Jan. 21, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
03:27:32
3181 Socialist Redistribution of Grocery Bags - Call In Show - January 15th, 2016
Question 1: [2:00] - “Don't we need to assume the existence of consciousness before we can construct any concept of physical matter, because even with all scientific contraption, every knowledge is perceived by use, hence our consciousness. Wouldn't that then turn any assumption, that consciousness requires physical matter (i.e. materialism) into a weak and circular assumption, not an actual provable fact?"Question 2: [36:37] - “I’m a gay man and I think politics/philosophy destroyed my relationship. Is it possible to be in a relationship with someone you fundamentally disagree with? If not, what hope does a gay man have of finding anyone in a predominantly liberal/socialist city?”Question 3: [2:03:05] - Is Donald Trump a positive force for liberty who should be supported by freedom lovers or a dangerous authoritarian who should be excised from the right by the right? Question 4: [2:42:51] - “Aren't low birth rates, women's liberation, rising divorce rates, falling marriage rates, gay marriages, premarital promiscuity, unmarried adults living with their parents, non-western immigration, and the consequent multiculturalism, inevitable in the post-industrial revolution western civilization, even in the absence of a Cultural Marxism or progressivism?”
And is there an even higher realm than sensual reality?
A great question.
I think you'll really, really like the approach that the conversation took.
Number two, a question that we all face in dealing with the world.
Can we actually have long-term relationships with people who don't just not share our values, the good that we accept, but actively seem to oppose those values?
Well, that's an important question.
And if you haven't asked it yourself, you're not doing philosophy the way it's supposed to be done.
Alright, number three is the question, is Donald Trump a positive force for liberty or a squirrel-haired proto-fascist in the making?
And I took a new tack on this one, which I hope will make some sense to everyone.
And a question four, relating to the gene wars, G-E-N-E wars, that we've been talking about over the past couple of months.
You can do a search for Gene Wars, the presentations, at youtube.com slash freedomainradio.
Is there a kind of grinding historical inevitability to the old adage that empires rise in hobnail boots and descend in silk slippers?
The ease that is provided by freedom does it sow the seeds of our own destruction.
I'm not a big fan of predestined inevitability, so what I did was...
But why tell you now?
Why don't you just have a listen to what's coming up next?
And please don't forget, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show and fdrurl.com slash amazon to help us out.
If you're just doing some shopping, won't cost you anything, helps us out quite a bit.
Please enjoy the show.
Alright, well up first on the show today is Clemens.
He wrote in and said, That's from Clemens.
Hello, Clemens.
How are you?
Hi, Stefan.
Quite fine.
It's a bit late here.
Well, after my first question of how are you, my second question is this.
What are you talking about?
I don't understand.
Step me through it, brother.
I don't know what you're talking about, but that may be my limitation.
Michael said I should write a few sentences, so I constructed this pretentious...
Yes, the problem is, if you assume materialism, you have to first assume that you have a conscience before you can perceive...
Wait, wait, wait, hang on, hang on.
Conscience or consciousness?
Consciousness, sorry.
Okay, it's important to differentiate this.
Not my first language.
And because of that, I don't know if you can really...
I get to materialism as...
I have to assume my conscience.
So I see materialism and if I take then the matter to say, well, all consciousness needs matter, I would have a circular argument, I think.
Okay, so hang on, hang on.
Again, I just need to take it, you know, explain it to me like I'm three years old kind of thing.
Again?
So...
When you say, if I assume that I'm conscious, that I have consciousness, right?
Yes.
Okay, first of all, you need to define to me what is consciousness, what is I, and what you mean by assumption, because I don't know what you mean.
And it's not because you're being unclear, it's just that these words can be challenging.
Yeah, that's sort of the problem.
Um...
That's actually the thing I want to talk about because I'm actually not that sure about all those words.
But, well, I think consciousness would mean that there is something which perceives itself or something like that.
Because when you use the word I, then you are presupposing consciousness, right?
Right.
There's no I or no ego without consciousness.
Like a rock doesn't have an I. A termite doesn't have an I. I mean, I don't know whether dogs or, you know, whatever.
Cats attacking themselves in the mirror don't seem to have much of a sense of ego or whatever.
But at least in terms of what you and I mean philosophically… You have to have an ego in order to even have the concept of consciousness.
And so since the concept of consciousness can only be produced by consciousness, for us to say, well, we have to assume consciousness.
Well, since consciousness is required to produce even the idea of consciousness, it's like saying, well, if there's a watch, we have to assume that there's a watchmaker.
And it's like, well, yes, yes.
And the watch in this case is the word conscious, the concept consciousness.
The watchmaker is the consciousness itself which produces the concept.
And so I don't think that we can say, I have to assume consciousness, because the moment you say I, you're already accepting consciousness.
In other words, you don't have to assume that there is a watchmaker if you see a watch.
A watch can't be produced by natural forces.
You don't assume that there's a watchmaker.
You accept That there is a watchmaker.
Assumption and acceptance are two different things.
And so I think because the concept consciousness can only exist from the actions or process of consciousness, I don't think we can say that it's an assumption.
I think we have to say that it's an acceptance of the validity of consciousness.
Is that necessarily so?
I mean, couldn't I just be false about thinking to have conscience?
It's basically saying it's all an illusion.
I'm sorry, could you just say that part again?
I didn't quite follow.
Well, look, if I think there's some thought coming to mind, and I assume that's my thought or something, but in a very theoretical way, Way to think about it.
Is that necessarily so?
Is what necessarily so?
That I actually think.
But for you to communicate even the question of whether you think you have to already have consciousness and be thinking, right?
Yeah, sure.
So it's not an assumption.
Like, if you and I are sitting in a car and you turn to me and you say, well, let's assume that we're sitting in a car.
That would not be an assumption because we can see the car all around us.
Or if I say to you, let me assume that you had access to air yesterday, right?
I don't have to assume that.
I know that because you're still alive, right?
No, what I mean is if you go back on a very theoretical level.
That is to say, how do I know it's not a dream?
Or was it Pascal who said maybe an evil demon?
Descartes.
Descartes, sorry.
Okay, so we already have a dream state to...
We already have a dream state to compare our waking reality to, right?
And in other words, when we dream at night, and I've talked about this before, so I'll keep it brief, but when we dream at night, we experience states of being and states of matter and transitions of time We're good to go.
When we say, well, maybe this is a dream, we already have waking reality and its static, permanent, predictable qualities to compare to our dream state, which is very fluid and unreal and has crazy transitions and you can do things like jump over trees that you can't do in your waking life.
Hang on, hang on, let me finish my thought.
And so we already have waking, empirical, objective reality to compare To the dream state that we have at night, and that's how we know that it's a dream at night.
This morning, I had some wild dreams last night, and this morning I was just having my coffee and sitting down to read, and I was just thinking, wouldn't it be wild if I woke up from this?
But then I thought, okay, well, how do I know I'm not still dreaming?
Well, it's stable, it's predictable, and it's not under my control, and And there aren't any crazy transitions.
I don't look out the window and see unicorns floating over rainbows and stuff.
So if we were to say we have the dream state at night and then we have the waking reality, we would have to say if the waking reality is also a dream, we would have to have some other state of mind that we would compare to our waking life And say, well, compared to that other state of mind, this waking life is a dream.
In the same way we compare our waking life to our dreams at night, and we know the difference between the two if we're sane, right?
Now, there are a lot of philosophers who have tried to create this super-reality.
Which allows us to compare that superreality even to our waking life and say the stability, predictability, and rationality and reality of our waking life is to that superreality as our dreams are to our waking life.
And they call this the...
Plato called it the realm of forms.
Kant called it the new aminal realm.
The Buddhists call it transcendental or nirvana or whatever it is, right?
It's some superreality which tells us...
And of course, in religions, it's called heaven.
It's a superreality which reveals that our waking life is but a dream and our nightly dreams are a dream within a dream.
But the problem with that...
It's that we know that our nightly dreams have impossible events, circumstances, transitions, properties.
The physics make no sense and that's how you know you're dreaming.
So the way that we know our waking life is real and our dreaming life is not is because our waking life is consistent, right?
You know, if you put down a book And then go brush your teeth.
Put down your book on a table.
Go brush your teeth.
You come back.
Your book is still there.
If it's not there, somebody moved it, right?
And so the way that we know our waking life is our waking life is it is consistent.
Now, once something is consistent, what does it mean to say some super reality is more consistent, right?
Our nightly dreams are the opposite of consistency, right?
Our waking life is consistent.
What would it mean to say there's another reality on top, like the top of a triple-decker reality sandwich, is some realm that is more consistent than the material realm?
Like, let me just go back.
I take a book.
I put it on my nightstand.
I go home and I brush my teeth.
Let's say I'm in the super world, right?
The super realm.
I put the book on the nightstand.
I go and I brush my teeth.
I come back.
Is the book more there?
Is the book more consistently the way it is?
If I open chapter one of a book I've read before, are the words more consistently the same as they were before?
Is the sun more round?
Is wind more windy?
How can you have something that is more consistent than that which is already consistent?
And so you separate nightly dreams from waking reality according to the consistency and predictability and all that of waking reality.
But for there to be a super realm...
Well, either the super realm is inconsistent, in which case it's just our dream state, or...
Nothing else.
Because it can't be more consistent.
Like the curtains in my bedroom in the super realm, would they be even more curtain-y?
Would my bedroom be even more bedroom-y?
Would my bed be somehow more essence of bed-ness?
Like it wouldn't make any sense.
And so I don't think that we can compare our consciousness to some higher realm and say, aha, aha, that's the real thing.
This is not consistent.
Well, it was actually not what I meant, but the question is, how could you make sure that reality has to be constructed?
Actually, hang on, hang on, hang on.
You said, how do we know that this is not a dream?
Yeah, sure.
Now, I answered that question, and then you said, that's not what I meant.
No, sorry.
Okay.
Okay.
Now, you may disagree with my answer.
That's perfectly fine.
But don't tell me that's not...
You asked the question, I answered it.
Then you can disagree with my answer, but don't tell me I wasn't answering the right question, because that makes it sound like I'm not listening.
And I was listening to your question and trying to provide an answer, which is that we know that our waking life is not a dream, and I gave answers as to why.
So I don't know what you mean when you say, that's not what I meant.
Sorry, I misspoke.
Look, I don't know.
Look, I mean, that makes a lot of sense.
And that's actually, of course, what I think.
I mean, that's...
The question would be, can we prove that the reality would need to be consistent?
I mean, why couldn't reality be chaotic and we just imagine the consistency?
Well, because if we enter into some mind realm that is chaotic, that means we're dreaming or we're insane.
Because we already have two states of mind that are psychotic.
One is we're fully awake but we see visions.
We see giant dragons gripping virgins in their blood talons and there are ghosts around us telling us to kill our hamsters.
We have auditory and visual hallucinations.
It's a state of psychosis and it's a very dangerous state where the brain is seriously disordered.
And those people, generally, as far as I understand it, tend to be institutionalized and, rightly or wrongly, heavily medicated.
So we have already people whose waking life is inconsistent.
It's just not...
Okay, we'll get to that in a sec.
So we already have that.
Now, we also have another...
Psychotic state called being asleep.
And it's funny when you think about it, but when you're asleep, at least to my way of thinking, I'm certainly no expert, but it's kind of like you're having auditory and visual hallucinations for hours.
I mean, you're in a psychotic state.
Your body pins you down by releasing all these chemicals that make your muscles not move.
But that is a psychotic state because the reason we know that a waking person...
It's having a psychotic state.
It's if you and I are walking along train tracks and a train comes along and I say, hey, there's a train, and you say, oh, yes, there is a train, then, you know, we're not crazy, right?
However, if we are scuba diving and I say, look out, a train is coming through under the water, well, you know, trains don't run underwater.
In the water.
Don't give me this.
There are trains under the channel.
I get it.
In the water.
There are train tracks in the water.
And so if only I am seeing the train that's running through the water and you're not, then I'm crazy, right?
I mean – and also we have cameras, right?
So if I think that I'm dueling Sir Gawain the Green Knight in my driveway and I have security cameras – Which I do, then I go and review the security cameras and I'm fighting nothing, right?
So I have some independent way of verifying.
So if we have an inconsistent realm, then either it is consistently inconsistent for everyone, in which case we're all insane and that would never happen because inconsistency is a subjective state.
Or it is consistent for everyone, in which case it's just waking reality.
So I hope that makes some sense.
Yeah, it makes sense.
Of course.
These questions, interestingly enough, they're not that hard to answer.
Right?
And no, listen, listen, I'm not talking about you, right?
I'm just being like the history of philosophy, right?
Right?
They're not that hard to answer.
The question is, why are they hard for us to answer individually?
And mostly that's because of propaganda and because of fear.
Because the moment we start talking about consistent, objective, empirical reality, we run up against people's fantasies of the state and of religions and of nations and all this kind of stuff.
And it's dangerous to talk about plain, vanilla, old, sensual reality to people because so much of human society and human control and domination is...
Built upon a rejection of simple, sensual, tactile reality.
Go ahead, sorry.
Look, I have no problem with that, and I don't think anything else than that.
The question for me is more of the nature of, can I really prove that in a formal way?
Of course, I can say, well, it's sort of self-evident to me, because I'm standing here at my desk, so it makes sense.
But from a theoretical point of view...
Sorry, you keep using words like formal and proof and theoretical.
I don't know what you think I've been doing.
Do you think I've just been spinning a bedtime story?
No, of course.
Now, you could take this proof and you could put it out in syllogistical format if you wanted.
And we could do that if it's of interest to you.
But that's a proof.
That which is inconsistent is subjective.
And therefore, inconsistency cannot be a characteristic of a higher realm, which is supposed to be more objective than objectivity.
Things which are consistent 100% cannot become more consistent, and therefore you cannot have...
And consistent equals reality.
Since reality is 100% consistent, a super-reality would have to be more consistent, but you can't have more than 100% consistency, therefore our waking realm is the ultimate reality.
I mean, you could put this out syllogistically in a few minutes if you wanted, and that's called a proof.
Because I give you an answer, and then you say, well, yes, but can we prove it?
And it's like, two and two is four.
Here's two coconuts, and here's two oranges.
You have four items that come from trees or whatever, and you say, yes, but can we prove it?
And it's like, that's what we just did.
The proof is, in my opinion, based on the fact that I can already see things around me.
That's sort of the problem I have with that.
Okay, but dude, we just had a whole conversation and I didn't just say, look around you.
I put forward a series of arguments.
Yeah, of course.
Do you know how to evaluate those arguments?
It's okay if you don't.
I mean, it's not like we're taught this stuff in government schools.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be government schools.
They'd be a real education.
But I've put forward a series of arguments and I even gave you some examples of syllogisms.
Do you know?
Because it seems to me like you're just avoiding...
accepting the arguments that I put forward.
Because you're talking about the need to prove something I think I've just proven without rebutting the proofs that I put forward.
And you either rebut them or you accept them.
There's no third choice in philosophy.
You find a way to rebut the propositions or you have to accept them.
I'm not trying to be annoying.
This is how it works, right?
Again, it all makes sense to me.
The question for me is still, but you may say you already answered that and you're probably right.
The argument to say this is reality because it's consistent, it makes a lot of sense, but I only know that reality...
Hang on, hang on.
I'm sorry to interrupt your train of thought.
Makes a lot of sense is not a philosophical term.
Yes, sure.
Something is true or it's false.
The reason it makes a lot of sense gives you wiggle room to exit with neither being convinced nor rebutting.
And the only reason I have philosophical conversations with people is so that I can convince them or they can convince me.
When you say, well, it makes a lot of sense, it's like, that's not how philosophy works.
Philosophy is true Or it's false.
It's valid or it's invalid.
So this, it makes a lot of sense.
Well, compared to what?
Does it make 70% sense?
When I say two and two make four, you say, well, that makes 70% sense.
That's 70% true.
That wouldn't make any sense.
It's either true or not, right?
Okay.
Okay, sorry.
You say it is reality because it's consistent, but I only know that Reality is consistent because I see reality, or did I miss something?
Well, there are two states of consciousness.
One, consistency, daily waking life.
Two, inconsistency, nightly dreams, right?
Yes.
Now, I assume I never had a clear...
Okay, well, if I never had a wake moment, I wouldn't think.
Okay, that makes sense.
Well, if you were in a coma...
the coma people out of this for the moment.
They can't fend for themselves anyway.
Even though I used them in UPB, but go on.
Okay, which would mean in a coma I couldn't think, so in order to think, I would need to have a waking state.
Well, forget the coma people.
They're not having a lot of conversations.
Let's talk about you and I. You have consistent waking reality and inconsistent nightly dreams.
Those are the two states.
And consistency is the waking state of reality.
Now, of course, you could say, well, what if the waking state of reality is the dream and the nightly state of unreality is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
But we know that that's not true.
We know that's not true because if I put a camera and point it at my bed while I sleep at night, I can have the most wonderful or amazing or scary dreams where I'm doing all of these things, but I'm actually in my bed.
But the camera shows that.
I'm in my bed.
Hogging the covers, as usual.
So we know that what's occurring there is not occurring In reality.
You can't take a selfie in dreams and see it on your phone in the morning.
Or if you can, please go see your doctor.
So we know that when I'm walking in a room, I can film myself walking in a room and I'm walking in a room.
And there's no contradiction.
I feel that I'm walking.
Other people can come and watch me walk.
