Feb. 13, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
03:15:05
3202 The Destruction of Cologne, Germany - Call In Show - February 10th, 2016
Question 1: [1:50] - “I live in Cologne, Germany. The events on New Years eve kept me pretty upset. I moved here with my wife and kids to raise my little daughter in peace and security. As a libertarian, I was always aware of what was going on, but the last 12 months completely changed the country I used to know. However, if I decide to leave this country, where should I go? Besides the fact that it will be very hard to convince my wife to leave her family and friends behind, you must understand that Germans tend to be very attached to the place they live. It is not easy to move your whole life, especially after you settled with a house and kids. Furthermore, I think I remember you arguing for libertarians not to “run” but to stay where they are and try to better the society where they live. How do you achieve that when this place going to hell in a handbasket?”Question 2: [1:23:00] - “I represent a recently established classical liberal party in Norway called the "Capitalist Party". We've managed to mobilize a rapidly growing and diverse party of freedom-oriented people. Our consistent growth as a young party is unprecedented here in Norway. What value, if any, do you recognize in utilizing channels within the political system to proliferate rational ideas and classical liberalism?"Question 3: [2:28:59] - “Studies have shown that human beings, though definitely social creatures, have an upper limit to the number of people that they can meaningfully know (i.e. have some kind of relationship with that is more than superficial acquaintance) at any one time, and that this limit is fixed at somewhere between 80 and 150. Given that the scale of government makes it impossible for us to know even a small fraction of those that supposedly "represent our interests", and that "lone wolves" are essentially a myth, would a voluntary society most likely be divided along tribal, rather than national, boundaries? How might this hinder or help voluntarism? As a follow up, does this natural limit to our authentic social circle give us some insight into the relative inability of individual people to truly empathize with a larger population?”
You great, great callers making my job so much easier.
First caller is living in Germany and he has a daughter and he is within a stone's throw, I tell you, of one of the new migrant centers filled by Muslims and North Africans who have swarmed into Germany over the last year or two and he's concerned.
Should he move?
Should he stay?
Should he fight?
When is the time to flee?
When is the time to put up a philosophical stand?
Well, I think we came to some very interesting, hopefully enlightening, illuminating and highly motivating answers, so listen in on that.
Number two, did you know that there is in fact a capitalism party in Denmark?
Yeah, I was a little surprised too.
They've been around for a while and they're gaining traction considerably and significantly.
We talked about the challenges of gaining freedom through the political process.
Is there value in trying to do that?
We had a good back and forth about that.
Number three, a pretty wide-ranging conversation with a very Charming and eloquent listener who basically points out that the studies show people can only really know about 150, maybe 200 people.
What effect does that have on a free society?
And what effect is breaking that up through the welfare state having on our current society a good, wide-ranging discussion of the history of social evolution in human beings and the future of freedom in groups or individually?
So...
I think you'll enjoy that a lot.
I know I did.
So, here we go.
Here we go.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
You know you need to.
You know you want to.
Do not be a free rider.
And FDRURL.com slash Amazon if you want to help us out and you've got some shopping to do.
And with no further ado, here we go.
First today is Frank.
Frank wrote in and said, I live in Cologne, Germany, and the events on New Year's Eve kept me pretty upset.
We moved here with my wife and kids to raise my little daughter in peace and security.
As a libertarian, I was always aware of what was going on, but the last 12 months completely changed the country I used to know.
However, if I decide to leave this country, where should I go?
Besides the fact that it'll be hard to convince my wife to leave her family and friends behind, you must understand that Germans tend to be very attached to the place they live.
It's not easy to move your whole life, especially after you settled with a house and kids.
Furthermore, I think I remember you arguing for libertarians not to run, but to stay where they are and to try and make society better where they live.
How do you achieve that when this place is going to hell in a hand basket?
That's from Frank.
Good question, Frank.
How are you doing tonight?
Hi, thank you.
I'm fine.
Thank you very much for having me.
My pleasure.
Now, the events in Cologne, for those who don't know, is that there were a thousand-plus German women grabbed, sexually assaulted, one or two were raped, and...
This was, to some degree, suppressed by the German media until it sort of erupted in social media.
And what is the status now?
Is it being reported on fairly well?
Is it still a topic of conversation or has it gone down the memory hole?
Well, it depends on what side you look at.
If you look at the social media, especially with that Facebook algorithm and, you know, Facebook knows what you're looking for.
And you maybe look into a smaller newspaper, so your news feeds scatter with these messages.
It's just flooded.
I know actually...
No, let me rephrase that.
I don't know any libertarian anymore, not blending out this amount of news of women getting groped, arrested, violated, actually little boys too.
In Germany and Austria.
So this is...
Well, it's impossible to keep it under the rock.
On the other hand, the mainstream media, I hardly follow that anymore.
But from what I hear and what I read here and there, it's...
Well, it's reported once or twice.
But actually, it's more the usual shearing of...
How great we are doing and that we should continue with this path and we shouldn't be all Nazis and basically it's, yeah, it's the politicians tend to, they changed their habits and started insulting the population.
So that's where we are right now.
Right, so anyone who has doubts about the value of importing a million plus third world inbred relatively low IQ Muslims is considered to be a racist and a Nazi and a bad person and should basically just shut the hell up and submit.
Is that right?
That's about right because it is a hard topic.
I know, it is a hard topic and I actually don't know where to start because immigration This country has seen a lot of immigration, and I recall maybe it was you, a show of yours, with a Swedish guy, and he was actually Iranian descent, I guess, or Persian, and he said, okay, there are several waves of immigration, the first wave, second wave, third wave, and it's more or less the same here.
So there are a lot of migrants, you can call them, Which are totally shocked from what is happening here and what kind of people we are importing.
And the other day I went to ride the tram and I overheard, besides the tram station, the bus station, and I overheard Turkish bus drivers, you know, 50ish and working their whole life, first generation, and they talked about those events and said, okay, the Germans, You can do everything with them.
They just won't fight back or fight the politicians as long as they have their car parked in front of their house.
This is actually one Turkish bus driver talking to another one.
The rest of the conversation I couldn't understand because he was changing from German to Turkish, and I don't speak Turkish.
What does it mean when they say when the car is parked in front of the house?
It just means as long as it's in very, very, very small places.
If you're not really personally attacked, then you just, I don't know, you try to ignore it or you believe the media.
It's...
There's this guy from a local pop group and his daughter got molested the other day, actually two or three days ago, and he still thinks that we shouldn't be all Nazis.
So there's a father which has a molested daughter and his political correctness is keeping him from, I don't know, making Be angry at some point.
It's hard for me to express, because now it's a difficult topic, and it is a very great topic to divide the population, you know, just to rule them better.
And it's a difficult topic for libertarians, because in a perfect world, who needs borders, who needs countries anyway?
But like things are, people are, either from the left or from the right, calling for a strong state and for, I don't know, use your borders, make border control.
And so I'm very aware that you cannot say, okay, this is all bullshit and we shouldn't give asylum to anyone who is seeking it.
How do you say that?
It's just...
Plain madness.
When I wrote you I thought about phrasing this how to stay sane in an insane world because I just cannot cope with the events anymore.
I've lived here all my life and I celebrated the 2000 New Year's Eve in Cologne.
Actually I crossed the place where that happened and Cologne, I don't know, usually there are two million in the city, so it's a city of a million population, and a million comes coming in and out, and in the state it's living 18 million people,
and on that New Year's Eve, I don't know, two, three, four million people in the city, and they were all partying, and it was, you know, New Year's Eve of the year 2000, you had fireworks going for hours, And the worst thing that happened to me is that I took my girlfriend and I was afraid that I couldn't get a great place to watch the fireworks correctly.
That's the worst thing that happened to me.
And you see, this is a bit different now.
Right, right.
What does your wife think?
Well, what does my wife think?
She is afraid, actually.
And I talk about all this stuff with her and it kept me more awake.
I'm more aware of that and maybe I get paranoid that the other thing I'm thinking about, so maybe I'm overreacting.
No, no, no.
Listen, Frank.
Frank, listen.
The reason that it's worrying you more than it's worrying your wife is because you're a man.
And you and I and everybody else with balls knows who is going to have to fight should it come to that.
Are they going to send your wife out or are they going to send you out?
It's your job to worry about these things because it's largely going to affect you at least first.
That's your genetics, right?
That's the genetics of being male is you have to worry about interlopers, right?
Yes, and so it's boiling down actually To a fight to some degree.
And you are of course totally right.
And now I'm a father.
I have a daughter.
She's one year and one month old.
And she's just gorgeous.
And this changed my life.
And I am the one responsible.
I'm not only the one responsible for her having a house, having something to eat, having a great place to stay, but I'm responsible for her security.
And as a German, I'm just totally unarmed.
And the state which is supposedly, I don't know, protecting me, all I hear from that state is actually insults to their own population.
I cannot...
actually I saw Twitter feeds of the Minister of Justice and other officials calling gum.
So it is it's hard to phrase in words, especially in the middle of the night here, but it's in broad daylight it's even hard to phrase in words.
And That led to that question.
What should I do?
I'm here.
I'm unarmed.
I have a family.
I actually have a nice place.
I moved away from the city in the suburbs.
Peacefully or more peacefully and trying to raise a little child.
And if I go, where should I go?
If I stay, what should I do?
So there's this philosopher, Peter Flotterdijk, he's sometimes in the media, very rarely, and he said, he had this quote telling, okay, if you are not a social democrat, which is actually already left in Germany, You either leave or you go mad.
I'm trying to avoid this and that's actually one of the reasons why I called in.
You said you have family there.
I assume that's your wife's family and your family.
What do they think of these events?
My mother is thinking the same.
Actually, she turned on her old days.
I might say she turned to a full-blown libertarian, which is okay, but she starts to be very afraid.
Also, she lives even further abroad, you know, far away from cities.
I think my father is actually ignoring it, more or less.
And the family of my wife is...
Well, let me...
How shall I put it?
Actually, I had some clash with the father of her because he's more mainstream than me, to put it this way.
And so we decided some time ago not to talk about the political issues anymore because it just...
It doesn't work out that way.
So, you know, what are people saying?
People try not to go on and somehow avoid this, but as I talked with my mother-in-law, I said in October or September, I don't know, I said, okay, you are importing one million people from different countries here, and Despite the best intentions, I don't know if it's one million surgeons, you will have trouble because it's just one million people.
And you and I know it's not one million very civilized persons.
So what do you think is going to happen?
and well now we sorry were you just about to finish a thought I'm not sure if I dropped it.
Yeah, well, actually, she didn't answer my question because it was a rhetorical question and she didn't say anything about my mother-in-law.
And I haven't spoken to her since.
So, actually, I feel a bit also left alone with the topic.
Of course, I have friends I can talk about or chat with some guys online.
But to see this immediate danger or seeing how things changed, it's hard.
It's a difficult topic to talk about.
So I have no...
If you talk to people in private and off the record, they tend to agree with you.
But if it gets more official or bigger round, they tend to silence up.
Actually, I know a lot of People who lived in the old East Germany, you know, under the communist regime, and they all say the same.
It is worse that it has been under a communist regime, because back in the days, everybody knew what the media was giving out as news.
It was bullshit, and they had this feeling about, you know, it's us against them up there.
And nowadays, it's not that easy anymore, because a lot of People still believe the media, and a lot of people think what we are doing is a good thing because they want to be humanitarian, which you can argue with, which is a noble cause.
But it's not only that, you know?
Well, I mean, this question of humanitarianism is obviously Important and it is a weakness of Europeans, of Caucasians, this pathological altruism.
Pathological altruism is a very soft form of cultural suicide.
And pathological altruism is something where if it's your known group of people, your tribe, your group, it doesn't have to be racial, it can be cultural, it can be philosophical.
If it's your in-group, Then there's nothing that you wouldn't do for your daughter.
There's nothing that I wouldn't do for my daughter, my wife, my friends.
If it's my group, then there's no limit to my humanitarianism, my generosity, self-sacrifice, whatever you want to call it.
And...
Because white people have been verbally abused out of having any collective self-interest, what's happened is the in-group preference shown by just about every other ethnic group and by women and so on, by Democrats, the in-group preference has been cracked and broken for white males and therefore the...
The self-sacrifice, the altruism, the humanitarianism of white males has spilled out across the whole world.
It is no longer restrained by in-group preferences.
It is now for everyone.
And the reasons for all of that are sort of complex, and we've gone into them in a number of presentations.
But that aspect of being humanitarian is, how do you say no to it?
How do you say no to it?
Oh, the funny thing is, you say no to it in the same way that all of the countries in the Middle East, all of the Muslim countries are saying no to it.
You know, like, you first, right?
You go to Saudi Arabia, go to Qatar, go to all these countries and say, well, you first.
You take them in, you integrate them, show us how it's done, we'll take a generation and see how it's working out for you.
But this idea is that when people come...
To Europeans or to North Americans, and in particular to whites, and they come and they say, these people are in need.
You must help them.
It has become almost impossible for white people to say no.
And the reason for that, of course, is because this great fiction of racial egalitarianism has been so pushed on.
And really, it's only been the last 30 or 40 or 50 years.
If you look at libertarian writings in the 60s, there's a fair, decent consciousness about what's called race realism or taking the biological facts about race and accepting them as a reality.
So it really has been like 50 years or so.
Where the race, this is the basic principle and the basic premise that works.
All races, all ethnicities, all cultures are equal.
There's no difference.
If there is any perceivable difference, that difference is 100% environmental.
100% environmental.
So there are no biological differences between any ethnicities.
Where any aggregate differences show up among ethnicities, the difference is entirely environmental.
And those two principles, there's no difference biologically, therefore any collective differences must be entirely environmental.
Those two basic arguments combine together so that anyone who does not want another ethnicity coming into the environment that they live in can only be motivated by irrational bigotry.
And this fundamental reality, this fundamental sequence of thought is something that is very hard to For people to push back on.
If you accept all ethnicities are biologically identical and the only differences that show up in aggregate must be due to environment, then it's crazy to not want people to come into your environment.
Now, there's other arguments, even if you accept all that, there are other arguments for pushing back against mass migration from third world countries or cultures.
But those two basic principles Are very foundational and it really doesn't take much thought even if you don't want to study the biology the IQ differences and and the differences in aggression That you know, we talked about this in the truth about crime that the warrior gene prevalence among the black population and so on Even if you you cast all of that aside And this argument comes from the left because it's all economic determinism, right?
The third world does only have the characteristics they have because of their place in relationship to the means of production, right?
Because they have a particular relationship to the capital, to the economy.
And so if you take them from the third world and put them in the first world, they will very quickly become like first worlders.
And therefore, the only reason you wouldn't want to do so is because of racism and so on.
But it really is a ridiculous argument because it's sort of like saying, well, if you take Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and you somehow force them into the Republican Party, then within a couple of years they'll be full-throated 100% Republicans.
And that is, I mean, anybody who thinks about that just for a moment would recognize that that is a ridiculous proposition.
Islam, of course, 1400 years ago started and very quickly, within 100 years, spread wildly across the Middle East.
And when Islam went to new countries, they did not become like the people in those new countries.
They dominated and Muhammad was rather famous for giving the convert or die commandment.
Or live as a sort of subjugated third-class citizen.
And so when Islam went to other countries, it did not assimilate.
It dominated.
And you can just ask the Hindus in Pakistan for how that all went.
And...
The leftists know very much that you have to keep a monoculture in order to keep a belief system going, which is why leftists, when they take over universities, they no longer allow right-wing people very much to get into those universities.
And when they take over a newspaper, they don't allow non-left-wing people into the editorial staff or the board.
So as soon as the leftists come in, they kick out everyone who's not a leftist, and they won't hire anyone except a leftist.
And so they don't sit there and say, well, let's get Phyllis Schlafly in here.
She's an American conservative who's in her 80s.
Let's get Phyllis Schlafly in here because after she's been here for a year or two or three, she'll be just like us, right?
They keep those people away from the media, from the movie making, from the novel writing, from the publishing companies, from the academics.
Everything that they are striving in to take over, they don't.
Let other cultures come in to their monoculture because they know that it's not going to work, that it's going to be lots of conflict, lots of battles, and no one's going to change their minds.
So the leftists who say to everyone, oh, you know, it's all environmental, just let them in and they'll be just like you, they're the same leftists who fiercely defend all of the centers of power that they take over and keep everyone who's not a leftist out.
And that hypocrisy is something that you don't, like, you just have to look at that basic reality, which everybody knows about.
At least everyone who's educated has been through all of the...
Government schools and government run or government controlled higher education.
They know this sort of monomania and they know it from the media and so on, right?
Like the Spiegel is not bringing in a whole bunch of anti-immigration people and saying, well, they're really great writers.
They just happen to not agree with us on immigration.
But don't worry, after they've been at their Spiegel for a year or two, they'll be just like us, right?
And so the fact is that these people who say we welcome a diversity of opinion are not Shitty little totalitarians insofar as they're working.
Mark Zuckerberg is working with Angela Merkel to shut down dissent on Facebook.
