Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 19, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:50:07

3232 Dreaming of Male Disposability - Call In Show - March 16th, 2016

Question 1: [1:28] - Dream Analysis: “The dream started where I was on a ship sailing out at sea with a bunch of guys. We were sailing along then we were heading towards another similar ship. Both ships were alike – big sailing vessels with white masts like you see in pirate movies. On the other ship were a bunch of guys with long buccaneer swords, and they wanted to board and take over our ship, just like pirates used to do. We tried to get our ship to go back the other way and away from them so that they couldn’t board our ship, but it was to no avail as the current kept moving our ship towards…”Question 2: [1:35:49] - “Is the existence of government moral? If so, is it necessary?”Question 3: [2:15:55] - “I'm a big Trump supporter. How come every time I try to have an honest conversation or debate with someone who doesn't like him - usually a liberal - I am met with non-arguments? All they say is "Trump is racist, Trump is Hitler, Trump is a xenophobe, Trump is stupid, Trump is only rich because of his dad.” I see news articles daily on the Huffington Post, MSNBC, Yahoo, etc. saying the same things about Trump, and they name call and use emotions over facts. What do you think causes such behavior?”

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yo, yo, everybody.
	It's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Yes, we're back to the land of dreams.
	Dream!
	And the first caller had a very powerful dream about saving his sons from the future, and I hope that you'll give it a swing.
	It was a really, really riveting conversation, which went in many, many different directions, as deep explorations of the true self tend to, so I hope you'll check that out.
	Caller number two.
	Hey, ever heard this question?
	Is the existence of government moral?
	If so, is it necessary?
	And the degree to which we follow principles or follow pragmatism has always been a challenge in philosophy, and yeah, we pretty much clear it up in this one conversation.
	Number three.
	This may also have happened to you on a Caller says, I'm a big Trump supporter.
	How come every time I try to have an honest conversation or debate with someone who doesn't like him, usually a liberal, I am met with non-arguments?
	Hey, maybe I'll see some of those non-arguments too one day.
	You just never know.
	So I had a great conversation about all of this.
	And as usual, thank you so much for everyone who calls in to share their hearts and minds with the world and the future forever.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	We need you more than ever as we continue to grow.
	FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
	Just bookmark it.
	Make it your homepage if you do a lot of shopping.
	That also helps us out.
	So let's get on with the show.
	All right.
	Well, first today we have Andrew, who's calling in about a dream he had.
	And Andrew will read his dream in just a second.
	But, Steph, if you can just explain dream analysis and why we occasionally have those on the show, they might be helpful for some of our new listeners who aren't familiar with it.
	Well, you know, the other stuff takes a lot of research and facts.
	So, it's not...
	No.
	So, I... I'm a big fan of Freud.
	Some of his theories, the idea that dreams are the royal road to the unconscious.
	The dreams can help you learn a lot about what's going on deep down in your mind, in the really bottom of the brain, metaphysical, philosophical part that is generally not welcomed by dreams.
	A rather delusion-addicted society around you.
	So I have certainly found dreams to be very helpful to figure out within my own life.
	And I would say that the people who've called in and we've talked about dreams, they've got a lot of really, really helpful stuff out of it.
	It can really tend to blow wide the doors of perception.
	And so I think that they're...
	And you know, art is a form of dreaming.
	Stories are a form of dreaming.
	And a lot of times, even our own history, which is half narrative and half fact, is a form of dreaming as well.
	So I know it's, you know, for people who are new, we've done a lot of politics and stuff, but the first order of philosophy is know thyself.
	And dreams are a very powerful way of getting into your own deeper self.
	So that's why we talk about it, and I hope you'll find it interesting.
	All right.
	Andrew, let's hear your dream.
	Hey, Steph.
	How you doing?
	I'm well.
	How you doing, Eddie?
	Excellent.
	Thank you very much for having me on the show.
	I'm a long-time listener and, more importantly, a long-time donator to the show.
	So I just wanted to give a shout-out to all those listeners out there with deep pockets and short arms that this is not the Bernie Sanders Parasite Program.
	So please, please stop, step up, and help support this awesome show.
