I mean, they just assume that what they saw, what they think they saw happened.
But if you look closely at it again, you'll see a...
a distant shot of the two towers with one of them on fire and they're panning the situation from five miles away from a helicopter and then they zoom in on the two towers and a few seconds later you see the plane hit the second tower and a question that arises is where was that plane In the shot when it was a wide angle.
It's not to be seen.
Like, where did that plane come from?
Also, the nose of that plane went all the way through the building and out the other side of the building.
That's what it certainly appears like.
And an expert at making videos...
I have some of that...
I have a son in my family who's a video maker.
But anyway...
They can explain how that was the accident when they were filming that.
And you only saw it once on TV for a few seconds.
And then when they came back and tried to show it again, I believe it looks like they realized they made a big mistake showing that plane coming all the way through the building, which obviously would be impossible since the nose of an airplane is just hollow plastic.
What they did is they put the CNN or the Fox News banner up to hide it.
So you can only see above that on A second later when you got to see it again for the last time.
So it's very interesting how a jet plane could have gone all the way through the building.
Sorry to interrupt, but generally my particular thing is if you're trying to explain something extraordinary to someone, just keep on going is very off-putting.
Okay.
So not giving me a chance to speak or to rebut is very off-putting because it sounds kind of like you're only interested in your own thoughts and not in the response of anyone you're talking to.
So when I'm trying to explain something really surprising to someone, I'll usually, well, what do you think?
Or does this make any sense?
Because if you just keep going, I don't really feel like I'm part of the conversation.
I see.
Like, you haven't asked me once, what do you think, or what are your thoughts about it, or anything like that.
And I'm just saying, as a communicator, and that's kind of what I do, if you're explaining something really hard to accept and extraordinary to someone, you really do need to ask for their feedback.
Okay, I'm not sure where to stop.
If I could see you, you could raise a hand, perhaps.
But that...
Wait, you mean you don't know how to ask me what I think?
Well, about...
Everything I said, yes.
And I know there's several paragraphs there.
Well, you've brought on at least half a dozen, possibly a dozen things that are quite extraordinary claims.
I'm just pointing out, it's hard to have a conversation when you just keep going.
Okay, so the idea might be that explosive devices are put into the buildings.
And it would be a huge job to put explosive devices into these two buildings.
You know, like 50,000 workers going in and out of the building.
There are security systems and guards.
And that is quite a bit of...
of work to try and get that done with no one noticing anything that might be going along.
Now it's true as far as I understand it that no tall steel frame building has collapsed before 9-11 due to fire.
Now due to fire is a bit of a misnomer because the major issue It was not just, of course, the structural problems of two giant airplanes flying into the buildings, but also because this massive amount of jet fuel.
And, you know, I just know this when I used to work as a gold painter and prospector up north after high school.
We were in incredibly cold places.
You know, we were deep, deep in the woods, like you could only fly a seaplane in to get there.
And I was there in the middle of winter.
It was getting to be like minus 30, minus 40.
And we actually had to mix jet fuel in with our regular fuel just to make it warm enough in the tents that we were in.
So I do know that, at least from that standpoint, jet fuel burns extremely, extremely hot.
There are other tall steel frame buildings that have fallen down since 9-11.
In 2008, this is from skeptic.com, a large part of the tall concrete reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly straight down collapse, mostly into its own footprint.
Gravity increases the force of a falling object by a factor of 30 for a single collapsing floor, and collapsing buildings have nowhere to go but straight down.
Other types of steel frame structures have collapsed.
Due to fire.
With regards to the freefall collapse of the Twin Towers, it's not freefall, it was almost freefall.
And 80,000 tons of structural steel did slow down the collapse of the Twin Towers to about two-thirds of freefall.
And the core collapsed at about 40% of freefall coming down last.
And of course, if it was controlled demolition, the core structures would be the ones that would be brought down first.
And the fact that the stronger core columns came down last means that it would not at least be in accordance with the most fundamental rules of controlled demolition, which is to bring down the core and the stronger structures first.
And those, again, the back and forth, I don't think either of us are particularly competent, but as you present a particular perspective, I think it's important for people to see alternative perspectives as well.
Sure.
Can I say a few words?
Sure.
A kerosene is basically what jet fuel is and I believe it burns a max of 1400 and a little kerosene heater that you people might have in their bedroom or their cabin burns at a maximum of 1800 and I've got a fire going right here behind me here like we've all had fires on our stove and without oxygen being sent in like a blast heater a typical you know carbon-based fire won't burn hot enough It won't come
close to melting steel, which was seen coming out of those buildings.
It takes about 27 or 800 degrees.
As far as the center of that building, in the video you can actually see the antenna on the World Trade Center tower falling before the outside of the structure.
You can actually see it going down several feet.
And there's also places, I'm running on again, But I think you did it a little bit also, where you can actually see when it pretty much all fallen, there was still a huge spike sticking in the air, one of the corners of the building.
And if you just kept your eye on it, it seemed very, very clearly outlined, a very crisp outline.
And then it just turned to dust as you looked at it.
It didn't fall down.
It didn't fall to the side.
It just...
It became a cloud and like blew away, which is very suspicious also.
And the temperatures for two or three months, I believe the government reported temperatures of 1400 degrees under the ground weeks and weeks after millions of gallons of water had been poured on it, which was also a sign of Of a chemical like thermite which has the oxygen already in it.
A little bit like a sparkler you could use on 4th of July.
You can put it under water and it keeps going.
So anyway, you should be able to pile all the firewood you want in the World Trade Center.
And start that fire with gasoline.
And it should never have gotten hot enough to put the building down.
In fact, there's a famous photograph that you can look there on your computer.
Mike can probably bring it up for you.
There's a lady, I got her name here somewhere.
She's standing, her name is Edna Cintron.
She's standing in the hole that the airplane supposedly made.
And she's got blonde hair and she looks...
I mean, you could take that picture and transpose it to her standing on the beach.
She seems pretty healthy, like it's not that hot of a fire.
And a fireman up there in the building actually said, two isolated, how did he put it?
I've got his exact quote, but basically there's two isolated little fires here and two hoses will knock it down.
That just doesn't quite compute how that building could come down after he said that within an hour and hundreds and hundreds of people heard multiple explosions.
Should I stop for a minute?
Well, yeah.
I mean, so we're not really having much of a debate because you're putting stuff.
I'm putting counter stuff when you're going on with other stuff.
Yeah, I'm not sure.
As far as the nanothermites, I just want to read the rebuttal again.
I don't know, but...
So let's see here.
Niels Harrit, Stephen Jones, and other 9-11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center.
They made sure that the dust samples were untainted and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny...
Red, grey chips were heated up.
Thermites reach temperatures of about 4500 degrees and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater.
These guys should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning.
They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen.
They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites and found that their chips ignited at about 150 degrees Celsius, lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor at least of two, yet they called this a match for nanothermite.
Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal.
Marc Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released.
A chemist named Frederick Henry Cuanier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, Eventually, the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.
The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material.
And again, these are just counterpoints to the arguments put forward that I think are important for at least my listeners to get a hold of.
Yes.
I believe the nanothermite by Neal Territ was actually put in a scientific journal for peer review.
And from what I've heard, there's no peer review that debunked it.
And I've seen the little, you know, I've seen it on film, obviously.
I wasn't there.
But I've seen the little red ships lit.
And I've seen them.
And they certainly go off.
Some people tried to claim they were paint, which was Obviously nonsense.
I believe it took 430 Fahrenheit for it to go off, but it did.
And if you take, there's just a lot of just, you might say circumstantial evidence that Those buildings were reduced to just fine powder.
The powder was so fine.
People who've recorded it couldn't understand it.
They'd never seen anything like it.
Just a few other little things about the airplane.
The airplane that flew into the North Tower was supposed to be a United Airlines plane.
The engine that was on the street there, you can see photographs of it.
It was an engine that United Airlines, that plane would never have used.
Also, there was a passport of a terrorist there, supposedly.
Did he roll down the window on the airplane and throw that out?
And then the black boxes were so damaged they couldn't even read them or find them, and yet there's a passport?
It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me, and the wrong engine.
And that was Lear, who was pretty There's a respected pilot telling you that it just couldn't have been.
In fact, he'll actually tell you that there were no planes.
Okay.
So, I mean, obviously it's a bit of a hole with no bottom to go into all of the physical evidence that may or may not be there, and most of it's hearsay, and of course a lot of the physical evidence has been destroyed by having the structures and their remnants hauled off and tossed out in New Jersey.
I think they were, it's all gone, right?
I mean, as far as, I mean, so if the argument is that there were no planes, that's an extraordinary claim.
And the burden of proof would have to be extraordinarily high for something like that, of course, as you know.
And if the argument is that the planes were drones, then of course the challenge is what happened to the hundreds and hundreds of people who never came back home after getting on these planes.
And so that becomes a bit of a challenge, to say the least, as well.
If...
The planes were hijacked but flown in to the World Trade Center, but there was a controlled demolition.
That also becomes somewhat problematic.
Who are you going to find to fly that suicide mission and so on?
And the bigger, I guess the bigger question is...
What is it for?
Why would this be undertaken by a government?
Look, governments grow on their own anyway.
I mean, we can see this under the Obama presidency, right?
Governments just keep growing and keep growing.
And usually, because they're out there in the Middle East poking these hornets' nests of discontented radicals, you just keep doing that, and sooner or later, you are going to get some kind of blowback.
The fact that it's this kind of attack on civilian targets is consistent with other Al-Qaeda and Mujahideen targets.
The fact that there did seem to be plans for this in certain Al-Qaeda cells in the Middle East and so on.
It becomes a challenge that gets increasingly difficult.
And, you know, these kinds of things, if basically what you're accusing the government of is an unbelievable crime.
And the burden for proof in criminal matters is like 95 or more percent.
In civil matters, it's like 50, 50, 51, 49.
But the burden of proof, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
In your mind, my friend, do you feel that this has been proven as valid as a government conspiracy?
There were no planes or whatever.
Do you feel that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Or do you think that these are just interesting questions to be asked for which we don't have any conclusive or final say?
Well, I don't really have any credentials myself.
But I... I think I have a pretty reasonable mind.
I was able to retire with 10 children and send them all through college, and I did that at a very young age, and I own a business that gives me a seven-figure income, and I haven't worked for, you know, 40 years.
PNAC. Have you heard of PNAC? It's the Project for a New American Century.
Yes.
PNAC? And on 9-11-2000, just exactly a year before 9-11, it was a group of men, Wolfowitz was in there, and Rundfeld, and quite a few others that ended up being in the Bush administration, I believe 14 of them actually, and they wrote a document.
It was the seminal report, it was the geostrategic interest of the United States, and it called for regime change in Iraq, But let me just quote one sentence in it.
It said the process of revolutionary change is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
That's word for word.
And I say that 9-11 was the new Pearl Harbor.
This document called for increased military budget, preemptive strikes, unilateral force, and they were after vital resources.
I don't want to go on and on, but I could for an hour.
There was a general, I believe it was Wesley Clark, who spoke in front of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.
They invite dignitaries there.
He was retiring about then, and he went into the Pentagon where he was welcomed.
One of the other generals said, come on in here, Wes, I want to show you something.
He went in and it was explained to him how the United States, there's been a cabal at the top of our government in the military industrial complex, you might say, who was involved in taking over seven countries in the Middle East.
And that's a video you can actually watch on YouTube, the general talking at the club there in San Francisco, the Commonwealth Club.
But I think it's very interesting that exactly a year later, they got their new Pearl Harbor, and the reason for it was the oil, of course, and their PNAC, their statement, which they've been working on for years, but Wolfowitz, I'm sure you're familiar with him, was very involved in Rumsfeld, and it called for United States dominance in the world for this next century.
And it kind of folds into a new world order and some of these fellows look like perhaps they wanted to be at the top of that new world order.
So am I safe in guessing that you're not going to answer my question or perhaps you don't even remember what it was?
Sorry.
Do you remember the question I asked by chance?
It's been so long.
Right.
Does that alarm you at all that I ask you a question and you go on some rambling monologue and never address the question and don't even remember what it was?
Was it the 95% proof question?
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
That's why I brought up the nanothermite early on and what physicists have to say about those buildings collapse.
Because to me, there's no excuse for explosives being in those buildings.
And if there was an explosive there, how did it get there?
And to me, the proof is that there was nanothermite there.
And nanothermite is just a word, of course.
It's thermite, and then they put the word nano in front of it because it's microscopic.
But it's obviously something that a typical chemist And I'm talking about there wouldn't be one out of a thousand chemists that would even know where to start to make it from what I've read about it.
It's something that took probably millions of dollars to develop.
And the chemists that look at it and see how thin the layers are wouldn't even know where to start.
So who developed that if it wasn't the United States government?
And I believe it was the United States Marine Corps even.
I believe there's some leads back to them, back maybe 1996 or so.
That that's something they were working on.
But I don't...
So if nanothermites, which burn at 4500 degrees Celsius, were used to destroy almost every inch of the concrete floor, how could there be millions of sheets of paper floating out of the buildings?