And you can get visits from the police in many places in Europe if you post things anti-immigrant or skeptical of these African migrants coming into your country en masse.
So, yeah, let me just finish and then I'll shut up.
They are petty little totalitarians.
They have no interest in diversity of opinion.
Those on the left have had a soul-crushing monomania for public discourse ever since the left basically came around in its modern form.
In the mid to late 19th century, which is why there's no freedom of speech in communist countries and why in socialist countries and as Lenin said, the goal of socialism is communism, there is a repression of dissent.
So all the people who say, well, are you against diversity?
It's like, well, why can we not have a public debate about this?
Well, you can't have a public debate about this because the left has no facts.
The left has only a verbal abuse to pour upon people, so they can't have information and facts and biology and reality and brain size and IQ and cultural history and inbreeding and genetics and religious intolerance and theocracy and no separation of church and state, like all of the things that are going to come in that are problematic.
They can't discuss those because those are facts and it's a lot easier to just scream verbal abuse at people and call them a Nazi and a fascist and a racist than it is to actually deal with any facts.
And so this aspect of things is really clear that the left, which promotes diversity, is not even remotely interested in diversity.
They're interested in a one-size-fits-all mental straitjacket where dissent is crushed through verbal abuse and the power of the state.
It's the same totalitarian impulse that the West has been fighting ever since they made Socrates drink some hemlock.
So I sympathize with where you're coming from.
It is an old battle.
And, you know, as Ben Shapiro says, the left never sleeps, right?
They're continually working on this stuff.
And the challenge, of course, is that the left want to control people, whereas Free market people want to go out and actually get something done with their lives.
So the left, because they want to control people, are continually focused and their survival depends upon the control of people, so they never stop what they're doing.
Whereas everyone else, you know, you're a dad, you've got a job, you're a husband, you've got stuff to do.
Whereas the left is this all they focus on, is this spreading out these means to control and humiliate and bully and abuse other people.
And so, you know, when you've got someone focused 12 hours a day on a task and someone else who can barely spare half an hour a day to rebut it, It's just a matter of time until the people with less time to allocate to the conflict tend to find their support eroding.
So that's sort of at least the beginning of the introduction.
There's other things I want to talk about, but I want to get your thoughts on what I've said.
Okay, great.
So if there are other things you want to talk about, just ask me.
A lot of things came up, and just to stick to my question, if I stay here, it's just...
Stick with that for a second.
How do I fight this fight?
Because it's on all frontiers.
Because as a anarcho-capitalist, I wasn't too much fond of the state anyway, and I'm not too surprised to see it break its rules.
But what happened, which we talked about, about this Facebook, this specific Facebook task force which our Attorney General forced Facebook Intum, which is sitting right in Berlin, and actually employs former members of the, how do you say that, secret service?
Stasi, the German secret police, East German secret police, right?
East German secret police.
He takes your taxpayer money and uses to censor the Attorney General Completely against every rule in the book there is from this state.
And he does it in the blink of an eye.
And he's not even a great guy.
He's not like a great politician, just evil.
He was basically just Merkel's hand puppet.
And he's able to pull this off.
And the media coverage on this is...
Well...
Let me put it this way.
If there's a train accident, it'll be more over the media than this.
So this country and this continent, I said that a long time ago, but this is obvious, very clear.
This is right now a totalitarian regime.
It's a socialistic, communistic, or you can call it fascistic.
I don't know.
I actually don't care.
But it's far from, you know, the rule of law, like many anarchists Talking.
We are living in some sort of totalitarian regime.
Again.
And if you ever ask yourself how, you know, the Nazis could happen, and you ask that yourself as a German, you ask that a lot.
If you ever ask yourself how East Germany and the communism could happen, you ask that a lot too.
We are right back there.
And So this is one line of defense you have to put up because the state is incredible.
It's not just insulting their own people.
It's actually fighting against you.
You are a citizen of second class.
Actually, I have some things happening to me.
And I have...
There are other...
How do you say it?
There are other...
You know, the so-called refugees are free to use the public transportation, including the trains.
And so what do they do?
They go to the first class because, you know, if it's free of charge, why not take a journey in style while you sit there and pay a lot of money just to use a train.
And so you are actually a citizen of second class.
And this is not just one example.
There are a ton of examples and some examples I exclusively know of which happened before.
This is not all so much news.
It's just, you know, boiling up.
It's just coming to, I don't know, to some...
It's getting faster.
So the lane to the catastrophe is just getting faster.
And actually, I don't know where it's leading to.
Yes, you do.
Yeah, you do.
You do.
You know where it's leading to.
Right?
What do you think is going to happen?
Well, what I said is going to happen is a civil war, actually.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's not going to assimilate.
They're not going to assimilate.
And this is not just me guessing.
This is very clear evidence from history That particularly racially disparate groups don't assimilate.
I mean, blacks and whites have been trying to work on this hundreds of years off and on in various forms in America.
And when blacks and Hispanics move into a neighborhood, what happens to the white people?
They leave.
They leave.
And that's what I did.
I left the big city because big city is okay, that's okay.
So I move here and actually we rent a house because my wife is a doctor and I'm an academic too and I freelance.
I make good money but you know how it is with the economy and the real estate prices.
We cannot afford a house.
That's because there's nothing left to buy because the money is worthless.
That's basically it.
Okay, so we rent a house.
I put some work in this house anyway.
Also it's rent because we cannot afford something great new.
So I put work into this house and when I come back from work and I go to work into the house and do some, I don't know, build some walls and do stuff, I find a little sheet of paper in my mailbox.
Informing me, the governor of this small town here in the suburbs of Cologne is informing me that the local, how do you say, gymnasium, it's from a school, you know, where they do sports and stuff, 200 meters from here will not be longer used from the school anymore.
They will put up a refugee camp over there, 200 meters from where I'm standing right now.
And he's not actually asking you if you agree because you pay with your tax dollars with it or your taxpayer money.
He's just informing you that it'll be, from now on, until further notice, a home for some refugees, so-called refugees, I call them, how do you say that?
Asylum seekers.
So, that's the private challenge.
You have the states challenging you, well, your private life is being challenged, and then, of course, you have some You have your social life being challenged, because, you know, this refugee topic was very hot, and a lot of people, especially young people, volunteered.
And this is a great interview with Rahim Tagahedan in some local German libertarian magazine.
There is actually one.
And he is actually an Austrian philosopher living in Vienna.
So he's an Austrian in Austria.
And he said a very clever thing.
He said, okay, these are quite rich teenagers or young adults.
And they've been brought up and they have been given everything.
And now they could...
For the first thing in their life, they could do something which they thought meant something, you know?
When all this started, we had these teenagers and young adults standing at the train stations with refugee welcome signs and all that stuff, and helping out and collecting clothes and giving food to them.
Also, this all was already provided, but...
So, this is how social life is also...
You know, woven into this fabric.
So you have a lot of ground to cover to defend yourself about this overwhelming attack on all sides.
And like you said, or at least I think you said, you should once in a while, as a libertarian, you shouldn't just move away, you should stand and No, no, I get it.
I'll get to that.
I haven't forgotten it, but just for other people, I have to be aware, because of all our new subscribers, that a lot of people are going to be listening to this with no context, no history.
Race egalitarianism, in other words, all races are the same, and the only differences are environmental, has become a religion.
And people die for religions.
People will go to the wall and many people who've adapted to a particular fantasy will choose death over the destruction of that fantasy.
We can see this, of course, in wars, people will volunteer to protect the state that has oppressed them and will literally walk into machine gun fire rather than challenge the assumption of the virtue of the state.
And people will choose death over the destruction of their illusions.
The destruction of illusions for most people is a kind of soul or spiritual or character death that they would rather die than face.
And this is the big challenge with the modern world, which is that this race egalitarianism has become such a foundational aspect of decisions that have been made since, at least in America,
since the 1960s, since 1965, when the vast majority of Immigrants to America by design were white Europeans and now it's down to like virtually nothing and the vast majority of immigrants who are coming in are third-worlders, Muslims, and so on.
And this, of course, once you lay the foundation that all the races are the same, then the only reason you wouldn't want a race coming in is because you're a racist.
And this screaming down of every and any Biological fact that clearly shows that the races which diverged 50,000 years ago and went into wildly different climates in Siberia, Africa.
Yeah, you can't.
So there's this idea that the races which biologically diverged 50,000 years ago can just be reintegrated.
Sorry, go ahead.
I'll give you a small example.
You don't have to go to Siberia.
Actually, it was some German king.
A long time ago, sent a group of people to claim a very mountainous area and to form a special population.
And actually, they did and formed what is nowadays called Switzerland.
So, I think the German king didn't have in mind that they formed their own country.
But it's, you know, you can have this on a very small scale.
This is a tiny country compared to Canada or the United States.
And actually, you go, I don't know, half an hour, an hour, and you have a different type of dialect.
And you go an hour and you're in a different country.
So, yes, people are different, very different.
And they like to be different.
Actually, I talked with this with some of my friends, and not just to cut you off too long, and I made the argument from Hans-Hermann Hoppe that the session is good and that she should form smaller units.
The smaller, the better.
And he actually came up with some paper.
I just managed to read the abstract.
Actually, the paper was about Switzerland, too, about conflict and not conflict.
It boils down to, okay, borders of any kind, not state borders necessarily, but are natural.
The smaller the units are and the more plain or clear your border is, the less conflict there is.
In between even these different groups.
So yes, you don't have to go to Siberia.
You just have to take, I don't know, a car and drive two hours through Europe and you'll see immediately why this is true.
Okay, but I'm talking more about visible racial differences.
So the analogy which I'll deploy here is the brown bear And the polar bear, right?
To take some obvious examples.
Of course, polar bears have adapted to life in the snow, which is why their skin is white.
It allows them to avoid being seen by the seals and rabbits or whatever the hell they prey on up there.
And that has taken quite some time to evolve that way.
It may have been fast, may have been slow, but...
You know, it's a waste.
And there's other things, right?
The capacity to hibernate for a long period of time where they lose, like, massive portions of body fat and so on.
I know that the bears also hibernate, but they're not going to lose quite as much because the temperature's not as bad.
So you have brown bears and you have polar bears.
Now, this is where people get messed up because they think that if the facts are that the races are different, that this has something to do with a race being superior or inferior.
And that is a biologically incomprehensible and ridiculous and prejudicial statement.
Which is better, a polar bear or Or a brown bear?
Which bear is superior?
Well, that doesn't make any sense, right?
Now, if you take a brown bear and put it in the Arctic, it's inferior because it's in the wrong environment.
If you take a polar bear and you put it in the woods, well, this big ghostly glowing white hide of it is going to have it show up fairly clearly to anything it's trying to hunt.
And it's going to not do well because it's in the wrong environment.
So saying that the races are different has nothing to do with saying that any race is superior or inferior.
Who's better at living in Africa?
Blacks.
Who's better at living in Europe?
Europeans.
That's biology.
That's the way that local adaptation to very, very widely disparate environments works that you adapt to.
Because white people need more vitamin D and if your skin is too dark, you won't get enough, you'll get rickets and you'll die.
So that's sort of one example.
So it's got nothing to do with superiority or inferiority, just adapted to local standards and local environments.
Now, if you take a whole bunch of brown bears and put them in the Arctic, they're going to fail.
Generally, it's not going to work out very well for them in the same way if you take a whole bunch of polar bears and you put them in a forest, they're going to fail.
Now, how long is it going to take to adapt?
How much pain, how much difficulty, how much danger, how many premature deaths are going to have to happen for the adaptation to occur?
Well, it's a lot and it's gruesome.
But the way that it kind of works is you take the polar bear and you put it in the woods and North European woods.
And what happens is the polar bear doesn't succeed in the woods because the brown bear has adapted to the woods.
And so what happens is the polar bears who don't succeed in the woods start screaming at the brown bears that the brown bears are racist against the polar bears and that the brown bears, that the only reason the polar bears are not succeeding is because the brown bears are holding them down or keeping them down.
It's not the fact that they're in the wrong environment relative to their Genetic adaptation.
The brown bears are just anti-white hair bigots.
And therefore, the brown bears owe the polar bears food, right?
So for every berry you pick, I've got to have half.
For everything that you...
Every root you dig up, or I don't know what they eat, rabbits, grizzlies or something.
So for everything that you...
Kill or everything that you get that you can eat, you've got to give us half to atone for your anti-polar bear bigotry, your anti-polar bear racism.
And of course what happens is that if the brown bears accept this and say, well, I guess the only difference is the color of our fur and therefore your lack of success must be our fault, well, That must be, they're going to hand over all of these resources, which is going to prevent any further adaptation from the polar bears to the local environment, because they're getting resources without having to adapt to the local environment.
So, listen, without the welfare state, without the forced redistribution of income, come one, come all.
When people are allowed to be with groups that they want, to not be with groups that they don't like, when incompatibilities are allowed to be expressed through voluntary association, I'm fine.
Great.
No problem.
If the polar bears want to make a go for it in the woods or the brown bears want to make a go for it in the snow, okay.
I'm not going to shoot them.
It may not probably work out, but give it a shot.
See how it works out for you.
But once you have this forced redistribution of income, you are setting the stage for a brutal kind of civil war.
So diversity plus proximity plus the state equals civil war.
And, you know, I was just reading about South Korea.
South Korea, one of the richest places in the world, 99 plus percent ethnic homogeneity.
I mean, I can't imagine if you're a South Korean, you wake up in the morning and you say, man, if we had a million Muslims here, our society would be so enriched.
It would be, you know, if they couldn't speak the language, if they came from a tradition entirely hostile to our culture, and if they had tried repeatedly to invade, destroy, and subjugate South Korea, let's just invite a whole bunch of them in.
Who would wake up in South Korea and run on that platform?
It would make no sense whatsoever.
So even if we want to deny the IQ differences, the cultural differences, biological differences, and religious differences and so on, you just have to ask the Germans around you, what's in it for you?
Why are whites and white males the only group who are never allowed to ask, what's in it for me?
Why would I want to give my money To Muslims, rather than save it for my own children.
I don't see the Muslims saying, hey, here's a whole bunch of free oil, white people, because we don't want to accumulate any value and resources and capital for ourselves.
Here's all this free oil.
Like, holy shit, how cucked up did we become that we are dealing with a group that regularly, you know, in the 70s, you know, what did I remember from the Muslims in the 70s?
Well, then the Saudi and the OPEC and so on.
Holy shit.
They jacked up the price of oil and virtually decimated Western economies because they wanted to make a killing.
Okay, so that's...
And they never said, oh, I'm so sorry, that was a really, really terrible thing to do.
Why have Westerners become so cucked in the butt that they will extend massive amounts of civilization and culture and economy destroying, quote, charity to groups that have not shown The barest charitable impulse, in fact, an exploitive and predatory impulse towards Europeans, not only throughout history and distant history, but recent history and in the present.
And I don't know, this real politics side has got to be reaffirmed at some point or another.
Well, this politics is one problem.
Okay, so the answer I got to that question one time Well, it's just dumb luck that we were born here and they were born over there, so they have the right to be here.
That's an honest answer I got once.
What the hell sense does that make?
Listen, hot girls are more likely to sleep with hot guys.
Right?
Is that a fair thing to say?
You know, when everyone's young and dumb.
Okay, okay.
Okay, so Danny DeVito, I don't know, whoever is considered to be a not that hot guy.
Great actor.
But Danny DeVito happened to be born short, bald, and with a tendency to portliness, right?
Now, it's not Danny DeVito's fault that he was not born looking like Brad Pitt.
It's not his fault.
So he should get As sexy a set of women as Brad Pitt got in his prime.
Or Zac Efron or, you know, Julian Assange for that matter, who seemed to be quite a chick magnet.
So it's not his fault.
Not the fault of the short, bald, fat, ugly guy that he was not born tall, lustrous-haired and handsome.
So women should be lining up to surrender themselves to his groping embraces.
Because it's not his fault.
He just happened to be born that way.
I mean...
It's not my fault I wasn't born with the voice of Freddie Mercury, so everyone should give me a recording contract.
It's not my fault!
What conceivable sense does any of this make?
I mean, it's where people were born.
You know, and if it's any consolation, you know, the higher intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews, of the East Asians, and of the Caucasians came about because of ridiculous levels of suffering where less intelligent people tended to get wiped out by eating their seed crop during the winter. and of the Caucasians came about because of ridiculous levels So, you know, well, they happened to be born over there and we happened to be born here.
Okay, well, we got battle-hardened to high intelligence because of ridiculous amounts of environmental obstacles to taking our next goddamn breath.
So they were lucky to be born over there because they faced much less of a death sentence from the environment than happened to be born in Northern Europe or Siberia or other places or facing the persecutions that the Jews faced through a lot of their histories.
So, I don't know, this idea that it was just dumb luck that, huh, it's like...
God, I mean, there is a great variety in how people are born and where people are born and so on.
The idea that you're then going to use the power of the state to somehow try and remediate this.