I can have cameras that show me walking.
So everything agrees that I'm walking in a room.
Other people, cameras, independent verification, the air, dust, everything.
Everything conforms to the one simple fact that I'm walking in a room.
There's no contradiction there whatsoever.
Independent verification.
So that's...
I mean, you can't get more real than that.
Perfect consistency with your experience.
Now, in dreams, I may dream that I'm walking in a room, but I'm lying in my bed.
So there's already an incongruity because I'm lying in my bed, but I think that I'm walking in a room.
Now, other people who come in and say...
I said, what was I doing last night?
Because I was walking in a room and they'll come in and they'll say, no, you were sleeping in your bed.
And snoring.
No more sushi for you, right?
And farty.
So already we have inconsistencies that show that the dreams are occurring inside my head.
Whereas we don't when I'm walking in a room in the real world, right?
In the waking world.
So we can't say that what's happening at night is more real because it's only occurring in my head and there's no independent verification.
There's no objectivity.
There's no third-party verification.
It's only happening in my head.
And every measurement of the fact that it's happening in my own head is perfectly consistent.
For instance, my bed...
Slowly gets U-shaped on my side because I'm lying there.
If they hook up EEGs or brain scans or whatever, they can see the brain activity representing the dream.
If they look at my eyeballs, there's rapid eye movement that happens when you're dreaming.
So every single objective measurement is that I'm having a dream that's subjective to my internal state and it's not occurring in the real world.
So, you have consistency, objectivity, reproducibility, and perfect accordance with every observation in one realm, and in the other realm, crazy thing happens that's all the result of electrical activity within my brain, and nobody else can verify.
So, we know that the waking one is the real, because it's independently verifiable, and the sleeping one is subjective, because it doesn't accord with the empirical evidence of the waking world that I'm just lying in my bed.
Okay, but wouldn't objectivity and reproducibility just be necessary if you have consistency?
So basically, that would be the argument, right?
I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow the argument.
Well, the fact that I have objectivity and reproducibility that would just follow from having consistency.
Well, it's how you know something is consistent, right?
That's a scientific method, right?
Which is that your results have to be independently verifiable by other people using the same equipment under the same conditions.
And so it's not like...
That is the test of...
Consistency.
It's the same thing with double-blind experiments in medicine and so on.
Is it consistent across a wide body of people that X, Y, and Z cures disease A, B, or C? Maybe spontaneous remission.
Maybe people just got better for no reason.
Maybe they only thought they were sick.
Whatever.
Independent verification is one of the hallmarks of consistency.
We accept it because we know that we're talking about something real.
Rather than, and we know this, like if you had some disease, you go to the doctor, and the doctor says, I'm just going to cure your idea of the disease, would you take that?
Well, no, because you'd say, well, that's not actually curing my disease, you're just changing my mind, not my body, not the reality.
Well, there are people who would do that, but okay, yeah, sure.
But they're crazy.
Yeah.
And you're calling from Germany, right?
Yes.
So what do you think of this migrant crisis?
Insanity?
It's basically fun now to watch a talk show because you can see completely illusion of people there.
It's really amazing.
You mean the people who simply are denying the basic reality of the numbers and the statistics and the experience, right?
Yeah, sure.
There was recently a girl who just talked about what happened to her at the train station in Cologne, and they smeared her as a racist and all that sort of...
It's just ugly.
Well, yeah, I mean, multiculturalism is a religion and these people are seeing their moral superiority vanish before their eyes.
And that's tough because they've been years patting themselves on the back and literally releasing dopamine into their brain.
They've become addicts, addicts to the multicultural cult, to the multicultural religion.
And so when multiculturalism fails, people always want to say, Angela Merkel said multiculturalism fails.
I think other British politicians have said multiculturalism has failed.
And then people say, well, why do they continue?
Well, for the same reason that a drug addict says cocaine is killing me and then goes and gets more cocaine because he's addicted.
And they're addicted to the dopamine release of moral self-congratulations.
So when you question or push back against the narrative, you are robbing them Of their drug of choice.
Moral self-congratulation is not just a state of mind.
It's a physical state of biochemical dependency.
Yeah, sure.
That's why I can't hope that people will act rationally.
But, I mean, the whole thing can't go on forever, basically.
They are all morally bankrupt and literally bankrupt, which includes the press and all that sort of things.
But let me ask you something.
Yes.
This reality-unreality conversation, I appreciate it.
I love the metaphysics chats.
I mean, they're great for me.
Do you think that's what Europe needs right now?
Not really.
Just curious.
Actually, we have basically the same opinion.
I just was asking from a, again, just, well...
Theoretical, but okay.
But you're out there doing other stuff, I assume, right?
I mean, you're out there trying to make the world a better place and confronting people's delusions and so on because this is more like a rest from that or a hobby from that job, right?
Sort of, yes.
Well, actually, I wouldn't know what you could really do except for, well, talking to people.
Because, look, we have a rather...
I live in Saxony and in Dresden, they are demonstrating basically 10 up to 20,000 for one year now each Monday, but I wouldn't go there because they are also statists.
They're not left statists, but still statists.
So...
I mean, I personally hope that Saxony secedes from Germany, but...
Well, I can tell you what I think you should do.
You can do what I do, which is toughen people the hell up.
Toughen people up.
No, seriously.
Like, we've lived in such a comfortable, contradiction, deluded, politically correct, amniotic sack of nonsense for so long, we've become incredibly frail.
Incredibly frail.
And the best way to toughen people up is expose them to challenging ideas.
Let them have their fits and their panic attacks and let them hug their puppies and go off to their hug rooms and stuff like that.
But it'll toughen them up.
It'll toughen them up.
Expose people to contradictory information.
It's good for them.
Yeah, it hurts a little bit.
First time you go to the gym, if you haven't worked out for a while, it hurts a little bit too, but it's kind of necessary.
Because I was always told about this.
Toughen it up.
Toughen it up.
But we've become such a nation of spineless jellyfish cucks that it's like, oh, I heard something that contradicts my state of mind.
I must run and scream.
And it's like, no, no, it's okay.
Fight or flight is being activated for no particular reason other than...
Your elders were cowardly.
So here's some contradictory information.
Look!
You're still alive.
You heard something that worked against or undermined your worldview.
You didn't get your dopamine hit, and you're still alive.
And that's how we toughen people up.
I mean, Europeans used to be a pretty tough race, and we just got all kinds of girlified, all kinds of whatever, right?
But just go toughen people up.
Just expose them.
To information that breaks their hypnosis, right?
I mean, all this.
We're snapping our fingers from people who are hypnotized by a looming disaster.
You know, you'll see those disaster movies where there's some oncoming lava or something and one person is just standing there, their mouth opening.
The other one's like, come on, we gotta go!
And grab them.
It's just, you just stop the hypnosis.
Just give them information that breaks them out of their train track thinking.
That's what to do.
I mean, I don't know.
I was gathering together.
Didn't they just turn water cannons on protesters in Germany who were protesting the rapes in Cologne and Hamburg?
Didn't they just turn water cannons on these people?
Because God knows that's bad.
The police can't even arrest these Gropies.
But to turn water cannons on the protesters, I don't know how that's going down in Germany.
I hope not well.
But just expose people to contradictory ideas and have them understand that having their worldview challenged will not kill them.
But not having their worldview challenged will probably get them raped.
Well, actually, that's what I'm trying to do.
That's what I meant by talking to people.
It was quite interesting that for this demonstration in this rally in Cologne, they had 1,700 policemen and they had 17 or 20 at Sylvester.
Quite interesting.
What is interesting, by the way, is that the people, I think, in the eastern part of Germany and also in the eastern countries of Europe In a way, more tough because they already had a whole nonsense until 1990.
And so they are much quicker to protest and that sort of thing.
All right.
Well, listen, I'm going to move on to the next caller, but I really appreciate the call and I certainly appreciate the work that you're doing out to help save civilization.
And I'll move on to the next caller, but you're welcome back anytime.
I do love me some metaphysics, but I always just want to check in on activism at the same time.
All right.
Thanks, Emil, man.
Okay, thank you.
Bye.
Alright, up next is James.
James wrote in and said, I think politics slash philosophy destroyed my relationship.
Is it possible to be in a relationship with someone you fundamentally disagree with?
If not, what hope does a gay man in a predominantly liberal slash socialist city have of finding anyone?
That's from James.
Hello, James.
How are you doing?
Very good.
Happy New Year, Stephen.
Happy New Year to you too, man.
So, what do you mean by fundamental?
You said fundamental disagreements.
Can you have a relationship with fundamental disagreements?
What do you mean by fundamental?
Because that may be different to different people.
Well, I guess I mean on values, on what you hold to be true and what you believe deep inside you, I guess.
Okay.
So what you feel deep inside you may be an attraction to a particular type of guy or something like that.
So can you overcome that?
Well, I try to overcome that.
And I actually think I was capable of overcoming those fundamental differences.
The problem is I don't think other people are capable of overcoming that.
Okay, so just to run through, right?
So there are differences like if you want to get married to someone and that person wants to spank the children and you don't, right?
Yeah, yeah.
That's a pretty serious difference, right?
Yes.
And that's not really up to you because there's a third party involved, right?
You can't say, that's fine with me because… You've got third parties involved who are helpless, toddlers who are going to get hit, so you don't really have...
Like if the guy says, let's go rob banks, that's not like, oh, there's a difference of values.
That's not good as a whole.
It's the job of the banks to rob you.
You can't reverse that.
Yeah.
Now, there are other things, though, that may be compatible or incompatible.
So, for instance, one person wants to live in the country, one person wants to live in the city, right?
That's pretty incompatible, and that may be to the point where you can't, you know, one person wants to have kids or adopt kids, another person doesn't want to have kids, doesn't want to adopt kids.
I can see that being something.
And these are not moral things, right?
I mean, country, city, kids, no kids are not moral things.
But they can be enough for incompatibilities.
Some people...
You know, what do they say in the old Nemo?
You got serious thrill issues, dude, right?
Some people really like a life of chaos and excitement and, you know, they can't be happy in any other situation or environment.
That's all they want to do.
And other people are like, you know, I like a little bit more predictability, a little bit more stability.
I feel like I'm going insane with this kind of life and all that.
So there are lots of incompatibilities that are fine, right?
I mean, you like classical, she likes jazz or he likes jazz.
And, you know, you can both learn from each other's tastes or put on headphones.
There are others which are...
They create significant incompatibilities, but they're not fundamental moral issues.
And then there are differences which are incompatibilities and moral issues.
Now, the incompatible moral issues, yeah, you can't.
You can't have a relationship, in my opinion, based on those.
Certainly not if it involves third parties.
Many moons ago, there was a girl, a woman, And we were attracted to each other and we never even kissed.
But she was really smart and really funny and came from a great family in many ways.
And she was a Christian.
Oh, a Christian.
And as sensible people, we talked about raising kids before we even started dating.
Why?
Because why do you want to drive into the middle of nowhere if there's no gas station?
Andrew Lowen-Gas, time's short, got to be efficient in your dating.
And, you know, my offer was, okay, you're religious, I'm not.
So, if we had kids, my offer is this.
We don't teach them that God is true.
We teach them about religion, you know, as a mode of thought, but we don't teach them that God is true and they're going to go to hell and sinners and all that.
She wasn't really hell-focused, but...
But of course, you know, when they're 18, if they get older, and when they get older, then they can choose for themselves whether they want to be religious or not.
And that was no.
No.
She didn't want that.
She wanted to tell them God is true, God is real, God is life, God is all that, and candy and a sheep, and when they're kids, as true, and so on.
And I said, well, where would that leave me as a dad and as a father?
Oh, God is real.
God is virtuous.
You must love God to be a good person.
Daddy's an atheist.
I said, where would that leave me?
And she said, well, where would it leave me if it's real for me?
But for you, it's just a mode of thought, right?
And she had a great point.
You couldn't really argue.
That was a win-lose situation as...
Religion so often tends to be, unless you're both on the same page.
So this wasn't, you know, to me, in telling things which are not true to kids, well, that's not really up to me.
And because, you know, I don't have the right to make a deal with a woman to have kids so that she can tell them things as true that I know to be false.
I don't That's not up to me because it's the kids' minds, right?
I mean, I protect the kids' minds and society is going to do enough of a number on the kids anyway.
You don't need to add to it with other stuff.
So that's what I meant when I was sort of asking, well, what does it mean?
Compatibility versus incompatibility.
You're obviously not talking about, I like plaid and you like spots.
I think I just made...
All gay men shudder with both of those.
But anyway, you're not talking about inconsequential aesthetic preferences, musical preferences, artistic preferences, movie preferences.
You're talking about either amoral lifestyle choices that are deep enough that they're really serious, like kids know kids and so on.
I don't think we need to talk about, you know, S&M is just assault if both people aren't into it, right?
So for both people to into it, once you get into things like spanking and so on, you can't...
That's not a choice, right?
So I think we're talking about the middle area.
Is that fair to say?
That would be fair, yeah.
Sorry for that.
So on fundamental things like having a monogamous relationship, Getting married, having kids, no spanking.
We are in 100% agreement.
Who's we?
So me and my partner were in agreement on those fundamental things.
Oh, you're in a relationship?
No, I was.
I was.
You were?
Okay.
Sorry, the tenses are messing me up.
So you were in a relationship with a guy and you were simpatico with a lot of this stuff, right?
Absolutely.
95%.
Okay, so where did it...
I can give you an example, for example.
So...
One day he asked me, you know, I want to know more about you.
Who inspires you?
And I decided to give him a list of people who inspire me.
So I sent him a list of authors and so on.
And Ayn Rand was one of these examples.
So he'd never heard of Ayn Rand.
He did some research while he was at work.
Oh dear.
Did he read other people's opinions about Ayn Rand rather than just read some Ayn Rand?
He had a colleague beside him who sat there instead who said, oh, you know, only sociopaths like Ayn Rand.
Right, right.
I came home one day to discover him completely in floods of tears to discover that his partner, who he was now engaged to, liked this evil woman that he described her as.
Wait, he thought you'd gone from a nice guy to a sociopath because some guy really had a problem with Ayn Rand?
Yes, yeah.
Yeah.
Man, you dodged a bullet, brother!
Oh, I hate to say it.
I do, but...
Okay, go on, go on.
I see that now.
I see that now, but at the time, I didn't.
And the relationship went on for a year after this point.
So...
Yeah, he...
I think he saw this as a...
I mean, actually, from the very beginning, I always told him, you know, I'm a capitalist, right?
And he...
I don't think he quite understood this.
Now, how long had you guys been...
How long have you guys been lovers?
How long have you guys been engaged?
How long have you been in a relationship with this guy before some stranger caused him to dump you?
Not very long.
We were together for just under two years in total.
We were engaged after four months.
We never talked about politics or philosophy much and whenever it came up it was pretty disastrous.
Right.
Now, you know I'm going to ask you the next question, right?
I don't know what that is.
Do you know?
I don't know if you've heard these kinds of calls before, but...
I've been listening to you...
In hindsight, you'll know what the next question is going to be, right?
Okay.
How pretty was he?
He was probably...
He could be a model for Dolce& Gabbana.
Ah, James.
Yeah.
How do I love the let me count the abs?
He was...
So he was like an ultra-hardy, right?
Like a big slab of beefsteak.
Probably the most beautiful man I've ever seen.
Right.
Right.
So...
Yeah.
Beauty.
Yes.
Physical beauty.
That's the issue, I guess.
Yeah.
I've never known a really pretty person to like Rand, but that's perhaps a topic for another time.
Why do you think?
One of his main criticisms of her was that she was very ugly.
Oh no!
Oh no, he didn't!
Wait, hang on a second.
Let me just make a note here.
Physical vanity in the gay community.
I've never heard of that before.
No, I'm telling you, I feel like Lara Croft in a well-oiled bar.
So maybe this is actually my problem because I've never dated anyone who was not very attractive, much more so than me.
And how are you landing?
How are you reeling in these beefcakes?
Okay, maybe you've just hit the nail on the head.
Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know.
I just...
I'm very charming, I guess.
You don't know?
Yeah, I... I guess, well, he was attracted to me because I was different.
I was independently minded.
I... He admired many things about me.
And...
Are you wealthy?
I'm not wealthy.
I'm a PhD student.
I have no money.
Are you going to have money?
Oh yeah, I will eventually, yeah.
Eventually?
What are you studying?
Because I'm doing chemical engineering and I have a job when I finish.
So you're going to be pulling down six figures fairly quick after graduating, right?
Eventually, yes.
Eventually being like years from now?
I would say within two years, I'll be...
Yeah, at that stage.
So, within two years, you're going to be making a lot of money?
Yes.
Your dad is rich, and your mama is good looking.
Although, I don't know who would be who in here, but...
And so, if he's a 10, where do you put yourself physically?
Maybe a 7 or 8...
Alright, so he's not totally slumming it?
No.
Alright, okay.
He doesn't have to introduce you as his bodyguard?
No.
Okay.
This is the homely bouncer I bring around to keep off the other.
Now, was he, I don't know, how can I put this delicately, was he a rampant compulsive man-whore?
When he was young?
The complete opposite.
This was his first serious relationship.
Well, see, that is not the complete opposite of what I'm saying.
Oh.
In other words, did he sleep around a lot when he was young?
No, absolutely not, no.
I mean, this guy had problems taking his shirt off in front of other people.
He was very insecure.