Because paper, of course, as we know from the Ray Bradbury novel, ignites at 451 degrees.
That's another interesting thing.
There were photographs.
A hundred times less than the nanothermite temperature.
Yeah, it's very, very interesting.
There were photographs of cars, I believe it was 1,200 or 1,400 cars, that were basically melted.
It's very, very interesting.
If you take a look at the cars, that doesn't look like a collapse.
What would ignite those cars?
And then the same photos with those cars, some of them were upside down on top of other cars.
There were papers on the ground that weren't burnt, like they'd burned out, Blown in the wind, there were trees also that still had their leaves on them, so it's very, very unusual.
I don't even want to bring this up, I'm reluctant, but there's other people like Judy Wood who actually say there was some kind of a nuclear device of some kind used and she has some evidence for that.
But those cars, I mean, you know, we've seen buildings before that have come down and like in Haiti and earthquakes and all and What would be a reason for 1,200 or 1,400 cars being basically melted in very weird ways?
I mean, on some of them a little further away, you could just see all the door handles were melted off.
And some of them were just grotesque.
You wouldn't even recognize what kind of a car that was.
How could that have been from a fire that was just on a few floors of a building?
And there were first responders walking over the wreckage less than an hour after the tower collapsed.
And if there's 4,500-degree Heart of the Sun thermo nanothermites being used, it seems unusual that they would be able to walk over the wreckage less than an hour after the tower collapsed.
And there's extensive video footage of that, as far as I understand it.
I don't know, but there's also videos there with some of the steel pieces four to five inches thick that are twisted around like pretzels.
And, you know, you probably know more about physics and history than I do, but I know that you could take a pile of firewood and stack it in those buildings or any amount of furniture you wanted.
In most of those buildings, it was very restricted what you could bring in, but you could bring in, you know, 50 cords of firewood and put it up there and light it, and you would get an oxygen-starved fire with black smoke, which is what we saw And it would not be a hot enough fire to do much damage.
It could not possibly get over half of the temperature that it would take to melt steel.
Now, the NASA thermal images showed a maximum temperature in the rubble of 1400 degrees, while, of course, the argument is that it's much higher because of, you know, molten steel and nanothermites and so on, and I think that's a challenge as well.
Also, the firefighters did pour literally millions of gallons of water onto this rubble, and, of course, when water comes in contact with molten steel or iron, there's a Well, 1,400 degrees several weeks later, and there was nothing to burn, basically.
In fact, the governor, Pataki, I believe his name was, stood there and said, like, where did the building go?
There was no concrete left.
It was just a pile of steel.
It had all been blown all over the city.
There are videos there that'll actually have telling you that the workmen had to change their boots.
They were melting.
And there were firefighters there who said it looked like you were in a...
There was molten iron just pouring.
And you couldn't possibly get that from any fire that just has oxygen and wood, unless you're forcing the oxygen in like a cutting torch.
You know, you've put pans on your stove, you could leave them all day long, and those fires actually have a mix of oxygen and gas.
There's an oxygen, like a mixture under your burner on your stove, so that's a hotter fire than the fire that is the yellow flames you see on a bonfire that's out looking for oxygen.
That's what the flames are doing.
They're trying to complete combustion is what they're after.
Right.
Okay.
So, there's not a lot of rebuttals.
I don't know if you've read a lot of—and it is tough, you know, when you have a particular thing that you're really into, reading the rebuttals can be, you know, a challenge, right?
But there are some rebuttals to some of these arguments, even just at the physical level, and again, far from an expert myself— But the argument that you sort of made that they said, well, we're not going to get the kind of growth in government power that we want if we don't have some kind of disaster that will occur.
Well, yeah, I mean, governments have always been willing to exploit particular disasters in order to expand their power.
And it's hard to imagine something like the Patriot Act Or the Department of Homeland Security being able to be summoned into existence without something like 9-11.
But just because somebody profits or the government profits in terms of its power from a disaster like this is not necessarily proof that the government engineered that disaster.
I mean directly.
A lot of this stuff is not provable, but you mentioned profit.
Larry Silverstein had $14 million invested, and I believe he came out with $4.5 billion.
And I probably shouldn't get into the Saudi and the Israeli connections, but there are a lot of them.
Insider trading was a very big issue.
Okay, but hang on a sec.
Yeah, so people profited from it.
Just because somebody profits from it doesn't mean...
You know, if a building is on fire and, I don't know, I grab a television from it, it doesn't mean that I set the fire.
It means I'm sort of profiting from the disaster.
But you have said, John, that it's not provable, right?
Well, some of this I think could have been, except that...
I think the United States government covered things up.
I don't think it was an accident that...
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
You said it's not provable.
And I respect you for that.
I mean, I think that's a reasonable thing to say, that these possibilities, they're not...
There's no smoking gun.
It's not provable, right?
The government...
Took away that debris.
They had over 140 truckloads.
Look, I get that.
But you said it's not provable.
And I'm not trying to corner you on that.
That's a word that you said.
And so I guess my question is...
Maybe it is still provable.
It's not provable at the moment.
Well, yeah, insider trading was another issue.
You may have been aware of this, but never in history had there been so many puts on American Airlines and United Airlines.
It's like it was unbelievable.
People made many, many millions of dollars betting against those airlines just that day, more than it ever happened before.
And how do you know that?
Because we have the exact numbers on that.
How do you have the exact numbers on that?
How do people have the exact number of these puts?
Well, what they had here was there was 4,744 puts on United Airlines.
How do people know that?
I've worked in a trading company and generally the stock is kept pretty private.
I think the SEC was willing to say that and they also said American Airlines had 4,516 but they only had, United had 396 calls.
I don't know if that's true or not.
I mean, I'm pretty skeptical towards this kind of stuff.
But let me put it to you this way.
You know how people say, I had a dream about a white cat jumping off a ladder last night.
And the next thing, the next day, what happened was I saw a white cat jumping off a ladder.
And people say, like, ooh, dreams are foreshadowing.
They predict the future and so on.
And we always forget the number of dreams that we've had that don't come true.
So my question is not, okay, so even if we accept that there were all these puts on the stock price, how many times are there puts on stock prices where this doesn't happen, right?
So the fact that there were puts and that this does happen seems, it's important to, I don't know if the data's being collected for that.
Okay, your turn to catch your breath.
Listen to this.
And of course I wasn't there, but the SEC did investigate this.
There were 258 times The average puts.
That means if there only normally been one, there was 258.
Or if there's normally two, there's 516.
So it wasn't even close.
And Raytheon had six times the normal options trade.
And the SEC, when they finally came out with their report, they said they weren't really alarmed since no trades were traced to Terrorist suspects.
But obviously the SEC, and I guess I'm making an accusation, had information.
They had names of people who made those puts and made those bets.
And they never, they destroyed that information.
Just like the...
Sorry, who destroyed what information?
The SEC. The Security and Exchange Commission.
Yeah, no, I know what the SEC is.
Which information did they destroy?
Oh, who bought those puts?
Who made those puts?
Why would the SEC destroy that information?
Because I think they were told to by higher-ups.
Maybe Bush?
Somebody high up.
And how...
So there was no trace through to the people who made the trades, and that's because...
The higher-ups asked the SEC to destroy the information.
Yeah, there were two ways that could be traced, I understood.
And one place was through the banks.
And it became top secret.
The people, they hired all these people to go gather the information.
And those people were told that it was totally, they would go to jail if they disclosed any of the information.
They gave it to their bosses.
The bosses said, it doesn't look interesting.
And they got rid of it.
Why would they get rid of it if it's 258 times the average puts?
Let me ask you this.
Do you know, because you claim to have some business knowledge and experience, which I of course accept, John, but do you know what happened immediately before these puts from American Airlines?
You mean like in the airline industry?
No, just the American airline, the American itself, American Airlines itself, not the industry.
Well, let me put it this way.
None of the other airlines had any unusual trading.
It was only United and American.
Okay, so I'm guessing that's a no.
So what happened is the American puts followed the trading day after the company had released a major profit warning.
No.
And that's when you would expect that investors would anticipate that the shares would fall.
No.
And United Airlines trade volumes were lower than the spikes that had occurred in March and April of that year.
There was a spike of 8,072 in March where there was no imminent attack right afterwards.
So there were 8,072 puts in March and 3150 puts in September.
So, you know, a little less than a third of the ones in September.
So the American puts came right up.
On September.
Americans said that there was a major profit warning and we're not going to make as much money as we thought and therefore we would expect the share prices to fall and therefore investors will put...
The United Airlines had a spike of 8072 puts in March and 3150 in September.
So again, it's really important to widen the scope and look at the rest of it that is occurring and also what ratio these puts are relative to what else has occurred.
And we'll put the sources to all of this, of course.
I'm not sure where you're reading, but the thing I'm reading here says on September 6th and 7th, United had 4744 puts.
And American had 4,516.
No other airlines had similar puts.
The airline industry, in other words, was not effective, but those two airlines were.
And it was 258 times the average puts.
United fell 42% after the plane set, and American fell 39%.
Right.
And I just gave some explanations for this, right?
I don't know if you heard or not.
Right, and what was it that I said about this?
And Raytheon had six times the normal options.
In other words, Raytheon was going up.
Six times normal.
Right, because they hadn't just put out a giant profit warning.
No, why would they go up six times just like that?
If you're interested in investing in airlines and one airline puts out a major profit warning saying we're not going to meet our targets, we're going to be way below our targets, then what you're going to do is take your money out of American or put puts on American.
And you're going to put your money into other airlines because you're, you know, traders often work in industry specific areas.
So if one airline says we're just, we're not going to make the kind of money we thought, then you're going to take your money out of the one airline and you're going to put it in another.
But that was both United and American both went down drastically.
They both had the puts just a few days before and Raytheon went the other direction.
Raytheon, why would anybody guess that there are going to be a lot of cruise missiles made?
But it went up six times.
That means if it was worth five dollars, it was all of a sudden worth 30.
Why did it get all that options trade?
Well, so here's American Airlines right before 9-11.
This is what they said.
American Airlines notes poor economic conditions and falling demand for their services.
That's 12.48pm.
And 12.49pm, they say, they're deferring jet purchases beyond firm orders.
12.47pm, they say that they're retiring five more 727 aircraft early.
12.48pm, they're going to retire the entire 727 fleet by the end of 2002.
12.46pm, they say this is 9.7pm.
So this is the 7th of September.
AMR sees Q3 loss considerably larger than Q2's loss.
AMR anticipates significant loss in Q4. AMR says cutting 2001-2002 capex by nearly capital expenditures by nearly 1.2 billion dollars.
American Airlines feels squeeze of fuel prices and labor costs.
American Airlines warns of wider losses.
Analyst says airline stocks face at least another bad quarter.
AMR down 3.4% at $30.08 following Q3 warning.
4.04 p.m.
Boeing stock rating cut over commercial growth.
And so the fact that people are shorting American airline stock during the spate of bad news is not...
Not wildly out of the bounds.
And the idea that this is somehow significant evidence of a massive government conspiracy to murder thousands of its own citizens with ways that are very hard to do.
Like, if you wanted to create some sort of panic or some sort of...
I mean, there's tons of other stuff you could do that would be far less traceable.
So, you know, again, I'm just pointing out some of the counter...
Factual things because you seem to be very certain and the fact that you're not bringing up anything counter to it and incorporating it means that you're heavily invested in this narrative that you're putting forward about the government doing all of this stuff and making all this going on.
I'm sorry?
I've looked for rebuttals.
I did not find that one.
I'll thank you for the one you just gave me.
I have not found it.
Maybe you can come up to a rebuttal to this next one.
Are you ready?
There's a bunch of pilots.
There's, you know, there's pilots for 9-11 Truth, but these are mostly pilots.
Well, in fact, one of them who actually flew both of those airplanes that supposedly crashed into Towers 1 and 2, he has said that he could not possibly have done that himself, and he didn't think the plane could either.
It's not as easy as it looks.
And he explains that.
But he says it's physically impossible for the plane to float into the Trade Center?
Well, he's actually saying that at those speeds, and if they were the planes, they were...
Well, all he says is that he couldn't have done it.
But there are other people who actually said that the planes would have come apart.
They were way over their maximum speed.
And banking...
And there's no way they could have done it.
In fact, an engineer from Boeing, they got an engineer from Boeing to say that.
In fact, the person was laughing at Boeing and said, no, it couldn't do that.
But the person who actually flew both of those planes said he could not have done that.
And he had 20 or 30 years experience.
And another pilot who had...
I don't know 20-30 years experience got a bunch of his buddies together and they got in a simulator and in a simulator I think they were given 10 tries each and it was not an easy thing to do in fact by the time the plane leveled off down low I think they were getting maybe eight or nine G's which they kind of laughed about like you'd likely to pass out and then if you take that same Sort
of information and take it to the Pentagon.
They just laugh at how could a pilot possibly level off, come down from, gosh, he was coming down at an unbelievable rate and making a 270 or larger turn banking and skimmed across the grass three or four feet off the grass without tearing up the grass and hitting the building like that.
Oh, you mean the Pentagon one, right?
At the Pentagon.
They just say there's just absolutely no way.