Okay, when they pass a law saying hot women have to bang Danny DeVito, okay, then I'll start to think that people are taking this seriously.
But other than that, I just assume it's just complete lefty bullshit.
Okay, so...
To take that further, well, now I lost the question.
Okay, let me finish up with where I think things are going to go, and then we'll talk about what might be a worthwhile thing to do.
Okay.
So, let us speak frankly now, for the hour is getting late.
To prey upon people, you must first Force feed them delusions when they're children.
To reap the reward of them giving you tithes, you must force feed them with the delusion of religiosity when they're children.
To force people or to profit from people's sense that they owe the state taxes, you must fill them full of status propaganda with their children so that they feel like they're paying their fair share or whatever it is.
So once you stuff people with delusions, delusions are the manure from which the flower of exploitation tends to grow.
And societies have this constant tension between...
The rulers want you to be deluded enough that you voluntarily transfer goods, resources, young, health, wealth, and charity to the rulers.
And so because more and more people always want to rule, the push away from reality from the ruling classes, and by that I don't just mean the aristocracy or the clergy, but also I mean the people on welfare, the people in the military-industrial complex, everyone who is preying upon the body politic,
which in America now is So, more and more, once you get this crop of deluded people who cough up resources in order to maintain the fragility of their egos based upon their delusions, once you have that crop, you get, you know, you throw out a handful of corn, you're going to get a sky full of crows.
And so when you get this system set up, more and more people want to prey on the makers, right?
The takers want to prey on the makers.
And the takers are interested in sowing delusion into the minds of the makers so that the makers feel guilty if they're not handing over resources to the takers.
So this is why societies continually get pushed further and further away from reality because you need more and more predation.
And this is why...
You can see in the West this addiction to unreality, which is driven by verbal abuse and the isolation that comes from this, right?
Anybody who now speaks the truth in Europe stands to be socially isolated, to lose their career, to maybe even lose their family, to maybe even lose their freedom.
If they speak wrong to the cops who might come by.
And so because delusion is how human beings are preyed upon and you constantly have more and more people who want to prey on the diminishing set of makers in society, the people who are actually producing something, the propaganda to drive people further into the foggy caves of delusion continues.
And then people end up, like the society ends up so far away from any kind of reality that it collapses.
And So that's where Europe and the West and whites are at the moment, that they're so preyed upon.
And unlike the Asians and the Ashkenazi Jews, who basically say, screw you, we're not interested in being preyed upon— There is this pathological altruism for a variety of reasons going through the white population.
And so they're continually being driven further and further away from reality so that they can be exploited more and more and more.
And this will continue until one of two things happen.
Either we use philosophy to push back against the delusions or we simply conform and cuck our heads and bow and scrape and beg and plead for another five minutes of freedom until Everything collapses and the men are herded off to fight some sort of civil war.
These are the only two possibilities in my mind that can occur going forward.
So what is it that you should do?
I think recognize that basic fact.
And you have to talk about, you know, however uncomfortable it may make you.
And I'm not talking about, forget Facebook.
God, forget that.
I mean, it's in your personal relationships that these realities have to come up in.
And if libertarians had been talking about what's called race realism, if they hadn't dropped the ball and become race egalitarians, then they would have done a fantastic service to the survival of Western civilization.
But generally, they tend to be, and the pro-immigrant, everyone's the same nonsense by ignoring basic facts of biology, reality, and evolution.
And so we just need to keep bringing up this information and say, look, these people are a standard deviation below us in IQ, and nobody knows how to fix it.
That's all that needs to be said.
On average, these people are a standard deviation below Europeans, white Europeans in IQ, and nobody knows how to fix it.
Nobody knows how to fix it, and the estimates are 50 to 80 percent genetics.
And they also have, how on earth are they going to integrate if there's biology behind this IQ difference, if their religion says you can't marry outside the religion?
I mean, that's not going to work.
And people, of course, they do get confused, because, you know, recently I was talking about The lower IQs that are recorded in Iran.
People got upset.
All these measurements were taken from the 50s.
It's like, okay, well, fine.
You know, so instead of what it was low 80s, it's low 90s.
So I'm giving 10 points or whatever.
But what happens is when it comes to judging immigrants in a relatively free society, well, the first people who come over are fantastic.
Of course they are.
Because they're the smartest people in that entire society It's sort of like if you're a Hollywood casting agent a relatively high up like you're casting blockbuster movies and so on You're not seeing the Mike Browns of the American society of the black society You're seeing the cream of the crop right 20% of American blacks are smarter than the average white and so you're seeing in a sense the Souls of the acting world.
And so every black that you interact with is smart and ambitious and funny and together and, you know, probably have all of the associated, you know, long-term stable marriages that go along with the higher intelligence.
And so because you're exposed to those people, you say, well, I can't imagine why blacks aren't succeeding as a whole because all the blacks I know are fantastic.
Well, okay, fantastic.
We've had a lot of blacks call into this show and I've really enjoyed the chats with the great people to chat with.
And so that, when you get immigrants coming first wave, they're the smartest, they're the creme de la creme, but that doesn't represent the entire population as a whole.
And, of course, you know, people say, well, you know, since the 50s, I'm sure that the Iranian IQ has gone up.
Not sure it has.
Might have gone down.
Might have gone down.
For a couple of reasons.
One, of course, is that, well, since the early 1980s, which I guess is close to a generation and a half or two generations now, depending on how it's measured, well, you've had...
Fundamentalist Islam in charge of the country, which is not exactly an encouragement to high IQ, skeptical, scientific-style reading patterns.
Very easy.
Every intelligent Iranian who could make it out alive of this country is either here or in Sweden, and having a shower.
I don't know what the entire depopulation proportion of the Iranian country was, but let's say that the top 5 or 10% of the smartest people left the country.
Okay, so you've just decapitated the gene pool of the most intelligent people for the most part.
And the most intelligent people, in a theocracy, less intelligent people, more brutal people tend to thrive.
Which is one of the reasons why there's not been much of a reformation in Islamic societies for, I don't know, the past almost millennia and a half.
Because lower IQ people tend to be more religious.
And in a theocracy, lower IQ people end up at the top of the food chain, which is why...
Lower IQ people love theocracy because they succeed in a way that they wouldn't in a more secular society.
And so I would argue that there's pretty good reasons to believe that the Iranian population on average would probably have a lower IQ given that the high IQ outliers of five or ten percent of the population have all fled the country since the 1980s or even before and so so what happens is people the Iranians come over and people are like wow these guys are fantastic let's have more and it's like this is not a cross-representational sample of the society as a
whole and that of course what's happening in Europe is Europe is now receiving all of the people Who never had the smarts, the ambition, the gumption, the opportunity, whatever you want to call it, to leave Africa over the past hundred years.
All the people who were left behind in these countries as the smarter people had gone out and gotten to the West.
So, it is not a very good situation.
And this, I will mention, though, I've mentioned it, of course, before, is that blood-related marriages are ridiculously common.
In Middle Eastern, in Islamic countries.
And this has been known to, what is it, 8 to 10 to 15 to 17 IQ points, right?
So, on average, you could say close to a standard deviation drop in IQ, which puts you right in the middle of the highest criminal group.
Highest criminality tends to be around IQ 85.
Lower, and you don't tend to plan that much, and higher, you tend to recognize that criminality is not going to do you much good in your life.
And so you have, of course, in Christianity, which has largely banned cousin marriages or blood-related marriages, you have that gene pool, not to mention all the 2% or whatever it is of Neanderthal DNA, which is supposed to have really helped Europeans advance in intelligence.
You have a consanguine or blood-related gene pool coming in.
34% of all marriages in Algiers are blood-related.
46% in Bahrain, 33% in Egypt, 80% in Nubia, which is a southern area in Egypt, 60% in Iraq, 64% in Jordan, 64% in Kuwait, 42% in Lebanon, 48% in Libya, 47% in Mauritania, sorry, 54% in Qatar, 67%, 47% in Mauritania, sorry, 54% in Qatar, 67%, more than two-thirds of marriages are blood-related in Saudi Arabia, 63% in Sudan, 40% in Syria, 39% in Tunisia, 54% in the United Arab Emirates.
39% in 45% in Yemen, and in Syria, it is or was 40%.
Iran, Almost a third, 32.5%, almost a third of marriages in Iran are blood-related.
That is crushing for the development of intelligence and causes a massive fallback to Stone Age levels, I would argue, of the capacity to reason.
And so you have a group that is coming in, that is a bunch of polar bears coming into a forest populated by brown bears.
They're going to fail!
On average, there'd be some notable exceptions.
Yes, yes, Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, I get it.
There are exceptions, but so what?
So what?
So what?
The reality is that en masse, they're going to fail.
And because nobody's talking about the biological realities of why they're going to fail, what's going to happen is you're going to get into this vicious cycle where all failures of immigrant groups are blamed on white racism.
All failures and immigrant groups are blamed on white racism.
That's really bad for the whites because it leads to more stupid, pointless guilt and self-flagellation and gives more ammunition to the social justice warriors and all that.
Why would you want that?
Why would you want that?
And second of all, you are importing, or I shouldn't say importing, but you are getting a whole bunch of people into your country.
It pains me to say all of this.
I wish none of this were true, but we've got to grit our teeth and face reality or face the demise of civilization, because civilization is fundamentally predicated on valuing reality, reason, and evidence over all else.
This lower IQ group of genetically crippled people are going to come into European countries.
They're going to fail and bringing in hundreds of thousands of very low sexual market value Middle Eastern or North African or African men is a sure recipe for disaster.
So, and no one's going to tell them the truth and going to say, well, look, you're a polar bear in a forest.
It's not going to work out that well for you.
You're not adapted to this environment and your failures are not the fault of white people.
Because, of course, if white people were so racist, then the Jews wouldn't be so much in prominence and the...
East Asians wouldn't have higher incomes per capita than whites.
No, the market, the free market, the remnants thereof, sorts relentlessly by intelligence.
And unfortunately, that's, and you can see this in average incomes for each ethnic group, it goes almost exactly along IQ lines.
The highest Ashkenazi Jews, then East Asians, then whites, then Hispanics, then blacks, and Middle Easterners, somewhere around where, yeah, somewhere between.
So what's going to happen is you're going to have this very aggressive Group of people with a relatively low IQ coming into your country and the media is going to say, well, you're exactly the same as everyone here.
The only reason you're not succeeding is those fucking white people are racists.
Those fucking white people are goddamn bigots and racists and they secretly hate you.
And that's the only reason why you are failing.
They're keeping you down.
They're holding you down.
They've got their boot on your neck.
They refuse to hire you because they're bigoted.
They're evil.
They're racists.
Nasty, vicious, tribal bigots.
Oh, that's great.
So not only is a low IQ, highly aggressive population coming into Europe, but the media is going to constantly pound this drumbeat.
And instigate them to hate everyone around them who's white.
Oh, that's great!
Nothing bad can come out of that.
Constantly repeating to people, because there's this denial of race reality, constantly repeating to these people that the only reason they're not succeeding is the goddamn white people, the racist bigots who hate them.
Yeah, that's gonna end well.
You are absolutely right.
Just to make it short, I just read an article about, you know, some German handball team just won the European Championship and there was an article on an intellectual newspaper and the guy was bragging about that this was not his victory because they were all Germans in that team, no migrants, and the only foreigner was the trainer and he is from Iceland and that doesn't count.
I could go on with dozens of those examples, but my question is, how does that come or where does that come from?
I do not understand.
No, forget that.
I'm sorry.
Hang on.
We already talked about the origins of it.
I guess the final thing we need to talk about is what to do, right?
Where to go?
Okay.
Frank, where are you going to go?
Where are you going to go where this mad delusion is not all-prevalent and all-powerful?
There's nowhere.
Well, again, it may be Eastern Europe.
Eastern Europe because, of course, they had the mad delusion of communism, and also they have enough historical realism to remember the degree to which Muslims were trying to take over their country over the past 1400, well, not quite 1400, but long time, many, many centuries.
And so in Eastern Europe, there's a certain amount of race and cultural and religious realism that gives them some defense.
Europe is starting to kick back like they're starting to threaten Greece with economic isolation if Greece keeps letting all of these migrants go through Greece.
So there is going to be some kickback in Europe.
But where are you going to...
I don't know where you can run to anywhere in Europe, right?
I mean, you go to London.
London is a...
Whites are a minority in London now.
Where are you going to go where this...
Delusion of all races are biologically identical and the only difference is environment and racism from white people.
Where are you going to go in the world where you want to go, where that's not going to be everywhere?
Yeah, well, so...
So that's basically your argument.
Try to stay put, try to argue with people, try to bring up the reasons, and somehow live through all of this.
Did I get you correctly?
No, I just asked, where can you go?
I didn't give you anything else.
Maybe there's someplace you know, maybe Iceland.
I don't know, maybe there is someplace where this politically correct religion is not the theocracy we're all trapped in.
The Polish are doing quite alright, but I have great Polish neighbors who came from Poland to work here, so they have an economical problem.
New Zealand is a great place.
I have a friend of mine who is living there, but it's the end of the world.
You cannot immigrate very easily, and they came back because it was really, you know, like they lived in Christchurch, and this was hit by earthquakes five years ago, and it's still not So there's Australia left.
And you know, Australia and New Zealand is quite a stretch from here.
So where do you go?
That's a very tough question.
And like I said, my wife is already complaining if she needs 45 minutes to a car ride to go to her parents.
So I... Listen, listen, listen, Frank.
Look, you...
You need to start.
We need to start leaning on women's love for us.
Like, I'm sorry.
Like, you need to start saying, look, I mean, if this, like, Angela Merkel is saying, well, you know, when the Middle East is stabilized, everyone should go back.
Now, when is the Middle East going to be stabilized?
Well, if we accept the biological arguments for racial differentiations, the answer is no time soon.
But even if it were to happen tomorrow, do you think the migrants are going to want to go back?
No, they've got a great gig in Germany.
They get fantastic welfare benefits, free health care.
They get, as you say, to travel first class.
Why the hell would they want to go back to some mud hut in Africa?
I mean, they're not going to want to go back.
It's a lot easier to pour food coloring into water than to pull it out again, right?
So they're not going to want to go back.
And so either they're going to start kicking in doors and dragging people out and shipping them off, which is going to be horrendous and traumatizing and brutal.
And of course, everyone's going to blame the people enforcing the rules rather than everyone who lied about biological compatibility between opposite cultures and ethnicities.
But if it does continue to escalate, right, let's say that there's some big attack in Europe, right?
I mean, we know that the culturalization doesn't work because it was all second generation migrants who have been doing all of this.
And let's say that there's some big attack happening.
In Europe.
And the governments react as Europeans, you know, as I said before, British people, and this applies to a lot of Europeans, they're really, really nice until they're not.
And that is, when the world hasn't seen that for a while, they forget that, you know, British people, there's a lot of Chamberlain Trying to appease and trying to make peace and trying to avoid war, there's a lot of Chamberlain until there's Churchill, who will bomb the living shit out of you and make your grandchildren glow and be born with shrapnel in their spines.
So with Europeans, there's a lot of accommodation and we'll not have any in-group preferences and we'll try our very best to make things go better until there's not.
And so if There is going to be a big attack in Europe or if something...
Either there's going to be a big attack in Europe or there is going to be running out of money.
There's no money, right?
You're going to run out of money.
And, you know, the way that ethnic peace has been kept in...
America, and maybe this is the case in Europe as well, but the way that ethnic peace has been kept in America is through state redistribution of power.
When that runs out, when the welfare runs out and when the government has to cut back, why doesn't the government in America want to cut government jobs?
Because there are a lot of minorities in those government jobs which are artificially propping up minorities income.
And if they fire a bunch of government workers, they'll be firing a whole bunch of minorities.
And that, what's the point?
Let's go on welfare or some other, you know, unemployment insurance.
And that's true for all groups.
But it is going to take a lot of money out of minority communities if the government cuts back on its employment of minorities.
Particularly, why haven't they privatized the post office?
Because a huge number of blacks work in the post office and that would...
Lower or considered to be bad for minorities.
But eventually you run out of money.
And when you run out of money, you start to get riots.
You start to get all of this kind of stuff.
Like what happens to these no-go zones, these Sharia-encased no-go biospheres of fairly chilly Middle Eastern countries in Europe?
What happens when the welfare state runs out of money?
Well, you're going to have uprisings.
You're going to have lootings.
You're going to have cars overturned.
You're going to have Like, all kinds of god-awful stuff happening.
And then what's going to happen?
What's going to happen is the men are going to be called up to fight.
And this is what men need to really get across to people.
It's like, it's not, I don't, racist, I'd rather not think a goddamn thing about racism.
And in a free society, you wouldn't really have to, right?
But...
What I would like for people to do, yourself and everyone else, you go to your wife and say, oh, I'm sorry, is it inconvenient for you that we might have to move or might have to change where it is that we live?
Well, it's going to be kind of inconvenient for me if I end up being drafted to find some god-awful door-to-door, no-uniform civil war because there's been some attack or there are uprisings because the welfare gravy train is coming to an end.