And he really lacked confidence.
Oh my god.
Yeah.
Wait, so he could be a Dolce& Gabbana model.
Yes.
But he's insecure.
Yes, yes.
So he's nuts.
Okay, yeah, maybe you're...
No, seriously.
Like, I had a friend when I was younger.
Guy was 6'6".
Yeah.
He never...
He never walked around saying...
I don't like standing up around people because I feel so self-conscious about being so short.
Is it bad that when you call him nuts, I want to punch you in the face because I still feel...
No, that's an honest response and I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong.
I'm just giving you my visceral response, right?
Yeah, yeah.
But tell me, I mean, if the guy is super good looking but he's very insecure, I mean, what do you think about when I say to this, well, what would you think of a guy who's six foot six who says, I don't like standing up around people because I'm so self-conscious about how short I am?
What would you say?
I would say he probably has problems from his childhood.
He probably has problems?
Yeah.
Okay.
That's a very nice way of putting it.
Wouldn't that be kind of nuts, right?
Yeah, yeah.
You know, like if I do a video where I say, doesn't everybody love my long flowing locks of hair?
That would be delusional, right?
Yeah, yeah.
And so I'm sorry, you know, I don't mean to be offensive or anything like that, but that doesn't mean I won't be.
But I'm interested in the punching me thing.
Well, okay, maybe that was an exaggeration, but I still feel...
No, listen, I believe you.
I'm not offended.
I'm not offended.
Listen, I guarantee you, I am punchable at times.
Okay.
Like, oh, listen, I just did this whole thing with this last caller about give people contradictory information, they'll survive, right?
Toughen them up, right?
Yeah.
Now, if somebody had to...
Wait, Mike.
Mike gives me the occasional comments.
And the peals of laughter, Mike, if not downright giddy enjoyment, was that when I said I'm eminently punchable?
No comment.
Anything you'd like to share with the audience as a whole.
This is why Mike and I don't often do shows together, because I'm just afraid of him leaping across the table.
No comment.
It's true, though, right?
I mean, I can see that.
I can get it.
All right.
So, James, when I said, that's nuts, right?
Yeah, yeah.
People who have a very distorted view of their own physicality You may have heard this phrase, the body dysmorphic disorder, and again, it's made up stuff by psychiatrists, but it is a sign of some hiccups in reality processing, right?
But actually...
At the end of the relationship, he was confident.
Like, he changed so much.
And he knows he's good-looking, he just would never admit this.
I mean, his whole...
Oh, God!
Damn, I can't let you continue.
His whole philosophy...
Oh, no!
Stop!
Oh, stop.
I'm so sorry.
His whole philosophy.
No, no.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
James.
Okay.
He's not nuts.
This is your little corner of crazy, my friend.
Okay.
Okay?
I'm so sorry to interrupt you.
I really apologize.
You'll understand why in about 30 seconds.
Okay?
Yeah.
Your thesis, my friend, is that at the end of your relationship, oh, he was so confident, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
He was so confident that he dumped you because a stranger didn't like a book you read.
Well, actually, I left him.
What?
I left him.
So he thought you were a sociopath, but he wouldn't even leave you?
No, our relationship went on for a year after this point.
He thought you were a sociopath and kept dating for you for a year, but he's super confident.
Yeah.
You get that doesn't really fit, right?
Yeah.
But the thing is, the reason it went on so long was because I compromised so much.
So I ignored all this stuff.
He was constantly trying to change me.
His favorite phrase was, I just want to make you humble.
I just want to make sure you state your opinions less strongly.
You're too idealistic.
And he would say these things to me all the time, constantly trying to change my personality.
And I accepted that he was a socialist and all this because I've been there and I know what it's like and I could help him.
Of course he's a socialist.
He's subsidized by looks.
Anyway.
Yeah.
So...
I think the relationship went on a lot longer because I made so many compromises on the ethics and the philosophy and so on.
And I was fine with that.
I was happy, but he tried so hard to exert his will upon it.
Wait, wait, hang on, hang on.
Sorry.
You know, people bug me for interrupting, and I get that it's annoying, but people just like sail on with this, like you're sailing on with this stuff, and I've got like 14,000 questions exploding in my brain, and it would be rude for me to pretend that I didn't, right?
So...
What were his moral and personal qualities outside of his physical attractiveness that you found so attractive?
So, he was incredibly caring and kind.
He had time for everyone.
Oh no, he wanted to change everything about you, but he's incredibly caring and kind.
He wants to change everything about me, yeah.
But he was incredibly caring and kind.
With his friends and family.
But not with you?
Not with me, no.
With you, he was kind of like a nag bully of, I love you if you're completely different from who you are.
That's true, yeah.
But actually, you know when he was most happy was when I was sick.
Or when I made a mistake.
Because then I was showing that I was a human and he felt more needed in those cases.
When he was most happy when...
No, no.
Sorry.
It's not he felt more needed.
It's that he felt lesser than you, as socialists do with capitalists.
Yeah.
And so he has to put you down or he likes it when you're in a weakened position because he gets to level up, right?
Yeah.
That was very common in our relationship.
That's not kindness.
That's parasitism.
Yeah, yeah.
That's like vampirism.
Yeah.
No one that knows him would describe him as a parasite.
So he got really upset when he thought you were a sociopath.
And I don't know him from Adam, and I'm just theorizing here, but you know that sociopaths look really great to everyone except people who are really intimate with them.
Everyone thinks they're magnificent and wonderful and great.
Except the people who are really close to them who they treat like shit.
There was another problem as well which was he didn't like masculine men.
All his friends were girls or men who were, let's just say they're not alpha males.
And any time I mustered up a molecule of testosterone, he would shut this down immediately.
In your world, what does it mean to say you mustered up a shred of testosterone?
What does that look like?
That would be like, okay, so here's an example.
So we would be doing the groceries together, and if I were to pick up more bags than him as we were leaving the store, he would take this as a great offense because we should share the number of bags equally.
Because otherwise I'm saying to him, I'm stronger than you by taking more.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to laugh.
Yeah, it's kind of funny.
He was into the socialist redistribution of grocery bags?
Yes.
Like, they have to be equal?
Exactly, yeah.
Oh my god.
Look, what was it like pouring you both coffee?
Wait, one Adam Morris in the left hand.
Oh my god.
So he thought that if you carried more bags than he did, that you were lording it over him and saying that you were stronger physically?
We could have an hour-long argument over something like that, yeah.
You've got to send me a picture of this guy.
He might turn me gay.
Holy crap.
I mean, this is like Svengali penis power.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, holy crap.
I mean, you must have been in a daze of horniness the entire time not to notice how completely mental this behavior is.
Yeah, now that I look back on it, it's completely mental.
I still would...
Give me another one.
Come on, give me some gossip.
Okay, okay.
Just you, me, and the plan.
Go ahead.
So, okay.
If we were at a party together, he would be incredibly upset if I wasn't at his side for the majority of the time.
I... Yeah.
He was very, very controlling.
Do you know why?
Well, I confronted him about this afterwards and I accused him of...
After what?
After the relationship?
After the relationship.
I accused him of having a troubled childhood, which I think he did.
I think he did.
You don't know.
I know his side of things.
So he was abandoned, kind of, as a child.
He was abandoned and left with his grandparents.
His father was not a prominent figure in his life.
And he was bullied at school.
So I think that has a lot to do with...
I mean, I have the ideal childhood.
I have no issues from my upbringing.
And he has many.
And I think...
Yeah.
Okay, let's put forward that as a hypothesis, which we'll circle back to later, but please go on.
Okay.
So, actually, what happened in the relationship was that I did start to change to try and meet his sort of humble requirement that I'd be humble.
The main reason for this was that I discovered messages on his computer between him and his friend.
And this was a long time after the Ayn Rand incident.
Before you broke up, obviously.
Before we broke up, obviously, yeah.
And I discovered these messages with his friend, and they were talking about what a right-winger I was and what a sociopath I was.
And I think at this point, it started to hit home, although I never really admitted it.
And I became increasingly more and more depressed as the relationship progressed.
Eventually, I became so depressed.
My family and my partner at the time told me to go to the doctor.
I explained to the doctor, you know, I'm fighting with my partner over politics.
I'm fighting with my family over politics as well.
My family are all socialists, all back in Scotland.
Wait, wait, hang on.
Vanity?
In the gay community, socialism in Scotland.
No.
Okay, got it.
Looking at the newfers here, but go on.
What did the doctor say?
The doctor said, you know, this is not normal behavior.
He diagnosed me as bipolar.
Oh, so the abnormal behavior he diagnosed was not your partner fighting with you about grocery bags and stuff, but you.
Okay, so he said you're bipolar, and I guess you went straight to the med factory, right?
And they gave me lithium, yeah.
So what happened?
As soon as I saw a specialist, they completely took away this diagnosis, obviously, because it's nonsense.
I left the relationship.
I don't know how, but in some sort of manner...
Wait, wait, wait.
We went real fast here.
Was it a GP you went to?
A GP. And he said you're bipolar, he has lithium?
Yes.
And then when you went to a specialist, what do you mean?
You went to a therapist?
I went to a bipolar specialist.
And the bipolar specialist said, you're not crazy.
You might just be surrounded by assholes.
Yes, exactly.
In so many words, that's what he said.
I left my partner.
I packed all my stuff and basically left.
I didn't actually break up with him.
He broke up with me a week later when he realized that I had left him.
Yeah, and that's the situation.
And I'm completely fine now.
I have absolutely no issues.
I have all my confidence back.
I'm completely at peace with myself.
Alright, so let's just go back a bit here.
How did you find the messages on his computer?
Okay, so the first time I found them was accidental.
The second and third times I deliberately sought to try and find something.
So I actually did kind of become addicted to finding out what he really thought of me eventually.
The first time was he left his email open on my own laptop.
I'm completely wrong for invading his privacy like that, but there was obviously some subconscious part of me which knew there was something wrong and decided to keep forcing myself into this situation where I would see what he really thought of me.
Yeah, you were trying to wake up from a nightmare.
Yeah, I was trying to wake up from a nightmare.
You had to slam your face into some computer screens to try and shake off the sexual hypnosis, right?
And the problem was my subconscious did all the work.
I never rationally at any point said, there's a problem here, I need to get out.
My subconscious made me depressed.
It made me manic and doing irrational things until eventually I left, yeah.
Well, it's just my opinion, but for me, depression is you're sending out signals of desperation hoping that someone's going to give a shit enough to help you out.
Yeah.
Now, he had a job, I assume?
He had a very good job, yeah.
And so was he paying some of your bills?
You know, he was, but now that I look back at it objectively, I have a lot more money now than I did when I was with him.
I was spending a great deal of money doing things he wanted to do, so I would say as a percentage of what we earned, I spent a lot more on the relationship than he would.
He claimed that he spent a lot on it.
He would sometimes actually hold that against me.
You know, I pay your bills.
He did pay slightly more of the rent.
That was sometimes an issue, but rarely.
Now, do you know why, when you were at parties, he wanted you close?
I have not figured that out, no.
Would you like me to tell you?
Yes.
Well, so James, the reason that he wanted to keep you close was because he was terrified that you might meet someone like me.
Okay.
Yeah.
And obviously I don't mean necessarily that I'm much hotter than him.
Obviously, you know, it's a coin toss depending on your fetish for muffin tops, but...
What he was concerned about is that you're going to meet someone, you're going to have a friend, and then you're going to have someone who is going to listen to you talk about your relationship and point out that it's TFN, that he's kind of crazy.
So I would assume that there was a level of isolation that occurred within the relationship, which occurs in abusive relationships, right?
It happens.
I mean I've talked about this with men who – the women move in and then, oh, I don't want to go with so-and-so.
Oh, he's no fun and I can't believe you hang out with this person.
They generally slowly cut off the man's contact with other men around and then they can go nuts and the man has got no one to say, hey, she's nuts to him, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Does that make sense?
Well, I cut off a lot of my relationships during that period.
My friends tended to be more masculine men.
His friends...
I had very, very few friends, maybe three or four.
And I did cut those relationships down significantly.
And so you know who wanted to punch me when I pointed this out, right?
Yeah.
It wasn't you?
Yeah.
It was the him in you, right?
Yes.
And not in the fun way.
But Stefan, do you realize how hard it is to meet a gay man that's like you?
That's a virtual impossibility.
Well, you know, there's only one of me, but I mean, I assume you mean someone who's, but you know, I mean, what is it, 20% of gays and lesbians voted conservative?
And again, I know you're not a conservative, right?
I mean, I get that, right?
But you're not doomed to leftism as a whole.
But then I have this problem where I only want the most attractive guy I can find.
Well, that's stupid.
Yeah.
I mean, you can pursue that if you want, and then you're, you know.
Our society, you know, I'm going to get flack for this, and I apologize for this, and I'm generalizing there are exceptions and so on.
But our society, the sicker the society, the sicker the pretty people.
In a healthy society, I think that physical attractiveness can be fine, you know, and so on.
But in our society, our society has no philosophy.
And so our society doesn't have a way of resolving people's disputes.
And so what happens is, people who don't have philosophy, they have to be like two carpets being pushed together.
One goes over, one goes under.
One's on top, one's on the bottom.
You can't have a rational compromise.
You can't have a third option than what two people want that's beneficial.
People don't learn win-win and they don't have philosophy.
So one of the ways that we...
Dominate in this very primitive society that we live in.
Highly technologically sophisticated, you know, it's like bonobo apes with an iPhone.
But it is through physical appearance and height and stupid shit like that.
And money.
Who wins?
Who gets to dominate?
The guy with the best hair.
The woman with the nicest shoes.
It's all just status.
And status is demanded and pursued in a society that can't negotiate.
So somebody has to win.
We just arbitrarily propose, okay, well, and a lot of times the pretty people win.
Yeah.
So the problem here was not philosophy or politics.
It was my vanity, I guess.
Yes, I would say so.
And those around you.
Yeah.
Look, we all get dicknapped.
Doesn't matter if you're gay or straight.
You can get clitnapped, too, if you're a lesbian.
Everybody has the, our selected sex fever, certainly in modern society.
We all have it to one degree or another.
And it shuts down our thinking.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm going to go out on a limb and tell me if I'm wrong, but do you not find that outside of this relationship you have more clarity, more thoughts, your brain is back?
I don't even recognize the sort of spineless jellyfish that I became during that relationship.
Right.
You got dicknapped.
Yeah.
Your dick said, yummy, and, you know, shot off like Like a rabbit, like a greyhound after an artificial rabbit.
Or, you know, basically, the way I sort of view it sometimes is, you know, the grappling hook that Batman has on his utility belt.
Well, you know, throw a couple of foreskins on there, shoot it up, and it's like, oh, it's off, and it's just dragging you along.
Or it's like, you know, like some six-year-old kid taking a Great Dane out for a walk and then bouncing along the sidewalk because the Great Danes are a bunny.
Yeah.
And that's, it happens, and that's why we need each other.
We need each other because we get dicknapped, because we become retarded around physical attraction.
And so my question, look, everybody gets dicknapped and I hope that you don't feel too bad about it.
It's a physiological thing.
You know, like if somebody drugs you, you say, okay, well, that's not...
I'm not responsible for my actions.
I was drugged.
Now, sexual attraction is a form of madness.
Socrates said, I think when he got into his late 60s or early 70s, I think he died in his early 70s and was murdered.
But Socrates said, I am so happy to be free of lust.
It is like being exorcised of a terrible demon.
It is like getting a terrible addiction and devil out of your heart.
And please, I mean, sex is great.
Sexual attraction is great.
But it's dangerous.
Power corrupts.
And sexual attraction, the capacity to generate sexual attraction in others is a kind of power.
And power corrupts.
At least in the absence of philosophy.
So, and this is not just for you, Jen.
Everybody gets dicknapped.
Everybody gets clubbed over the frontal lobes with their own monkey dick and it drags them off to parts unknown, putting them at the mercy of dangerous people who are the suppliers of the dopamine and the adrenaline and the testosterone and whatever other god-awful cocktail literally goes around our system when we're sexually attracted.
And awaking from sexual attraction, from a sexual hysteria, from a sexual fever, is like returning to your body after being possessed by the blind desire to reproduce.
Remember, our genes are just using us to make more genes.
That's all they care about.
And if they have to club us over the brain with their own cocks, they'll do it.
You know, like, I mean, there's this old, you know, the caveman clubs the woman, drags her by the hair into his cave.
Well, this is what happens with our sex drives.
And again, no hostility to sex drives.
No problem at all.
But that's why you need people to slap some sense in you when you've been dignapped.
When the grappling hook of your penis is dragging you off to some crazy ass, people got to cut the cord, throw themselves in front of you, slap you around the face a little with a wet fish, wake you up, bring you back, return you to your values.
And people let you be dragged along behind this great Abt Dane for two years?
Why?
Why would they do that?
Did they not know he was crazy?
There was a...
It wasn't just actually him.
It was also...
During this period, my family came to this realization that I was different.
My brother, too, is quite similar to me.
At one point, my sister posted something about she was starting some petition to let more Syrian immigrants into Scotland or something, and I responded to her saying, you know, why don't you take them into your lovely little village in the Highlands, you know, these immigrants?
Why do they all have to go into the big cities?
She responded saying, yes, okay, I'll take them into my home.
And I said to her, you're going to bring two strangers into your house when you have a two-year-old daughter and a six-month-old baby.
And I said, you know, this is dangerous and stupid.