Did they really laugh?
Yeah, they laughed.
Like they giggled about the murder of 3,000 people and the destruction of the trade centers.
They found this funny?
You can have Michael turn on the video of Lear.
It's real easy to find.
And one of them actually says it's BS. They don't tell you what BS stands for, but I think I know.
And they say there's no way that a plane or a pilot could do that.
I mean, and that's if you had 20 years experience.
And these guys were ones who had almost no experience.
They wouldn't even rent them a small two-engine plane at some airport, you know, a few weeks before.
So how did they manage that?
And they weren't quivering in their boots or anything.
These planes supposedly just were smooth as can be and just knew right where they were going.
But these experienced pilots say that you just barely touch that control.
And that plane, it's not a little Piper Cub or a little Cherokee.
These are big planes, and there's a reason why they have two pilots sitting there.
And these terrorists, supposedly, these guys had almost no training, and there would just be one of them who, at one point at a school, they were called dumb and dumber.
They couldn't pass the test.
On small planes, they had troubles.
So how did they get them into those buildings?
It was an incompetent self-generated terrorist attack.
Are they saying then that because this is impossible, these pilots claim that it's impossible, are they saying then that there were no planes?
Are we sort of back to there?
Well, there's different people that say different things.
No, no, but these guys, if they're saying that the flight is impossible, they must say that there were no planes, right?
Lear says there were no planes.
Okay, so if there were no planes, the planes that took off from the ground clearly did not land again, right?
Well, maybe.
There was one that supposedly might have landed in Cleveland and people were escorted into a NASA building.
And then what?
We don't know what happened.
Some people claim that those people were gassed in the air.
Some people also say that those phone calls that were supposedly made don't make any sense.
Like you could not use a cell phone at those elevations back then.
And a couple of the stewardesses that supposedly had the back of your seat phones who made calls, one of them is saying something like three of her fellow Airline employees had been stabbed.
And you can hear her talking as clearly as can be.
But there's nobody screaming.
You don't hear any background noise.
And she doesn't sound like a person whose friends were just stabbed.
She doesn't sound like a person.
And this is what we're hanging on.
There are no planes.
She doesn't sound like a person who was just stabbed.
The lady who was on the Pentagon flight...
Whose husband was the top attorney in the country.
What do you call him?
The attorney general?
Zachariah was brought to trial.
And during that trial, they proved that her phone call that they claimed was made was never made.
The phone company says there was never a connection.
So this is back to...
So the government...
Okay, let me just, I just want to make sure I sort of understand the process here.
So the aircraft takeoff.
Now, are the pilots there in on this?
Because, of course, the pilots, I don't know if they could, I doubt they could remotely control the plane, certainly back then.
So the pilots would have been in on it.
The pilots would have diverted the path and landed the plane somewhere else.
Is that right?
And would radar operators not have noticed this?
No.
I'm not very good at explaining all this, but I have a friend who works in the control tower here locally at Sacramento.
Yeah, there are ways that planes could, like if you could make circles within circles, they could, one plane could fool you, like it could go up one way and another plane could have taken its place.
But some other interesting issues there on those phone calls.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
So another plane would have taken its place, but the planes were tracked from takeoff, and after their courses were diverted, they were tracked to...
To New York, right?
To the Trade Center.
So one plane is diverted, another plane slides into its place.
The pilots, of course, are never heard from again.
So the planes land somewhere, and are the pilots themselves pulled off and murdered at some remote location?
Some theories say that the people were gassed.
Okay, so everyone's like, this has been an emergency landing, please come into this airline chamber named Zyklon B, and then they gassed them and they disposed of the bodies and they disposed of the plane.
Maybe gassed right in the airplane.
Oh, they might have fed the gas right into the airplane, is that right?
One of the top people in Bush's staff, I'm not sure if it was Philip Zelikow or if it was Michael, I think it was Zelikow, one of them actually...
Is a principal in a company whose motto, or one of their selling features, actually says, we can hijack a hijack.
They're into remote-controlled planes.
Well, yeah, but if somebody had taken over the airplane remotely, then wouldn't they, the pilots would have called and said, I'm no longer, like, my airplane is not responding to my controls, right?
Unless they were already incapacitated.
There's another whole aspect that I don't know if you're familiar with at all.
Well, they got messages from...
Anyway, okay.
So the planes take off, they're remote-controlled or something like that, or there's some switcheroo plane, and then the planes are landed somewhere, and the people are gassed inside the planes.
The planes then are somehow disposed of, right?
Because, of course, if anyone had seen anything, then...
That would have been the scoop of all history, at least in the West, right?
So the bodies are disposed of, the airplane is disposed of, and either something does or does not fly into the World Trade Centers where huge amounts of nanothermites have been placed without anyone noticing, and that's what then brings down The towers.
If there's no planes, everybody hallucinates a plane and they have a huge amount of fake footage of the planes going in.
I'm just kind of questioning, John, at any point does this start to become unbelievable to you?
Well, there's a lot of things that it's really hard to explain to you in a few minutes, but there really weren't that many witnesses that actually saw it live.
And there were a lot of other things that people who have died since have been Suicided or committed suicide.
There's a lot of that.
Sorry, but so I guess no, for you, no, it doesn't seem unbelievable.
The number of people who would have to be in on this is truly extraordinary, right?
I've wondered about that.
It would have to be hundreds of people who would have to be in on this.
Yeah, and a lot of people in...
In military situations, do what they're told and don't really know what's behind what they're doing.
You know, I have some skepticism about military as a whole, but I think if you ask hundreds of military people to operate in violation of posse comitatus on U.S. soil to capture control and gas Hundreds of US civilians and then to participate in the outright slaughter of thousands of US civilians in the trade centers and then to also plan an attack on the very Pentagon.
The idea that all of those soldiers would just be mindless drones who would say yes to that without a problem is inconceivable to me.
I mean, they are supposed to obey the Constitution more than their immediate superiors.
And the idea that, you know, we've got Bradley Manning, we've got the guy from WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden, although I know he's not military, he had security clearance.
The idea that nobody would blow the whistle on any of this stuff at any time before or since, I mean, or would leave it if they were afraid for their lives.
Or would leave it in a will with evidence so that it could be...
Because, of course, lots of people have died, as you pointed out, since then.
The idea that this secret would have been kept by hundreds, if not thousands of people over the entire course of the last 14-plus years, I just find...
There's Julian Assange, you know, also.
None of this shows up in WikiLeaks.
None of this shows up in any of the stuff that's been revealed by Snowden, by Manning, by Assange, by any of the things that...
I mean, there's been a huge amount of...
Hacks and revelations that have come out.
I mean, we found out that the American government is spying on its own people.
That came out.
We found out the American government is spying on European leaders.
They had 67 German leaders targeted with cell phone hacks and so on.
So a huge amount of information has come out.
And of course, the idea that this has never come out by anyone anywhere.
And also the enormous risk that people are taking.
Absolutely.
Governments like more power.
But anybody who was even tangentially involved in anything like this, if it came out, it would be a certain death penalty for them.
Now, you know, people in government like more power, but they like to be alive to exercise that power.
And if the US government had been involved, if the FBI, the CIA, the military, if they had been involved in the outright slaughter of thousands of domestic civilians, They would all get the death penalty, like they would all just be taken out back and shot by outraged mobs if the judicial system didn't get to them first.
And so I think that the risk of something going wrong, the risk of relying on hundreds and hundreds of people to all keep the secret, And the idea that you could pull all of this off successfully, the government is not usually competent to build a road that lasts more than a couple of years and its bridges tend to fall down with great regularity.
The idea that hundreds of people facing certain death, if they were ever found out, would all keep this secret, yea verily, beyond the grave, even outside of all of the physical problems with this idea.
It is an extraordinary story, and it does fly counter.
Like, I can't think of any other conspiracy that would be that huge that involved that many people that has lasted this long without a single whisper of revelation coming out.
I'm just telling you that.
Now, but outside of that, outside of that, What do you feel is the value of pursuing this?
I assume that you don't think that there's about to be some smoking gun that proves something beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So there are, you know, in any highly scrutinized moment in history, there's a bunch of inconsistent stuff that's going to come out and a bunch of people are going to have opinions about stuff that are not verifiable and there's going to be disagreements.
The same thing happened, I'm sure, as you remember, since you're Not one of the younger audience members that we have.
The same thing happened with JFK, the shooting of JFK, which also consumed decades of activist time and energy for what effect I can't quite figure out.
So why do you think this is important?
What is the value of this for you?
Let's forget about the truth or falsehood because you've made your case, I've made mine.
But what is the value of this?
Why does this motivate you so much?
I think it will shape the next century and I think it's got a lot to do with the probably two million people that have already died over in the Middle East and it has to do with us losing our freedoms here.
I think it's the war on terror is being used to take away our rights.
But why wouldn't you – hang on, sorry to interrupt – why wouldn't you oppose the expansion of the war on terror without worrying about the 9-11 stuff?
There's so much that could be done to push back against the government's narrative no matter what.
I'm not sure why you would need – sorry, do you mind if I finish my sentence?
unverifiable, extraordinary, unbelievable information to the vast majority of people.
Why would you use that as your platform when there's so much other stuff that the government has perfectly admitted?
You know, the government has perfectly admitted that they armed and trained the origins of al-Qaeda.
The government has perfectly admitted that a good proportion of the weapons that they gave to supposed allies in various Middle East conflicts have ended up in the hands of ISIS.
The government has perfectly admitted to complicity in a wide variety of international crimes, including the invasion of Iraq, which is the international crime of aggression, which is about the worst one there is.
So given that you already have a confession of mass murder from the government, why on earth would you need 9-11 to fight back against the expansions of government power through activism?
I actually think that if this...
It gets uncovered.
It can knock the feet out from under them.
It could stop what's going on right now.
And right now, I believe they have pretty much a free hand.
There were quite a number, though, of suicides also involved in this.
And the media has been very quiet.
Like, how many people know that Bush's brother, or by the way, Jeb Bush, the one who's running for president right now, is on the list of the PNAC originally.
He's one of the original How many people know that Bush's brother was connected with the security at the World Trade Center?
And how many people would know that his maid was coincidentally run over and killed by her own car?
But John, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're arguing against yourself.
Why is that?
Look, let me ask you this.
Yeah.
I mean, you've probably seen the odd spy movie or two, right?
What does the spy always do when the spy feels that he might be killed for some information he's supposed to keep secret?
What is the one insurance policy that spy always puts in place to make sure he won't be killed?
He'll talk out, he'll put it out there.
Absolutely not.
He'll say it's secret.
Absolutely not.
No, because what the spy will do, and I've seen this in, I don't know, six million different movies and television shows.
It's not some big state secret or some craft secret that's kept only by elite spies and J.J. Abrams.
What spies always do is they say, I will keep this information secret.
But if any accident befalls me, I have made arrangements that all of this information will become public.
That is Spycraft 101.
That's just I've watched CSI twice and one born identity, right?
So this is what people do if they feel that they're being targeted.
In order to keep something secret, they will communicate to everyone who they think might even remotely be connected with whoever is targeting them.
They will say, I have put this stuff in a lockbox with instructions which I've mailed to a wide variety of people to blah-de-blah-de-blah and if something happens to me, all of this information will be revealed.
That is exactly what people do when they're in these kinds of situations.
So if people are being targeted At a rate that seems suspicious, then this information would have come out for sure.
What do you think of just a little coincidence like Bush, Bush's brother, being connected to the security at the World Trade Center and Dulles Airport and Los Alamos?
I think that you're avoiding what I just said.
Well, his babysitter being run over in their driveway with her own car at Bush's house.
Was the babysitter involved as well?
I think she may have overheard something or knew something she shouldn't know.
She'd been around the house a bit.
So she may have overheard something and that's why she was run over?
Perhaps.
But there's quite a few of them.
One of them just...
About 80 or 90 miles from where I live in California here, a guy named Philip Marshall wrote two books on 9-11 and he said he had a smoking gun.
He had a new book and it had to do with, his book I think had to do with Saudis over in the Arizona desert teaching these supposed hijackers how to fly large planes.
And his two teenage children and himself were all killed.
And his dog in his home right here in California.
And they said it was suicide.
But the neighbors said they didn't believe that.
And they saw what looked like a government car leaving the scene.
And why would he have shot his dog and his two kids?
And there's a story, you know, divorce and stuff.
But he had a book coming out that...
Looked like it would be pretty interesting.
Right.
Well, you know, I don't know what to say.
All I can say is that if I'm ever accused of a crime, I hope like hell that you're not on the jury.
Because the degree to which you stitch stuff together to get a guilty verdict is sort of beyond my comprehension.
Now, as far as, you know, my argument has been about 9-11.
I don't care.
I don't care to delve into it.
It's a hole with no bottom.
The evidence is almost gone.
And there, you know, when I talk to people about it, that no rebuttals seem to matter, right?
So I've put forward at least a half dozen rebuttals, which you simply change the subject and start talking about something else rather than grapple the rebuttal.
So that is evidence of confirmation bias and a particular fetish for a narrative that is impervious to counter evidence.