At some point, men have to say, no, this is too risky for me.
I'm not going to be a disposable male.
I am not going to be somebody whose interests are going to be sacrificed until I have to supposed to sacrifice myself because nobody listened to me.
For many years.
Who has the fine radar for coming war?
Men.
Why?
Because men have biologically evolved that way because men are the ones who are first thrown into the fires of war as if there's so many disposable-led soldiers.
So you have to say to people, look, if there's going to be some significant conflict coming up, and it's most likely that there will be unless we act proactively, you know, you can say to the women, well, you are not going to be called up.
You know, this idea that...
Especially young women.
Well, yeah, we're going to make them subject to the draft.
It's like, well, they'll just go get pregnant.
And you won't be able to draft them.
And there you go.
So it is going to be men who are going to have to bear the brunt of this.
And this is why, for me, why, you know, start calling on people's love.
And if your wife is like, well, it's kind of inconvenient.
Well, it's kind of inconvenient for me if there's a war, a civil war, because I'm going to be the one who's going to be drafted.
And so, you know, maybe you can see your way past your own titular selfishness and look at what is actually going to be good for me.
Now, the fact that you're living, what, 200 meters from a migrant area and you have a little girl?
Well, okay, she's very, very little.
It's probably not a big problem yet.
But, you know, one of the challenging things about Islam, of course, is that Muhammad married a nine-year-old girl.
the founder of the religion, married a nine-year-old girl.
Now my understanding is that according to the stories, he did wait until she was 12 to consummate the marriage, to put it as nicely as humanly possible.
But that's the founder of the religion.
And a lot of people have a very tough time saying that what the founder of the religion did was abhorrent and immoral.
And so until that Reformation occurs, that is really a significant part of the Islamic faith, that this was the most morally perfect person who...
Sexually penetrated a 12-year-old girl.
So that is a challenge as your daughter grows older.
And that would be something you don't have to leave Germany.
But I think being that close to a migrant center might not be the very best thing in the world.
You mentioned a guy from Vienna.
I'm sure you've read this story.
It just came out a couple of days ago.
that Austrian police have confirmed that an Iraqi refugee was arrested over the rape of a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Vienna in December.
He told the police he did it due to a, quote, sexual emergency.
Local media reported citing the interrogation record.
Chief Inspector Roman Hosslinger said, In a swimming pool, we determined the suspect is a 20 year old man who lived in Vienna.
He was arrested and later sent to such and such prison.
The suspect is an Iraqi citizen who lives in Vienna and has refugee status.
The attack took place in a swimming pool cubicle on December 2nd.
The man, whose name has not been disclosed, dragged the boy into the changing room and assaulted him.
After the boy told the lifeguard about what happened, the police were immediately called.
They managed to apprehend the attacker.
In the pool who to their amazement instead of fleeing the crime scene was having fun by jumping from a three-meter board.
The boy suffered severe internal injuries and was admitted to a children's hospital.
The perpetrator who came to Austria via the Balkans on September 13th confessed to the police he had acted because of a sexual emergency.
When asked if such actions were legal in his home country he admitted he knew that such acts were forbidden in any country Of the world.
Now the mother has said that she regrets saying to her boy that the migrants are needy and should be given all the help that imaginable and so on.
So, again, this is, of course, not to characterize everyone from the Middle East or all the migrants and so on, but this is not a hugely isolated incident, and these people are very traumatized as well, and trauma produces dysfunction in adults, particularly when it comes from a culture not wildly dedicated to self-knowledge.
So, you know, because all you are is you're talking about the inconvenience that some of your unease has to others.
Well, I would say that they better start thinking about the inconvenience it might pose to you should push come to significant shove.
Now, where to go?
Where are you going to go?
I mean, personally, I'm a stand and fight kind of guy.
And I think that abandoning Germany at this point is premature.
Yeah.
And so I would say that it's probably worth standing and fighting, and the fighting is not on Facebook.
The fighting is in your own personal relationships.
You know, it's hard for men to overcome our tendency to pathological altruism, self-sacrifice, and not having anyone else be inconvenienced by our preferences.
You know, I remember, I think I was in my early to mid-30s.
No, early 30s, I think I was, in a relationship with a woman.
And I was just accommodating and accommodating.
And I just remember thinking at one point, like, wow, I really should have some of my own needs here.
And I've talked about this, how a man's heart is murdered.
The degree to which Men are just there to accommodate others, don't upset people, particularly women, and all that.
It is hard for men, and we've been very much socialized to not have our own needs and not have our own preferences.
This idea that there's some sort of patriarchy where men get to do whatever they want and all of our needs are sacrificed is just a myth invented so people can legitimate their hatred of men.
But I would say have your needs and talk about your concerns and don't have people just talk you out of them.
Say, no, this is important.
And you can say it's important to me as opposed to you who might be older or a woman because you're not going to be called up.
But if it does get as violent in Europe as it has been for 1400 years in the Middle East, well...
It's fine for you if you're not going to get called up.
I can get why you're not worried about it, but how about being worried on my behalf?
So I'm going to end with this poem called The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon by Rudyard Kipling.
And this, of course, is about, I guess, slightly more of the British side of things.
But this is an important thing for the world to remember.
This is somebody who did know British culture and European culture very well.
And I'm just going to move on to the next caller after this, but please keep us posted about what you decide, Frank.
I'm certainly curious and I appreciate the conversation.
So this is The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon.
It was not part of their blood.
It came to them very late, with long arrears to make good, when the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved, they were icy, willing to wait, till every count should be proved ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low, their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show when the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud when the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead when time shall count from the date that the Saxon began to hate.
You abuse a group long enough The blowback is extraordinary and sudden and shocking and surprising you know like the guy who beats up his wife who suddenly wakes up with his penis in the front yard and her looking shocked and stared at the bloody scissors in her hand so those who make conversations impossible make escalation inevitable and so I appreciate you calling in everybody needs to be aware of that that we are trying as much as humanly possible To
avoid such escalations, but that can only be done through facts and conversation.
All right, who do we have up next?
All right, up next today is Austin.
Austin wrote it and said, I represent a recently established classical liberal party in Norway called the Capitalist Party.
We've managed to mobilize a rapidly growing and diverse party of freedom-oriented people.
Our consistent growth as a young party is unprecedented here in Norway.
What value, if any, do you recognize in utilizing channels within the political system to proliferate rational ideas and classical liberalism?
That's from Austin.
Well, hello Austin, how are you doing?
Hi, how are you?
Well, thanks.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me.
I should make a correction.
The question was misread.
I didn't personally establish the party.
I represent the party that was established here.
Okay.
So tell us a little bit about this party, where we can find it on the web, what the platform is, if you don't mind?
Yeah, not at all.
So the party in Norwegian language is called Liberalistina, and that literally translates to the Liberalists.
Our website is liberalistina.org, but our official English name is the Capitalist Party.
Now our platform is of classical liberalism, individual freedom, smaller state, existing through voluntary and peaceful means, where the individual has complete autonomy over themself and over the decisions they make, so far as those decisions don't violate the freedom and liberty of a fellow citizen.
Right.
And then as far as economics go, free market, laissez-faire capitalism, Austrian school of economics.
And how long has the party been around?
So we were established officially in October of 2014.
Since then, we are at this point the fastest growing party in Norway.
We just reached a milestone of exceeding 1,000 members.
To put that in perspective, Norway has a population of just over 5 million people.
And like I said, we've only been in existence for just over a year.
So to accumulate that amount of To what do you ascribe the success of the party?
Well, what we've managed to do is to, as you probably are aware, within the classical liberalism way of thinking and that principle, you do have a lot of different sects in objectivism, for example, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalists, secular libertarians, Christian libertarians.
What we've managed to do is instead of trying to appeal to one of those and getting no progress achieved whatsoever, we have the broad platform where we are all in agreement that the best way forward is to achieve individual freedom with a minimal state,
where the states only The only mission or only objective or task is to protect the individual from violence or fraud or being violated from another individual.
Anything outside of that is not within the government's purview.
And so that's the foundation of the party.
So in that we've united a lot of freedom or liberty-oriented people, if you will.
Right.
And to give that, I mean, Norway is a country, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of Scandinavia is very entrenched into the socialist left-wing way of thinking.
So we are tasked, of course, with an uphill battle here.
As we face, in lack of a better word, indoctrination from a very young age.
That's a great word.
It's perfect.
A lot of our members actually, when they come to the party or they stumble across it or they see us on social media, another avenue Just to give you an example of our party's growth, we have amongst, if not the, then amongst the highest engagement on social media than any party in the country.
So we're very active and very engaged with getting our platform out there.
So what happens is a lot of times members will stumble across one post or stumble across our website or discuss something with somebody where the conversation leads to the idea of classical liberalism.
They've never heard of it.
They've never been introduced to this way of thinking.
They've never been introduced to free market way of thinking, to Austrian School of Economics, to what a world would actually look like with a minimal state and with a minimal government.
And the idea that you are a competent person who's capable of managing yourself and managing the decisions that you want to make autonomously.
Right.
Now, this may be an unfair question, but I think it's an important one.
Okay, so let's say you guys get into power tomorrow, right?
Control of the executive, the legislative, or whatever.
What would you do with that power?
What would your implementation plan be to give this minarchist society a good shot?
So as a party, of course, we're realistic.
We understand completely that if, you know, let's say hypothetically, we came into power, we Our party was the majority in parliament and we had free reign to make what we want to make happen.
We fully understand that this way of governing and this platform is something that has to be achieved through a scaffolding strategy.
It can't happen overnight.
The welfare state and in Norway It's arguably far more severe and extreme than the other fellow Scandinavian countries where the welfare state is cradle to grave welfare.
And it's very entrenched into the way people view their society and view How they're going to live their lives.
And so we understand that this platform and these policies of minimizing the state, diminishing the state, decreasing the bureaucracy, decreasing the welfare state, deregulating the market, these types of things, they're not going to happen overnight.
It's a scaffolding strategy.
So does that answer your question?
No, I got to tell you that's a perfect political answer because You absolutely, completely walked around the question without answering it.
I said, what would you do?
And you said, not only did you not tell me what you would do, you told me that you wouldn't do it at some point in the future and not right away, or would do something at some point in the future.
I said, well, what would you do if you gained power?
Well, we'd do it later, whatever it would be.
You didn't actually tell me what you'd do, right?
It wouldn't be doing it later.
It would be starting to dismantle the overgrown state in a No, I get that.
That's very abstract, right?
It's like, how are you going to build this building?
Well, it's going to be tall.
Okay, how are you going to build it?
It's going to have an elevator.
Okay, how are you going to build it, right?
So give me what the plan is.
Would you cut welfare?
How would this actually work?
Fair enough.
Yeah, so just to give you an example, as kind of a test run, we were able to run in the Oslo municipal elections, Oslo being the capital of the country.
And so our specific platform there for specifics, if we were to be elected, which wasn't something that we were expecting at that time, being so young.
Of course, we had a platform prepared or a policy prepared to what we would be doing if we were elected in that municipal election.
Some of the first things we'd be addressing, of course, is taxation and the welfare state.
Just to give you an idea, the housing market in Norway is artificially inflated.
The government has very strict control on what can be built, where it can be built.
With that, of course, the value of homes is artificially increased.
So a big part of that is deregulating the housing market and the way the tax structure is working so that people are allowed to develop what they want to develop without the restriction of the state.
I mean, that's just an example of something that we've actually, on a platform, our policy that we ran on when we were in the election last year.
So you would reduce zoning or restrictions on home ownership, right?
Home creation, home building?
Yes.
Which would cause home values to drop considerably, right?
Again, these are types of things that would be happening in a scaffolding strategy.
It's not something that we're going to pull the rug out.
Okay, scaffolding is not a magic word that eliminates cause and effect, right?
I mean, to be frank, you would either put it in so slowly that who cares, or you'd put it in fast enough that people's home values would crash, right?
Or would go down considerably.
You know this, and I'm not trying to corner you.
You can't be afraid to talk about things with people.
People learn nothing from Donald Trump.
Don't be afraid to talk about the negative short-term consequences of what you're doing.
And that's a fair point, and the reality of it is the writing is on the wall in Europe, right?
The writing is on the wall for these types of economies.
Oh, no, no.
Don't start abstracting me, bro.
I'm talking about specific stuff here.
Don't give me writing on the wall.
I'm talking about home prices, okay?
If you'd let me finish, I wasn't going to give you an abstract there.
To give you an example, the writing is on the wall, where I was going with that in Europe, where these economies are collapsing.
There are very few differences between the other European countries and Norway.
Norway, what differs it, what sets it apart from the other European countries is that it relies on an oil industry, an energy industry.
That's it.
That's pretty much it.
A large swath of the revenue that the government gets is from the oil industry, and the economy is dependent upon the oil industry.
There's not any innovative production that comes.
Dude, you've got to get to an answer here.
I know you're in politics, but I said don't abstract me and you just give me more abstractions.
I get it.
There's a lot of oil revenue from the government.
Now, what does that have to do with housing?
So, no, I wasn't tying that into housing.
What I'm saying is that, of course, eventually, with these types of policies, if they're not handled the right way, then, of course, there will be a collapse.
There will be a housing market crash.
There will be a price crash.
These things will collapse.
But as we're seeing throughout Europe and throughout a lot of the Western world, these collapses are inevitable.
These types of policies, Keynesian-style economics, do not function in a long term.
And it dips and it goes back up and dips and it goes back up.
And that's through artificial inflation.
Now, I wasn't tying the energy market into the housing market.
What I'm saying is what differs Norway.
So if you're saying talk real, talk real in that way, then yes, if they're not handled correctly, then there will be a crash that would be severe for a lot of people to face.
But then you said if it goes so slow, then who cares?
I think you're trying to hit it in one extreme to the other.
Okay.
When you listen back to this, you'll understand why I'm grinding the heels of my hands into my eyeballs here.
Okay.
I'm going to continue like that detour to nowhere never occurred because the reality is that if you're going to open up more housing, then the price of housing, right?
Supply and demand, right?
You can increase the supply of houses, reduce restrictions on building houses, and therefore housing prices are going to We're good to go.
It became a big problem in that the houses were what was called underwater.
Because the mortgages are fixed when they bought the house, and if the value of the house is going down, a lot of people's nest eggs is going to occur.
Also, when housing prices go down, people can, I assume, where you are in Norway, can put in for a reassessment, right?
So they say, well, I'm paying 2% or whatever it is in property taxes, but my house value has gone down.
And therefore, there's going to be a significant reduction in revenue through property taxes, right?
So there's going to be people who can't afford their houses.
So at the same time as new houses are being built, some proportion of the existing housing market is going to go on the market, of the houses are going to go on the market because people can no longer afford them.
And that does create a significant, again, as more housing comes on the market, the value of housing goes down, which means fewer people can afford their houses, so more houses come on the market.
And my particular preference is just to say to people up front, it's going to be ugly, it's going to be painful, it's going to be quick.
You know, you don't want the band-aid coming off slow.
It's going to be hard.
It's going to be tough.
You know, like if we've been addicted to the welfare state for two generations, think of two generations of cocaine addicts coming off the drug.
It's going to be unpleasant.
I think own the downside.
Don't tart it up.
Everybody knows when you're dissembling.
Everybody knows when you're not answering the question.
This is why I've been out of many reasons why I go to politics, because I just tell people the truth.
Yeah, you guys, you wanted the power of the state to keep your home prices high because it protects the value of your investment.
The unfortunate thing is it's using violence of the state to enhance your own income, and it's unjust, unfair, and immoral.
So we're going to take away all those restrictions and the value of your house is going to go down.
You're going to be stuck with a high mortgage.
Maybe you can renegotiate something with the bank.
Maybe you can't.
But you've had this unjust income by driving up the price of houses using the power of the state.
You've got to let that go.
And yeah, some of you aren't going to be able to afford the homes that you're in because the value is going to go down.
And that's the price of using the power of the state to try to enhance your own income.
Sorry, you know, the slave owners had to sell their slaves and sometimes they didn't get a market price for them.
But, you know, if you're involved in something that's fundamentally wrong and destructive to the next generation, you know, it's great for you guys to have high home prices, great for your retirement, but how the hell does this allow us to have a sustainable society?
Because you guys have these high home prices, which is great for your savings and your assets, but the problem is that young people don't want to have kids because they can't afford to bring them up in any kind of style or any kind of reasonably large Accommodation or reasonably sized accommodation, so you're preying on the younger generation.
You want the younger generation to pay for your retirement because there's no money left in the retirement savings plans.
You want the young to pay for your retirement, but at the same time you're driving up the price of houses by restricting new housing growth, which means that the young people don't want to have kids, which means that the whole system, the whole Ponzi scheme is going to come crashing to the ground.
So you made your money, you had your funds over, we've got to get back to reality here.
Yeah, and there's no doubt in the The scenario that you're describing here is throughout Scandinavia where the older generation got established in their business, they got established in their assets, they got established in their wealth, and then as time progressed, they were voting these policies into place that were protecting that wealth and protecting those assets, protecting their capital, and then of course punishing the younger generation as they come up.