And of course, her and my partner were now best friends and allies in the fight against this racist, xenophobic, arrogant Scotsman.
So it wasn't just my partner.
It was also his friends, my family.
It was everyone I knew.
I was ostracizing myself from them when I said things like this.
Sure.
And do you know why?
I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's important to know why, that they're in the grip of a drug addiction, that they're pursuing dopamine, which is they want to feel good about themselves, they want to feel like good moral people, and the left has been genius.
The left has been genius in when you, like I've always said, it's about the argument from morality.
The left has set it up, multiculturalism, other cultures accepting and integrating them only into white Western countries.
Nobody nags South Korea to take in more Scots people.
But they have set it up so that people get their dopamine hit of virtuous self-congratulation by conforming to leftist ideologies.
And therefore, leftists have created entire continents, hundreds of millions of drug addicts Who need that hit of moral self-congratulations, and the morality has been defined by the left.
And so when you stand between them and their moral self-congratulation by raising practical concerns, they get as angry as any drug addict does when you refuse their drug.
You know, this, you're racist, you're xenophobe, Nazi, this is the screaming of a drug addict who can't get the drug.
If you've ever been around drug addicts or alcoholics or whatever, addicts of any kind, when you deny them their drug, they explode in petulant, childish, incoherent rage.
I get this.
I put these videos out and I'm interfering with people's narrative and they explode with rage because I'm denying them their fix, their fix of moral self-congratulation according to moral goals set by the left.
So they're going to explode with rage against you.
Because they are facing withdrawal.
Physical withdrawal from the dopamine that the left has defined how to get, if that makes any sense.
Oh yeah, it makes sense.
I mean, their main criticism of me would be to say, it's not what you say, it's the way you say it.
Why do you have to use such emotive language?
And this was the common criticism of me all the time.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it?
Yes.
Do you know what that actually translates into?
No, I don't.
Shut the fuck up.
Yeah.
Because it's not a coherent argument in any way, shape, or form.
Yeah.
It's not what you say.
It's how you say it.
That's bullshit.
They're trying to get you to control your presentation and they'll always be criticized because they're lying.
It is what you say.
It's not how you say it.
It is what you say.
Because I guarantee you, you do exactly what they ask and they'll still have a problem with what you say.
They just don't want to deal with the content of what you say until they'll get you to obsess about the form.
Well, you're right.
Where's your sister's...
It's a boyfriend she's got.
She's got two kids, right?
Yes, she does, yeah.
And she's got a boyfriend, yeah.
Not married?
They're not married.
Alright.
Well, I guess he's around, I suppose.
That's not so bad.
He's a good father.
I personally don't get along with him, but I respect him.
You respect him?
Yes, I do.
So he wants a bunch of young Syrian men to come into a house with...
I do not respect that aspect of things, but he does...
Did he stand up to his girlfriend when she was dissing you for having a difference of opinion?
Oh no, he said that he wants to ban me from seeing my nieces.
He wants to ban you from seeing your nieces?
Yeah, yeah.
Because I'm an evil right-winger.
Although he's actually quite conservative himself, but...
What the hell are you respecting in this guide, man?
James, what the...
Yeah, no, you're right.
Oh my god!
Why?
Stefan, if I go through with this logic, I will have no one left in my life.
You've got no one anyway!
I have my brother.
My brother is the only guy I know that is like me.
Well, and...
Okay, I'm glad.
Obviously, I'm thrilled for that.
That's fantastic, James.
But...
But, but, but...
Good people, when they see you embedded with not-so-great people, turn tail.
Yeah.
Right?
I mean, imagine a really good person comes around and sees you and hears about your hour-long arguments about who's carrying the most groceries.
What are they going to do?
Run!
Run!
So, you know, it's like, well, there's a shore, and there's a barrel that you're clinging to, and you say, well, the barrel can't get to the shore, you've got to break and swim.
The current is pulling the barrel out to sea, and you're like, well, if I let go of the barrel, I have to swim.
Yes, you do, but what's the option?
The thing I'm most disappointed in myself about is I couldn't let go of the barrel in a rational, calm way.
I did it so badly.
I became depressed.
You mean the boyfriend?
Yeah.
Exactly, yeah.
But forgive yourself for that and get mad at the people around you.
It's their job to capture you back when you get dicknapped.
Yeah.
If they have to punch you in the groin, it's their job.
If they have to put sand in the Vaseline, it's their job.
I never told anyone what was happening to me.
And there's a reason why?
Yeah.
Did you not tell your brother?
No, I didn't.
I didn't tell him.
Did he not know you were unhappy?
You went into this sexual mental fog for two years?
He didn't have a clue?
I told him that we had political disagreement, and that was all I said.
No, no, no!
Forget what you told him.
I said, didn't he know?
No, he didn't.
Okay, well that's something to talk about with him.
Does he not know when you're happy?
When you're depressed to the point of suicidality, does he not know?
No.
Okay, so I did tell him about that, about the depression.
But what I made the mistake of doing was for the first year and a half of the relationship, I didn't tell anyone about the problems.
I kept everything to myself.
Oh man, James, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
Sorry.
You don't have to tell people.
That's the whole point.
Listen, if you can say to people, I think I'm in a dismal sexual fog that's robbing me of my higher faculties and I'm getting involved in stupid decisions because I like to lick some guy's abs and I'm getting involved in ridiculous fights because he's hung like a baby's arm holding a crab apple, right?
If you could say that, you wouldn't need to be rescued.
The whole point is you're blinded by lust.
And so it's not your job to tell people.
It's their job to know.
And I'm just giving you that standard in relationships.
A 15-year-old boy was stabbed to death by an Arab migrant because he was protecting a young girl from a sexual assault.
I want to forward that to your sister.
I forward her this stuff all the time.
She wants to go through one of your videos and refute your claims with me together.
Excellent.
Well, she's welcome to call in.
I think she would enjoy that.
I think that would be a lot of fun.
I know I would.
I know I would.
So, I think it's important...
To talk about this and say, you know, if they didn't notice you were really depressed or they didn't notice that you were having big problems, that's a gap in the relationship.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, my father is particularly bad for assuming that my political views come from some aspect of my bipolarity or my...
What?
Yeah, he...
But you weren't bipolar.
Exactly, I wasn't.
Does he still think you are bipolar?
No, he doesn't think that anymore.
I told him that that was an incorrect diagnosis.
But he does think that my political views are part of some sort of mental illness rather than it being the...
He's got his cause and effect around the wrong way, I think.
And that's what I commonly hear, actually.
So this is your great family...
Yeah.
Who says that your political views are mental illness.
I confronted my father about that and he eventually admitted that he was wrong to suggest that at first.
But it's undeniable that he did say that my arguing with people that I love is part of my mental illness rather than just because I disagree.
So they really are socialist as in like Russian gulag mental health style.
You're not happy under communism.
Have some horse tranquilizers, right?
Because in Russia, disagreement with the system was considered a form of mental illness that needed medication.
And it's your father's perspective that you are mentally ill because you disagree with him.
I don't think that he...
He did say that.
He did say that.
I think he regrets saying that, though.
Well, has he retracted it and apologized?
Yes, he has, yeah.
Oh, good.
Okay.
And has that perspective changed?
I still feel they're uncomfortable with the things I say, but they are, yes, they're not so judgmental anymore.
After I confronted them about it.
And so they're not so judgmental.
And it's funny.
I mean, I'm going to assume they know you're gay, right?
They do, yeah.
So they have no problem, I assume, at least not a huge amount of problems with you being gay.
They just have problems with you being into the free market.
They had a very large and bad reaction to that when they first found out.
But no, they're completely fine with that now.
So they've come around more easily to you being gay than you being into the free market.
Oh, so has everyone.
I mean, Isn't that wild?
No, but just your parents.
Your parents are more comfortable with the fact that you can't provide them biological grandchildren with the fact that you're into the free market.
That's true, yeah.
That's insane.
I mean, it's not insane for addicts.
But the gay community are the same.
I mean, if you tell them you're gay, you're gay, you're like a hero automatically.
You tell them you're a capitalist, you are unlikely to have many friends.
Yeah.
Well, that's...
Yeah, yeah.
No, I get that.
I get that.
But it just...
It is kind of nutty, right?
It's nuts, yeah.
Yeah, and of course, homosexuality, as you know, was declared a mental illness for many, many years, right?
Yeah.
Now it's just being into the free market and not wanting voluntary interactions with people without guns pointed to people's head.
That now is considered insane by a lot of people.
But now I'm actually...
I'm being more vocal.
I'm being confident.
I'm completely honest with everyone.
It's working great.
I'm meeting new people.
Okay, I'm losing some friends, but it's really...
You're right.
It's their loss.
You can't lose friends.
When you are who you are, you can't lose friends.
It's impossible.
Because the people who go, weren't your friends?
They liked you because you were not interfering with their dopamine drip dispensation of moral self-congratulation or whatever.
You were convenient for them.
You were useful to them.
But if you were genuinely yourself and people don't like you, they never did.
They just liked you not being yourself when it was convenient for them.
You can't lose friends.
One of my German friends told me, I posted something about immigration on Facebook, I think, and he said to me, you know, James, you need to be careful about what you're saying, let alone what you're thinking.
And, you know, look what's happened to Germany.
It's just the universe is the best teacher, right?
And he was someone I considered a very good friend.
What does that mean, though?
I don't know what that means.
Look what happened to Germany.
The universe is the best teacher.
What does that mean?
I don't understand.
Well, just because he was saying that Syrian migration from the Middle East and Africa was a good thing and Germany had a duty.
And I tried to tell him, you know, that's complete nonsense.
But...
I was a racist and so on and so on for saying those things.
Then, you know, four months later, Germany is in serious, serious trouble.
And how many people are circling back and saying, you know, you kind of had a point?
No, no, I've never had an apology on anything like that, really.
Yeah, listen, there's no group of people more exhausting to be around than people who cannot admit they are wrong.
Oh my god, they are the biggest vampire drains on any lifeblood you could possibly have.
Nobody.
I want the planet to repeat after me.
Nobody, no group of people, no state of mind is more debilitating and exhausting to be around than people who can never admit that they're wrong and never even admit that they might need to admit that they're wrong, who just keep moving on.
I'm talking to you, mainstream media.
Donald Trump, he's not a serious candidate.
Okay, let's just keep moving.
Okay, nobody?
Boom, boom.
Just keep moving.
Oh, yeah.
Donald Trump.
People can't admit that they're wrong.
You know, you can bring it up and say, hey, can I at least get some credit for pointing out that this was a problem?
Yeah, you think that's wise to go back to him and say, you know, I told you so?
No, it's not.
I told you so is kind of an annoying thing to say, but, you know, what do you think of this stuff?
You know, I mean, I've been talking for years about challenges with race and culture.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And how many people are coming to me and saying, you know, I feel pretty bad for these hundreds and hundreds of German women who got groped and this happened all across Europe.
Yeah.
I feel pretty bad about all of this.
You know, you might have had some kind of point.
No, people don't circle back.
And I'll tell you this.
You don't mind.
Indulge me in two or three minute rant if you don't mind.
Is that all right?
Yeah, go for it.
I'll tell you this.
Europe as it stands must fall.
It must fall.
Because the kind of Europe, I know you're not European, but the kind of thinking that you're talking about, this slavish devotion to political correctness, this steadfast denial of basic reality, This willed pushback against anything sane and this unbelievable self-loathing where everybody's needs matter and yours don't exist.
This slavish devotion to the drip-drip dopamine of socialist overlord self-congratulation has to end.
And it will.
Empires end when they substitute approval for reality.
When they substitute other people's approval for reality.
Because once you substitute other people's approval for basic reality, you're just a spineless jellyfish open to be poured into whatever fascistic container people want to jam you into and there's no part of you solid enough to complain.
You know, water, you pour it into a test tube.
It doesn't say, well, it's kind of confined in here.
Ah!
You pour it into a shallow basin.
That's very good.
That really relaxes my spine.
You pour it into some French horn.
It doesn't say, whoa, that's uncomfortable.
It has no shape.
There's nothing to protect, nothing to defend.
Europe, European civilization, is now haunted.
It's all it is.
It is a haunted house of dead history.
Europe died in the First World War.
Europe died in the Second World War.
The internment was the post-war socialism.
And Europe is inhabited not by people now, but by ghosts afraid of anything real.
Ghosts afraid of anything real.
Empty people, terrified of syllables, willing to sacrifice their own children's futures, the women around them, and everything that their ancestors fought, bled, and died for, willing to sacrifice it for fear of words.
The Muslim infiltration into Europe is not the real invasion.
Europe has been conquered by language.
Political correctness is fascism of language.
You don't need a state when you can terrify people with a negative state of mind called guilt.
You don't need jackboots when you can step on people's happiness With words.
When you can crush people and imprison them in the isolation of ostracism because of words.
Racist, sexist, misogynistic, colonialist, imperialist, white privilege.
You get these are bang, bang, bang!
Bars going into the concrete, rising to the sky, all around the sad ghostly remnants of a once vital civilization.
Condemning people to wander like sad little gossamer broken flags through the ruined and ruining cities of their ancient elders.
And if those elders did in fact have ghosts, those ghosts would rise once more only to kill themselves in shame at what their sacrifice had produced.
And we are so scared.
You know, there's a line from a very old novel I read.
I didn't really get it for years and years.
I think it was called Lucifer's Hammer.
It's about a comet that strikes the Earth.
And at the end, the comet strikes the Earth, civilization, blah, blah, blah.
At the end, they're trying to decide, should they just hoard their food and take to the caves and try and survive another winter?
Or should they strike out and try and build civilization again?
There's a great speech.
And at the end of it, the man cries to the crowd, and we used to control the lightning!
Mankind, through electricity, controls lightning.
This is the power of civilization that we have inherited from our elders.
We've turned ourselves into ghosts.
And One of the challenges with multiculturalism in Europe, which is a particularly European phenomenon, is that Europeans have universalization or the universality of principles as core and central to their philosophy, to our philosophy.
Just about every other culture is relentlessly racially self-oriented or culturally self-oriented.
And every culture has invaded and occupied some other group, but it's only the Europeans and their descendants who are hand-wringing over the conquests of centuries past.
Is there a Khmer Rouge Apology League?
Is there a Gosh, wasn't Genghis Khan a terrible imperialist hand-wringing set of people wanting to throw reparations at everyone in the Asian countries?
No.
Every other group is relentlessly tribal and promotes their own tribal and cultural and racial and ethnic self-interest.
It's the European civilization that has fallen prey to this delusion That you do not need other cultures that believe in universals to coexist with European civilizations.
I mean, you see a black mayor get into power in America, he just relentlessly promotes, in general, black interests, hires black staff members, promotes black groups, gets funding over to black groups, relentless self-promotion of his own racial interests.
People in Europe and people in North America are so concerned with the minorities within their own countries.
Where else is this occurring?
Pray tell.
Where else in the world is this occurring?
Christians used to dominate the Middle East.
Christians are now a minority in the Middle East.
Are the leftists going, wow, we've really got to get some affirmative action for Christians in the Middle East because they're a minority?
No!
Doesn't happen.
Doesn't happen.
It's not even conceivable.
A culture that believes in universalization believes in putting the ideal before tribal, ethnic, cultural, or personal self-interest.
It means everybody has to bow before the deity of universality.
That's the only way a society with a universalist ethic can work.
And if you get groups coming into that universalist society that are relentlessly tribal...
Relentlessly only promoting their own goals, their own goods, their own genetic advantage can't work.
It cannot possibly or conceivably work because no integration is possible without a relentless dedication to universals.
Because tribalism is incompatible with tribalism and universalism is incompatible with tribalism.
And when you get tribalists coming into a universalist society, the tribalists fail!
And fail and fail and fail and fail!
And then they scream, racism!
Racism, racism, racism.
And racism is an appeal to universality.
All races must be treated the same.
I fully agree with that.
The prerequisite being that all races in aggregate must act the same.
And where races in aggregate do not act the same, races in aggregate cannot be treated the same.
Because logic.
And if you think about Europe, the modern problems in Europe If there were not other minorities within Europe, racial minorities, ethically disparate, obvious minorities, Europe would still have problems, of course, right?
But Europeans would not be living in fear of being called racists.
Imagine that.
I just want you to take a deep breath, close your eyes, just imagine this for a moment.
Imagine living in a world where you had no fear of being called racist, of being called xenophobic, of being told you have to go and be friends with every single ethnicity in your neighborhood, locality, or you're a racist.
Imagine living in a world free of the label of Racist.
Xenophobic.
Imagine living in a world where you never ever heard the phrase white privilege.
Imagine living in a world where you could honestly judge people by the content of their character and never fear being called a racist.
Imagine living in a world where you were not eternally conscious of people's race, of people's ethnicity, of whether you were saying the right thing, or doing the right thing, or whether a joke would be bad, or a joke would be good, or whether you inherited an ancient cottage where once there was a name niggerhead.
About whether you can read the book Tom Sawyer, Which also contains the N-word.
About whether you could say, I like this music or don't like this music.
I like this food or don't like this food.
I like this cultural practice.
I don't like this cultural practice.
Imagine if you could judge other people's habits and their values and actions with no shadow, no possible shadow of being called a racist.
Imagine What public discourse in Europe would be like right now if nobody had any fear whatsoever of being called racist or xenophobic or a bigot or a Nazi or far-right, and I always refer to these parties in Europe, the far-right party.