So that does not help me to...
To believe that you are skeptical of your own claims.
You find this stuff compelling.
And I get this.
You want to use this as a giant weapon to push back against the increasing police state in the United States.
It's not going to work.
In fact, you could not be serving the government's agenda more.
If you tried and I'll tell you why and I'm just gonna rant to the end here so I apologize for that but I do sort of it is my show and I do have to get my sort of perspective across so I've just taken my earphone out trying to rant to the end okay so first of all when you are saying surprising things shocking things unbelievable things you need to connect with the fact that people find them unbelievable So,
I mean, I put forward arguments which many people find very surprising.
So I'll bring the experts in.
I'll have conversations with them.
Sometimes I'll try to ask them the tough questions.
We'll look at the counter evidence.
I check in with people as I'm talking to them to make sure I'm not just steamrolling and boring them.
So when you are communicating startling and shocking things to people, the degree of sensitivity that you need to have is extraordinary.
And John, you don't have it.
You don't even have anything close to it.
So here's The problem with what it is that you're doing and why I actually view you as betraying the course of liberty rather than helping it.
Because what you're doing is you're saying, I am skeptical and opposed to government power and I believe all this stuff which I can't prove and I'm just going to keep repeating stuff I've heard and stuff that seems like, huh, coincidence-y, strange-y stuff, no smoking gun.
So what happens is people associate Skepticism of government power with the kind of credulity that you're displaying for this unbelievable narrative of massive government corruption and conspiracy and so on, where there's no evidence.
There's no evidence.
No evidence that would convict anyone in a court of law.
Not even close.
And there's tons of counter evidence.
So what you say when you put all this stuff forward, and why I'm saying that you could not be serving government power more if you tried, is you say, I am skeptical of government power, and let me display to you the quality of my thinking.
And my skepticism and my rigor and my communication skills.
So what happens is people say, well, he's crazy about 9-11.
Therefore, if he's skeptical of government power and he's crazy, then being skeptical of government power must be crazy.
And that is the problem because how you present yourself to people...
Is absolutely essential.
Because if you are not skeptical, if you are not bringing up the counter-arguments, if you're not saying, well, it could be, but here's the counter-arguments, and if you're not saying, oh, and by the way, there's stuff that the government has openly admitted that is far worse than 9-11.
Far worse than 9-11.
The government has admitted that this supposed slam-dunk case for the weapons of mass destruction Put forward by, I think it was George Tenet, head of the CIA at the time, the government has admitted that that did not exist.
That the entire, entire justification for going into 9-11 did not exist.
Sorry, for going into Iraq after 9-11 did not exist.
The government has admitted that they trained and armed the very people who they also admit was behind the 9-11 attacks.
So, and this is just one of six million different things that you could talk about when it comes to governments breaking their own laws, government inequity, government immorality.
I fail to understand why the lives of 3,000 Americans are somehow, somehow infinitely more important than the lives of half a million to a million Iraqis or the half a million Iraqi children that are admittedly and have been openly admitted to have died as the result of the U.S.-U.K.-led embargo of Iraq in the 1990s, where they refused to let goods in and out.
So the government's already admitted to murdering half a million Iraqi children.
The government has already admitted that the pretext for going into Iraq after 9-11 was false, and that they didn't vet things properly.
And the government has gone through so many things where they said, yeah, stone evil.
I confess, I confess, I confess to crime after crime after crime after crime.
So the idea that you need to somehow step around all of those confessions and go down this infinite twisty head rabbit hole of 9-11 conspiracy stuff is because you simply don't want to effect change against the government.
You'd rather self-indulge your fantasies of paranoia and conspiracy theories rather than say, look, we already have a slam dunk case.
We already have an open and shut case.
We already have a confession.
And compared to the crimes that the American government has already admitted to, good heavens, they overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953.
They've been involved in regime change all over the world.
South America, Central America, Noriega, who they persecuted was originally their guy.
They seem to have sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein, who in the 90s was their guy.
They put these people in power and then take...
And this is not...
Well, a guy, a neighbor was going to write a book about it and got run over by a tractor.
No, this is stuff.
It's in the public record.
It's known.
It's examined.
It's understood.
It's perfectly accepted.
And you don't need any conspiracy theories to convict the government of the crimes of the last half century where U.S. foreign policy has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths around the world.
You do not need any conspiracy theories in order to convict the government of massive, brutal, multi-million dead crimes for which they have already admitted and for which there is nothing but evidence to confirm their admission.
It's not like Stephen Avery, right?
And so the idea that you need this in order to push back against the expansionist power state is ridiculous.
You are discrediting The freedom movement by stepping around the confessed crimes of the state and trying to convict them on something that is like chasing Casper the friendly ghost in a tilt-a-whirl while strung up on acid and being beaten in the head by a monkey with sparklers in its fists to continue the metaphor.
You don't need it.
You don't need it and it is discrediting to the liberty movement that you're stepping around these confessed crimes and trying to convict them on this grab bag of coincidences that you call some kind of slam dunk case.
So that is my concern.
You are actually working against what you think you're working for, in my argument and in my opinion.
And I think I've put some pretty strong cases.
And look, facts don't matter.
Even if you were able to find some smoking gun, some irrefutable proof tomorrow, wouldn't matter.
It wouldn't matter fundamentally.
And all I need to do with that is say Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter came out of the supposed hands-up, don't-shoot situation in Ferguson where Michael Brown was gunned down by Darren Wilson.
Black Lives movement came out of the Hands Up Don't Shoot.
Boy, if you want to see people lying about historical events, good heavens.
I mean, yeah.
Pilots say, I could never have done that.
And a good friend said, oh no, he was shot Execution Star with his hands up in the air.
And lots of people said, oh yeah, I saw the same thing.
And it's all lies.
Now, has the Black Lives movement disintegrated?
Because the Foundation incident that brought them into being has been proven false?
No.
Doesn't matter.
They'll just keep doing what they're doing and continue to take their government money and cause their trouble and everybody will continue to nurse that acidic mommy's tit of white guilt and destroy their own civilization because they just don't want to stand up and tell the truth because they're afraid of racism.
The fact even that a founding narrative of something like Black Lives Matter has been proven entirely false and even Eric Holder's not racially neutral Justice Department could not find any civil charges or any charges of hate crimes or anything to bring against Darren Wilson means that even the people most desperate to find this cause couldn't find it.
So I know I've said some strong things but I, you know, was pretty patient trying to get the evidence from you but I think you're working against the cause that you claim.
And I think you really need to revisit what it is that you're doing with the time that you have left in this world, because right now, pretty sure you're serving the enemy.
Thank you very much for your call, though.
It's always interesting and engaging.
Let's move on to the next caller.
All right.
Well, up next is Marius.
Marius wrote in and said, why do parents love their children?
Since newborns, toddlers, and young kids in general aren't able to be virtuous for at least multiple months or years from birth on, are the positive emotions on the side of the parents falsely described as love and should rather be called bonding or preference of the gene set?
Of course, this question is asked using Steph's definition of love as an involuntary response to virtue if one is him or herself virtuous.
That's from Marius.
Hi, Marius.
Nice to meet you.
Hi, nice to meet you and thank you for all the good work you're doing.
It's amazing.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Right.
So, do you have more...
I mean, I think the question is pretty clear and I think I have a fairly reasonable answer.
Do you want me to just launch into it or is there anything you wanted to add?
No, please go ahead.
Okay.
So, asking...
The question why do you love your infants is sort of like asking why do farmers have earth because you can't eat earth and the reason farmers have earth is earth is what is necessary to grow crops right and so the reason that you bond with your child your infant your baby the reason that you bond with your baby is because it is that bond which will grow the empathy and strength of character within that child that allows the child to grow up to be virtuous you can't eat dirt And
you can't love a baby, but dirt is necessary for the crops that you can eat, and the bond with your baby is necessary in order to grow the child into a straight-spined avatar of virtue.
Does that make any sense?
Yes, this is a great analogy.
But then itself, it's not love then, unless the child is grown up and can embody some virtue.
No, it's an attachment.
So whatever animals can do cannot be part and parcel of philosophy.
Keeping a beat can be done by monkeys, and occasionally me.
Anything which animals can do cannot be part of moral philosophy, fundamentally, for reasons we've gone into before.
All animals, and the more case-selected, the better, but all animals that are case-selected, and most mammals, of course, are significantly attached.
To their young.
And so it is an attachment that you have to your infant.
You do not love your infant because the infant is displaying virtue.
You have a biochemical attachment that has evolved over time that is incredibly powerful.
And you fall in love with your child as the virtues that you're modeling and inculcating in your child are reflected back To you in your child's independently virtuous actions.
So you fall in love with your child and that is what displaces the biological attachment.
And I mean as a father, I mean babies are unbelievably incredibly cute and wonderful and adorable with the big eyes and the fact that there's this Thing that can find its nose with its hands that used to be curled up inside your wife.
I mean, this is completely mind-blowing to see that the absolute and unbelievable beauty of the human infant makes it a work of art second to none in the universe.
So there is a wonder and an awe at the power and beauty of life that has come into being.
And through that process, you fall in love with your child as they grow and become good.
I was just going to ask, do you have any philosophical judgment of this bonding or do you just accept this as biology?
I'm not sure what you mean by philosophical judgment.
I'm not sure either.
I would hate to be clear about something you weren't clear about because that would be to be unclear.
Right, right.
Yeah, the question, maybe to phrase it in a different way, was if you think this is a good thing, if you have some moral judgment on it?
Of course it's a good thing.
Right.
It's a good thing because human life is necessary but not sufficient for virtue.
And so of course it's a good thing.
I mean, if you didn't have any attachment to your baby, your baby would die.
And so, yes, you get to keep your child alive.
A human life gets to continue, and the degree to which you are attached to your child is significantly the degree to which I think they're going to have an easier time with empathy.
And becoming moral.
And it is remarkable.
I mean, my daughter the other day, we were meeting up with some friends and she was saying, oh, I wanted these other friends to come, but come to think of it, if my other friends came, then the children of these friends might feel a little bit left out because I have a longer relationship with these other people.
And like she had this whole triangulation, n-dimensional, mistress-spark, three-dimensional chess thing going on as far as relationships go and how to make people feel good and so on.
And...
I think that's pretty remarkable, the degree to which she was sensitive to her impact on other people based upon theoretical triangulations of future relationships.
And I just thought that was just fantastic.
Yeah, I mean, the attachment is necessary.
And the attachment, of course, if you didn't receive it as a child or it's an infant yourself, the attachment is the result of a significant pursuit of self-knowledge and a healing of trauma and a healing of emotional distance and scar tissue and so on so that your heart is available to your child.
And so it is, I think it is a mark of virtue to have worked, if you don't have it naturally, to have worked to have that Amount of emotional availability and openness to your infant to have worked so that you have that capacity if you didn't get it naturally through your own history.
That, I think, is a virtuous action.
I think if you know that your child is coming into the house, there's going to be an infant crawling around, then you childproof your house, right?
You cover up the electrical plugs, you get stuff on the toilet so it doesn't open.
You get the little gates and barriers for the top of the stairs if you live in a two-story house so that they don't fall down the stairs.
So you childproof your house, and that's a good thing to do because, you know...
They're not nearly as expendable as they used to be back in the Paleozoic era.
And at the same time, your child enabled your heart, right?
Your infant enabled your heart, which is that you have to be comfortable and to relish and to revel in The open-eyed, limpid, liquid-pooled deep gaze of the infant, the wonder of them seeing this giant, looming, moon-like man-head coming up on their field of vision and so on, and you have to have that eye contact which is essential.
For, I think, the growth of empathy.
You have to be sensitive to your baby's moods so that you stimulate them to the point of happiness, but not to the point of stress and all of this.
And, you know, as my daughter says, that's fun.
Too much of that, bit blood pressuring.
It's a good point to make.
And so, yeah, the virtue is in the parent in readying their heart to be open to the needs and preferences and personality.
Of the child, which will be different for each child that you have.
They're not photocopied and it's not environmental.
The vast majority of personality is genetic or innate.
And so having that kind of flexibility I think is really important.
So there's virtue in preparing your heart for access from an infant.
And there's no virtue on the part of the infant, but that's how it transfers.
I mean, sorry, I didn't interrupt.
I appeared to be finished, but I didn't.
Just before I forget the analogy, as they come and go through my mind like sprinting ghosts on acid.
But if you are a piano teacher, then the first time some kid sits down and plays piano, plays some scales or chopsticks or whatever...
You don't cheer at the tears running down your face, right?
But if you train that child to the point where they can do a piano concert at Carnegie Hall and fill it to the roof, then you may be having tears rolling down your face, right?
But you can't get there without the chopsticks, right?
So the chopsticks is part of it, but it's not the culmination in that way.
Yes.
All right, this is a perfect answer.
I was just going to ask if there are like an average age where...
You can start to see some virtues mirroring back?
Yeah, about a year to 16 months, your children can mirror, they can begin to have empathy.
I have somewhere a little video footage of my daughter, I can't remember how old she was, She took some of the food that she loved and she fed me.
But that's wonderful.