And you can see that of course in the birth rates, for example, as you mentioned, the younger generation don't want to have children as they get older because they can't bring them up into the same world that their parents brought them up into.
Yeah, listen, there's this belief that if you demand sacrifice from people, they'll hate you.
Bullshit!
History shows repeatedly that if you say to people, you're bad, you're wrong, you did wrong things, and now it's time to pay the price, most people will just buckle down and they'll probably feel secretly relieved about it.
In some way, yes, I can definitely see what you're saying.
And I didn't mean to give the impression that I was skirting around a specific answer.
There's no doubt that With a radical or strong deconstruction of the welfare state or the housing market regulations, taxes, fees, the duties.
There's no doubt with the deconstruction of these structures that are in place and so entrenched into the way the society functions that there is going to be a turbulent period of time there.
But I'll have to agree with you in what you said earlier that Facing that is one thing, but also acknowledging the fact that if it's done correctly, if the deconstruction happens in a fashion that's organized, then it is going to be short-term.
Wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean?
You keep you scaffolding, organized, managed.
What does this mean?
How do you organize things?
Liberalizing the housing market.
Do you say, look, we're getting rid of zoning.
We're getting rid of restrictions.
You can build what you want, where you want it.
How do you manage that?
Because as soon as you start talking managing, you're back into Keynesian territory.
I thought you guys were free market people.
No, I don't mean what I mean.
And of course, there has to be a transition period where you can't pull the rug out from the people overnight.
These aren't things you can't just...
Why?
Why?
Hang on.
Why?
The system, I mean, you're not going to...
No, listen, listen.
We live in a social...
Men get drafted into war with 12 minutes notice sometimes.
Like, don't give me this crap that people can't handle these transitions.
Are you trying to tell me women can't?
Men have certainly been expected to handle these transitions throughout history.
Are you saying women can't handle these transitions?
Men sure as hell can.
The fact is, Norway is a social democracy, and you have to face that because it's a social democracy.
The moment you come into power, you start taking away everything overnight that the people have embraced for so long.
That's a short-term structure there, because there's no way that you're going to be re-elected the next time around if you take away something from Everyone.
There's just no way.
It has to happen in a transitional period where people can learn to accept the idea as it happens in that transitioning period.
It can't happen overnight because, okay, so you come into government for your first term.
If you make an effort in a parliamentary system, which would never work in a parliamentary system, you make an effort to deconstruct everything overnight.
Let's say you did.
Let's say you came in, you had 90% of the parliament, you deconstructed everything overnight.
That's a short-term solution because That short-term period is going to have such dire consequences for people, perceived dire consequences, I should say, that there's no way that they're going to re-elect you the next time around.
All they're going to do is re-elect the people who are going to bring back what they had in the first place and make it exponentially worse.
So it has to happen in a period of time.
It has to happen in a transitioning period of time where people learn to understand what the consequences of these decisions are, positive and whatever they perceive to be negative, but understand and embrace that structure.
Okay, so men can handle massive changes like being drafted.
I'm not saying that this is a gender-specific issue.
So men can handle these kinds of changes, but which groups in society can't?
I mean, men are certainly expected to handle these kinds of changes, right?
So which groups in society do you think couldn't handle it?
I didn't specify a specific group or gender or ethnicity that couldn't handle the transition.
I'm speaking...
Norway, Scandinavia in general, but Norway in particular is a very homogenous society.
I mean, more or less homogenous.
I mean, of course, as you have this influx of refugees and influx of immigration coming into European countries, but still more or less a homogenous country.
So I'm not specifying here men or women or white or black or Arab or any...
Okay, so your theory that people can't handle big transitions is historically not the case.
Societies have handled transitions from peacetime to total wartime in a matter of weeks or months.
So the societies can handle massive transitions if people understand the moral requirement.
In this situation, you have to discern between...
When you talk about wartime, for example, that's involuntary.
You transition because you don't have a choice.
You either adapt or you die.
No, but if you don't like the wartime thing, you can talk about the peacetime thing, right?
So you had millions of people coming back from wars, which is a huge transition in society in the post-war period.
And society handled it fine, right?
Again, you have to discern whether you're coming back from war or going into war.
Those are two involuntary transitions that you have to make.
You either adapt or you don't.
In a situation where you're electing a party to deconstruct a system that you've been indoctrinated to believe is the end-all be-all of life, That's a voluntary issue that you're opting yourself into.
Those are two very different scenarios, and the parameters that are setting those scenarios, the foundation of that is different.
You have one that's voluntary and one that's involuntary, one that is a violent onset of a sequence of events, i.e.
war, i.e.
coming out of war, versus going to the voting booth and picking who you want to be your leader.
Well, Canada cut welfare in entire departments in the 90s, and it was fine.
I mean, people just basically, and they've done this where in America they cut welfare, and people are like, okay, I'll just go back to work.
I mean, I wouldn't necessarily, and this is just my opinions, right?
I mean, but there's good examples behind what it is that I'm saying.
I wouldn't Because everyone who gets into politics wants to do things in some relatively not painful manner.
And this doesn't seem to work.
The longer it takes, the more compromises you're going to have to make.
And what you're doing by delaying it is you're saying, Well, it's a pretty bad thing to do, so we're going to spread out the pain.
It's like, no, it's a good thing to do.
And the fact that it hurts people, so what?
I mean, I don't understand.
When I was a kid growing up, nobody said to me, well, you know, are you really satisfied with the quality of your education?
Do you feel like it's really great for you?
And it's been huge changes that men have been supposed to accept, like no-fault divorce.
Like women can just, you know, you can be a great husband and they can just decide to divorce you because some hot chiseler moved in down the block or something like that.
So I think that the concern I have with politics, and again, please understand, I'm not a politician and never will be, but the concern I have with politics is the amount that you have to say, I'm sorry, we have some terrible medicine for you.
It's going to be really horrible, but we're going to space it out to make it really long and drawn out.
But in politics, if you act decisively, you can get something done.
But if you draw it out, then you just invite the opposition and you look weak.
You're saying, well, and you're talking about your population.
as if they're weak as well like you know this is a Harry Brown thing I've mentioned before where somebody was calling into his radio show years ago saying well if we privatize education it's gonna be a mess and he's like F maybe for a week people will set up schools in their garages you know human beings can adapt to changes in war and changes in technology changes to peacetime changes in family court systems in the entire structure of marriage and all that we're nothing if not adaptable and I'm concerned that if you can take it slow You can invite yourself up for pushback.
Here's another question I have with regards to Norway.
So in Singapore, 6.35% of people work for the government, right?
And the three lowest countries, there's only three countries in the world that have less than 10% of the population working for the government.
And that's Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan.
Yes, they are the high IQ countries, I'm afraid.
I don't know what it is in Israel, but of course that's Sephardim as well as Ashkenazi Jews there.
Anyway, so...
Sweden is the top, the most government workers in the world, in Sweden.
33.87% of people work for the government.
Do you happen to know what it is in Norway?
To be honest with you, I'm not...
It's okay.
I mean, why would you?
You can't know every fact.
No, I want to say that it is around 30%.
I'm fairly...
Yeah, bang on, man.
29.25%.
We won't penalize you for the 0.75% because your guess is certainly better than mine.
So in Norway, you know, close to one out of three people are working for the government.
And so...
What are you going to do with those people?
Because I guess in a minarchist society, you'd want to get it below 1%, right?
Well, ideally speaking, yes, as small as you can get it.
Sure.
Of course.
But in regards to your question, what do you do with those people?
Millions of people who are going to get fired, right?
But the premise of the question implies that there is something for a government to do for those people.
I mean, what is it?
I guess what I'm getting at here is if you're going into government with the idea of deconstructing the state itself, deconstructing the bureaucracy, and of course making these once government-employed people now unemployed, you're going on the platform of being classical liberals.
You are going on the platform of the least amount of government intervention possible.
So by that very Thought alone, it would be for them to decide what they want to do with their own lives.
Okay, that's all very nice, but you haven't answered the question of what is it that you will do?
Will you fire them?
Well, I mean, of course, when you're getting rid of the bureaucracies and when you're doing this, of course, that's what happens.
You have to fire the people that are a part of these bureaucracies.
Okay, no, that's fine.
Do they have contracts that preclude them from being fired?
Oh, absolutely.
In Norway, it's very, very, very difficult to actually fire someone.
And this, again, comes back into, I know you don't like this word now, but the scaffolding strategy.
I mean, this can't happen overnight.
Of course, in Norway, once you are hired onto a full-time, permanent contract position, it is extremely difficult for you to lose that job.
So you can't fire most of the government workers.
Is that right?
Maybe you could lay them off.
And layoffs are handled kind of differently.
I don't know, you know, but I don't know, obviously, the law anywhere, let alone in Norway.
But if you can't fire the government workers who are a third of the workers, it seems that getting to minarchism is impossible, isn't it?
Well, to say that it's impossible would mean that it's impossible to change the law.
Again, like I said, it's not something that can happen overnight.
These are policies that you'd have to change.
Well, no, no, hang on.
But I don't know if changing the law allows you to invalidate past contracts, if that makes sense.
Like, that would be retroactive.
I don't think you can invalidate a contract that was signed last year by changing the law in the future.
Exactly.
Maybe I should back up there.
No one has a contract for life, right?
No one has a contract that says, okay, you're hired, you're now employed.
Everyone has to come up for a contract renewal.
So, of course, you can't come to power on a guy who signed his contract six months ago, which says, has all of these safeties in place.
Okay, so sorry to interrupt.
So let's say in five years, I apologize for these interruptions.
Let's say that in five years, a bunch of contracts come up or three years or whatever it is, right?
And so what you would be doing is you would be ripping out job protection clauses from all of these contracts, right?
That would be the goal.
Is that right?
In terms of the state, absolutely.
Okay.
And what do you think the unions would do And the union workers, what do you think they would do if basically they knew that you were getting rid of their tenure, that you were getting rid of their protections, and they knew what your government policy and program and goal was?
What do you think that the government workers would do, knowing that the next step would be them getting fired after you renegotiated?
I mean, of course, we're talking in very hypothetical terms now.
No, no, no.
No, we're not.
We're talking your exact implementation.
We're not talking hypothetical.
You want to fire a lot of government workers.
They're covered under contract.
You can't do it legally without renegotiating the contract.
They know that you'll be renegotiating the contract in order to fire them.
So how desperate are government workers to cling on to their benefits and their job security?
All of which is, by definition, hypothetical, right?
We haven't achieved this yet or come anywhere near it.
For the question of what they would do, of course, the unions would go on strike.
I mean, obviously they would, but they would also see us coming from a mile away.
The unions in Norway are very well-established and very wealthy and powerful organizations and would see us coming from a mile away.
And I'm sure that their campaigns would begin If they saw us as rising at a pace or a rate that was to their discomfort, would probably go out of their way to make sure that they did their best to prevent that from happening.
Okay, so what they would do is they would go on strike...
And they would block the roads and they would try to stop the economic life of the nation until they got what they wanted.
Like they would literally refuse to process things which people found necessary and they would also park their cars in the middle of the street and they would block up traffic and they would do as much as humanly possible to prevent the economic life of the nation continuing until they got what they wanted.
I mean, you're pretty much describing the nature of every union in this predicament.
Well, certainly government unions in particular, right?
Sure.
Because private unions have a contract with a corporation, and if the corporation goes out of business, the contract is null and void.
But that's not the case with government unions in particular.
So, if your economy is paralyzed because of striking government workers, then what?
If our...
Sorry, I mean...
Then what?
In what regard?
Again, we're discussing this on the premise that if we were coming to power that We are coming into power on a platform of non-intervention classical liberal party.
I'm asking you what you do to achieve your platform.
And look, I'm telling you this or I'm asking you these questions.
These are all questions that I asked myself when I was facing that fork in the road about what to do with my intellectual gifts and my speaking abilities and looking at politics versus philosophy.
And I'll not corner you because I don't want to get you in trouble, but I will tell you the thought process that occurred for me, just if that helps.
And the thought process that occurred to me was I said, okay, well, let's say that I want to privatize education, which I agree with late Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Brown that that's one of the most important things to do, to privatize education.
Okay, well, let's just say that you could find some way, if you were in political power, to privatize education, which means, of course, that you'd be Reneging on or tearing up or at least renegotiating upon renewal collective bargaining agreements with government unions.
Well, the government unions are going to, the teachers unions are going to go on strike.
Now, when the teachers unions go on strike, given how many families, at least in Canada, are two-parent households, That cripples your economy because the kids have no place to go.
And so one of the parents has to stay home, which means that half your workforce or a third of your workforce in the private sector or even the public sector, for that matter, the non-school sector, is out of commission, which means that companies can't function.
Your tax receipts go down, the economy begins to slow down, and so on.
And the teachers are holding the The economy hostage.
And then what do you do?
Do you force the teachers to go back to work?
Or do you simply accept that your economy is going to grind to a halt, your revenues are going to dry up, you're going to be unable to make your obligations for your debt payments, you're going to be unable to send out checks to people on welfare and people on old age pensions, you're going to be unable to pay doctors.
I mean, are you going to let the teachers hold the economy hostage so that they can maintain their existing benefits?
There's a reason why these benefits continue and why they're so hard to break is that are you going to be willing to order the police to use force to clear the government workers out of the road?
Are you going to be willing to use force to compel the teachers to go back into the schools and the bus drivers to pick up the kids and deliver them to the schools?
And what are you going to do if there's mass disobedience to your use of force?
Now, you don't have to answer any of this, and this may not apply to your situation in particular, but these are things that I thought about in great depth and great detail when I was trying to figure out how I could put my abilities to the best service of mankind, of the future of virtue and ethics and all that.
Because I think that things have gotten to such a state in terms of the entanglements of contracts and the general belief or entitlement is sort of centered around government workers and so on.
Unless you are willing to do – unless you're willing to use a fair amount of force to clear the streets of protesters and so on, I don't know how – you know, the unions are sitting on a big war chest, right?
They can sit out strikes for quite a long period of time.
And your economy, your capacity to have income as a government at all is going to be very crippled by this.
And what would people do in response?
I don't know.
I don't know.
And I, for one, would not be somebody who'd say, yeah, you know, go in with whatever it is to break up these riots or to break up these sit-ins or to, you know, get the streets running again and so on.
That would be a significant escalation.
And this is not theoretical.
I mean, we've seen this with workers from time to time.
So that would be...
I mean, I did a whole debate with Adam Kokesh on political action, which people can find on this channel as well.
But my concern, and again, I was talking about this with regards to Ron Paul, that the scenario I could see rolling out if Ron Paul had tried to privatize The Department of Education is these teachers are out there chanting, going down the highway at two miles an hour, arms interlocked and so on.
And what do you do?
Do you bring out the police to round them all up and clear off the highways and then they fight back and then the police have to bring out their batons and next thing you know there's some teacher with a bloodied lip and everyone's saying...
This is what libertarianism is.
This is what libertarianism does, and this is what you voted for, and this is the kind of destabilization and fascistic stuff that blah, blah, blah, the media and all, where they're going to side, right?
So, please, you don't have to answer any of this because it's an unfair question in some ways to pose to somebody who hasn't really mulled it over.
Now, the only other way I think that this could be...
I'm sorry, I'd like to address a little, a bit of that in the way that...
In this situation, you're talking about Rand Paul, or take our party here in Norway, for example.
If we were to a position where we're elected to a position, we're able to deconstruct these types of union agreements.
So these employment agreements that, you know, basically perpetually or continuously protect these people from being fired and continually protect their benefits and whatnot.
But in a situation where someone like Ron Paul in the United States or liberally stood out here in Norway is elected, that is given then that the population has elected us based on the platform that we stand for.
And yes, unions do have a big war chest, and especially here in Norway, very well established in entrenched organizations with lots of money and high membership and, quite frankly, Good political ties, to put it delicately or nicely.
But again, electing us on that platform, in that situation, it doesn't matter how big the war chest is, these teachers can't strike forever.
And I think, again, theoretically, but because you can't strike forever, and just because these teachers have lost their public job doesn't render them Without skill.
Doesn't render them without experience.
Doesn't render them without their own education and without what they have to offer.
So in this In an ideal world where there is no public education, there is no public sector having these monopolies over these types of organizations and industries, there's going to be a vacuum for people to then, entrepreneurs and enterprising individuals, to come forward with something that fills those vacuums.
You remove a system where it protects public sector employment, you remove the public sector employment entirely, whichever direction you go in, There is going to be a vacuum for the private sector to fill and of course in that situation that private sector isn't going to be looking to hire a new crop of teachers when they've got all these other teachers who've just been put out of a job who know exactly what they're doing and yes As public employees could probably use a
little bit of improvement in how they function in the private sector versus the public sector.
But there is going to be a vacuum there provided that the public sector is deconstructed and the private sector can then rise through entrepreneurial and free enterprise.
No, and I agree with all of that.