Yeah, right.
When the hell did they ever mention a far-left party or a far-left media?
No, no, no.
Far-right, you see.
Because when whites question the value of multiculturalism, they're Nazis.
They're racists.
But you see, the fact that whenever whites question the value of multiculturalism, they're called racist, is why whites question the value of multiculturalism.
Because it's not a lot of fun for people to live in fear Of having their lives, their relationships, their families, their careers, their incomes destroyed by the word racism.
Talking to a listener right now.
Being called a racist, being called a xenophobic, being called a bigot.
Just imagine, like, just a thought exercise.
Imagine if you could never be called a racist.
Now, I'd love it if all the races and ethnicities kind of acted the same.
I think that would be lovely.
I'd also like it if unicorns shat gold in my garden.
But I have to deal with reality.
I have to deal with the empirical evidence.
I have to deal with basic facts.
And the basic facts are that ethnicities do not act the same.
They do not act the same in marriages.
They do not act the same in breakups.
They do not act the same in single motherhood.
They do not act the same in criminality.
They do not act the same in educational achievement.
They do not act the same in law-abidingness.
They do not act the same in sports.
They do not act the same in IQ testing.
They do not act the same in general intelligence outcomes.
They do not act the same in income.
They do not act the same in school attendance.
They do not act the same in defiance to authority.
They do not act the same in tendencies towards criminality.
They don't act the same!
And I know everybody would love to blame all the developments, all of the evolution that occurred over the last 50,000 or 100,000 years, all on white privilege.
It'd be great to have the one answer for everything.
Whoever controls magnesium controls the universe.
It is white power, not evolution, that results in disparate outcomes between ethnicities.
But racists don't act the same.
And anybody who points that out gets racism screamed at them until they stop.
Gets racism screamed at them until they quit.
Until they get fired.
Until they lose their jobs.
Until their reputation is destroyed.
What's the benefit?
Go to Europe.
What's the benefit?
Sell me on the pragmatic case.
I'm open to evidence.
I'm an evidence-based life form.
Reason and evidence.
Those are my deities.
Help me understand the benefit.
I'm open to it.
I'd love to hear it.
I cannot find it.
And I'm not the only person who can't find it.
Researchers can't find it anywhere.
Anywhere.
There's a researcher who came on.
I'm sorry, a researcher who put out all these studies.
He wanted to find all the benefits of multiculturalism and everywhere he found disaster.
Loss of social capital, loss of social trust, loss of cohesion, loss of neighborliness, loss of friendliness.
And if you're not white, you don't know because nobody screams racism at you.
Nobody screams racism at black people or Hispanic people or Asians or Indians, Natives, and nobody screams Remy.
You don't have to live under that fear.
You don't have to live under that shadow.
It destroys friendships.
Listen, this shadow called racism is coming in this caller between a brother and his sister.
It has come between friendships.
It has destroyed families.
It has ended careers.
And white people in general live...
Under the terror of being called a racist.
This politically correct jackboots.
You want to know why there's a Donald Trump?
There's a Donald Trump as pushback.
Because people are tired of living in fear.
People are tired, sick and tired, of being invited into an honest discussion about race and then just found its browbeating.
People are tired.
White people are, I'm sure, I don't speak for white people, white people are pretty goddamn tired of seeing every race organized for its own benefit and be praised for it.
And if whites were ever to conceive of organizing for their own benefit, they're automatically KKK, white supremacist, nazist, racist bigots.
Tired of the double standard.
And of course, whites notice the double standard because modern white Western Christian society is founded on universals all the way back to the Greco-Roman tradition.
Founded on universals.
Not in-group tribal genetic preference.
Not pushing the agenda of genetics forever.
And if you believe in universals, universal truth, universal virtue, universal accuracy, empiricism, if you believe in that, and you are around relativists, and all tribalists are relativists, Everybody who promotes, like blacks in America, voted what?
96% for Obama?
Oh yeah, after an impartial review of his policies, right?
No, they voted for Obama because he was black.
Massive, bottomless, in-group tribal preference.
Which is why when a black kid gets shot by white cops...
Blacks go, not all, a lot, go kind of crazy, and the media helps them along.
Recently, a six-year-old white kid and his father were shot down by two black cops.
Where were the Black Lives Matter activists?
Where were they?
They don't care.
Because it's white.
It's a white kid.
They don't care.
It's a black cop and a white kid.
They don't care.
They don't care.
And so what is your choice?
Do you continue to care about people who don't care about you?
Or do you say, okay, I'm only going to care about mine if you're only going to care about yours, because otherwise I'm just going to get exploited, and that's not good for my family and my kids' future.
So I'm desperate.
I'm thirsty.
I'm thirsty.
Sell me on the benefit.
Because when I hear stories like this where this guy's sister James, I'm coming in for a landing so get ready.
I appreciate the time.
This guy's sister is choosing Syrian Muslims over her own brother That is insane.
Nothing against Syrian Muslims.
But that is insane.
And do you know why?
Because there are dozens and dozens of Muslim countries that could take these people in.
Why don't they take these people in?
Why the hell should I care more about Muslims than Muslims do?
Why?
Help me to understand.
I can't judge the Syrian Muslims, but I sure as hell can judge that no other Islamic country wants them.
Well, with the exception of Turkey, I think it's taking two million.
Saudi Arabia doesn't want them.
And they're the closest to Saudi Arabians than anyone.
one.
They're certainly a lot closer than this guy's sister.
Why should I care about black kids getting shot if black activists don't care about white kids getting shot?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Why should I care about Syrian Muslims if the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world don't seem to be opening their doors to them?
How are we not supposed to think it's some sort of insurgency, some sort of infiltration?
Why on earth would they want to come to Europe where they don't speak the language, don't share the cultural history, Don't share the religious history.
Don't share the values.
In fact, oppose the values in many ways.
Why?
But I just want to leave you with that thought.
Imagine waking up tomorrow knowing that you could never, ever be called a racist again.
Never, ever be called a bigot again.
Eh, maybe a misogynist.
That can happen.
Kind of an all-male society.
Or all-female society.
But imagine.
Never, ever, ever Having to worry.
Or be concerned.
Or be afraid.
Or be browbeaten.
Or be nagged.
Or feel guilty.
Or be told that you're unfairly privileged.
Or be told to give me money.
Or be told that you live in a racist institution.
You embody a racist institution.
And you're racist even if you don't think about it.
Even if you don't believe that.
Even if you don't do anything racist.
And you're racist for pointing out facts.
And you're racist for not pointing out facts.
And you're racist for standing with us.
And you're racist for not standing with us.
And you're racist for ignoring this.
And you're racist for talking too much about it.
Imagine!
Just imagine waking tomorrow with all of those mind mosquitoes banished from your society.
All talk of racism, gone.
All this racial, paranoid, hyper-consciousness, gone.
Where you can speak your mind about your doubts and fears.
What's more, no one ever disappears.
You'll never hear their standard issue, bang, kicking in your door.
Imagine, without the fascism mind control of racial hyperconsciousness and racial paranoia and racial witch hunts and racial lynchings, imagine that.
Gone.
Gone from your world.
Now, When I was younger, and I still hold out this hope.
I had this hope.
I had a dream.
I had a dream, my friends.
And my dream was that we could live in that world and that world could be multicultural.
That cries of racism would require very clear standards of proof.
That accusations of racism would be scorned and rejected unless there was very, very clear proof.
But that's not the world we live in.
The accusations of racism.
It's like a start chamber.
but you can't appeal it?
You can't.
A lot of people can't survive it.
And Anyone who can tell me how we can live in a world, in a culture, in a society, in a geographical region, free of the fear of unjust accusations of racism and bigotry and whatever,
if anyone can point to me a society where that happens, Race-baiting, race hysteria, racial conflicts, racial manipulations, and God knows what, and racial antagonisms and resentments, right?
Biologically, if the races are different, and nobody knows that, nobody's allowed to know that anymore, that information is racist, you're going to have disparate outcomes when there are disparate groups.
Fewer Chinese basketball players than African-American basketball players.
Fewer Scottish world-class sprinters than Kenyan world-class sprinters.
Okay.
But now, every statistical disparity of which there are inevitably going to be those statistical disparities because the races are different, all statistical disparities that favor white people, again, Asians have to be invisible in the whole equation because they break the narrative, all racial disparities which are inevitable Are blamed on white people.
And this endless witch hunt of racism continues.
So, either we have to accept that the races are different, have different strengths and weaknesses, there's no such thing as superiority and evolution, there is simply adaptation to local circumstances and necessities.
Racists have different characteristics.
If that is accepted, then we can maybe cool some of the racial hysteria by recognizing that there are differences.
Nobody screams racism at the NBA for not hiring a lot of pygmies.
They're shorter.
In case you didn't know.
So if we can bring the facts about racial differences out, then we can cool some of this witch-hunting, white-hunting racial hysteria that has everybody terr-fucking-fied.
To the point where this guy can't even have a remotely coherent conversation with his own sister without basically being compared to Hitler.
Yeah, that's productive.
That's helpful.
So, I would love to know how to do it.
I'm doing the best I can to heal racial tensions and divisions by pointing out basic facts that explain some degree of disparities.
If you want to call racism...
Call Mother Nature out.
That bigoted bitch made people different.
But I don't see how it's going to happen.
And I would just like to invite my friends, my listeners, my enemies in Europe, Canada, America, all over the world.
And I have to say this to white people because nobody else really gets accused of racism.
White people.
Imagine a world where you woke up tomorrow with no fear of racial conflict, of being called racist, of having to have racial sensitivity and multicultural sensitivity training programs, or being paranoid that someone was going to launch a complaint against you with the government for not hiring enough of a certain minority, or hiring too much of another majority, or not promoting this person, or not promoting that person.
White privilege is just not being able to blame anyone if you mess up.
Imagine that world, free of that fear, which has become an obsession, a mania, almost a psychosis in the modern world, this crazy witch hunt for racism.
Doesn't matter.
That's the promise.
Elect Barack Obama and let the racial healing begin.
Okay, eight years after, Barack Obama, the professional race baiter.
Eric Holder, semi-professional race baiter.
Race relations in the US are at their worst in decades.
It doesn't work.
So I am sorry, James, that bringing some basic facts and wanting more resources available to the children in your family, to your sister's children, has led to threats Of outright genetic and social ostracism for you that you can't even see these children?
This is how insane this has become.
And I, for one, am completely fucking sick of it.
Alright, I'm done, my friend.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, wow, I don't know what to say now.
What would it be like for you?
Nobody could call you a racist ever again.
Or a bigot.
You know, at the moment I'm actually enjoying it.
It's almost like I've been so scared for two years to say anything or just be myself.
Now I'm almost reveling it.
And you know, they can call me racist as much as they want.
And every time they do, it gives me even more pleasure.
So, but yeah, you're right.
I mean, I can't even imagine a world like that.
It's so far.
It's so far away.
Yeah, because you could actually have discussions in that world.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, right now, the level of public discourse is so abysmally low.
Because there are facts staring everyone in the face, no one's allowed to talk about, so you can't have any discussions about anything.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean it's so insane that in Germany and in other European countries the police report that they're being told to actively suppress any information about attacks from migrants.
This is how literally insane the world has become where basic facts must be suppressed putting millions of women and people as a whole in danger.
I mean, it's like suppressing information about the outbreak of an illness.
Not that everyone's going to catch it, but...
I mean, the world went insane because there was Ebola in Africa.
Okay, you've got gropers in your cities.
Could that not be mentioned?
No!
Because, you see, facts are racist.
That's how insane it has become.
And I wish that people would listen to reason, but I think this is just one of these collective psychoses that's going to have to destroy itself.
And unfortunately, it will take some innocent people down with it, but I'm not entirely sure how many innocent people there are left in this discourse.
Do you mind if I move on to the next caller?
I don't mean to leave you high and dry, but...
Thank you, Stephen, so much.
I'm really honored to speak to you.
Wow, I feel very inspired, actually.
Thank you.
Thank you, James.
It was a great pleasure.
Thank you so much.
Up next, we have Chad.
Is Donald Trump a positive force for liberty who should be supported by freedom lovers or a dangerous authoritarian who should be excised from the right by the right?
Okay, tell me about his dangerous authoritarian stuff, because that's what a lot of people think, so I'm happy to hear.
Sure.
So I wrote a piece a couple of weeks back called Donald Trump, a breakup letter, where I essentially went through the process of doing what I call sort of the...
Post-breakup intellectualization of how did I fall for this?
How did I get here?
And what...
What do I need to do to keep myself from falling for it in the future?
Just for the sake of time, man, I asked you to forgive me the case.
Don't tell me about some essay you wrote.
Just give me the contents, right?
Once I learned to write, then I learned to talk.
No, no, just give me the arguments.
Okay, what is his dangerous authoritarian stuff?
Go for it.
So as you said, you've got a population that's basically desperate for somebody to come in and talk sense to them.
Talk to them without the political correctness.
Talk to them like they're, you know, good common sense people.
Enter Donald Trump, who on the subject of the war on terror has essentially double, triple, and quadrupled down on everything we're currently doing.
We're just going to do it better, tougher, more so.
We're going to remove sort of Pesky rules that distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.
We're going to take out the families of those guilty of terrorism.
Basically, we're going to fight this war tough, which means, read between the lines, kill a lot more people and fight.
He's advocating total war tactics for a war that were not actually declared to be engaged in in the first place.
Right.
Your perspective is that – would be what?
What would you – if you had the power, what would you do?
What would I do in terms of how would I fight the war on terror?
Well, that's assuming you would, right?
But what would you do in his position?
In his position, I think the first leg of the debate has to be to distinguish adequately who are we fighting?
Who are our enemies?
We've got the Islamic world, and within the Islamic world, you have sub-segments of I assume you're calling from America since you're interested in American politics.
Why is ISIS the enemy of the United States?
So ISIS, I mean, ISIS is a self-created enemy.
You know, we, our military has been over in Iraq and Syria.
We've propped up sectarian dictators all over.
Okay, no, no.
I didn't ask where ISIS came from.
I asked, why is ISIS the enemy of the United States?
But why is that America's enemy?
I mean Syria is a long way.
Iraq is a long way from America.
America's got peaceful neighbors to the north and south and two giant oceans on either side.
I don't imagine that ISIS is about to invade and take over America.
So how is ISIS America's enemy?
I mean, they're really only America's enemy to the extent that we decide that they are.
We decide that it's important.
Okay, but don't give me – tell me why they are America's enemy, saying – Am I advocating the intervention in Syria position?
Because that's not my personal – Well, I asked you what you would do.
So, I mean, what I would do first of all is to define the enemy, which ISIS is one of the enemies because they're a jihadist group.
So they are the furthest spectrum of the Islamist – on the Islamist – So you're not – yes, they are a jihadist group.
Yes.
Why is that America's enemy?
Why is that America's problem?
I mean, that's the enemy of anybody who doesn't want to live under a theocracy.
Right.
Why is that America's problem?
It's not exclusively America's problem.
It's the problem of every free-thinking person that does not want to live...
Why?
Why is it...
Every free-thinking person.
I'm a free-thinking person.
Should I go get military training and go and shoot and leave my family and go and shoot people in the Middle East?
The question is to what degree do free-thinking people oppose it?
And that answer really depends on who you are, where you are.
So if you're a free-thinking Syrian, you have a much stronger duty to oppose ISIS than a free-thinking Canadian does.
Pre-thinking Canadian merely needs to speak out against ISIS to try to push the narrative war, which is a secondary war to the actual on-the-ground military war.
It has to be fought in a very different way using much different means than the military war itself.
But hang on, hang on, hang on.
Okay, but why pick on ISIS? What about North Korea?
I don't disagree.
What about Iran?
What about China?
China is still an officially semi-communist regime, totalitarian, suppresses internet, suppresses freedom of speech, executes people.
Why is it America's job to fix the world?
I mean, fundamentally, it's not.
And how's that program been going since the Second World War?
How's the world looking?
It's been going terribly.
Right.
Remember, Middle East stability is just another government program.
Exactly.
I mean, you know, like...
First of all, complete pulling back from the Middle East, complete de-entanglement from all of the different...
We've created a really, really big shit show over there.
Even something like the situation in Egypt where we're arming and backing a regime that overthrew a democratically elected Islamist regime to the nth degree is...
There's no good outcomes there.
We're constantly choosing sort of between the lesser...
Okay, so Chad, you're preaching to the choir here.
My question is, what would you do?
What would you propose if you were running for president?
So, I mean, what I would propose is not speaking about and not advocating to fight the war on terror like it's a military conflict.
I mean, you can't fight an adjective war like it's war with Japan.
And yet, what you hear from every single one of our presidential candidates is a sort of, I've got a plan that we're going to win this war against ISIS, which, you know, once again, is a misnomer.
The war against ISIS is a subset of the war on terror that's been going on I think you have to clearly define the problem.
And to that extent, Trump, Cruz, Hillary, every one of them, and the media is the most guilty of this, is not defined.
They're just kind of glossing over something that's very recent history.
And playing it out like this is somehow a war with ISIS, like we weren't at war with al-Qaeda five years ago, and ISIS is just the new al-Qaeda.
They're just the new hot shit in the terrorism game.
As soon as ISIS steps down or as soon as we kill enough people in ISIS, there will be a new ISIS within 10 minutes, whether it's Boko Haram or one of 50- And it will be worse.