I mean, that is a great moment because she recognizes that I would like this food as well.
And she still loves to share food that she loves.
So, you can start to see that kind of kindness and empathy and virtue kicking in, even as close.
And there have been some estimates that kids can start to do some pretty significant calculations of probability, even at sort of six, seven and eight months.
Never, ever underestimate what your kids are capable of when they're very young.
I mean, that giant brain is the true glory of nature and the only one that will probably exist in the world or in the universe that we know of.
And so, you know, learn to expect it very early and learn to admire it as soon as it shows up.
And it shows up.
It showed up a lot earlier than I thought it was going to.
Right.
Yeah, this is awesome.
And I really look forward to read your book on parenting as it is finished.
And yeah, it will be amazing.
Thank you.
I appreciate that, Marius.
Very nice to chat with you and feel free to call back anytime.
Yes, if there are a place for my second question or should I drop it off later?
Well, what do you think?
I will leave it to your judgment.
I would love to ask that question because it's a little bit more personal.
Okay.
All right.
So I'm just going to read a short introduction.
I'm starting off as a web podcast philosopher in German language, and I would love to get your advice.
I want to do this full-time one day and make a living out of it, teaching people how to think and educating them about important topics like you are doing with Freedom and Radio.
Do you have any advice and thoughts?
Strap yourself in and get a helmet.
Well, I think it's very important to have a social network around that of people who care about you and who understand and appreciate and support what it is that you're doing.
You cannot change the world in isolation because you're going to need, you're going to encounter hostility and you're going to encounter trolls and you're going to encounter people who don't like what you're doing and so on.
Natural, if you're going to try and do good in the world, it's going to impact people and some people it's going to, most people have been impacted positively, a few people negatively and so on.
You need that support and people around you who love you and are 150% behind what it is that you do.
I think that's important.
The most important thing though fundamentally is just any general business advice and It's a business as well as a calling because, you know, a calling that can't feed itself starves to death in a corner.
But it's important to just really, really be sensitive to what it is that your audience wants.
I said this in the last show.
There's tons of stuff that I'd love to do that is not where the audience is pulling me.
The audience wants to talk about personal stuff and the audience wants to talk about stuff that is different.
I'd like to do really technical, logic-tree, syllogistical reasonings that prove things and so on.
I haven't had a lot of time for that lately because there's been a bunch of other stuff that people...
They want a lot of current events where you can see that.
We do a parenting video and it doesn't do hugely.
It doesn't do hugely well.
And so, you know, we put out a video on parenting.
We're lucky for it to get 25,000 views.
And I yell something about the European migrant crisis and it gets 600,000 views plus and so on.
So recognize that part of it is going to be to really do the most that you can to change people, which is going to get generally the fewest views.
And the other part of it is to invite them into a conversation by appealing to what it is that's most important to them at the moment.
And so we do a lot of stuff to draw people into a conversation about parenting.
You know, I'll put on a show and make a lot of jokes and imitate John Rawls talking about the redistribution of vajayjays.
But the point is that I want to get people into the show to talk about parenting and virtue in their personal relationships and virtue that they can actually enact in their personal relationships.
And I think that's the key.
That to me is that's the heart of the show.
Now, the heart of the show for me may be different than the heart of the show for you.
But the heart of the show is usually not what is going to draw people in at the front.
Because the heart of the show is where they have the most power, which is where they have the most anxiety.
Because whatever you can change the most is going to be the thing that threatens your relationships the most.
Your existing relationships.
So it's not a bait and switch because I stand behind everything that I say in my videos.
I mean, if I make mistakes or make errors, I correct those.
But, you know, for instance, I've been desperate to get...
Parenting practice best parenting practices into black communities Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman the truth about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman was a chance to expose Probably two million people a lot of whom were black to the message of of peaceful parenting and I did a lot of research and In order to make the case for peaceful parenting at the end and it was like 99% research in order to get the 1% that was 99% of the reason I did it.
And so just recognizing that you have a core message that needs to be handled delicately that people are going to be a little alarmed about like with me is the voluntary relationships and the confrontation of your relationships with philosophical virtues.
So yeah, you want to put stuff out there that people are going to find engaging to bring them into the mix.
But there, I think, needs to be a really core, core message that's going to motivate you.
And to me, that always has to be stuff that's actionable that you can do in the world.
For me, educating people about the free market, educating people about The variety of topics that I have done, the Crusades and the truth about crime and so on.
These are all important things.
These are all important things and I'm not going to pretend that they're not.
But for me, the core message is which virtues can you bring to life and act upon in your world, right?
And this is why I gave John the last caller a bit of a hard time because these aren't things that he can act on.
He can't go personally uncover this stuff about 9-11 and he can't broadcast it even if he could.
And I guess if his theory is correct, he'd just get run over by a maid or whatever it was.
And so...
Find some core message that you are really passionate about.
If you want to use the one that I found, I'm certainly not going to object to that, the more the merrier.
But something that is really core, that is what you sail your ship by when the storms happen, right?
Because, you know, there are times in the life of every philosopher, every thinker, every radical, every communicator, there are times when it's All joy, smooth sailing, the winds at your back, the sun is beating overhead, and the birds are not crapping on your head.
And the fish are jumping into your soup or whatever.
Like, there's times when it's smooth sailing, and then there's times where it's stormy.
And it's a challenge.
And you bring out your sextants, you bring out your GPS when you don't know where you're going, when the storms are confusing.
And there's something that you're going to need in the storms of these lives, of these lives of changing the world.
Because the world doesn't want to be changed.
The people who are at the bottom have got used to that a lot of times.
And the people at the top certainly don't want to change.
And the people don't want to be confronted with the immoralities they may either have done or have been unconsciously supporting.
Because when you communicate virtue, you create immorality in people's hearts.
Because when you communicate something like spanking violates the non-aggression principle, you turn someone from someone who thinks that they're doing something right into someone who has to recognize they're doing something wrong.
And most times, I shouldn't say most times, a lot of times...
When you bring a moral argument to someone that paints them in a bad light, they think that you have created that immorality in them.
In other words, you are to blame for the immorality that has been revealed in them and they will often get angry at you and think that you're the immoral one because they wouldn't have been immoral if you had not made the argument that made it clear that what they were doing was wrong.
And so there are times when topics overtake you Against your will, but which the audience is hungry for.
So for instance, you know, do we like talking about Muslims week after week?
Not really, but there's a migrant crisis.
I don't like, I'm kind of bored of race a lot of times, but race keeps coming, charging into the conversation.
IQ, again, you know, I've done it, but it's something that bears repeating as a way to really help people understand what is going on in the world.
So there are times when you're tired of stuff, but you have to keep slogging on because that is what is most important to To your audience and the audience in all voluntary enterprises, the audience rules.
And this is why, you know, again, not to pick on John the first call, but I was pointing out to him that he's selling something called a theory.
And like all salespeople, you can't just keep demonstrating your product.
If people's eyes are glazing over, you need to figure out how best to get information across.
Because all you're trying to do is you're trying to plant the seeds of virtue in the stony ground of other people's indifference and hostility.
And that is a very, very tricky business.
It's one thing to throw your seeds into earthy, loamy, Irish-style potato-hungry But for the most part, people strenuously resist any redefinition of morality because it shakes them to the very core of their being to think that in pursuing virtue, they may have been feeding vice.
Or in fighting vice, they may have in fact been fighting Virtue.
I mean, that is incredibly disorienting for people.
And the more morally sensitive people are, the more they are drawn to talking about morality, but the higher the stakes of having any moral redefinition occur, shifting the ground under their feet.
You know, if you design a bridge for 1G and suddenly you're in minus 20G, your bridge ain't going to do well other than as a fresco on the ceiling of the doomed cathedral of your own prior moral delusions.
So it is a really, really It's a huge challenge.
It's a huge challenge for people and the sensitivity that you can bring to bear.
I have had some minor successes and some not so minor failures in my sensitivity in this area because I'm the kind of guy I welcome the redefinition of morality.
You know, I went from Christian to atheist.
I went from Christian to agnostic to atheist.
I went from socialist to objectivist to anarchist.
So I don't have a particular problem.
I have a clean conscience, and it's easy to walk through the world with a clean conscience and say, hey, let's just talk about ethics without realizing that just because you're immune to the landmines of moral redefinition, it doesn't mean that everyone else is too, and the reaction of other people to moral redefinitions has been more explosive than I would have imagined, because It doesn't affect me.
I'm like Superman and the bullets have taken everyone down and I'm like, these things are ticklish.
Hook, hair, swirl, swirl, flex, pecs.
So I think that aspect of things is really important to understand.
That if you are curious and empathetic and interested in morality, then you are somebody who's willing to explore morality.
things and and what happens is you feel like you're giving people the refreshing massage you know this is sort of what I've come to think of it as I'm like oh man I don't know if you've ever had a really really good massage but it is just like how to rejuvenate your body into bland cocoa butter of relaxation but you feel like you're giving people a massage like wow I love massage massage feels fantastic but people feel like you're ripping out their internal organs and feeding them to the vultures of immorality like so You think you're approaching people with a pill that's
going to cure them and they think that you're trying to stuff a poisonous snake down their throat.
So just because you have a comfort with moral questioning and moral curiosity and moral redefinition, it is really important to have the empathy for the traumatized people Whose conscience is not clean.
And that, again, this has been a mistake I have made repeatedly.
I'm trying to make it slightly less repeatedly because, you know, self-knowledge and being effective is good.
And there are times, of course, where shocking the moral conscience of people is perfectly fine.
And there are times where it's not.
And I'm, you know, I'm still working on the The balancing act between those two poles.
But I think this is the fundamental challenges that I would suggest.
You try to be cognizant of as you go forward so you can take a few less battle scars than I was forced to take not being sensitive enough to the degree with which me doing my dance is fundamentally arranging those without legs.
Yeah, thank you.
Wow, this was a lot of input.
As you mentioned in the beginning, the support of one's social circle.
How do you deal with people who are kind of ambivalent or ignorant to your goals and to your mission?
Oh, I don't.
Okay.
No, I don't.
I mean, I can't.
I can't do it.
Like you can't do a high wire act when people are firing watermelons at your head.
You can't.
Or if they're taking away the safety underneath.
Right?
You can't work on math problems when people are screaming random numbers into your ear.
If you are trying to do something truly extraordinary in this world, and the redefinition of ethics...
Is the most foundational and extraordinary, necessary, inevitable, and contentious revolution that is possible on this planet.
People change political systems.
There's nothing.
Changing moral definitions is foundational.
It is explosive.
It is literally like changing physics for people.
And so, if there are people around you who are...
You've got to clear them or they'll take down your horses and your ride will be over.
There's no other possibility.
There's no possibility of coexistence with ambition and scorn.
With grand plans and And petty sabotage.
So if you have people around you who think you can't do it, or it's not worth doing, or it's stupid, or it's a waste of time, or it's immaterial, or it's unimportant, or it's vainglorious, or it's megalomaniacal, or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, you can stay with them and give up.
The most glorious Pegasus steed the world has ever known, which is the true joy and clarity of rational thought and the pursuit of evidence regardless of social convention.
That is the most glorious tip of the mountain sky casting with Nietzsche on the magic carpet rides of spelling things out that humanity doesn't want to see, but they can't take their eyes away from the beautiful text in the sky.
That is the most glorious thing that can be done.
And I've been incredibly privileged for over 10 years now to be doing that in the public sphere.
And that is something that having skeptics around, you can't coexist with it.
Skeptics, I don't mean skeptics like people who tell you that they want, you know, they disagree with this aspect or there's information.
Absolutely, those people are essential.
You need clear and rational feedback.
But, you know, what has been colloquially called the Debbie Downers, or as a friend of mine used to call them, the ministers of doom and gloom from the kingdom of woe is me.
Those people who just...
Want to live small.
They want to live skeptical.
They want to be mammals at the feet of dinosaurs, wanting to live another day in the hopes that they won't get squished.
Those people cannot coexist with great ambitions.
If you want to duet, and everything in life is a duet, and everyone is singing with you, if you want to duet, you can't have it with a tone-deaf person.
You won't make them sound any better.
They'll just make you sound bad.
And so you have to assemble a choir of people who can sing if you want to make beautiful music.
And they all have to be committed and they all have to have great voices and they all have to have perfect pitch and they all have to have good timing and breath control and training, whatever you want to call it.
And it's the same thing if you wish to do something extraordinary like redefine the moral landscape of humankind.
You cannot have people around you.
Who don't believe that's possible or who genuinely believe that it's unimportant.
Personalities are contagious and either you infect them and fill them with your ambitions or they infect you and weaken you.
You know, there's no one who's got mono who wins the decathlon and these people will bleed you dry and they will suck the very marrow out of your ambition.
They are the first line of defense of the planet.
The planet that resists the redefinition of morality first sends what some writer has called the person from Porlock who simply distracts you and doesn't want to talk about what it is that you're doing and pretends that it doesn't exist in order to hope to diminish and anesthetize your ambition so that you don't step onto the stage and redefine morality which fundamentally shifts power structures and often reverses them completely which is shocking to those at the bottom.
And enraging and appalling to those at the top.