I mean, obviously, there will be a demand for teachers and so on, but they probably won't get the same deal in the private sector, at least in the short run, than they would in the public sector.
And of course, there are a lot of crappy teachers, as there are a lot of crappy government workers in every field, and those crappy teachers will not.
Well, which is exactly what the private sector is designed to do, right?
It's designed to weed out the poor quality, bad quality aspects of a product.
Let's call it that.
Let's call it a product.
If we have private sector, we have education, it's going to be a product just like anything else.
So, of course, the poor teachers aren't going to be able to get that job in the private sector, but then again, they shouldn't have had a job in the public sector either.
So, this is exactly what the private sector and free market economy is designed to do, is to give a better service for a lower cost.
Will they not get the same benefits and the same paycheck and same everything that they got in the public sector?
Well, no.
Of course they won't.
But at the same time, in a public sector world, in the socialist world like we're living in today, it's an inflated, artificially inflated society, right?
That what they're making now in a public sector I mean, in a private sector situation, once they make that transition, the value, I think you have to consider the value of what that's going to be worth then versus what it is worth now.
And I think there's a comparison to be made there.
Yeah, and the way it generally works is that when something gets privatized, the good workers make even more money than they did before, and the bad workers make less or get fired.
And so for the good workers, you know, they want to be free of this stuff, but the bad workers are going to Yes, and of course our party has nothing against unions, right?
I mean, of course, if you want to voluntarily come into a union to voice your concerns or what have you, that's perfectly fine.
So we're not admonishing the idea of a union.
Of course not.
But either a poor employee, a poor teacher, a poor whatever who is working in the public sector, yes, if they were doing a poor job or they're poor quality, a poor standard, I'm agreeing with you on that aspect, I guess.
Now, single motherhood seems to be quite the thing in Norway.
I was just reading here that in Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers.
Actually, that was 2004, so that's 12 years ago.
It's a trend here in Norway.
It is a trend here in Norway.
The younger generation, it is a trending practice actually to have children prior to getting married if you get married at all.
But they will, there's a word for it in Norwegian, which is sambur, which the closest English translation would be cohabitant, but which doesn't sound...
Spermate.
Spermate, right.
But it has a little bit more of a romantic connotation in the Norwegian language.
That's the closest English word that there probably is.
It's basically a spouse without a wedding, I guess you could say.
So yes, in regards to that, it is a trending thing in the younger generation where they are having children prior to getting married if they do get married at all.
Do you know what percentage of Norwegian children are being raised by single moms?
And by that I don't just mean unmarried but without a live-in man.
Again, this is obscure stuff.
I wouldn't expect you to know it.
That particular number, I do not know.
Right.
Well, and the reason that's important is that if you're going to be firing a bunch of women from the government, well, the government workers in Norway, it's dominated by women, especially women with children, right?
Right.
And the more children a woman has, the more likely she is to work for the government because, you know, it's considered to be more family-friendly, which means that they've got the government to replace the husband that used to provide for them.
So here's the challenge.
You know, once you get women dependent on the state, it becomes very hard to reduce the state.
Because reducing the state kicks in men's white night tendencies, right?
Because if you start firing a bunch of government workers, you're going to be firing a bunch of single moms or moms, you know, and who structured their lives around the flexibility and parasitism of government work.
And, of course, if you fire a bunch of teachers, you're going to be firing a bunch of women.
And if you cut welfare, it's going to be very hard on women in the short run and so on.
And so when tearful women are holding up their babies, it's really tough for men to say, uh-huh, so if you're right, you're socialist, wedded to the state, idiots, right?
I mean, it's tough to do that, right?
Of course.
And there is this...
You can appeal to the emotional side.
What about the women?
What about the welfare?
What about the children?
Of course, you can appeal to this emotional side, but the fact is in Norway, the average Norwegian pays anywhere between 60 and 80 percent of their income to some form of taxation.
That's all forms of taxation combined, 60 to 80 percent of their income.
Deconstructing this system of taxation and of regulation and bureaucracies, people begin to take more home of what they earn, which of course boosts the economy, and they have more then to decide what they want to do with that money.
There was a recent study done in Norway that showed that in In the process of paying your taxes and then getting the services back that those taxes are paying for, whether it be medical care, bureaucracy of some kind, education, these types of things,
in the process of your money being deducted from your income or you paying those taxes through sales tax or gas tax or car tax, whatever it is, And then going to the government and then coming back to you in some form of service, in that process, 20% of that money is lost to bureaucratic costs.
20%.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
And so in this system that our party is standing on here, It comes in the idea that not only are you getting 60 to 80% of your income, that's no longer being taken from you, you then get to decide what you're going to do with that money.
And out of that free market idea, It arises private charities, arises more money for people to be philanthropic if they decide, or as you called it earlier, this pathological altruism.
But they have the voluntary decision to do that.
One of the questions I like to personally ask when I'm discussing this with another Norwegian here is, let's say tomorrow I took away The mandate for you to pay all of these taxes.
You took home anywhere between two and three times more than what you're taking home now.
In that world, if tomorrow I took that requirement away from you, does your desire, as you put it, the pathological altruism, does your desire to help these other people suddenly disappear with the mandate?
And of course, they'll instantly answer or reflect on it for a minute, but The answer is always, well, no, of course not.
I want to help people.
That desire doesn't go away.
Well, so here you are now.
You have two to three times more money than what you did to start with, without government intervention.
Now, you get to decide where that money is best put, not only for your own care, whether it's education or medical or what have you, but then you get to decide which organizations are going to best help the people that you think need the most help.
So when you talk about these situations with the single mothers and of course they have the refugees coming, the influx of refugees, and these Different demographics of people that in certain times or certain conditions in certain environments will need more health than others.
Our party is simply standing by the rational, logical way of thinking rather than appealing to inconsistent emotion, rather than operating on inconsistent emotion.
And so with that, sticking to the rational logic, of course your desire to help someone isn't going to disappear with a mandate for you to force you to help someone else through taxation.
But with that will arise private charities to help those people in the future.
Right.
So you're hoping that single moms are going to value consistent rationality above inconsistent emotion?
Well, you know, I reserve judgment.
I'd be happy for my skepticism to be proven invalid.
I started this conversation by saying, of course, it's human nature.
Of course, it's easy to appeal to the emotion.
But I'm trying to come at this with our party's position of standing on rationale and logical approach to policy.
Right.
Well, you know, I mean, as...
Okay, the last thing I just wanted to ask was in Norway, there is...
Government funding is 74% of political parties' income, at least according to 2010.
Sorry, say that one more time.
74.
So political parties get almost three quarters of their income from the government.
The government funds political parties.
Yes.
And political ads are banned from television and radio.
Would your...
Minarchist, the capitalist party, would it take government money to campaign?
Okay, so to the first part of your question there, yes, parties do receive a large amount of money From the government, but it's rated based on the amount of votes that you got in the prior election, that you received in the prior election.
So it's this really vicious cycle of the bigger the party, the bigger they're going to be.
The more votes that the party gets, the more money they get to get more votes the next time around.
So that is how the system is designed.
Now as far as our party accepting funds from the government, An analogy, when I first joined the party, actually, this was one of my first questions when I first joined.
One of my first questions for the leadership was, in this position, once we start to gain traction, will we accept these types of funds from government?
And the response, the analogy that was given to me said, well, if you're in prison, You don't refuse the meal.
You have to operate within the environment and with the resources and tools that you're afforded.
I guess the short answer is we would accept those funds to be able to compete with our rivals, to compete with the much bigger fish that we're going up against to a point where we can get rid of that type of funding.
Yeah.
Okay.
And that's, I mean, I was just curious about that.
You know, if you're going to go and invade Germany, you can use German roads.
Yeah.
German roads built by the German government.
We're at war of them.
That's a great analogy as well.
That's a great analogy as well.
Yeah.
So, yes, I guess that would be the short answer is yes.
And I would invite, I mean, the most successful politician...
Since at least the 90s, you could maybe count Reagan in there.
At least someone who favors, at least according to some of his policies, smaller government and so on.
You guys have to look at Donald Trump.
I mean, if you want to...
Overturn an established political paradigm.
You can look at Donald Trump and you can look at Bernie Sanders.
Now Bernie Sanders is just this gristled, bad-haired Santa Claus who's riding in with the unearned wealth.
He's stripping from future generations to bribe people into voting for him.
So he's just this, he's like this big tennis ball machine that spits stolen gold at people until they submit.
But the guy you want to look at in terms of success, you know, like when I wanted to do this...
What I do, I studied the people who were really good at it, and I listened to them even if I didn't agree with even half of what they said, or a third, a quarter, or one percent.
You look at the people who are the best.
Now, Donald Trump If he's asked, you know, well, what if someone who's working for you turns out to be an illegal immigrant?
Would you ship them back home?
He's like, well, yeah.
You know, I'd feel bad about it.
I ain't got a heart, but yeah, I'd ship them back.
And when people say, well, how are you going to deport that many people?
He's like, well, first of all, you know, we reduce their benefits so they self-deport, but yeah, that's what you do, right?
Own the downside is really important.
If people can get you, this is the great challenge of communication, of challenging moral propositions.
Study him.
If you want to study me, I've been doing this for even longer than Donald Trump in some ways, but obviously he's a bit more prominent.
But you've got to own the downside.
And what that means is that if it looks like you have trouble with the consequences of your policies Other people are going to have trouble with the consequences of your policies The great secret is that almost nobody knows how to think and almost nobody can judge anybody else Morally or intellectually what they can do and what they will do is they will judge how you How you judge yourself?
So if you're like, well, you know, these policies are going to be really tough.
We're going to have to put them in slowly.
It's going to be painful.
Then people are going to be like, okay, well, you don't even like the consequences of what you're doing.
Whereas if you're like, the right thing to do is this.
Is it going to be painful?
So what?
You know, I mean, we got to do the right thing.
We've got to do the right thing.
Like I was always raised, do the right thing, though the sky falls.
Don't follow the crowd.
You know, if everybody else was jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it too?
You do the right thing regardless of of the consequences.
All moral progress has been putting principle above practicalities.
It was hard to end slavery.
It required a big reconfiguration of the economy, but people did it because it was the right thing to do.
It is the right thing to do to stop the forcible redistribution of wealth that is causing so many short-term benefits for people, but so much long-term pain and problems.
You know, a welfare state is like cocaine.
We don't say to the coke addicts, well, you know, it's going to be really bad if you quit, so you should just keep going.
You know, you don't seem to taper it off over a generation or 10 years or whatever.
We'll do it as quickly as humanly possible.
And so owning the downside is the great challenge, you know, because people are going to be like, well, isn't your system going to create lots of problems?
And it's like, what do I care?
It's the right thing to do.
You know, is it a problem when the slaves get freed?
Yeah.
I mean, lots of people lost their investments.
Lots of people had bought farms assuming that there were a whole bunch of slaves going to be there.
But too bad.
Slavery was wrong, so it had to end.
And people dealt with the consequences.
And this forcible redistribution of wealth is immoral.
It is a violation of property rights.
It's a violation of that which makes us human and civilized.
It's turned into this soft civil war of all against all using the mailed fist of the government to pretend it's something other than a punch to the head.
It's absolutely immoral.
It's absolutely wrong.
And I frankly don't care what the consequences are any more than we said, well, you know, if we give equal rights to women, that's going to displace some male workers.
No, it's equal rights for women.
That's what's got to be.
That's the right thing to do.
And we don't sit there and say, well, you know, if we allow equal rights for gays, then, yeah, right?
I mean, who cares what the consequences are?
You do the right thing.
And that's what matters.
And if you want to vote for people who are obsessed about consequences, go to the sycophants next door.
But if you want people who are going to do the right thing, who are going to do the moral thing and advance civilization from this destructive semi-socialist detour it's been on over the last two generations and reclaim freedom and integrity and property and liberty for this country, then you've got to come here.
But don't give me these scare stories about what happens after we do the right thing.
We do the right thing.
Period.
And that's absolutely a fair point.
I should make it clear that we're of course not afraid of the consequences of our own I disagree.
You don't want to model yourself after the evil policies of the man, but Hitler did not choose his words carefully.
You know, I mean, is Donald Trump choosing all of his words carefully?
No, you speak from the heart.
You speak passionately about the truth.
Everybody knows when they're being massaged.
And the moment you try and massage people rather than delivering them the straight goods, you're no longer a leader.
You're a follower.
And that's the most revolting thing about democracy as a whole is that people get so tired.
Tired and disgusted at being manipulated with walk-arounds rather than people just saying directly, no, the welfare state is immoral.
It's evil.
It's using force to transfer wealth from people who've earned it to people who haven't.
That's called theft in an irrational universe.
We're directly opposed to it.
What happens after that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
We do the right thing.
And so if you start saying we got to pick your words carefully and so on, I think you've already lost the battle.
You need to be a moral leader if you're going to attempt a moral revolution in your society.
You need to be an unapologetic, direct, moral leader.
The moment you start trying to massage your words, I think you're going to lose the battle.
Because people are going to say, well, I feel manipulated.
He's hiding something from me.
Give people the straight goods about everything you intend, why you intend to do it, and let them make their decision.
Don't try and control them through manipulative language.
That is a way of avoiding the direct conversation that needs to happen about the use of force in society.
In my opinion, I'm not a political consultant.
That's how I would do it, which is why I'm here and not where you are.
That's my thought.
And our party, Liberally Snuff, We have by no means beat around the bush about what we intend to do.
If you were to go to our website, for example, we are working on a multi-language platform there.
Currently it's in Norwegian, so I don't know how much help that would be for you.
But later on it will all be available in English as well.
Give the website, because we do have Norwegian listeners, so give the website if you want to be in contact with us.
But if you were to go to the website, we lay everything out.
What our intentions are, what our platform is.
There is no being subtle or discreet or mincing words.
We're very direct in what our platform is.
All of our literature, when we're out campaigning, and we have our, down in Oslo, Karl-Johann Skata, which is the city center.
During the election last year, for example, we were there for about a month where we had our own section of the street where we got to discuss what our policies were and put out our literature.
And this is all part of the campaign, right?
Well, in our literature, as you read it and as we're discussing, very much outlining the definition of exactly what taxation is, what exactly redistribution of wealth is, the fact that it is theft from one to another.
And in a country like Norway, where these people are the socialists, is what I mean by that, socialists are indoctrinated into this way of thinking in that when you call what they've since birth Basically, essentially, is accepted as the way of life, this moral way of living.
And you tell them everything that they've believed in is theft.
Of course, it catches a lot of them off guard.
And right off the bat, turns them off to a point a lot of them just turn around and walk away.
They don't even want to have the conversation.
And then there are a lot of them who do entertain the idea and entertain the conversation.
There are a lot of them who...
I'll give you an example.
We had one person who came to us who used to be a hardcore communist.
This was last year during the campaign, during the Oslo election.
And we had a long conversation.
He came back several times and he was discussing our platform.
And then he eventually signed up and became a member.
And, of course, he wasn't a communist that day, but throughout his life he'd come from being a communist to a little bit more rational way of thinking.
And he said, you know, what I like about this platform, what I like about this idea Is that in your society, in your ideal society, I'm still free to be a communist if I want.
I'm still free to gather in my own little neighborhood and we can have our own little commune And pay into this tax pot and get what services we want to.
But in a communist, an ideal communist society, I'm not free to be a liberalist.
You're not free to be a classical liberal.
You're not free to practice this way of thinking.
So that gives you an idea of the spectrum of people.
Right now, since we are so new, again, since October of 2014, it is catching a lot of people off guard, right?
And my point with this is to just address the fact that, no, our party isn't beating around the bush.
We are very direct.
We're very direct about what our policy is, what we want to achieve, and how we expect to get there, whether it's, as I was saying, scaffolding strategy or whether it's happening overnight.
The consequences of each scenario, the consequences of each decision, and the fact that we fully embrace those consequences because, as you said, it is the morally correct, rational, and logical way to do things.
Good.
All right.
Well, I certainly wish you the best of luck in educating people.
And, you know, I've actually found I have more respect for talking to dedicated communists than I do to the average soupy relativist or nihilist because, you know, I'd rather have a battle with somebody with a big sword than somebody who just throws fog out and goes into a ball.
Okay, so is this something else you wanted to mention, because I've got to move on to the last caller?
Yeah, well, it does just come back to my original question.
Do you see a value in utilizing channels within a political system, such as Norway, within a social democracy, where the system is structured in a way that you do have to...
There's a way that you have to get to where you want to to change the system.
There is a way, there is a challenge of getting there, of course, but as the metaphor you used, you're invading Germany, you're going to use the German roads are the metaphor I used when you're in prison, you're not going to refuse the mule.
Do you see a value or do you recognize a value in utilizing those channels within the political system, in this case social democracy, to spread the idea of classical liberalism and individual freedom?
Well, that's a, it's an unfair question, if you don't mind me saying so.
And I'm not saying you're trying to be unfair, but let me sort of say why.
And then you can tell me what you think.
Because you say, is there a value in it?
Well, compared to what?
Of course there's some value in it.
You get to expose people to free market ideas.