Yeah.
It'll be worse, exactly.
Al-Qaeda was worse than what came before.
ISIS is worse than Al-Qaeda.
You go and blow the shit.
I mean, you either nuke the whole damn region, which please understand, I'm not advocating, but you either nuke the whole damn region, or you get the hell out.
But this middle war is suicide.
I mean, you just poke the hornet's nest.
You take out the hornet's nest, or you go home.
But you don't sit around there poking and annoying the shit out of everyone.
Yeah, and so...
Like I said, Donald Trump is not unique in this aspect as it comes to both the right wing and the left wing.
Politicians this term around.
But Donald Trump is uniquely charismatic and uniquely hated by all of the people currently in power.
And so, you know, if Donald Trump manages to succeed, it will be because the individuals in power have caused a pendulum swing.
And I worry a lot that if and when that pendulum swing happens, that we as sort of rational, clear-thinking people, that we only get really one or two chances to do it correctly.
And if we – Do what correctly?
To show people a different way.
To give people – That's not an answer, Shepard.
Show people a different way is not an answer.
What specifically?
So to have an opportunity to run things in a way that we would approve of.
Because we're constantly on the outside saying, well, you can't do this, you can't do that, can't do this, can't do that.
And we effectively have none of our own people to Oh my god, listen.
It's like you're already in politics.
I can't get a straight answer out of you.
You're either going to have to start giving me straight answers or I've got to move on with the calls, man.
Sorry, can you explain to me what you want by a straight answer?
I still don't know what you would do about ISIS. What I would do about ISIS, I said, first of all, you got to disengage from the Middle East.
But if you're a politician inheriting an effective war in Syria, and the dice are kind of thrown, and you have to fight that out...
Why do you have to fight it out?
I don't understand.
I mean, you don't have to.
So, okay, so if you want to create...
So give me these if scenarios that don't exist.
Okay, so if you want to create...
I'm asking you, so you would disengage from the Middle East, right?
So you'd close down the military bases, and you would bring troops home, right?
Get the troops out of Israel, get the troops out of every country over there, and start bringing the troops home from elsewhere.
Right.
And then second is to work on the narrative war as it relates to Islamic extremism, which is a very real problem and is something that...
That Hillary Clinton and the left have completely denied.
When Obama says the Paris attacks are not about Islam, when Joe Biden says the guys who killed everyone in Paris are no more Muslim than I am, they're really, really, really screwing with everyone's head.
They're making it very hard for people who might not understand the nuances of where these people sit within Islam to deny that they're Even Islamic is ridiculous.
And I think that's one of the most irresponsible things that the PC culture has done to just average Americans is to screw with their perception of reality.
That the guys screaming Allahu Akbar before they murder everyone are not Muslims.
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
And it's actual Islamic theology that's leading them to do these terrible things.
Hmm.
Yeah, well, look, I agree, of course, that the text is in there for sure.
But the West is at war and has killed, of course, many more Muslims than Muslims have killed of Westerners.
The West is attacking Islamic countries and is destroying Islamic governments and has overthrown, either through funding or directly, Islamic leaders.
So the West is at war with Islam.
And so the motivation is not fundamentally Islam.
The motivation is war.
But we're not fundamentally at war with Islam, the religion.
We're at war with Islamism, the politicalized version of the religion, which is like a...
No!
No, no, no.
Hang on.
Saddam Hussein...
His Iraq was not an Islamic state.
No, it wasn't.
So, the idea that the U.S. is somehow at war with radical Islam, Saddam Hussein was largely secular.
The other Islamic countries hated that about his country.
So, that was the biggest, most murderous invasion that I can think of, of a country with Islamic It was the biggest mass killings of Muslims, but it didn't have anything to do with fighting radical jihadist Islamists.
It was an invasion of a sovereign country with a non-jihadist leader.
I mean, as has been the invasion of Libya, the invasion of Syria, the invasion – there's a lot of competing forces going on in what America decides to do ultimately against leaders of Muslim countries, and that has a lot to do with oil and has a lot to do with money.
Sorry, why does it have to do with oil?
The invasion of Iraq doesn't have anything to do with oil?
Of course it does.
No, you said it has a lot to do with oil.
Tell me, how is America profited from all this oil?
After the United States had its hand forced in, what was it, 76, the Seven Day War with the Israelis, we essentially decided that we will never again allow ourselves to be petro-blackmailed into doing something that we didn't want to do.
And since that Since that oil embargo following the seven-day war in Israel, we have taken a whole bunch of steps to essentially preempt even the possibility that you could slap an oil embargo on the United States and force it.
That, my friend?
Sorry.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
That is just not accurate.
I mean, I'd actually like to think it was about oil.
It would be horrible, but at least there would be some remote benefit.
But if America wanted to not be dependent on foreign oil, all it would do is it would allow the domestic development of oil within its own borders.
More than enough oil in America, more than enough oil in Alaska to last for hundreds of years if the American government allowed the development of these resources domestically.
So the idea that you've got to go and blow up half a million Iraqis to get your hands on oil when there's oil sitting in Alaska and oil sitting in various places even prior to the fracking revolution.
There's tons of oil in America.
You don't have to go start a war in the Middle East to ensure a steady supply of oil.
You just have to tell the green piecers to go fuck themselves with a piece of shale and dig under the ground.
That doesn't sell any planes for Boeing or tanks for Lockheed or missiles for Raytheon.
Okay, then don't say it was about oil.
It's about the military industrial complex.
For me to run down the list of the 150 things it was about, of course there are multiple people making decisions.
There are vested interests on almost every side imaginable, but I guess the one thing for sure that the...
You know, that the Iraq War was not fundamentally about was Islam, even though we turned Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiistan, and Sunnistan following the war and ultimately ended up benefiting Iran more than just about anybody while carrying out this war.
Okay, so I don't know.
I don't want to get into the geopolitics.
It's too boring.
So when it comes back to Donald Trump, sort of original question.
Yeah.
Right?
Donald Trump was against the Vietnam War.
Donald Trump was strongly against the Iraq War.
Now, why Donald Trump imagines that the next war is going to be great, I can't imagine.
I mean, I can guess, right?
But I can't imagine...
How Donald Trump, looking at the history of U.S. imperialism, which I know he's done because he's talked about it and written about it, and it's a disaster.
Why he thinks he has the magic power to go in there and just take out ISIS and make, I mean, it's delusional.
Now, listen, let me finish my thought.
Politics has been described as the art of the possible.
Now, here's the challenge, and this is why war tends to continue.
And I don't know what his thoughts are.
I'm completely guessing and surmising.
But why would he imagine that the next big, giant government intervention in the Middle East is just going to tidy it all up and set it all tickety-boo, hunky-dory?
I don't know.
But I will put out a guess.
I think that America has seeped itself so far down the vampiric rabbit hole of bloodlust and sacrifice.
And its economy has become so embedded on a war footing that I believe – I genuinely believe this.
I can't prove it, but I think that there probably are polls out there that would support it.
That if Donald Trump were to go out and to give a speech something like this – and I'll keep this brief – Friends, Americans, countrymen, it is time for us to talk sensibly about what we have become.
We have become an empire.
We have become, as the Romans of old, a force for control and destabilization in the world.
We tried to fix Vietnam and lost it to communism.
We tried to fix Korea and lost it to totalitarianism.
We tried to fix...
The Middle East, for the past 60 or 70 years, we tried to bring a pro-friendly government into Iran in 1953.
Look what happened.
We tried to bring stability to Libya.
Look what happened.
We tried to bring stability and to help the Arab Spring rebels in Syria.
And look what happened.
We tried to bring peace and stability, democracy, and the rule of law to the Middle East.
And now it is a giant flaming hellhole and everyone's swarming Europe.
Not only did we fail to bring peace to the Middle East, we brought instability to our oldest ally, that being Europe.
See, ironically, America spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives protecting Europe from a little thing called German aggression, German imperialism.
And now Europe is facing its biggest threat since the Cold War, which is the mass migration of radically incompatible cultures.
So we went over there and fought the Nazis.
Well, at least we got rid of the Nazis.
We went over and tried to bring peace to the Middle East.
Not only did we not bring peace to the Middle East, we brought cultural wars and eventually possibly even real wars to Europe.
It is time for us to accept the limitations of remote-controlled murder factories to bring peace and stability.
When you blow up regions, you destroy families.
When you destroy families, you destroy childhoods.
When you destroy childhoods, those children grow up to be adults who destroy everything.
Kill the child, the child grows up and kills the world.
Destroy the child, the child grows up and destroys the world.
Why is it that some men grow up wanting to watch the whole world burn?
Because the whole world burnt their childhood to a crisp and a cinder and a charcoal ravaging ghost.
It is time for us to recognize with all humility That flying drones out and blowing people up and destroying governments has not solved the problems in the Middle East.
The problems in the Middle East are cultural.
They may to some degree be biological based upon IQ. And they are certainly historical.
And the people in the Middle East have made their commitments to the Islamic faith.
The Islamic faith is not compatible even remotely.
In fact, it's directly hostile to Western civilization.
That doesn't mean there can't be nice Muslims down the street.
It just means that those nice Muslims are only nice because they're hypocritical to the founding principles of their religion.
And you could say the same for Jews and you could say the same for Christians.
I just happen to be saying this about Muslims.
So...
Given that we know, decade after decade of truly bitter and horrifying experience, that we have been throwing our soldiers into the fire of futile missions, worse than futile.
Futile is merely a failure.
The blowback of scattering Muslims all throughout Europe, the result of our incredibly violent and destructive foreign policy.
Thanks, Hillary.
Thanks, Barack.
Thanks, George W., Thanks, Colin Powell.
Thanks, Paul Wolfowitz.
Thanks, all of you neocons and those who support them.
Now that we know that we've been throwing our soldiers into useless fires like a spiteful child with tin soldiers that won't obey his mental commands, it is time for us to withdraw.
This will cause great problems in our economy.
I understand that.
You know, If you are addicted to heroin, when you quit, it causes you great challenges.
It's uncomfortable.
It's difficult.
It's a transition.
But it sure beats the alternative, which is certain death.
Or near a certain death.
And certainly a vastly reduced quality of life.
So there will be transitions and our 700 military bases around the world have failed in their mission to secure world peace.
All we have done is replaced one monster with an even worse monster with an even worse monster.
And now we look back at people like Muammar Gaddafi.
We look back at people like Saddam Hussein.
And don't we wish they were still around?
Don't we look back with nostalgia at the relative peace and stability of the Middle East before we went in and tried to fix it?
For the past 70 years?
Bet we do.
I know I do.
If I could bring those people back, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
But we can't.
Now that you broke it, we broke it, we bought it, doesn't work.
Doesn't work.
Because we can't fix it.
We've tried.
We have now spent 13 years trying to fix Iraq.
And it's more a mess than when we started.
Fourteen is just going to make it worse.
We have to accept this.
Now, to all the soldiers who lost limbs and who died, I can't even tell you how sorry I am that that happened to you.
Because it's one thing to have spent your limbs, your life, your youth, your testicles, to have destroyed your sexual market value.
It's one thing to do that for a noble cause that has freed the world.
It's quite another thing to do that for a giant quagmire That is destroyed not only the Middle East, but is in the process perhaps of destroying Europe as well.
Sacrifice for gain is one thing, sacrifice for loss.
Well, that is a physical and a spiritual wound that is hard to address.
But we have to do it.
We have to do it.
It's not working.
Foreign interventionism, world peace, stability in the Middle East, they're just another government program.
And we all know what happens to government programs.
And everyone has their weakness.
Everyone has their government program that is their weakness.
I don't know.
Maybe Donald Trump is mine.
Everyone has their government, their real temptation.
For the left, it's the poor.
For the right, it's war.
War is the one government program that conservatives think will work.
Because the government that can't run a post office can, through violence and bribery, fully transition millennia-old civilizations on the other side of the world where they don't speak the language and don't understand the differences.
The government that can't fix a pothole, the government that can't bring peace outside the windows of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. is somehow going to bring peace and stability To foreign cultures on the other side of the planet.
We, as conservatives, ask, demand, insist, require that the Democrats give up their fantasy that government programs work, that government programs do good, that government programs can be effective.
Well, let us take that lesson to heart and recognize that war, the ultimate government program, has proven even worse.
Even worse.
Then the government programs we so decry on the left, at least food stamps aren't in the process of destroying Europe after having already destroyed the Middle East.
So that's sort of...
Now, if you were able to give something like that, what do you think would happen?
After the American people picked their jaws up off the floor or before?
You choose.
I think that speech would go down, and I think 80% of the news channels would shout him down as a man that hates the veterans, that hates all the people that have sacrificed for us, that hates war heroes.
John McCain would get up on CNN and talk about all the times that he was tortured for America, etc., etc.
I don't think he would land.
That is, I guarantee you, that is an unelectable speech.
If you make that speech, you wouldn't even be elected dog catcher.
As you were talking, I was just thinking, how many years has it been now, like 70 years, that we've been trying to explain to people that the Great Depression was not the result of free market capitalism?
I was just thinking about a hypothetical future explaining to people that the wards in the Middle East were not the result of real, free, libertarian right-wing policies.
Yeah, Rand Paul is pretty hawkish.
Did he bump much more than 2% or 3%?
He did not.
He's unlike his father on everything that really matters and has none of his father's supporters.
Right.
And so, politics is the art of the possible.
So, I obviously don't know what's going on in Donald Trump's mind, but let me tell you something.
People underestimate Donald Trump at their peril.
In other words, if you think Donald Trump's an idiot, it's much more likely that you're going to end up looking like an idiot.
Just look at the mainstream media.
Yeah.
Donald Trump has been in the public eye for 43 years.
43 years.
He's been in the media eye longer than most people in the media have been alive.
Donald Trump has been a keen and detailed observer of the American political scene.
He's been giving speeches since the 80s at political conventions.
He knows his shit.
Do you think he does a move without – I don't know.
He's not like pole-driven or anything like that, but he's got his finger on the pulse of the nation.
Let's say that he thinks that the war in the Middle East, all these wars in the Middle East is a disaster, and let's say that he doesn't think that government power is going to do any more good against ISIS than it did against the Viet Cong.
They dropped more bonds on North Korea than were dropped in the entire Second World War.
Still lost the damn war.
And so Donald Trump is hawkish on his ability to destroy ISIS.
Now, you can destroy ISIS, of course.
There'll just be a lot of collateral damage, which is why he's preparing everyone by talking about going after the families.
And right after he talks about going after the families, who shows up but the San Bernardino killers?
The jihadi bride, right?
Mm-hmm.
And then there's the wife of one of the parachuters who's bragging about how brave and how much she loves him and how glorious and wonderful he was and all that.
And it is a typical mark of combat, and you can see this all over the Bible, that if you're going to destroy a town, you destroy the town.
You don't do the Conan thing and leave the kid alive because the kid's going to come up, grow up, and hunt you down.
Look, I'm not approving any of this morally.
I'm simply talking about the practical realities of warfare.
Scorched-earth policy is the only way you win a war.
Germany was not invaded in the First World War and came back for the Second.
Germany was invaded in the Second World War and has never come back for anything and now seems to have lost any spine whatsoever.
So that's how you break the population by destroying everything.
And it's brutal and it's horrifying and I'm not judging the ethics of it at the moment.
But you either go to war or you don't.
Now, Donald Trump, if he's genuine and honest, I have no reason to imagine he's being dissembled, he is going to go to war.
And what that's going to look like is vastly different than what's been going on in the past.
For the past 15 years, what they've gotten is multiple half-assed wars, where we only go after a certain small segment of the population.
We try to occupy, we try to build.
Those aren't fundamentally wars.
Those are military excursions, military adventurism.
Yeah, no, listen, I mean, look, it's the old thing, and the Nazis taught, again, I'm not talking about morality, and I'll stop saying this just Because everybody should, by now, get it through their heads.
But, you know, they come and kill one of yours, you go and kill 50 of theirs.
They come and kill five of yours, you go and kill 500 of theirs.
You know?
And that way they self-police.
Right?
Your enemies self-police.
If the destruction you wreak upon them is disproportionate to the destruction they wreak upon you, they'll self-police because they don't want to die.
Most of them don't want to die.
The issue is this.
I believe, and this would be the better thing to do, of course, would be you get out and you don't look back.
And no foreign aid.
Stop selling weapons to these monsters.
Get your military bases out.
Leave the whole rubbish heap worse off than when you found it, but it's okay because if you continue to go, it'll get even worse after that.
So you pack up and you go home, right?
And then you stop restricting energy exploration in the United States.
Loosen coal restrictions, loosen restrictions on drilling, you become self-sufficient, right?
And that's it.
Disassociate from the region.
That's the moral thing to do, in my opinion.
More moral than right.
Now, failing that, if you're going to stay and fight, then you have to fight.
And you have to fight good old Anglo-Saxon style.
Which is you dip the bullet in pig's blood and you shoot people.
And it's, again, I don't want this, right?
You understand?
But I'm just telling you that from Donald Trump's perspective, please, I'm not speaking for him, it's just my imagination of what his perspective is, is this, that he cannot win on pacifism.
It's an unelectable position and politics is the art of the possible.
He cannot win by withdrawing.
He cannot win by giving the speech I gave earlier.
He cannot win that way.
He might as well just pack it in and go home.
No point.
And therefore he can't achieve everything else that he wants to achieve whether we like it or not.
His goals, right?