And so the first line of defense, I don't want to get into the whole line of defenses.
If you are successful, then call back and we'll get into the next lines of defenses.
But the first line of defense is to pretend that it's unimportant, immaterial, impossible, and most importantly, to pretend that it doesn't exist.
You know, like I had friends a year or two after I started this who never, ever asked me how it was going or what I was doing and never listened to any of my shows.
Yeah, I can relate.
Add friends like that.
Because there's simply, you cannot do this high wire act with people shooting the anesthetizing blow dots of indifference straight into your trembling jugular.
You know, this is a strain.
This is a challenge.
This is work.
This is hard at times.
And you need a soft place to fall.
And if people aren't there, you just hit the concrete.
Right.
Yes, with friends I can totally relate.
I have some people in my life who didn't talk to me one time about it, and when I tried to board it up, they just didn't notice that I said something.
It was even like this, so I know that I maybe have to move on from that.
But then it's tough because there are other people, like my parents for example, who aren't that directly Against it, but they don't reflect the small fire I feel back to me and they are saying things like, well, it's gonna take a long time and it's gonna be hard and so on.
I don't know how to categorize this.
So Mike, if you're on the line, what do I say whenever I'm about to do something really challenging?
What do I ask you?
Am I gonna do a good job?
Mike, am I gonna do a good job?
You don't say in quite that pitch or tone.
That's how you hear it, isn't it?
One of these days I'm going to tell you no, just to really, you know, no.
And of course I say you're going to kick ass.
You can try that if you like, but that's the reason I ask.
I've been doing this stuff for 33 years.
I've been doing it in the public sphere for 10.
And I still ask people around me, am I going to do a good job?
I still want to check.
And...
That's important.
You need the people around you who are going to believe in you.
And it's not, you know, selfish.
They're not like, you know, they're giving you foot massages and putting the powder on your nose so you're not shiny under the TV lights or anything.
Oh, I need to prop up Steph's ego again before this events, you know?
Yeah, it's not a one-way.
You know, I mean, Mike and I, we support each other.
My friends and I, my family and I, we support each other.
It's not just one way.
But the needs are different depending on particular contexts.
So...
Mike, is there anything you wanted to add for our final listener?
I think you pretty much nailed it, Steph.
All right.
So good luck.
I hope I haven't driven you away from pursuing this arena, but it's absolutely glorious, and there are times when it is mind-numbingly alarming.
But there are few and far between for the most part.
All right.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Marius.
Take care.
Take care.
Alright, up next is Thomas.
Thomas wrote in, and he's got a few questions, but the first one on the list is about climate change.
It says, climate change is a huge topic nowadays.
In all my university science classes, I have learned that it is 100% fact that humans are a large cause of climate change, and that this will be a problem for our future children, etc., What do you say about that?
And why is it that anyone who is skeptical is so aggressively shot down as a climate change denier?
Yeah, what do you think?
What do you think, Thomas?
Oh man, I'm really not sure.
I mean, I set this question in kind of a long time ago, and I've seen some videos where you talk about how it's almost kind of a religion.
And I'm not really sure why it's so aggressive, especially in the realm of science in which reason and evidence is supposed to trump everything.
Yeah, there are times in human history when there are these kinds of...
Sort of collective psychoses or manias.
You know, there was a South Sea bubble where people invested in a bunch of nonsense hundreds of years ago.
There was tulip mania in Amsterdam in Holland a couple of hundred years ago where people just became obsessed with tulips.
There were the Salem witch trials.
There were these supposed satanic rituals occurring in a bunch of daycares in the 80s and 90s.
And there are these times where there are just these collective psychoses.
That are driven for a wide variety of reasons that do seem to be impervious to reason and evidence.
And climate change currently seems to me to have all the hallmarks of these characteristics.
The fact is that models are not science.
Computer models are not science.
That doesn't mean that they're irrelevant to science, but computer models must be predictive.
And computer models have not been predictive of where the temperature has actually gone.
So there's a bunch of challenges in that what they're modeled is not what's occurred.
And in fact, they can't even backwards model, right?
So they try to tweak these computer models to take into account sort of the 17 or 18 year, I don't remember exactly what it is, this hiatus in global warming that has occurred.
They can't even get the models to mirror the data that has occurred in the past.
Now, that's the easiest possible test that you could have.
That's like, do you have a good sense of direction by following the car in front of you?
Well, you know, I guess kind of.
It's a bare minimum.
You can at least follow the car in front of you.
So, I have some experience in computer modeling.
I worked on this environmental computer modeling in Computer modeling is not, you know, you can model, oh, well, what if I get a billion dollars a day in donations?
That's my computer model.
I don't get to go out and spend that money unless, you know, it actually happens, in which case I'll know that fiat currency has hit its last days.
So there is this, it's become this kind of momentum that has occurred.
What happens is, in general, stuff comes up that is really alarming to people and Climate change, of course, has been sold as unbelievably terrifying and disastrous and people will drown and society will end and, you know, the day after tomorrow movie is, you know, that's it.
That's it for human life pretty much as a whole.
And so planet-ending catastrophes tend to get people's attention or at least they tend to get case-elected people's attention.
The hours are just like, wow, looks like a bad day in 15 years.
I'm going to have sex right now, but, you know, I guess I'll think about it that later and, you know, tomorrow never comes.
So, you get people's attention with a big fear-mongering situation, and in the past, with religion, it was, you're going to go to hell.
You're going to go to hell!
And so, does eternal torture have your attention?
Yeah, it kind of does.
And so, what happens is, if people say, well, I'm skeptical of that, Pascal Swager kicks in and say, well, the disasters of doing nothing are so intense that we might as well do something.
We have to do something, because the disasters...
And so, you know, originally it was global cooling, and then it was global warming, and now it's just climate change, which is kind of a synonym, because climate, by its very nature, is going to be changing.
And the fact that...
You know, we're talking about parts per million, the fact that CO2 is plant food, and the fact that they haven't been able to predict jack shit.
And the fact that all of the popular, here's what's going to happen, you know, wasn't it like in a couple of weeks originally, New York City was supposed to be 12 feet underwater?
I mean, that's, you know, I don't think any climate model predicted that Europe was going to be 12 feet underwater.
And Muslims!
But that's a topic for another time.
So there is, you know, skepticism is supposed to be.
The hallmark of science, right?
I think it was Richard Feynman who said that all science is founded upon a skepticism of authority.
And this is why they had to remain, they had to rename climate skeptic with climate denier, right?
Because denier sounds mentally ill and also comes into holocaust denier and so on, right?
So they had to, being a climate skeptic, skeptic of climate change, you know, anthropogenic, anthropogenic, let me try that again.
Ah!
Man-made, catastrophic global warming.
That is something to be skeptical about.
We should be skeptical of these things, but unfortunately what's happened is there has been a co-joining of government and science and the remnants of religion that have made a perfect storm of social momentum for the trajectory of this kind of belief.
And please, understand everyone, I know that there's such a thing as a greenhouse, which is where you have higher concentrations of CO2, where things are warmer.
And where plants grow more.
Like, I fully understand that when you add CO2 to a closed system, you're going to end up increasing heat.
I mean, no doubt about that.
That's beyond anybody's capacity to repudiate.
It's just that the Earth is not a closed system.
Plants eat CO2 and produce oxygen and so on, just as human beings eat oxygen and produce CO2 and so on.
And so, right now, what's happened is...
Governments can use the scientists to frighten the population into surrendering rights.
And the scientists can use the government to transfer wealth from the population to the scientists.
And this is virtually identical to the situation.
You can sort of overlay these two.
It's virtually identical to the situation with the priests and the kings.
The kings said, okay, this is the only religion.
And so, no competing religions.
And the priests said, in return, for having a monopoly, being the corporation where there's no competition allowed, they would say that the power of the king is legitimized by the god that the king says is the only one true god, coincidentally enough.
And so, in the modern world, The government says that the scientists are legitimate, that theirs is the only one true religion.
The climate, you know, thermageddon or whatever you want to call it, like this catastrophic anthropogenic, hey, I did it, global warming scenario.
That is the only true religion.
And in return, the scientists say that legitimizes expansions in government power.
Oh, and thank you very much for the money.
Wow, that's very eerily, almost the exact same situation.
Oh, yeah.
History is the same damn thing over and over again, just different costumes.
And this one, you know, it used to be a black frock, and now it's a white lab coat.
But it's the same damn mechanic.
Because...
The scientists should never ever be talking about policy, but what rolls out of the scientific community are endless proposals for policy or support of policy.
The scientists could as very easily be using global warming to say we must end fiat currency, we must end central banking around the world.
Because central banking and the continued over printing of currency and the taking on of national debt is causing a vast over consumption of nature's scarce resources.
And so, scientists could very, very easily, and with greater justification, could be saying this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming disaster scenarios should be the central and fundamental and irrefutable argument for ending central banking and returning to a gold standard.
Because returning to a gold standard would vastly reduce all of the $20 trillion that the US has almost racked up in debt, not to mention the $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
It is really, really bad for there to be fiat currency.
It stimulates overconsumption.
Overconsumption produces CO2 emissions, which is disastrous for the planet.
So to save the planet, we must end central banking.
That is a five-minute argument that any scientist could make and any scientific group could get behind and which would have a damn sight more likelihood of reducing Carbon emissions than something like cap and trade or these ridiculous agreements that governments keep getting into, like Kyoto onwards, that they never get anything around to doing except generally jacking up taxes and taking over more aspects of industry through regulation.
Now, have you ever heard of...
A scientific organization saying we are deadly concerned about global warming so we need to stop having governments have the power to print money or borrow.
No, no, you're definitely the only one I've heard that from.
Right.
Now, when you hear the argument It seems fairly credible, doesn't it?
Oh, yeah.
It would immediately reduce consumption by the amount of the deficit, at least.
And if you wanted to start paying off the debt, it would vastly reduce the amount of spending and therefore consumption in the world, right?
So, we clearly need to reduce, the whole point of taxation is to reduce consumption, right?
The whole cap-and-trade thing is stop making a bunch of stuff, stop using coal or fossil fuels to produce a bunch of stuff.
So, in one scenario, the government gets to increase taxes, right?
And it gets to regulate business.
Now, when you go to a business as a politician, you say, I really want to regulate you, the business suddenly really wants to donate to you.
I mean, it's a shakedown.
And so the government gets to increase its power, gets to get more donations, gets to make the lobby, the green lobby happy and so on.
And so, you know, they don't have to have the smell of bongs and hemp around their offices all day.
And so the governments love that sort of shit, right?
But if the scientists said, look, the only thing to do is to stop borrowing and printing money...
Would governments still be very keen?
It's just a mental exercise.
I think you get it, right?
But you have to ask yourself.
If the scientists tomorrow all came out and said the enemy of the environment, the enemy of the future, the fundamental driver of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is central banking.
Governments must go back on the gold standard.
They must never be allowed to borrow or print money ever, ever again.
What do you think governments would do?
Oh, I mean, they're not even going to talk about it.
Oh, my goodness.
I mean, of course!
I mean, governments don't give up.
That's the fundamental power of governments.
You know, since they can no longer throw people directly in stocks, or, you know, they don't have a priesthood consigning them to a physical hell after death, they just have to pretend that they're making one up through turning...
Earth into Jupiter or more likely Venus in the here and now.
So yeah, if what came out of the scientific community was a massive reduction in state power, every single person with half a brain in the universe knows exactly what the government would do with that information, which is shred it and vanish some scientists, probably, right?
Yeah, and when I was talking about my college professors before, I've had about three or four science classes so far.
I'm a sophomore right now in college.
And basically everyone, they've shown these large, on their PowerPoints, they've shown these large charts and graphs of CO2, for example.
And then you look at the past 20 years or something, and it's way, way, way, way, way higher than the rest of the past 200 years.
And that's usually what they use as kind of a fear tactic, I would say.
But it's interesting.
You know, what refutes that, I guess?
Well, I mean, I don't know.
I don't know exactly.
I mean, I'm certainly no specialist in this.
But the questions I would ask is, for instance, has the data gone through any post-processing?
Have they massaged the data, or is this raw data from the weather stations?
And, of course, it's not.
It's not even close, right?
So the first question I would ask is, okay, is it massage data?
Now, the second thing I would ask is, is the massaging of the data perfectly transparent?
Yeah.
Right?
So if you're going to massage data, okay, well, there are times when that's legitimate.
So if you're going to massage data, do you release the source data and explicate or explain every single one of your manipulations so that they can be independently verified, even by skeptics, right?
Now, they have not, a lot of climate scientists have not released the source data or have exposed their manipulations.
And even when freedom of information requests have been put in whereby they're supposed to, oh dear, the data has vanished or, you know, you get incomplete sets or you don't get the full methodology of how it was massaged and so on.
And that's not...
That's not a great idea either.
The other thing, too, is even if we accept all of this as true, Bjorn Lundberg has a great book called Cool It!
where he talks about even if we accept all of this stuff as true, is it the number one priority that we should be dealing with?
Pretty much the exclusion of everything else.
And the answer is very clearly no.