You get a public platform for talking about the non-aggression principle and property rights and small government and all of that.
And there will be people who will change their minds.
So of course there's value in it.
But compared to what?
Is it the maximum value that you could possibly have in the application of your talents in the world?
That's the question.
That's the question.
Does it have value for me to try and become the lead ballerina in the Bolshoi Ballet?
Yes, because I'll do some exercise, I'll get some stretching in, I'll get to see how chafy my legs experience a tutu.
So yes, there's value in it.
Is it the very best use of my talents conceivably or possibly given what I can do and what the way the world is and so on?
So, when you say, is there value in it?
Well, if I say, yes, there's value in it, then maybe you feel that that's an endorsement.
And if I say, no, there's no value in it, then that's easily disprovable because, of course, I was influenced by a lot of people who were minarchists and got to anarchy through that route.
So, that's what I mean.
That's kind of a trick question because, yeah, there's value in it, but is there maximum value in it?
And that's another answer.
Okay.
And that's why I wasn't asking definitively If there's value, is asking if you personally recognize the value in such a system like Norway or other Scandinavian countries.
Well, but that's sort of like saying, is there value in the government creating jobs?
Well, sure.
There's value for the people who get those jobs and who don't have to pay as much in tax as they're receiving in salary.
Sure.
But you know what everything is.
It's like on the other hand, right?
It's costs and benefits.
You want to look at the...
You're asking me, are there visible benefits to pursuing political action?
Sure.
But if it's not in a discussion with the hidden costs, the opportunity costs of other things that you could be doing, that's another question.
And for that, you know, I've got tons of podcasts on political action and my skepticism towards it and my preferred route of personal conversations and putting your relationships on the line.
I'm not going to go through all of that here because I've done it a million times before, but that's what I mean when I say you're not trying to be unfair, but it's sort of a, don't you see any value in the creation of government jobs?
Yeah, some guy might starve to death if he didn't get a job.
I don't know, right?
But it's the hidden costs and the opportunity costs of what else could be happening at the same time.
All right, I'm going to move on to the next caller, but thanks very much.
It was a very enjoyable chat.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Thanks, man.
Now, of course, all I want to eat is a Danish.
I'm just telling you, you've got to have people not from countries which translate into food.
I just, we've got to tell everybody.
The next caller is from Turkey.
No one from Turkey either.
No one from Turkey or Greece even because Greece on Turkey can be pretty good.
All right.
Alright, well up next is David.
David wrote in and said, And this limit is fixed at somewhere between 80 to 150 people, depending on the person.
Given the scale of government, makes it impossible for us to know even a small fraction of those that supposedly represent our interests, quote-unquote, and that lone wolves, quote-unquote, are essentially a myth, would a voluntary society most likely be divided along tribal rather than national boundaries?
How might this hinder or help voluntarism?
As a follow-up, does this natural limit to our authentic social circle give us some insight into the relative inability of individual people to truly empathize with a larger population, i.e.
the poor, those of another culture, etc.?
That's from David.
Hey, David.
How are you doing?
I'm doing good.
How are you?
Well, thank you.
Good.
That's right.
Oh, my pleasure.
What brought you along this line of thinking?
Well, actually, I stumbled across your channel maybe two, three months ago on YouTube, and then I found your actual website, and I just started listening to the different podcasts, and I didn't really have a strict personal, political viewpoint myself.
I was raised to be Strictly non-political, so once I kind of looked into it, this was where it sort of led me, and I really took a liking to your philosophy, the sound reasoning, the logic, and I started thinking about these things myself.
I read a book not that long ago called The Way of Men, and it talked quite a bit about Tribalism, that's where I was first introduced to that concept of there only being a natural high point or limit the number of people that we can have a genuine relationship with and I've done a little more research on that number since I actually asked the question and it actually varies between roughly 100 and 230,
But the 150 was the most common number talked about.
So, no more- Which would accord with the, you know, the sort of Stone Age tribal environments that we- Yeah, exactly.
It lines up almost perfectly with neolithic farming villages, even classical and current military units that are able to work cohesively together without there needing to be a more significant breakdown of Yeah, and in corporations, you don't have one giant airplane hanging with 4,000 people in it, right?
You break it down to more manageable groups and subdivisions with team leaders and bosses.
I think that that's sort of how we evolved and I think in a free market society, then organizations would probably fall along those lines to some degree.
You know, one of the big challenges with civilization is that we evolved In small Neolithic groups, let's say 150, 200 people, but we only advanced biologically when we had a much wider gene pool to draw from in terms of potential mates.
I mean, that's kind of like royal family inbreeding planet of Neolithic tribes, you know?
Because, you know, you've got 150 people, half of them are men, half of them are women of childbearing age.
So finding somebody you don't share any...
Blood with, so to speak, is a little tricky, which is, of course, why they'd go on raids and maybe sometimes mix up the diversity with other people or why...
A lot of Europeans seem to have a Neanderthal forehead fetish and bang, anything that's called a round of applause.
So when we got agriculture and we could get larger settlements, the biological diversity reduced inbreeding and allowed for a much faster acceleration of our evolution, particularly in terms of intelligence, particularly, as I said, in the first call with regards to a harsher environment.
So we kind of Have the problem of larger social groups because we abandoned small social groups.
So, in other words, we only have this challenge of dealing with more people because we have a civilization that rejected, in a sense, the 150-band Neolithic model in favor of the smaller town or city that surrounded agri-cruly fertile lands.
Well, I think the difficulty with that, too, is not just recognizing that it has been abandoned, but also questioning whether or not in a voluntary society it would be wise to choose those types of bans, or to very, very carefully select the groups that we made ourselves a part of.
I mean, because right now, the groups, quote-unquote groups that we belong to, Whether they're at a national, a state, a city, a town, whatever level you're talking about, are artificially imposed upon us.
They're not something that we've made any real decisions as far as, you know, claiming that group for our own, aside from maybe, you know, moving...
Wait, wait, hang on.
Sorry.
Sorry to interrupt.
So I just want to make sure I follow.
Are you saying that in towns we are involuntarily...
Like a larger group than the 150 is involuntary.
No, no, no.
That's not actually.
That is tied into what I'm saying.
But my point being that we associate ourselves, like when you ask somebody, well, you know, where are you from or what forms your identity to a certain extent?
You know, they're going to say, oh, well, I'm a United States citizen.
I'm from the state of New York.
I'm from this town, et cetera.
Whereas if you were talking about a voluntary society where the state no longer existed, that state had been dissolved, you're not going to identify yourself.
From, you know, a continent that you're from, or, you know, a very large section of that continent, you're not going to identify yourself by some arbitrary border that once existed.
You'd be more likely to say, well, you know, I work with this group of people, or I'm a part of, you know, this group of, you know, artisans, or whatever the case may be, whereas it would be, or in those situations, it would be more of a voluntary Not to say that towns are in and of themselves involuntary, but it would be a more natural self-identification, if that makes any sense.
Yes.
No, and I think that that would be the case.
I mean, in a free society, people would generally respect the non-aggression principle, which is not to say everybody would be part of the same tribe, because as you're right, there are people who'd want to be street performers, and there are people who want to be wallpapers and hangers, and there'll be people who want to work in plumbing, and they would have their own trade associations and their own groups, so there'd be a fundamental set of shared values.
But that doesn't mean that everybody would then be just this blank non-aggression principle robot That would be undifferentiated from everyone else because some people would want to form singing groups and other people would, you know, you get the point, right?
So there would be this subdivision into aesthetic talents and preferences and professional associations and so on that would probably end up coalescing around the 1 to 150.
Right, right.
And I agree with that.
And the research that Professor Dunbar, that Dunbar's number, the 150, I don't know if you've ever read much about that or heard much about that.
But basically, he did...
I've heard the theory, but I've not read anything in detail on the guy.
Right.
So his basic concept was that each group of primates exhibited a limit to their social structure based on their ability to socially groom one another, to have some sort of actual physical contact and association with each other, and also their neocortal...
Basically their brain size.
I don't remember which part of the brain it was specifically, but their brain size correlated with the size of the group that they could be a part of.
And one of the things that he espoused was that if you look at the way that humans developed, our ability to speak with one another in a large way took the place of that social grooming.
You and I picking bugs out of each other's hair, we talk about things.
And that enables us to develop these bonds, which is why we can have much larger groups of friends and associates than the other groups of primates, why we're able to develop these complex relationships with a large number of people.
And then if you look at the way that that continued to develop, you have three basic forms that Neolithic man and those prior formed into and continue to do so, you know, through every Stone Age civilization, even the ones that were relatively recently discovered.
So you see the smallest group, which is basically just a band of people, or was referred to as a band, which is a few families, maybe one extended family, and they work together.
And then you have sort of a, what do you call it, a lineage group, which is maybe A more extended family with several generations.
And that group size expands from roughly 30 to maybe 100 or so.
And that's where you start to get from 100 to 200 into that mean range where we're talking about that specific number.
And then you get groups of bands that form into tribes which are a bit more permanent because you've got that larger number of people.
They're not just going to disband if a couple of them are lost to sickness or if a significant number decide to branch off.
You still have enough left to form a cohesive unit of some kind.
So basically my thinking on this train is that in a voluntary society, in a stateless society, The things that earmark those smaller groups fit very well with that.
Now, the exception being what you had mentioned, which was the The ability to intermarry, the ability to interbreed led to advances in intelligence, in immune response, all these things that we associate with having genetic diversity.
But the actual day-to-day habits or the ways of these smaller groups of people is pretty interesting.
And if I could just read you something real quick, it's just a brief synopsis of these bands specifically.
Basically, they They have a power structure which is egalitarian, which fits with a voluntary society.
You mentioned women's rights with the previous caller.
In most of these situations, with a small group of people, you can't afford to dabble in identity politics.
Whoever's best for the job, whoever is objectively most suited to that job is going to have that job because you're not going to waste your time and resources on somebody just because you're trying to make them feel good or trying to push a social agenda.
They had informal leadership, so not one big chieftain, not a group of people exerting their will on others.
They mostly formed their decisions or their paths based on a consensus among them because you have a small enough number of people where you can have that discussion, which again is something that we would want to do even now with a higher IQ, with a deeper understanding of how people work and There was very few formal, enforced social institutions in these smaller groups.
It wasn't until you get to the larger tribes that you see things being, you know, codified and enforced through, I believe the term was coercive roles, basically people like, you know, the police.
And then along with that, you know, we had people looking to each other and the older members of the group for wisdom or direction.
In some cases they would look towards Shamans or so-called medicine men.
Whereas today, that same type of role could be taken by philosophy.
Those who are suited to that kind of discipline and generally recognized within a free and voluntary society as having the acumen for that sort of thing.
Would be in a position to give advice to a group as a whole and kind of shape that consensus without actually enforcing it or putting it upon them.
Right.
Right.
Is there more that you wanted to add to that?
I want to make sure I didn't cut you off.
Oh, no, no, you're fine.
I'm sorry.
I don't mean to ramble too long here.
I just...
There's a few things that I had written down that I thought were important as far as the basic idea goes.
I mean, obviously there are things that we can improve on from Neolithic tribes, but the things that you can take out of that that are good, I think, are pretty significant.
But where they do fall short, and what typified some of the things that We associate with primitive people was an inability to generate a surplus of any kind in order to give them the means to stay put or to develop other technologies besides just scrabbling for food.
They didn't have any sort of written laws, not necessarily that you'd have to have You know, a written, codified law for every single type of thing.
But, you know, they didn't have the ability to pass on their traditions or their wisdom any other way, but through oral traditions.
So, in a free and voluntary society, with the free market in place, obviously, technology would enable small groups who are aware and conscious of their reason For being in a small group, for being able to empathize and cooperate with everyone that they're doing business with or that they're interacting with on a daily basis,
they would have the ability to generate these surpluses, to focus on, you know, advancing technologies that we already have and, you know, pushing the limits of human understanding as we see it now without interference from the government, without, you know, things of...
of a regulatory nature holding them back and then at the same time having not a coercive society but rather you know a voluntary A voluntary society with expectations that were written or expressed clearly along the lines of universally preferable behavior.
Here's the outline of what's acceptable behavior.
Here's what people can and can't do.
If you don't follow these laws, you're no longer a part of the group.
I know you talked earlier about ostracism being such a powerful tool.
And I've made this argument a bunch of times, so I'll keep it brief.
But it takes intimate knowledge to effectively punish free riders through social ostracism.
And, you know...
The problem of free riders, in other words, those who wish to benefit from collective efforts without contributing to it, you know, we've all had this in school, you know, when you're in school, and let's do a group project.
And to me, it was always like, oh, no, let's not do a group project, whatever we do, because now there's going to be some jerkwad who forgets or lost the work he did, and everyone's going to have to scramble, and it may be more than one.
And, you know, I remember I did a course on economics in...
Medieval world.
And we had to do population examinations, and the guy really wanted us to dig in and understand.
And I was a good guy with Excel and all that, and I was like, fine, I'll do it.
And I still have it somewhere, the spreadsheet I put together with an examination of the effects of plagues and war on medieval populations and so on.
And afterwards, it was like everyone sort of crowded around me and, you know, man, we're going to buy you a beer for taking that bullet.
Because that was his long point.
I mean, I'm always the guy, okay, I'll do it, right?
I'm fine.
And so this collective effort and free riders is a real challenge.
And everybody wants the group to come and raise their barn, but they don't want to go and raise other people's barn.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
That's a perfectly valid tension to have within society.
And...
As I've mentioned before, you know, when I got sick and had to go, well, felt I had to and really did have to go to the US for treatment, I put the call out and people who value what it is that I provide kicked in money to pay for the airfare, the hotel, the medical costs, the anesthesiologist, the surgery, the scans and all that.
And so, because I have contributed a lot to the world, you know, we're doing like 8 million plus downloads a month, probably certainly 4 million on the podcast, on the video side, and probably an equivalent amount on the podcast side.
And so, because I've contributed a lot, when I ask for help, people will contribute back.
Of course, it's nowhere near the number of people who gain value out of what it is that I do FreeDomainRadio.com slash donate if you're in that shameless camp of exploiters.
Don't be there.
Don't be there.
Do the right thing you know you need to.
Not you, but...
I do donate, actually.
I appreciate that.
So everybody wants to get the value of social capital and they don't really want to contribute as much.
Now, I think what happens is when society has the right to withhold value from people who haven't contributed to it, a wonderful thing happens.
I mean, that sounds like a mafia holdup, you know, like be ashamed if something happened to your medical money in the future if you didn't bake a nice chicken pie for your ill grandma or something, you know.
But it is a reality that once you start contributing to the world, once you start contributing to your community, beautiful things happen.
You know, the spider webs of an affection and concern and care really do flow into your heart and into your mind.
And, you know, we're all kind of born selfish, you know, like, it's not like after your baby drinks from one titty, offers the other nipple up to you if you're a woman, right?
Right, you don't come out of an altruistic.
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with that.
You know, babies who weren't selfish, oh no, you have the last crust of bread.
They didn't make it, right?
So, you're born selfish and you need to be trained into reciprocity.
Altruism, of course, is an objectivist that has, or an ex-objectivist has some negative stuff, which I agree.
And so, this question of the free rider...
Coaching people out of selfishness requires the stick and the carrot, like all good things, right?
And the stick is, well, you're not going to get social benefits if you don't contribute.
And the carrot is, by the way, once you get used to contributing, it's a beautiful thing.
It's a beautiful thing to do.
And it really does help.
Now, with the state...
No, no, you're fine.
This all ends with the state.
The problem of the free rider...
I mean, it ends in a way with the state because you don't have any capacity to ostracize or reject people who aren't contributing.
So you can have some horrible woman who is a bully in school, is mean, gets drunk, sleeps around, gets pregnant, and no one can ostracize that behavior because she can just run to the government and the government can by force extract resources from the community and give it to this person, however much the community may despise this person.
And so what happens is the natural selfishness of infancy gets to continue all the way up into adulthood.
And there's no stick and no carrot that the community can offer people in order to give them and teach them and invite them into the joys of reciprocity through the threat of ostracism or diminishing of value.
So once you have the state, community is completely destroyed.
Community evolved as a great way of dealing with the free rider problem.
And when this state comes in and forces communities to give resources to people that they despise and to people who openly oppose those community values, migrants in Europe!
Then community as a whole ends.
And really, reciprocity ends.
Love within community members ends.
The value of having values ends.
The value of conforming to decent behavior ends.
The value of the elderly gets significantly diminished.
Because, of course, the elderly in a free society have accumulated significant experience and are willing because they know how badly things...
Let me rephrase that because I've got to start again.
One of the things that happens when you get older is life choices go from theoretical to, boy, there's lots of evidence.
Like, I'm now old enough, because I'm going to be like 50 this year, so I'm now old enough to have seen the values of people that I knew when I was 12.
How those values have played out in people's lives.
I know at a very deep and visceral level, in a way that it was impossible for me to know when I was younger, I know in a deep and visceral level the degree to which values play out in life for better or for worse.