He obviously has great interest in pursuing his goals.
Most of these other guys, it's just hacks.
I mean, it's way better for them to be in politics than anywhere else.
It's fun.
It's exciting.
They've got power.
Donald Trump, multi-billion dollar empire.
He's got a family he loves and kids who love him and work with him.
He's got a successful TV career.
He's got a beautiful wife.
Why the hell would he put himself in politics?
He's got to believe in something.
He already has enough power.
So he wants to achieve a bunch of things and he knows he's unelectable if he talks about withdrawal.
And he also is smart enough to know that continuing the status quo is just going to make things worse.
So that's my guess as to why the rhetoric is the way it is.
Yeah, it's a tough game to play when you have to try to figure out what level – how many moves ahead Donald Trump is or is not – Way ahead.
Because I've told people over and over that Donald Trump is a buffoon thing is a character that Donald Trump wants you to believe in.
Yeah, yeah.
You don't stick around that long being a genuine buffoon.
He would have put his foot...
People want to portray him like the drunken idiot uncle with the lampshade on his head, which is perfect for him.
Nothing spells success like underestimating people.
Yeah, so for Donald Trump, again...
Morality aside, politics being the art of the possible, pacifism is unelectable.
And so he's got to get into power, and if he's going to get into power, he's not going to do a hot...
Like, look, you never know.
He might get into power and start disassembling these bases.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know what the hell he's going to do.
That's why I don't like the state as a whole, because you can't tell.
It's exciting, in a way, but I'd rather not have that level of excitement in my life.
But I don't know what he's going to do when he gets into power.
He may turn around, or he may fight the hell out of ISIS. I don't know.
I mean, there are lots of people in the Middle East who would love for Donald Trump to take out ISIS. I mean, it's not like they're big fans of the lunatics either.
Yep.
So I guess just the last question, then, if you had to sort of shortly answer the question, I'm guessing your position is that the right wing needs Donald Trump around and...
He's our best hope of a pro-liberty type candidate rather than somebody we should...
No, I'm not.
Look, I mean, if you're asking for like an endorsement or something, that's not my job.
And I'm not going to even go anywhere in that direction.
I'm trying to give sort of facts and opinions and analyses about what's going on.
But an endorsement would be to say, yes, I know what he's going to do, and it's going to be good.
I don't know what the guy's going to do.
I don't know what he's going to do when he gets into politics.
I do like correcting people's misapprehensions about him.
So you said, is he the best liberty candidate?
I don't know.
No, I didn't say, is he the best?
Is he a good candidate?
I guess I did say, is he our best?
No, you're asking for some level of endorsement.
Simply, it's not my job.
It's not in the job description.
Can't do it.
Won't do it.
But, you know, it's important to sort of think about these issues and figure out and track what's going on.
But, you know, as far as I think what you're asking for, it's not my gig.
Okay.
I understand that.
Well, thank you very much for your time tonight.
Is it okay if I – can I plug some of my writing and my podcast in here?
Is that cool?
Absolutely.
Okay, so my name's Chad Thayer.
I write for jasonstapleton.com as well as my own blog, which is 5th Generation.
That's number 5thgenerationllp.com.
I run a financial consulting firm that helps startup companies raise money, and I do a whole lot of other cool things for the liberty movement.
I write about politics, criminal justice, economics, whole stuff.
Bunch of stuff.
You can follow me on Twitter at at Chad Thayer, Roman numeral 5.
That's letter V, at Chad Thayer V on Twitter.
And, you know, really appreciate you guys giving me the time tonight, and hopefully people can check out what I'm doing.
All right.
Thanks, Chad.
It was a great pleasure.
All right.
Thank you, Stephan.
Alright, up last on the show today, we have Edwin.
Edwin wrote in and said, aren't low birth rates, women's liberation, rising divorce rates, falling marriage rates, gay marriage, premarital promiscuity, unmarried adults living with their parents, non-white slash non-Western immigration, and the consequent multiculturalism, Inevitable in the post-industrial revolution, Western civilization, even in the absence of a cultural Marxism or progressivism.
That's from Edwin.
Oh, hey Edwin, how are you doing?
Hi.
Thank you.
Thank you for taking my call.
My pleasure.
Great question.
Yep.
So, you want me to go through the details?
Sure.
Yeah, so, essentially my...
It's not my thesis.
I read it in a book, and it starts like this.
Wait, hang on, hang on.
Yes.
Do you believe it?
Yes.
Okay, so it is your thesis because you believe it.
You may not have originated it, but you own it, because otherwise I'll get the book's author on.
Yeah, I've been consumed by this thesis, so I'm just looking for some criticism or maybe extensions to it.
Okay.
So it starts with late stage industrialization, which is not like early industrialization or agricultural society.
So in the late stage industrialization, industrialized society, you need a skilled labor.
And skilled labor means, currently it means 20 plus years of training.
That means children need 20 plus years Years of training before they earn a dime.
So there are two consequences to this.
One is late marriages because children need to be earning before they get married.
Since they need 20 plus years of training, marriages are late and this leads to premarital promiscuity.
So that's one endpoint.
And the other sequence is children need 20 plus years of training and that leads to expensive children.
All right, sorry, just hang on.
So why do you think children need 20 years of training?
It's because in the late stage of industrialized society, companies don't hire unskilled people as much as before.
Okay, but why are they unskilled?
Children are born unskilled.
No, I understand that.
But why is it that you can be 18, graduating from high school, and still not have any economic value?
Because in an agricultural society, you just need to sow and reap.
No, no, no.
I understand there are more skills.
Look, I understand there are more skills involved in a technological society.
I get that.
Yeah.
I'm going to stop leading the witness and just state that it's because government schools suck.
They're terrible.
And because you have idiots in charge of supposedly bringing children to have economic value, but these idiots, because they're government workers as a whole, not for everyone, but as a whole, they themselves have no economic value, so you're asking people to teach other people French who don't speak French.
So if you feel that somehow government schools are inevitable, then yeah, okay, I agree with you that adulthood is infinitely delayed.
And now, you know, people are getting married, sometimes close to 15 to 20 years after they reach sexual maturity, which is when they'd be dead, according to evolution, right?
The tooth decay would kill them.
So of course you can't expect people to I don't know how it's inevitable that you end up with premarital sex as a result of really,
really bad government schools unless you feel that government schools are somehow a metaphysical inevitability, which I don't think they are.
I mean, calculus and linear algebra and those things actually does take 12 plus years of training.
I'm sorry, what does?
Like, if you had to pick up calculus, I mean, I started understanding...
I'm sorry, pick up what?
Calculus?
I don't know what that word is.
Calculus.
Like, calculus as in, like, in mathematics.
Oh, calculus.
Sorry.
Okay, so you want to learn calculus.
Okay.
But who gives a shit about calculus?
Engineering.
I mean, you need it.
I mean, any sort of industrialized society type of job.
I mean, I'm not talking about like burger flipping and...
No, no, no.
Come on.
Listen, you're not talking to an idiot.
Please, come on.
Let's elevate the discussion a little bit here.
Please don't think that I'm arguing that you need calculus to flip burgers.
What I'm saying is that...
The way that calculus is taught is a skill divorced from economic productivity.
You learn calculus, you learn a lot of calculus, and of course most people in their jobs will never Even if they're skilled, we'll never end up needing all the calculus that is taught in government schools, right?
Will we agree with that?
I mean I remember when I was working up north, there were these guys who were geologists and they had learned some mathematical thing and they said my entire career I had to use it once.
My entire career.
And this is before cell phones, which could do, you know, and computers and everyone having basically what used to be a cray in their pocket, right?
So in terms of, like, skills that either can be outsourced to computers or you learn on the job specifically for what you need to do compared to, like, the way that government schools work with math is they load you up with a huge amount of stuff.
You know, I took math up until grade 12, I think it was.
And in my career, where I did a lot of programming and a lot of computer modeling and so on, Of course, I'd mostly forgotten it by that time, so I had to go relearn a bunch of stuff anyway.
But if I had learned on the job, I could have saved myself all of that time and learned stuff that was focused in particular to what it is that it was doing that was economically productive.
So yes, okay, if you want to learn calculus the way that the governments teach you calculus, then okay, I guess you could say it can take you 12 years.
But what if you want to learn mathematics as far as it applies to your job so you can produce economic value?
Would it take you that long?
I agree.
In fact, I only picked up advanced maths after I started working.
I didn't really understand it when it was taught to me.
I just solved the problems and then got the grades.
This is the basis of the rest of my argument.
You are right.
In a sense, this is An artificial creation.
This sort of education is not natural.
The government and I don't know how much it is the government.
I mean, private schools are also, in a sense, teaching in this manner.
Yeah, but no, no, no.
There's no private schools, really, because private schools generally have to be accredited.
They have to follow the government curriculum.
And private schools are also trying to get people to Into university where they're expecting a common curriculum.
And again, there are exceptions.
You can get your own tests if you're homeschooled or whatever, but it's not really private schools.
Okay.
And anyways, the argument goes like this.
I mean, I'll just complete the argument.
So this leads to expensive children.
Assuming that children nowadays are expensive because of late...
Too much training that's necessary.
They're expensive.
And expensive children lead to fewer children.
And fewer children means freer women.
Women are freer.
And that leads to women becoming more financially independent.
And financially independent women don't marry out of economic necessity.
They marry on sentimental reasons like love or other...
Ideas, like religion, which is an example.
And so sentiments are not as strong as economic necessity to maintain a relationship.
And so that leads to high divorce rates and acceptance of alternate sexual lifestyles, like polyamory and even homosexuality to an extent.
And because of few children, we need immigration to top up the missing labor force.
And To justify that, you have a multiculturalism.
And this was not the way previously.
In agricultural society, you just need unskilled labor, like work in a farm.
Okay, listen, sorry, before too many breadcrumbs because I'm losing track of the threads here.
Okay, so let's go through these one by one.
So you have more expensive children because for them to economically succeed in a complex society, you need to invest more in their education, right?
Yes, that's the main expense.
But that's okay, because you have fewer children.
Yes, that's true.
Because your children aren't likely to die of cholera or something, right?
Exactly.
So you have fewer children, and the children are more expensive.
But that's okay because the children that are more expensive end up being economically a net positive because they're contributing so much more, right?
That's true.
Yes, that's true.
So they earn more, which means they're providing more economic value to society, which means society gets wealthier as a whole and everybody's wages go up.
So the children aren't expensive, right?
Right?
It's like saying that taking a cab to the airport is expensive compared to crawling, right?
It's like, no, it's efficient, right?
I mean, you train your kids so that they can make more money, and of course, if they're making more money, they can help you out in your old age, and so it's, you know, if you're good to them and you love them and all, right?
Yeah.
So, you know, the fact that children are expensive and you have fewer of them, okay, so that means that there are fewer children.
That means that women are less consumed with child raising, right?
Yeah.
Exactly.
Like raising 10 children would actually take a lifetime.
Oh yeah, no.
I get it.
And then by the time you finish there, the first one's in grandkids, right?
So I get it.
Exactly.
So the women are more free.
Yes.
Fantastic.
Okay, so the women can have jobs and this and that and the other, which is nice.
And of course the technological society makes labor-saving devices available to the home and all that kind of stuff, right?
So yeah, I think we're all copacetic with that.
None of this involves the government as yet, right?
No, I'm talking about the natural state of society which doesn't – I'm assuming there is no government.
We don't know because as soon as you get an advanced society, taxes go through the roof because there are so many goodies for people to steal.
If you take $10,000 from a guy who has $10,001, he goes insane.
If you take $10,000 from a guy who has $100,000, he can survive.
I don't know what the natural state of society is.
As soon as you get a small government, you get economic growth which then feeds a giant government and I've talked about this many times before.
I won't get into more details about it now.
But, so, let's just sort of look and see how this might work in the absence of a giant government.
So, yeah, the fact that women don't have to invest as much labor in child-rearing.
Now, you know, I've been a stay-at-home dad.
You do have to invest a lot of labor in child-rearing when the children are young.
I mean, they're just constant.
And, you know, putting that responsibility after others is...
Well, why have kids, right?
It's like marrying your wife that you love and paying to her to live with someone else most of the time.
Just stupid, right?
But people do that for a variety of reasons we don't have to get into here and now.
So yeah, the women have more economic opportunities.
They can go get jobs and all that, which is great because that also adds more value to society.
Society is becoming wealthier and wealthier, so people can save for their old age.
And I don't see how this necessarily ends up with multiculturalism.
I think your argument is, well, people have fewer kids, and therefore you need to replace those workers with...
With multicultural people but that's not – it's not a replacement of workers that drives multiculturalism other than the sort of ideological factors.
Multiculturalism is driven by the fact that you need people to tax in order to pay for old age pensions because you taxed people to pay for those old age pensions as a government and then you spent all the money and there's nothing left.
So, the fact that like in Japan, there's no possibility they're going to be able to pay for old age pensions because the birth rate is like 1.1 per couple.
So, it's catastrophic.
So, they import people into European countries because there's a labor shortage, right?
But it's not the labor shortage fundamentally.
I mean, if there's a labor shortage, why not just automate more?
There's tons of stuff that could still be automated.
And government, of course, nudging that process along rather violently by increasing the minimum wage like crazy.
There's still tons of stuff that could be automated.
And so labor shortage, who cares, right?
Labor shortage simply means that the price of labor, if it's a genuine shortage, the price of labor is going to go up, in which case it's probably more profitable to start having kids because your kids are going to make even more money.
And this stuff balances out in the free market.
And of course, also, if kids could start contributing economically to the household earlier, then they wouldn't be so expensive and all that.
I mean, I got my first job when I was 10.
What's wrong with that?
It's fine.
This extended childhood where, you know, people have never had – they're 25 years old and they've never had a job.
It's like, God, it's ridiculous.
It's like getting a job is like – it's like they're 25 years old and they're still in diapers and they don't know how to ride a bike or, you know, their mommy is still spoon-feeding them porridge, which they're dribbling out the side of their mouth in their high chair.
This extended childhood is stupid and weakens everyone, but that's all status stuff.
So in multiculturalism, the question is how could it possibly be economically productive to bring in differing and opposing cultures, people who don't speak the language, people who don't have the history, people who don't know how to integrate into an existing society, at least the first generation.
How is that economically very productive?
I'm in Singapore and what our government did is they import them basically after my A-levels in India and I came in as an immigrant and yeah, so I think if you do it that way,
like if you just import good talent, just somebody who has completed A-levels or is willing to go to university, yeah if you do it smartly I think multiculturalism can work.
And not the European kind where they invoke everyone, even people without families.
And, I mean, that kind of screws up the balance.
But maybe, I think the Singaporean way still works.
Hang on, hang on.
So, you have, I guess, university level education or above, right?
That's true, yes.
Okay, so you're IQ 110, 115.
At least.
At least.
If you're listening to this show, you get a free 10 bonus points.
So your IQ is at least a standard deviation, I would argue, higher than the average and probably higher than the average in India for a variety of reasons, right?
And so if you had come to Singapore, you came to Singapore after you were educated, is that right?
After my A-levels.
A-level equivalents.
So you came to Singapore.
Now, what were your options if you had failed?
Did you have a job all set up?
In Singapore?
I mean, did you come and then start looking for a job or did you have to have a job offer to get in?
Oh, no.
I came in with a student research and then I went to schooling.
And then I went to university, all the while working, you know, like part-time.
7-11, you know, the Indian stereotype.
Yeah, and the thing...
Sorry, how did you pay for your university in Singapore?
I took a loan.
I'm still paying it.
But the loan is not as high as the United States.
It's like $50,000, approximately.
Now, you don't have to tell me if you don't want to, but I'm going to assume that your degree was in something that there was some significant economic demand for.
You mentioned engineering.
Was it something like that, something in the STEM fields?
Yes, it's computer engineering and related fields, yes.
Right, okay.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you had...
Let's say you had a really bad habit.
You would go to job interviews and you'd spit at people, right?
Some stupid thing, right?
Just some ridiculous thing, right?
And then you were unable to get a job.
What would have happened?
I would start my own company.
I mean, in fact, I ran my company for two years and then...
It was profitable.
And just follow me here.
I'm not saying it would have happened, right?
But you sound like a very competent and smart fellow.
But what if your company had failed?
And you couldn't get a job?
What would have happened?
I would work from home or freelance.
No, no.
Just go with me here.
You couldn't make it in Singapore.
This is a mental exercise, right?
So if you couldn't get an income in Singapore, what would have happened?
Okay, if Singapore itself is failing and there's no way to...
No, no, no.
You are failing in Singapore.
You can't get an income.
I know you're an engineer.
Just try and go with theoreticals and engineers going hand-in-hand, right?
But just go with me here and work with me.
What would you have done if you couldn't make it in Singapore?
I'd probably go stay home, yeah.
Okay, so you'd leave the country.
Yes.
Right, right.
And that's because you're a smart guy.
Now, let's say that Singapore offered you welfare of, I don't know, $1,500 or $2,000 a month to stay.
Would you have stayed?
Actually, no, but the government here doesn't do that.
No, no, no, I know, I know.
Still in theoretical land, right?
So you wouldn't have done it, and you know why you wouldn't have done it, right?
Yeah, it's not the right way to exist.
Because you could make more money.
By getting a job, right?
Because you can maybe make $1,500 or $2,000 a month on welfare and sort of various benefits, but if you get a job in your field, then you're going to make a lot more than that, right?