Alex Epstein has brought arguments in about the question is, of course, you know, If you are skeptical of this, people think you're anti-science, you hate the planet, you know, all the sort of stuff that you would expect from people who have a shaky position.
But the question more fundamentally is, if we are going to significantly restrict the use of fossil fuels, if we're going to significantly restrict human action, which produces CO2, How many people are you willing to have die for that?
Because it's become a government program insofar as everybody only talks about the downside of not doing something.
Nobody talks about the downside of doing something.
And that is fundamentally disastrous.
Like people on the left say, well, you know, it was really unfair that the government in 2007 was mostly getting advice from people who stood to gain from a bailout.
Yeah, that's kind of unfair because they're only going to talk about the horrors of doing nothing, not the horrors of doing something, which, you know, we're beginning to face now as stocks have had their worst opening year in human history, at least in America.
Down about 7% this week.
Yeah!
You know, what goes up must come down.
That's an old Alan Parsons song from a great album called Pyramid, which people should listen to.
I'm sure it's on YouTube.
Why did I ever buy an album?
Anyway, but...
So, with climate science, okay, let's say it's all true.
Let's say there is this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and we need to vastly curtail activities which produce CO2. Okay, well, how many people are you willing to have die from that?
Because they will.
Because they will.
And Alex Epstein, who's been on this show twice, has got a great book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, where he talks about this, that people will die.
And also, how much denuding of forests are you willing to?
So let's say that you stop having coal-fired power plants.
Of course, people tend to be against nuclear power as well.
And that's sort of a problem.
You need power from somewhere.
And, you know, wind and sun ain't going to do it because sometimes my kite falls to the ground and I don't get a tan.
It's not that complicated.
But, you know, so let's say that they don't get power.
Well, they still need to cook their food and they still need to heat their home.
So what they're going to do is going to go out and cut down trees and burn them.
So how much deforestation are you willing to accept?
How many human deaths are you willing to accept from people who aren't going to have the energy they need to sustain?
Human beings are currently held aloft by this giant fist of Zeus-like energy mostly produced from carbon-emitting technologies.
Human life is literally, we're all held up in this giant cloud of CO2. And if you reduce the CO2, you're going to open up holes in this cloud and lots and lots of millions of people are going to fall to their death.
So that's the question.
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice for this hypothesis?
It hasn't even attained the status of theory yet.
It's a hypothesis and it is a hypothesis that's directly in contradiction to the evidence as a whole.
So how many human beings are you willing to sacrifice for this hypothesis?
And until that equation comes into it, we're not going to have a rational discussion about it.
If it is something that science proves 100% or 97% or whatever they say, the number is bogus, but let's say it wasn't, right?
97% of scientists agree on this.
Okay.
And it's painless to solve the problem.
It's going to be good for the economy.
It's going to stimulate human creativity in producing energy cells that run off the slowly beating hearts of newborn unicorns or whatever they're going to talk about, right?
And so...
If it's 100% of scientists agree and it's economically productive to fix it, well, who on earth could possibly say no, right?
I mean, it would make no sense.
You'd have to be insane, which is how they portray people who are skeptical of this stuff, crazy, hate people, hate the planet or whatever, right?
However, if the actual costs of reducing carbon emissions is talked about in real terms, You know, and rich people and scientists who are getting fairly wealthy off this stuff, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars being spent, I think per year now is hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum spent on this stuff.
So people getting pretty rich, getting a lot of power out of it and all that.
So rich people, well, they can live with, you know, my electricity bill has doubled, you know.
Al Gore, with his house that consumes as much electricity as a space station, he can survive.
He's made a lot of money off cap and trade.
But poor people don't have that flexibility.
You know, if the price of wheat doubles, you and I can still buy a loaf of bread, but people in Egypt can't.
When the price of wheat doubled in Egypt, you've got the Arab Spring, and Lara Logan had a next bad half decade and forever.
So the question is, okay, well, what are the costs?
And are the costs worth it?
Are the costs worth it?
Because it's always portrayed as scientific certainty and there are no costs.
And, I mean, that's automatically a bad argument.
Everything in human life has costs and benefits.
Everything has costs and benefits.
You know, I am unable to climb a tree using my teeth because I'm having this conversation.
And earlier today, that really seemed like a smart thing to do.
So let me just say it's very good that I'm having this conversation.
That way I can still have teeth.
So, people who put it forward like it's a pure certainty and there's no downside, I mean, that's just a lie.
It's a complete lie.
It's a manipulation.
So, ask people, okay, well, what's the downside?
Well, corporations might lose a little bit of profits.
Oh, yeah, that's always the answer.
I don't really think I'll, because as long as your negatives accrue to some hated group in society, nobody cares.
You know, if it's Jews in 1930s Germany, corporations are white males in 2016, nobody's going to have any problems.
Good!
Good, let's make them suffer more, those pasty-faced balding bastards.
So, yeah, I mean, those would be sort of my questions.
I mean, as far as getting into the science and all of that, you know, I'm willing to concede all of the science.
I'm certainly no scientist, and I'm no statistician, and I'm not about to start going through imaginary data that I can't get a hold of, even with Freedom of Information Acts.
But what I am is I know that models aren't science.
I know that there's deviations.
Between the models and what is being recorded.
And that's enough to give pause to a program which is marching joyfully onwards that can cause the deaths of literally hundreds of millions of people if its goals get implemented.
And so, yeah, just okay, well, how many people are willing to die for your hypothesis?
That's my question.
And until that question gets asked more regularly, I mean, this psychosis is just going to have to wear itself out.
I mean, eventually there'll be such a divergence that it'll fall apart.
Eventually.
How much human capital and human lives get destroyed in the interim?
Well, eventually they ran out of witches.
We wish that we could learn a little bit more so that we didn't have to run out of witches before we stopped the witch hunt.
Yeah, I mean, I'm not a scientist either at all.
I'm going into private equity probably after college.
But it's just all the stuff they're proposing, it's hard to...
Take it 100% with all the skepticism and all the counter-arguments versus gravity exists.
There's no credible counter-arguments to that, whereas with climate change or global warming, there's so much to go against the global anthropogenic Ah, good!
It's not just me!
It's like the word judicial when you've had three scotches.
No, but you can accept, as I've said before, if it's a bad argument, you can accept everything but the last point and still win.
You can accept absolutely everything that they say and you can say, wow, overconsumption is really terrible.
We absolutely should we should bar governments from having the ability to borrow or print money because, man, does that ever stimulate a lot of ecology destroying consumption in the here and now.
And so you can accept absolutely everything they're saying and then you can provide a solution that is against the whole purpose of why they're saying it, which is to increase government power.
I mean, because if the scientists, if the government can't borrow and print money, people who are being taxed, what they're going to do is they're going to start actually demanding value from these scientists other than fear mongering in government grants, which they're forced to pay for.
So when you start to talk about governments not having the power to borrow and print money, a lot of government scientists get a little chill of, oh, free market, actually have to provide value.
That's really, really tough for people who've adapted to a statist environment.
I mean, it's like, you know, it's like taking a freshwater fish and dumping it in the ocean.
It's water, but they're not going to do well.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, thank you for that.
Can we move on to the next question?
Yeah, yeah.
But we'll keep this one brief.
Okay, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Well, I've got – so I sent it five questions.
Do you want me to just do one more question or all four of the others?
It depends if they're short, right?
I mean I just – I'll let you pick the one that you think is going to be shortest and we'll see you in the next one.
You're welcome to call back in as well, Thomas.
Okay, yeah, definitely.
Well, I think, okay, one of them that's really interesting is, okay, since the IQ test was created by white men, does that mean it is somehow skewed towards the type of intelligence that white men have?
For example, can we really say that the Syrian refugees are not intelligent because of a test created by white men?
I got this question from someone I was arguing with about the Syrian refugees, and I just brought up the fact that IQ tends to be very low.
And she was telling me, oh IQ is not a very good measure of intelligence because it was created by white men or something like that.
It doesn't adequately measure the intelligence of Middle Eastern men and women and children.
No, it's a very valid point.
And there is actually some supporting evidence for that.
So, for instance, cell phones were invented by white men and Syrians can't hear them or speak into them.
So that's a huge problem.
Newton was a white man and he discovered the principles of gravity.
And as a result, Syrian men can float because, of course, gravity was discovered by a white male.
And airplanes as well, you know, invented by Orville and Wilbur Wright.
And therefore, when Syrians try to get into airplanes, there's this weird anti-gravity magnetic white privilege force field that pushes them back out.
They can't actually get into planes.
Of course, if Muslims couldn't get into planes, our first conversation would have been quite...
Quite different.
So, you know, it's really, really important to understand that whatever is invented by white men doesn't translate at all.
Which is why, you know, Hollywood movies don't play outside of white countries.
Like, you can't get anyone interested in a Hollywood movie outside of a white country because it's all about...
White privilege and all that kind of stuff.
Food grown in white countries causes people in non-white countries to burst into flames.
Like you try and eat white bread and the privilege just causes your head to explode.
It's horrible.
It's like scanners, which is why you can't ever...
I think you get the point.
I can keep going.
Mathematics and bridges!
Anyway, so this idea that...
That it is somehow white-specific is actually a testable theory.
And look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with somebody bringing this up as a standard.
Of course, absolutely nothing wrong with bringing this up as a standard.
So you're a smart young fellow.
If you wished to test this hypothesis that the IQ test measures white intelligence, how would you go about testing that theory?
That's very difficult.
I guess I would start by testing IQ of all different races of, you know, have a certain set of people of different races and test their IQ and see if the white one is the highest.
But that can't necessarily work.
You have to control for a lot of other stuff.
But it would be a start, right?
Yes, yes.
Now, that experiment has been done for almost 100 years now.
And what do you think the output has been?
I'm not sure, I guess.
Are Asians the highest on the IQ ladder?
No.
No.
Are whites the highest?
It's the apple juice.
No, it's the Jews.
And not the Sephardic Jews, who are actually quite significant in population in Israel, but the Ashkenazi Jews, who are the diaspora Jews, the Jews sort of roaming around, the wandering Jews and so on, they have the highest IQ clocking in at about 115.
So full standard deviation.
Okay.
Deviant Jews, that's the title of them.
Full standard deviation above Caucasians is the highest IQ in any particular population.
And if you take out...
They're not very good at spatial reasoning, Jews, which is why there aren't a lot of Jewish engineers.
There are a lot of Jewish writers, of course, because Jews score higher than a standard deviation on verbal skills.
A lot of Jewish comedians, a lot of Jewish writers, and so on, right?
Why are Jews funny?
Because...
Because language skills have a lot, logic skills and so on.
Why there's so many Jewish philosophies, Jewish physicists and so on.
So yeah, Jews score the highest that I know of as a general population, Ashkenazi Jews.
Next highest are Asians.
And by Asians, you know, we're talking about China, Japan, Thailand and so on, not sort of from India and so on.
And then next down we have the whites clocking in at a white bread boring 100.
Of course, it's normed around...
Whites are the norm.
And next, there's a lot of scales, but next down, sort of Hispanics at 90 or so, and then blacks, American blacks at 85, and then Middle Easterners sort of 86, 87, and then further down, you start to get to sub-Saharan blacks, clocking it at around 70, and then I think the very lowest, tragically, on the scale is the...
The natives in Australia, the aboriginals in Australia, who clock in, I think, around 66 or 67.
And it's also really bad in Somalia as well.
I can't remember the number, but it's one reason why we can't call it philosophical anarchy just because their government collapsed.
And so that would be one thing.
If a white test measured white intelligence, then whites should come out at the top.
And they don't.
And they don't by quite a bit.
Like, there's as much of a gap between the average white and the average Ashkenazi Jew as there is between the average white and the average African American.
It's a standard deviation.
So that would be the first test.
But it's by far, it's far from the only test to validate this.
Can you think of any others?
Ooh, let's put you on the spot.
Oh my gosh.
Um...
I'm really not sure what I'm trying to think about, so...
68 IQ for Somalia.
68.
68.
That's one short of a fairly fun sexual position, but not a great IQ for a country as a whole.
But anyway.
Yeah, so you're asking for another study that would be done to disprove white, you know, white superiority in the IQ tests?
Yes.
See, I see myself as pretty smart, and I cannot think of one.
Right, okay.
I will, you know, and I'm not saying I'm any smarter, it's just maybe I've read more about this or whatever, right?
So here's another test that you could take.
So if the white IQ test was skewed for white people, then there would be life outcomes for non-white people that would not be in accordance with the IQ test.
Okay, that makes sense.
Okay.
Because IQ is supposed to measure intelligence, and intelligence is supposed to matter in the world, right?
Which it generally does in a free market.
So what you would say is you would say, if the IQ test was wrong, then income, which correlates with IQ... So if the IQ test was wrong, then let's say whites scored the very highest, but then came in around the middle when it came to income.
Then there would be a disparity between the IQ test and another measure of intelligence, which could be called income.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, and so if that was true, then it would mean that the IQ scores are skewed towards whites.
If they had a worse standard of living, I guess, or income in proportion to their IQ score, Exactly.
Exactly.