I am very strong in enforcing those values with my children and with my child and with others because I know in a very deep and visceral way what happens.
Now, when the state comes in, the value of the old vanishes and the old become like doddering, vaguely racist old people who smell of peppermints and who have candies you'd never want to eat because there's like Egyptian dynasties, layers of dust on them.
And so...
The accumulated wisdom and the value of having values diminishes because what the hell is the point of being against single motherhood and the incredibly toxic, corrosive and destructive effects that single motherhood has on society?
What the hell is the point of being against single motherhood?
If the single mother is going to clamp onto the state and use the power of the state to take resources from you and give them to her anyway, right?
The rape of the wallet, which is as significant to a man's sexual value as the rape of the vagina is to a woman's sexual value.
The rape of the wallet that occurs, which diminishes the capacity of any community to enforce any standards whatsoever.
This means that there's no point having any community.
You might as well, you know, have, you know, pornography and video games and go on, you know, this new phrase, binge watching, you know, go binge watch something on Netflix or whatever.
Well, why not?
There's no point having values.
You can't enforce any values.
There's an entire subculture in Japan.
The herbivores basically have just defaulted to that.
They just retreated to their homes and play video games and watch porn and that's it.
Yeah, and they're called the dry fish ladies as well.
They have no interest in having kids.
The Japanese birth rate has plummeted and all that.
Yeah.
And I have a theory on what you mentioned before, the free riders and the sense of community.
And I think that a big part of why people feel free or don't feel any sense of shame by taking advantage of The free ride from the state is that they don't really have an in-group that's providing them with anything.
If you're a member of a tribe or a band, a small group of people, and I'm using those terms, and I'm talking also about in a modern-day context.
You had 150 people working on a large farm, all reaping the benefits of that production, and they all have interpersonal relationships They're all in the same boat together.
They're all benefiting from that labor.
Then it's going to be a much, much smaller percentage of men or women who will allow themselves to even entertain the idea of a free ride.
If you get a free ride in today's society, you don't see any negative effect from that path or that course of action amongst those that you care about.
That would not be the case.
The government doesn't intervene with what's best for you.
Sometimes giving people resources is very, very helpful.
And sometimes it's unbelievably destructive.
Charity is one of these unbelievably complicated things in life.
Building a nuclear reactor, very difficult.
Accurately applying charity to dysfunctional people Much harder!
And I say this from intense personal experience where I've used resources to help people.
Sometimes it's worked.
A lot of times it really hasn't.
Oh, me too.
And yeah, I mean, there's nothing more humbling than trying to help people.
And when you recognize that, like when I say, well, it's my money on the line, my ego, my preferences, my desperate desire to help someone on the line...
And I swear to God, I'm batting maybe 300 in that.
Maybe a quarter or a third of the people I have really, really expended resources in my life trying to help have received or accepted or enacted any positive benefit out of my help.
I'm a pretty smart guy.
I've got resources that I can use to try and help people.
I now just outsource it.
Like, I give up, right?
I mean, I'll do it sometimes on this show if we can do it in a very productive and proactive way.
But when it comes to helping people, I'll no more try and help other people through personal charity than I will offer to extract their wisdom teeth with a cherry bomb.
Like, it's just not going to work out well.
I've got to outsource that to the experts, the people who are going to do it right.
But that's also partly because it's not a community.
You can't really charitably help people unless you have really long-term relationships.
You know where they're coming from.
So the state, by sending out a check, has no idea whether sending out the check is really helping someone, which in some cases it is, or is really, really harming not just them, but the decisions of those who come after them.
And of course, the degree to which...
Less intelligent people need more social cues to behave properly.
Like really smart people generally don't get, they're not single moms, they don't get divorced, they don't commit crimes because they go, well, that's a bad idea.
You know, it's obvious, right, if you're a smart person.
If you're a less intelligent person, you need more immediate social cues as to what's right or what's wrong.
So the smart person can say, well, you know, if I have unprotected sex now, 20 years from now, I'm in baby jail and it's not worth it and my sexual market value goes down, so I'm going to put on, you know, a couple of condoms.
Whereas the less intelligent person might not have that long-term view Which is why there used to be chaperones on dates and, you know, you had to leave the door ajar if you had a boy in your room and to keep one foot on the floor and people were always checking in on you because you weren't smart enough to see the long-term views as society stepped in to enforce.
Sexual morals for the betterment of society as a whole, the government doesn't care about that, doesn't do it, can't do it.
And so you're not going to get those immediate social cues of disapproval and prevention.
And you're not going to see the visible, like for people who can't project forward 20 years and say, you know, what's the consequences of unprotected sex now when I'm 17?
What they can do is they can say, well, the last woman who had unprotected sex when she was 17, she's shunned, she's ostracized, she had to leave town, she had to give the kid up for adoption, it was a disaster.
They can't empathize with themselves.
They don't have the capacity intellectually maybe to empathize with themselves 20 years down the road, but they can at least see the smoking crater where some woman's reputation was six months ago and remember that as an instance.
So it is particularly cruel for the less intelligent people.
Smart people would generally make decent decisions in most contexts, but less intelligent people need examples.
They need ostracism examples.
They need immediate consequence examples to navigate better with.
And so taking that away with the welfare state is really, really bad for the least intelligent in society as a whole.
Right, because charity that's, you know, applied improperly is just going to shield someone from the necessary consequences of poor decisions, and that's not going to teach them anything.
It's just going to enable those same decisions again and again.
I mean, I've seen it with, you know...
Family members of mine years ago, not too closely related, but I mean, I've seen the exact same scenario over and over and over again, where one decision leads to another bad decision leads to another bad decision, then because it's all basically subsidized by the state.
It's just self-perpetuating.
And then because you're not suffering any personal consequences, speaking negatively about such behavior is always interpreted as, I don't know what, misogynistic, or hate people, or hate the poor, you know, slut-shaming or something like that.
And in a weird way, that's kind of accurate.
When did shame become a bad thing?
Yeah.
Well, first of all, as a white male, have you ever experienced shaming from society as a whole?
Have you ever been called patriarchal, male chauvinist, racist?
I've experienced attempts at shaming me.
That was one thing that even before I had ever listened to your show, that was something that I completely rejected from a very young age.
I remember having a discussion in high school.
I'm pushing 30 now, so I remember going back probably 15, 16 years.
I remember still being in high school having a conversation about slavery and people bringing up the need for reparations.
We were having a discussion about it in class and I remember just saying, who was the last group to get into slavery and who ended it?
When I saw your presentation on the truth about slavery that really Reminded me of that and rung through again.
Just the whole concept of the society that we're in today shames those who have no reason to feel shame and absolves people from shame who would benefit from feeling it.
And that's extremely unfortunate.
Even if we were to accept that reparations will necessary, we'll just look at two generations of the welfare state and call it a deal.
So yeah, this values and ostracism and social disapproval and social rewards and social approval and the application of resources, these are all very difficult things to do.
I mean, you know, if you've ever strongly disapproved of someone in your life and acted on that disapproval, it's uncomfortable.
It's sort of a weapon of last resort.
For society as a whole, which is why society aims at prevention rather than attempting to get people back on course if they deviate from sort of foundational and productive moral standards.
And so it's an uncomfortable thing.
And these standards have arisen.
Out of desperation of how to deal with free riders, of how to deal with people who make bad decisions.
I mean, values arise because less intelligent people need more immediate cues than they can process.
You know, smart people don't need a lot of ethics because smart people can look at the long-term value and disvalue of their immediate decisions and make generally good decisions.
The smarter you are, the less you need ethics.
You don't need heaven and hell to make you do the right thing if you can conceptualize and empathize with yourself down the road.
Morality was in many ways invented out of a desperation of less intelligent people continually making bad decisions and the desperation of smarter people on how to get them to make better decisions and that's where the ostracism and shaming and all that comes in.
It's not really that necessary for very smart people, but it is much more necessary for less intelligent people.
That's a very blanket statement.
There's lots of exceptions and so on.
I think that basic reality is really important that ethics arose out of a need for people to make better decisions who obviously without ethics weren't making good decisions and ethics backed up.
Ethics are meaningless in the absence of freedom of association.
Ethics are absolutely meaningless because ethics arose Right.
Right.
and other forms of government forced redistribution, what the hell does it mean to have values?
Which is why moral people used to be considered really good in a voluntary, more voluntary society, a smaller government society.
Now, if you're a moralist, you're just some prig.
You know, like, why would you, again, it's like going back to the first call, if you think all races are equal, then to have skeptical views about certain abilities of some race or another is to be racist by definition, right?
I mean, if there's no difference in morality between tall and short people, which there isn't, right?
Then, although you could say height is a function of good genes and intelligence is a function of good genes, but let's just say, go with the general what I understand.
Yeah, there's no difference in morality between tall and short people.
And there, if you were to say short people are generally more immoral, then you would obviously be bigoted against short people for some reason with a sack of short people when you were a kid and you're just rationalizing it.
And so if you don't have the capacity to reject anyone, then there's really no reason to have ethical standards.
And therefore, if you do have ethical standards, you're considered to be a prig, which is why if people have issues with women going out there and courting sexual disaster with skimpy dressing and provocative dancing and pretending like they've got an armed set of bodyguards and they're like Madonna on a stage rather which is why if people have issues with women going out there and courting sexual disaster with skimpy dressing and provocative dancing and
Then what happens if then, well, you must just be shaming them because you have issues and you hate women and you're a Victorian prude and you just don't like people expressing their sexuality.
And in a weird kind of way, you know, like, I'm selling ethical standards, so of course I'm opposed to the state because the state is interfering with the value of what I have to offer in the marketplace.
Well, people having ethical standards doesn't benefit the state in any way, so there's no reason for them to reinforce it.
And in line with what you were just saying, there's a A quote that I read that actually wrote down just today, coincidentally, which said that without the possibility of dishonor, there can be no honor.
You can't be honorable if there's no way for you to be the opposite of that.
Right.
And without voluntarism, there's no reason to have ethical standards.
You know, I mean, I can say, like, and what I can do is I can at least say where the choice exists, we should exercise it, right?
Which is where I say dating single mothers is a disaster.
the sexual market value of single mothers, I will do.
And this is why they don't like it.
And of course, I completely understand why they don't like it.
It's just too bad that they don't like it.
You know, that's, that's fine.
Right.
But, um, what I, you still, you know, you don't have choices about whether your resources get stolen from you at gunpoint and handed over to single mom to buy their idiotic votes, but you do have a choice about who you date, at least for now.
And so, uh, And so at least where we can exercise choice, we should exercise choice.
And then it is actually the greatest kindness to women as a whole.
People, oh, you don't date single moms.
It's a bad thing for women.
You dislike women.
No, love women, which is why I don't want them to end up as single moms.
And so if smart women are not going to end up as single moms anyway, but the less intelligent women, if they say, well, no one dates those single moms and that's why I'm not going to become one.
Okay, so you had a bad reason for a good action.
I'll take that.
Right, yeah.
If you can be incentivized by the potential for shame to do good things, then the result is the same regardless.
Yeah, I don't care why you're not a single mom.
I'm just glad that you're not.
Right, exactly.
I don't care why somebody doesn't bludgeon me to death.
Their motivation doesn't matter.
It's just as long as I'm alive and kicking, I'm good.
So with the concept of a free society and volunteerism and the abolition of the state, You're also looking at the absolute end of the formal institution of marriage as it's seen by the state.
I think that in a voluntary society, in a quote-unquote tribal society, marriage would be a lot more common because you wouldn't have the gun of the state, the temple of the potential husband.
And you would also not have the bags of money for the potential wife waiting for them at the state.
So you'd have more of a natural dynamic between men and women.
Women would be far less likely to end up as single mothers, whether the reasons were good or not, like we just discussed.
And you'd also have a situation where people would be a lot less likely to get divorced because there'd be very little incentive to do that.
There'd be very little incentive for men to divorce women and very little incentive for women to divorce men and because of that The women would make a greater effort to keep the man around.
The man would make a greater effort to provide for that woman who was treating him so well.
There's only a net benefit to that.
I can't think of a single negative to it.
You know, the previous way, you talked earlier about the lack of genetic diversity in, you know, primitive tribes and so forth.
And even today, if you look around the world, the only existing groups that live in bands or tribes today are, you know, those who live in the outback of Australia, you know, some pygmies.
And as we've discussed, or as you've discussed on some previous shows, you know, those are some of the lowest IQs.
On the planet, and obviously part of that is going to be due to the lack of genetic diversity, whereas with modern technologies, modern abilities to travel distances and so forth, people would be able to communicate with other groups.
People would be able to look outside their immediate surroundings for mate, I think, successfully and maintain that same kind of genetic diversity or improve on it, because I think that kind of That kind of sexual marketplace would lend itself to, you know, a case election strategy rather than an R, which is so much more common today.
I don't know what your thoughts are.
Yeah, look, I mean, if you've got a hike across an ice field and it's going to take you two weeks, And there's obviously no food there, then you've got to bring a big backpack.
You've got to plan ahead because you're going to be a long time without resources, so you've got to plan ahead.
If, on the other hand, you know, there's free food every 100 yards, you don't need to pack.
Because the resources are all there for you.
And what's happened is the state has turned parenthood from the former into the latter.
You don't need to plan ahead because children are a cost in a free society and need to be paid for.
And therefore, because you need to pay for children, you need to, if you're a woman, marry a guy who can provide you good resources and who's going to be stable and reliable and a good father and a good provider rather than just some sexy bad boy on a motorbike who's going to You know, the stubble burned your cheek, you know, screw you from behind, and then bugger off on his throaty bike, right?
I mean, well, that's, you know, so the state has just placed all this food on this death march across the ice floe, and so you don't need to plan ahead.
You can just wander along.
You don't have to have a backpack.
There's food everywhere.
And so children, through the power of the state, have been turned from a liability to an asset.
Right.
And so it's all about propping up the value, sexual market value of single moms.
I mean, if there was no state, then single moms would have extremely low sexual market value because they need a lot of money to pay for their kids' education and living expenses, health care, dental care, you name it.
And people would be like, well, no thanks, right?
And so women would see that being a single mom would be a pretty desperate and horrible position.
And you wouldn't have them starve to death, but at the same time, you wouldn't want them to be overly comfortable.
But the welfare state, you know, you think of these girlfriend farms in the ghetto neighborhoods where all the women on welfare, the guy can come move in and live off their welfare.
Like, not only do the women have enough resources to save their kids, but also a boyfriend.
And so now children have gone from a cost, which is where they rationally are, to a resource which is completely backwards and has mutated male-female relations beyond all conceivable recognition.
It's the difference between, like, if you have a job that is tough, maybe you don't want to do it much, but, you know, if the job pays you and the alternative is starvation, you'll go to work.
However, if someone comes along and says, I'm going to pay you a million dollars to not go to work, Well, your entire relationship with your job has changed because your job was a resource and now it's a liability because going there is standing between you and a million dollars.
And it's the same thing with kids.
You've turned them from a liability into an asset which has completely changed the relationship between men and women And it's going to remain weird and mutated and bizarre Until the actual economic realities of childbearing and parenthood are brought back into focus And then people are just start making better decisions because they'll have to pack because there isn't a Big bag of food every hundred yards on the ice Children have been turned into yet another subsidized crop.
Right.
Yeah.
And it's weird because you're actually selling the children.
You're actually selling the children's future through debt in order to pretend that they're an asset in the here and now.
All right.
I'll give you the closing statement, but I'm going to wind the show down because, again, it's been, I guess, two and a half, almost three hours.
So a great chat, David.
I really appreciate this topic.
If there's anything that you wanted to close off with, I'm certainly happy to give you that privilege, my dear.
Yeah, I'll try to wrap this up quickly.
There are a few other things I wanted to touch on, but one of them Was just that the the idea that many people I think have is that the ideal human society is a nonviolent one and I would agree that you know non-aggression is What everyone should be striving for and that in a free society would be much easier to achieve that But I also I also do believe that in such a society People would still have to be prepared to
back up their beliefs with violence.
I do believe that people would have to be prepared to defend their perimeters, like you talked about earlier.
Men have balls.
They've been genetically designed to protect.
And the whole nature of this would be to prevent states from arising.
There's always going to be people who want to take more power, who want to gain control over others, and hopefully eventually they'll be able to weed that out.
But I just wanted to state that I think this would have to be a society that was based on philosophy and reality and at the same time staring the stark harsh truths of the dangers that are out there as well.
And that that would, you know, favor a prepared, intelligent, and long-farsighted human population wherever this took place.
Yep.
Best thing you can do for the world is breed with brains.
That's just about anything else.
Everything other than that is just window dressing.
Well, thanks, David.
Great chat.
I really, really appreciate that.
And thanks, of course, everyone for keeping us afloat and flourishing in this challenging time.
To help out the show, really appreciate that.
FDRURL.com slash Amazon, as I may have mentioned once or twice before, if you've got some shopping to do, that will help us out immensely.
And we've got some great, great shows coming out, which I hope that you'll keep track of and watch.