You're going to make, I don't know what, like $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 a month over time and have the intellectual stimulation of doing cool computer stuff and all that, right?
That's true, yes.
So you're a smart guy and well-educated.
Yeah.
And of course you're going to make it.
I'm not trying to curse you here.
You're smart guy, well-educated.
So if you don't make it in Singapore, you're going to go someplace where you can make it, right?
Yes, that's true.
Yes.
Now, on the other hand, so that's, you know, it's that multiculturalism.
Well, okay, so you're from a different ethnicity and a different cultural background, but you're trying to make it in a free market, and if you can make it, fantastic.
And if you can't make it, then you won't stick around, right?
Because you won't have anything to live on.
You don't want to beg or sell pencils on a street corner or whatever.
However, if you had an IQ of say 85, right?
Yes.
Then coming to Singapore, if you could get on the welfare train and you could make $1,500 or $2,000 a month on welfare in Singapore, you would never leave.
Because that's vastly better than you could ever get with your skill set of an IQ85. That's vastly better than you could ever get anywhere else in the world.
That's true.
Yeah.
I can see that point.
Yes.
And so multiculturalism is different than...
I think what we're talking about, the multiculturalism that I oppose is the multiculturalism that is the government program run by laying out the sticky honey traps of welfare and drawing people to whom welfare is the very best deal.
See, welfare is fundamentally an IQ test.
I know it sounds like I'm saying lots of stuff is an IQ test.
That's because it is, right?
Welfare is an IQ test because if you're smart...
You won't stay on welfare because your options will be much better and you'll be phenomenally bored, right?
So the people who stay on welfare are people who are stupid.
And, you know, I don't mean that.
Like, if I say stupid, people will say, oh, stupid.
No, it's just a description.
They're just not smart.
There's nothing wrong with it.
It's just the way things are.
Some people are short.
You know, if I say someone's ugly, it doesn't mean that I think they're a bad person.
It just means they're ugly.
If they're short, if they have pimples, if, you know, people call me balls.
I mean, that's...
It's a pretty accurate statement.
No problem with that.
It's pretty real.
So people who are just not smart, people who are dumb, they like welfare.
And so when you have a welfare state, you may think that you're bringing – the countries may say, well, let's bring in lots of people so that they'll work.
But the people who most want to get there are the people to whom the welfare state in the West is better than anything they could ever get anywhere else, even in a free market.
At least in the short run.
In the long run, right?
But in the short run, people who aren't that smart don't tend to think of the long run.
And so, people are brought in And they will generally, again, the less intelligent people, and this is not true of any ethnicity in particular.
I would assume that everybody with an IQ of 85 is pretty keen on welfare if they can get it.
In other words, they're white or black or, you know, your ethnicity or Chinese.
No, that's a good deal.
You can't do better.
And so that's a multiculturalism that I have an issue with because...
For you to function well, you sound like an ambitious guy, so for you to function well in the Singaporean society, is that how you say it?
Singaporean?
Yes, that's the pronunciation.
For once, English makes sense.
So for you to succeed in the Singaporean society, you need to adapt and adopt some of the cultural norms in Singapore, right?
Yeah, that's true.
I eat with chopsticks.
You eat with chopsticks.
Good job, right?
And, you know, you're trying to, you know, blend, so to speak, right?
I mean, of course, they know you're not from Singapore because you're from India, but they know that...
Oh, yeah, I shouldn't say you're not from Singapore.
They know that you're not...
Historically, from Singapore, right?
So, in order to succeed, you must adapt to the local customs and that's what happens in a free market.
There's an adaptation to local customs because that's what's economically advantageous to you.
You are well paid for adapting to local customs.
On the other hand, with the welfare state, you have no incentive to adapt to local customs.
In fact, It's kind of like work for no pay.
It's a negative incentive to adapt to local customs, which is why you see...
In Europe, you see these terrible no-go zones, these Islamic neighborhoods, entirely welfare state.
It's only there because of the welfare state.
Because what should happen...
This is a free society.
People say to me, well, what would immigration look like in a free society?
Well, it would look like this.
People would come to a country...
And if you didn't like certain people, you wouldn't have to associate with them.
I'm assuming that if there was some person who was horribly racist against Indians, you would not want to hang around with that person a lot.
Kind of a masochistic thing to do, right?
And so you're free to not associate with people that you don't like.
You're free not to hire people that you don't like.
And so if there was some negative prejudice against certain groups of people, I mean, this happens.
I mean, there are the gypsies in Romania and so on, and they've been around for 1,500 years.
They still haven't integrated, and lots of people still don't like them.
And I think they have pretty low IQs, if I remember the studies correctly.
As a whole, there are exceptions, blah, blah, blah.
But you can go and not...
Hire those people if you want.
And if those people have value to offer, then other people will hire them who don't have your particular prejudices.
And now let's say that the children of those kids are not that smart.
Well, then they may self-deport if they can't make it in that society.
Or they may just accept whatever job they can get in that society.
If they're super smart kids, they'll do really, really well.
But everyone's there.
Everyone has a financial incentive to adopt and adapt to the dominant culture because that's what pays in the free market.
If I go and learn Gaelic, which is an old Irish language, and then I go to Japan and I go to job interviews in Japan and I demand that they speak to me in Gaelic, how well is that going to work for me?
It's not going to work.
Nobody is going to hire me.
I have to learn Japanese.
I have to put that investment in and it will pay off for me having a job in Japan or whatever, right?
So, multiculturalism, again, I have no problem if there's a free market and if people are allowed to associate or not associate with whoever they want to, that's perfectly fine.
But, you know, what's going on in Europe and so on, that's not multiculturalism.
You know, I mean, to take something probably closer to your heart, you know, when Partition, India and Pakistan, right?
In 1949.
I mean, would you call that multiculturalism?
I mean, that was just a murder fest, right?
Yeah.
I mean, there was a difference in cultures between Pakistan and India, I think.
I mean, I'm not an expert because every thing I read about is kind of biased about this topic.
So, yeah, I think it was good that there was a split.
Although the split was itself...
Poorly managed and caused a lot of problems.
Because Indians would never harbor Osama bin Laden.
We wouldn't do that kind of...
We're very poor religious freedom.
We have Dalai Lama in India when the Chinese didn't like him.
It's the Indian way.
I think it's a good thing that Pakistan is Had a split-off with India.
But my point is...
Yeah, so my train of my argument, like women have more freedom and more financial independence.
And so I think that naturally leads to higher divorce rates because marriages are not based on economic necessity.
So if you notice...
Well, unless you're in a very – no, but if you grow up in a very wealthy society, then they're not based on economic necessity and hopefully people learn about values and morality and that love that doesn't change based upon economic circumstances.
In other words, if my wife won the lottery, she wouldn't leave me because we love each other and we love each other for the right reasons with the right values.
If I won the lottery, I'd never leave her.
That's sentiment, right?
That's the basis of modern marriages.
But in the old days, marriages used to be based on economic necessity.
Like, women couldn't find a job and they had to get married.
In fact, in the Bible, there's talk of giving charity to the widows because they can't find work and they are not married.
And in fact, Single women couldn't sustain themselves on their own.
But now it's not like that.
I'm just arguing that in the natural order of things, when things get industrialized and technologically advanced, we will inevitably have higher divorce rates, women's liberation,
Sorry to interrupt, but I would say, hang on a second, because I think you're talking about, maybe this is closer to where things are in India, I don't know, but I think you may be more talking about a transitional time.
So, for instance, I mean, I know that in India, of course, there are a lot of arranged marriages.
I had a male Indian friend who was constantly complaining that his parents were taking out ads in India today trying to get him married off.
And...
So if there are arranged marriages and then the woman gains economic independence, then she may be more likely to divorce the guy because she never chose him out of love to begin with.
However, after that generation is passed, that transition time is passed, and women know that they don't have to be married, they don't have to stay married for economic reasons, then they will tend to marry more for love, which hopefully is more sustainable, again, without the government jumping in and creating all these weird incentives that...
Divorce Core, C-O-R-P, the movie we had the director on, on this show, and people can look at that video.
They were really weird incentives for divorce these days.
But I think that once society is relatively free and relatively prosperous, I mean, they tend to do fairly well.
I mean, divorce rates in Asian countries tend to be quite low, even in richer countries like Japan.
Actually, Singapore is 2 out of 10, I think.
That's my estimate.
Divorce?
Divorce rate is 2 out of 10, or like 1 out of 5.
That's still way better than the West.
Yes, USA is like 1 out of 2, which is even worse.
So it's better off not marrying at that stage.
Right.
Now, I mean, the other thing too, and you can speak to this probably more than I can, I'm sure you can, but...
The challenge for people in their perception of immigrants is challenging.
Casting any false modesty aside, what is it like for you as a very intelligent Indian?
I mean, in your native country, right, in India, what is it like for you in terms of your compatibility with the general population?
There are many people like me, so I'm not that special back there.
It's… There are many people competing for every job.
That's because there are so many young people.
The average age is like 25.
And there's going to be people looking for the same things with so many people around.
But in Singapore, the birth rates are close to zero.
And I believe that's because children are expensive.
In Singapore, everything is expensive.
So children are expensive.
And women are freer.
You know, and all the...
I mean, I'm just saying that all these things are linked.
So that one leads to the other.
And, like, government intervention just worsens it.
Like in Europe.
Like they...
It worsens it in a sense like they...
Simply import the immigrants without looking at their education or whether they can sustain themselves and welfare kind of makes it easier to not to have less children in a sense because in the old ages most people have children so that when they're old there's somebody to children are basically the welfare in the old days children get older slowly than their parents and then The
children look after their parents.
But now the government welfare will look after them.
And low infant mortality helps it along to have fewer children.
I mean, just when they're like birth control, that just makes it even more easier.
So I'm just saying...
Yeah, I think...
And I think, I mean, we're obviously speculating this stuff's impossible to prove.
That is a very fun kind of speculation.
But I would also say, Edwin, that...
Wealthy societies tend to get lazy and children can be hard work.
Yes, that's true.
And they tend to get kind of hedonistic and materialistic and, you know, fun in the now.
And Children are not that exactly, right?
I mean, if somebody said to me, you know, you can go, like when my daughter was like two or whatever, you know, well, you can go skiing in the Alps, you know, or you can have a week straight with your daughter, you know.
I can see, she is great fun and all, but I can see the attraction of skiing in the Alps.
I love to ski myself, but not that I've ever been to the Alps or anything, but, you know, I hear it's nice.
Yeah.
And so what happens is, of course, people are like, oh, you know, well, I guess I could settle down and have kids or I could go backpacking through Central America, right?
That's true.
And so I think what happens is people sort of enjoy all of the pleasures that life has to offer in their teens and their 20s and so on.
But then what happens is, you know, their clocks start ticking and...
It seems to be kind of shocking for women when their sexual market value begins to decline.
I mean, a woman's fertility peak actually starts in her early to mid-20s.
After that, it's kind of all downhill, although aging sperm is not always that great either.
So the fact that women sort of hit the wall a lot sooner than men and a lot more visibly, they then panic and want to have kids really quickly, which generally has to make bad decisions, which is also driving up Yes.
choice, right?
Yes.
And so I think that parenting has become a lot less fun since taxes are so high that both parents have to work to maintain even something remotely approximating a middle Both parents have to work.
And when both parents are working, child raising is really not as much fun at all.
Because you're just running from one place to the next.
You never have any time.
You're always rushed.
It's not relaxing.
There's lots of conflicts, lots of tears.
You're stuck in traffic and you're sweating.
And it's like, ugh, it's horrible in a lot of ways.
I mean, I've seen it and I didn't want that.
And so the fact that I was able to stay home and work on this show while being a parent is glorious, right?
I mean, but to do it another way, I mean, I saw it.
I just didn't want it.
So I think not only does parenting become more stressful and more difficult, but people have also become a little bit lazier because they're just used to sort of pleasing themselves and enjoying their lives.
And the concept of sacrifice has kind of gone out the window.
Yeah.
The concept of you're part of a continuum of culture and history that you're alive because other people made the sacrifice to have kids and so you kind of got to pay it forward and so on and you're part of a larger story.
A lot of people don't really like that these days.
They become sort of selfish and a little bit lazy and they don't like the idea that they might have some obligation to the future and the life that's going to inhabit it and so on.
And then, of course, what happens is a lot of people realize that they want kids when it's too late.
Yes.
And they then have – like some woman hits 40.
Well, statistically, she's going to live into her 80s.
And that's like 45 more years to go.
She's not getting the same kind of attention from men that she used to get.
Men her own age want to date younger women.
Older men, well, she doesn't find them that attractive and it's kind of humiliating.
We did a show called The Most Honest Modern Woman You'll Ever Hear, which you can hear this kind of tale seemingly exaggerated, but, you know, it's what she said.
And so, you know, she's got a career that, you know, maybe she likes, maybe she doesn't, but that's only going to sustain her for another decade or two.
She's got very little attention from attractive men.
She's got no kids.
That's a long time.
That is a long time to be alive.
And, of course, if she's got friends who have kids, well...
It's kind of tough to be.
It's like being the third wheel on a date, being over at people's houses when they have kids all the time.
Maybe the kids like you, maybe they don't.
But at some point, you're going to feel like, well, what was the point of that?
You know, I mean, I'm now going to die and everything's going to die with me.
I've got nothing to pass on, no one to share my memories with.
My memories are all going to die with me.
My life experiences, my lessons, my wisdom's all going to die with me.
And people who've got kids tend to be really busy.
And if you're single and you're a woman and you're like 50 and your friends are all got kids and, you know, I guess if they're probably getting golden out of the house now, in which case grandkids coming along soon, well, they're kind of busy.
And also, you know, when you have kids, the life of people who don't have kids, unless you're like working together and all that, I mean, it's, you kind of, like, my life revolves around, a lot of ways revolves around my daughter.
Yeah.
Because she's the constant.
Like, I don't have to do a show every day, but I got a parent every day.
She's the constant, right?
That's the thing we orbit.
And so that's what my life's about, and people who don't have kids, they're talking about stuff that, I don't know, just seems kind of shallow and less important to me.
Like, oh, I'm really into this new Star Wars movie, and it's like, okay.
I'm shepherding a human life into existence, but I'm glad that you like the CGI, I suppose.
And so there's a little bit – your life is deeper with kids in it.
And they – for me, I'm sure – for them, it's like, why are you still talking about your kid?
She's not that interesting.
It's like, well, she is to me, right?
Not to you.
She's not your kid, right?
So there's just a kind of divergence.
And even after the kids grow and all that, the parents have had the experience of having kids – And the singletons have not.
And there's a huge gap there.
There's a huge gap.
It's like, you know, if you spend 15 years traveling the world and you come back and you're trying to hang out with your friend who never left your tiny hometown, well, just not going to have that much in common anymore because you've had such wildly divergent experiences.
So I think that...
People are not having kids for a variety of reasons and there's a lot of propaganda involved in it as well.
The leftists definitely want to bring in incompatible cultures rather than have white people breed because that allows them to further destroy and undermine the free market and all that.
But I think there's some laziness involved and just some lack of forethought about what the second half of your life looks like.
Does that make any sense?
Sorry for the long ramble.
I hope that makes that kind of sense.
Yes, I agree.
But...
More than sentiment.
Economic necessity.
In the old days, more hands meant more food.
Because everything was agricultural.
Half of the people worked in farms.
And more hands meant more food.
And the ROI, as in the return on investment on children, was very high.
As soon as you have them, as soon as they hit their teams, they start working in their farms.
And there's more wealth because of them.
So there's an economic...
reason to have more children like other than the fact that there's no birth control and other than the fact that children die as infants and that there's no government welfare to help you when you're old other than all that the pure greed could have made more children but not anymore because children need more training either through bad education policy or Just
because society is that advanced, you actually need that kind of training.
These reasons lead to low ROI on children.
And that leads to fewer children, freer women, financially independent women, marriages not based on economic necessity.
And the whole progressive value system just emerges from the Low ROI of children.
I understand that the government and the progressive people, like the liberals, they do kind of help us along.
They make it even worse.
But in a way, it could have happened even without them.
That's my original question.
I don't know what the multi-generational effects of a free society will be when children are raised peacefully.
I don't know.
It could be.
Yeah, that's all I have to say.
Thanks for listening and critiquing.
No, no, it's my pleasure.
Thanks very much for your call.
I really appreciate it.
Feel free to call back anytime.
Always good to hear what's happening where the sun is shining.
Not here, but where you are.
So thanks very much.
Thanks, of course, for all the callers tonight and all the callers who've called in and all the callers to come.
Yes, you are verily a human chain of self-revelation, opening up your minds and hearts to the planet.
I appreciate it.
The planet appreciates it.
If you appreciate it, fdrurl.com slash donate, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
If you like a longer bit of typing, FDRURL.com slash Amazon to help us out by using our Amazon affiliate link.
It costs you nothing and helps us out a smidgen.
If you have no money, please just like, share, subscribe the video, the podcast, FDRpodcast.com.
You can share that.
And sign up for a subscription.
Send us some cash.
You know, it's a little bit tiny, lean times.
This is our time of eyeing our seed crop and trying not to eat it because it's post-Christmas, which means, of course, that, well, it's a good time for you to donate.
That's what I'm saying if you've got anything left over.
We really, really appreciate your support.
FDRURL.com slash donate.
Thanks, everyone, for a wonderful, wonderful show.