Now, this experiment has also been run for about a hundred years, and it's about the most data of any social experiment on the planet.
And I wonder if you can guess the results.
Yeah, I mean, it's like you just said, you know, it's definitely not, at least from the data, it's not at all skewed towards whites.
And I mean...
Well, no, it tracks perfectly with IQ. Well, yeah.
It tracks perfectly with IQ. So who makes the most money as a group?
The Ashkenazi Jews with their IQ of 115.
Who makes the next highest amount of money?
It is the Asians with their IQ of 106.
Whites come into the middle and then Hispanics and then blacks and then the people who come below the blacks and so on, right?
So it correlates very, very well, very, very closely.
With IQ. Income correlates.
And again, the more free the market, the better it is for that kind of stuff.
So that's another example.
Okay.
And yeah, so do you have time for one last thing?
It's pretty short.
No, no.
There's more.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
Good, good.
This is an important question.
Okay, so there are other measures of intelligence other than the IQ test.
Yes.
So, for instance, the graduate exams to get into, the LSATs or the SATs or whatever, the exams to get into schools.
So if the IQ test was somehow skewed towards whites, then there would be a disparity between the IQ tests and other tests for intelligence and the other tests for intelligence would skew more closely to other measures like income or whatever or criminality or lack thereof.
Higher IQ is lower criminality.
And so IQ tests don't exist in a vacuum.
They also exist in correlation to a bunch of other tests that millions of people Have taken over the last tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people have taken over the last century.
And what happens, of course, is that IQ tests correlate very well with SAT tests, which correlate very well with other more practical measures such as marital stability and income and criminality or lack thereof and so on.
So it's not just one isolated thing.
It's like this RK theory.
It's not just one isolated thing.
The RK theory, there's like 60 or more Indicators that the RK theory is valid within human beings.
IQ tests do not exist in isolation.
And there's more, right?
So you could also, you could set up, and J. Philip Rushton did this when he went to Africa, I think it was to South Africa, to replicate these things.
So what he did was he said, okay, let's de-white this thing as much as possible.
And I'm not going to make a rhythm joke, that's too easy.
So, let's de-write this thing as much as possible.
So what he did was he, there are IQ tests which you can take, perfectly valid, and there's no language whatsoever.
Not a single thing that you have to read.
It's all pattern recognition.
Various shapes, and you can see some samples of these online, but various shapes and so on.
I've taken a bunch of these, right?
So, you can do an IQ test that has nothing to do with language.
And you can do it with symbols that the local people are familiar with based upon their own local religions or symbology or whatever.
You can Give them as much time as possible, because there's some theories that say, well, you know, white parents are very ambitious, so they subject their children to a lot of tests, so they're more familiar with tests, so you can give them as much time as humanly possible.
There's been another theory which says, well, white people are more motivated to do well at tests, and so what they've said is they've tested people for motivation ahead of time, and they found that blacks, for instance, are actually slightly more enthusiastic than whites to do the test, and so they say, well, maybe the blacks have a lower IQ score because...
The whites, they're intimidated by the whites.
So they have, Rushton went over and he said, okay, We're going to give them as much time as they want.
We're going to test for enthusiasm.
And we're going to have black proctors walking up and down.
And we're going to use local symbols.
We're going to put them in a familiar environment.
Like, that is not white.
They didn't even know a white person was involved in the test.
It was entirely black, given in a black environment with black symbols, no language, enthusiastic students, motivated people, and so on.
And he went through, he tried to de-white or de-culture or de-nationalize or de-race the test as much as humanly possible.
And what did he get?
Same results?
Exactly the same.
Wow.
Exactly the same.
That's pretty amazing.
It's like saying that Asians are shorter because height is a white concept.
It's like, no, it's a measurement, for God's sakes.
And so, yeah, so there's many more, and you can do more research on this.
And another thing to do, and just very briefly, I know we'll get another question, but another thing to do would be If it was biased towards whites, then what you would do is you would take a slice of people who had an IQ of 110 and you'd measure how successful they were.
And if it turns out that everyone who's got an IQ of 110 has about the same income, about the same crime rate, about the same marital stability, about the same level of education, about the same level of professionalism in their occupation and so on.
If that were the case, in other words, if IQ 110 across different races and cultures all turned out to produce pretty much the same outcome in life, then it would not be biased towards whites.
It would be an accurate reflection of people who have an IQ of 110 and how well they do.
That experiment has also been done for many decades and was brought together by Charles Murray, who's been on the show, and Dick Herenstein, who died shortly before this book came out and therefore hasn't because it's a rational show, called The Bell Curve, which I'm sure you've heard of.
And in The Bell Curve They took social indicators and they simply took race out and substituted IQ and they found that when you normalize for IQ, everything else disappears.
IQ really is the only thing that matters, which kind of makes sense in a free society where you're paid according to the value you can provide to people and smarter people can generally provide more value.
You know, the really tall guy can get the stuff at the top shelf and the lower shelf.
The short guy can only get stuff on the lower shelf.
So if you've got to get stuff from shelves, you want the tall guy because he can do the stuff that the shorter guy can do, plus he's tall.
So...
So, and again, you could go on and on and you could do this research if you want, but this question of is it somehow a measure of whiteness or white specialization, boy, you know, like nobody's ever thought of that before, you know, and the whole reason why this was put into place to begin with was because the military didn't want to put smart people into the trenches.
They wanted the human cannon fodder to be differentiated from the people who could provide more value in a war than just the ability to pull a trigger and have their guts blown up.
And it has been examined six different ways from Sunday.
After the bell curve came out, there was a huge controversy because everyone said, ah, it's racist, racist.
The American Psychological Association put a bunch of experts researching all the data validating everything.
They said, yeah, it's true.
It is a tangible measure.
Of something real, called intelligence, and now that there's better scans and better genetic testing and they can see the white matter and the fMRIs can dig deep into the brain and they can measure response times and so on.
Also, IQ correlates to response times, for God's sakes.
I mean, surely a response time is not cultural.
Boo!
Ah!
Oh my God, only white people do that.
You go boo to other people and they're like, who?
Am I supposed to cry?
I don't know.
So, it's been so well validated.
The American Psychological Association in the 90s put out a whole paper after they examined all the data and said, yeah, it's not culturally biased.
It measures something very real and it is really different between the races.
Hugely different between the races.
And then, of course, that went down the memory hole because...
And Linda Gottfriedson.
Ha!
The great goddess of reason and IQ explanation, Linda Gottfriedson, been on the show.
You should check that out as well.
We've had...
Eric Turkheimer on the show who was talking about this stuff, James Flynn, Charles Murray, even Dr.
Kevin Beaver a little bit talked about it.
So, yeah, but this is, people just make up this stuff, oh, it's culturally biased, just so they can wave away the implications.
But that question has been examined so many different ways and always been found wanting.
All right, we'll do one more.
Yes, and thank you very much for that answer, by the way.
Just real quick, we don't have to go on forever about this, but What do you think of government debt being able to go on forever, like to 99% of GDP? Because I went to a Bernie Sanders rally one time with my friend who is a big Trump supporter, actually.
And we just went and talked to the people waiting in line to get in.
We just wanted to talk to them about what they believed and gave them counter-arguments.
So it was fun.
It was a little nerve-wracking, but it was a lot of fun.
And I spoke to a guy who was in line who had a master's in economics, and he was telling me that Basically, the U.S. government debt doesn't really matter, and that it can really technically go on to 99% GDP, and the government doesn't really have to completely pay it back, and our credit rating is good enough that we'll never really default.
And that's a hard argument to make, that it'll never...
That it'll never end, that we could just go on, you know, keep borrowing and borrowing.
Fantastic.
You know, boy, that guy, holy crap.
Yeah.
Just tell him to give him your credit card.
Like, just tell him to give you his credit card.
You know, wow, you know, if debt can just go on and on and you never have to pay it off, give me your credit card, give me the PIN, and I can go and rack up a huge amount of debt and you'll be fine.
Yeah, but I guess what he was saying was that it's a government.
So a government has different rules for that than an individual.
Because numbers don't apply to governments.
Basically.
Reality doesn't apply to governments.
They can travel through time on unicorns.
I mean, God, I mean, so does he...
I don't know what to say to that, the idea that debt can just go on and on and on.
Well, sure, because governments can devalue the currency.
It's called a soft default.
A hard default is I can't pay the bills.
A soft default is I'm printing money and paying off bills with, like, Zimbabwe-style bills, you know.
I printed a billion-dollar Bill, and I just, you know, I can print a trillion dollar bill, and I print 20 of these, and I've paid off the national debt.
Woohoo!
Economics rules!
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, give me a photocopier and, you know, monopoly money that people will accept as real currency.
I'm rich!
But, yeah, I mean, I don't know what, I mean, okay, he can say debt can go on forever, okay?
Is it a genuine financial obligation?
If it is, Yeah.
Now, you can ride debt forever if you want.
Like, there's people who run up a bunch of money on their credit card bills, and what do they do?
They just pay the interest, right?
Yeah.
Okay?
But governments aren't just paying the interest.
Governments are continually adding to this debt, right?
And at some point, at some point, Either they're external creditors or internal creditors, right?
Like either it's the Fed or some internal treasury bill that's being bought by somebody inside the government.
Or they're external creditors either within the country or outside the country.
Because in order to borrow, people have to be willing to lend to you.
And at some point people say, you know, they're not going to be able to pay it back.
And then they stop lending you money.
And then what happens?
And then...
People, I mean, I guess they raised taxes at that point, and that's kind of what you always talk about with the enslaving, you know, the next generation or a few generations down, is that they're going to have to pay all the taxes for, you know, the spending of the current government.
They can't possibly raise enough taxes to deal with the national debt.
I mean, it's absolutely impossible.
Even if it didn't negatively impact people's desire.
Like, if you start raising a lot of taxes on people, The Beatles wrote a song called The Tax Man.
It's one for me, 19 for you.
That's because they were being taxed at 95%.
So what did they do?
They left the country.
And then Bono, who's all about socialism and social inequality, at least until recently, and the government should pay for all the third world debt and the government should pay for this or that.
The guy left where he was to go, I think, to Switzerland or Sweden or some Switzerland, I think it was, so he didn't have to pay as much in taxes.
Because, you know, just the fact that you want massive social spending doesn't mean that you actually want to pay taxes.
Edmund Wilson, who was an old communist sympathizer, I think he was, I can't remember, but he wrote a book called To the Finland Station about it.
Lenin's takeover of Russia.
And he was all for government spending and governments to do this, that, and the other.
He ended up having to flee the United States because he hadn't paid any income tax in 10 years.
And his lawyer said, I can't work this out.
You just got to flee.
Good job, man.
Good job advocating all that government spending and then not paying a single dime in income tax.
Anyway, so they can't raise enough taxes to pay off all debt.
What do you mean when you say that certain generations are going to be Well, if their taxes get raised, then they're going to end up being enslaved because so much of their income is going to be taken away from them.
Yes, okay.
So there's certainly an increased amount of enslavement that way.
If there's a soft default, in other words, if the government just starts printing money, Then they're going to be enslaved because their life savings are just going to be robbed from them.
This happened in the Weimar Republic.
The guy had saved his whole life for his retirement.
And then the day of his retirement, of course, the Deutsche Mark was being printed into oblivion.
And the guy took out his entire life savings and was just able to buy a cup of coffee.
One cup of coffee.
That was his entire life savings.
All just completely stolen from him.
Lack of economic opportunity, lack of ability to plan, and unbelievable social chaos that comes out of this kind of hyperinflation.
I've done a whole series called Fiat Money in France, The Coming Fiscal Fiat Monetary Collapse.
It's a whole series you can find on YouTube where I'm reading articles and commenting on them and describing what happened in France when this happened some time ago.
And what is going to happen...
People are just going to, their economic opportunities and their savings and their incomes are just going to be progressively clawed back and clawed away from them.
And that is an increasing amount of enslavement.
And to the degree to which they may end up completely dependent on the government, because nobody's around creating any economic opportunities if inflation is running 1,500% a month, as we've seen in certain other countries throughout history and across the world.
So, yeah, I think it's a serious possibility.
Yeah, okay.
Well, thank you very much for the call.
Enjoy your weekend!
Oh, yes.
Thank you.
And by the way, just real quick, thanks for uploading so many videos.
You do it day after day, and I'm always amazed how you're able to do it.
I'm sure it can be very taxing.
So thank you very much for that.
Thank you for working so hard for the cause of human liberty.
And thanks for the call.
It's a lot easier than things.
There's actually three of us.
Screw this working.
I'm just cloning myself.
There's nine mics and three of me because that's about the ratio that we need.
Is it like multiplicity?
Are there a couple of mics that are pretty dim that we have to tolerate?
There's one mic with abs.
That's the only one I interact with.
All right.
Thanks, man.
Talk to you soon and welcome back anytime to finish off those questions.
They're great questions.
Yes, sir.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Well, thanks everyone so much for listening.
Always a great pleasure to have these chats with you and yours.
Please remember, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
And if you're going to do any shopping on Amazon, fdrurl.com slash Amazon is how you can.
It doesn't cost you anything and helps us out quite a bit.