	Well, thanks, Andy.
	And as a donator, I just want to tell you in advance, you're absolutely right about everything you say.
	And in any conflict between us, you are correct.
	That's what you buy, is one spineless.
	Participant in your conversation.
	Just kidding.
	Anyway, so you want to take us through the dream?
	Sure, sure.
	So the dream started off that I was at a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton, and I was in the VIP section with Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers.
	Oh, sorry, wrong dream.
	Sorry, let me just switch over to the other one.
	I think that movie comes with bad lighting and a 70s soundtrack, if I remember rightly.
	Well, this is a serious topic, so I just wanted to break the ice a bit here.
	Sure.
	Okay, so here we go.
	So the dream started where I was on a ship sailing out at sea with a bunch of guys.
	We were sailing along, and then we were heading towards another similar ship like ours.
	So both ships were alike.
	It was the big sailing vessels you think of the old-time movies with the big white masks that you kind of see in those pirate movies.
	On the other ship were a bunch of guys with long buccaneer swords, and they wanted to board and take over our ship, just like pirates used to do.
	We tried to go, you know, get our ship to go back the other way away from them so that they couldn't board our ship, but it was to no avail as the current kept moving our ship towards them.
	So, realizing that we were getting close to their ship was a second's notice.
	And also like in the movie The Rock, it was clear that one side, the guys on the other ship, were far superior to us and would definitely overwhelm us if we decided to fight them.
	Therefore, the guys from the other ship were easily able to persuade us to surrender to them, which we did.
	Then we found out that we all had to go back to a hospital where all of our wives had just given birth to new baby boys.
	Our attackers went with us to the hospital so that they could take our sons away from us and conscript our sons into the army.
	I went into the hospital and saw my newborn son, and was really my son.
	However, Then suddenly, somehow a period of time had elapsed so that my son was not an infant, but now he was actually old enough to walk.
	And that was when the attackers could actually start taking our sons away from us.
	And this was because the boys needed to be able to walk in order to be able to be useful in the attacker's army.
	So basically in order to get them in the army, they had to be a minimum age where they could at least get up and walk.
	So these guys were ready to take all of our sons away.
	So each one of us had a sign to us to go with us into the hospital room to hand over our sons to them.
	It was so incredibly saddening because when I walked into the hospital room, I saw the face of my younger son when he was a cute little toddler.
	He was walking around the room and I had lots of memories of holding him and all that.
	And because he was qualified, he was walking around the room, he was qualified to be taken away and conscripted into the bad guy's army.
	So when I walked into my The room with the assigned guy, I actually saw my mother's face there.
	And then, wow, this other feeling came over me that I felt even worse than before because I really couldn't bear it.
	It was kind of like similar to the feeling that I had when I see, you know, Germans taking away Jewish kids from their family during the Holocaust.
	Quite powerful indeed.
	Although I was resigned to the fact that I had to hand over my son to this terrible guy, the sight of my mother in the room spurred me to ask him if he could at least tell me where my son would be stationed so that I could someday go visit him.
	The guy listed a few names from some town in New Jersey in America, but I told him to tell me where the town would be.
	I forget the names, but he mentioned three names that started with a W. And he did tell me because he started to feel a bit bad about my mother not ever being able to see her grandson again as he would be taken off to war.
	Yeah.
	He recognized this guy as someone he knew.
	And he said, the policeman said to him, hey, aren't you from this town in New Jersey?
	I blurted out, jumped into their conversation and said, yes, and he's trying to kidnap my son.
	This really startled the policeman.
	I pushed the kidnapper towards the cop so he could arrest him, which the cop did.
	Then I got this huge surge of energy.
	I ran into the other hospital rooms and started attacking all the bad guys one on one.
	I punched one guy in the face and he took out a large hook, like a pirate's hook, you know, like if they've got their arm chopped off, they've got some kind of hook on them and he tried to stab me with it.
	But I was able to avoid the hook and able to kill him too.
	I ran to the next room and fought a bad guy that was in there and was able to defeat him and thereby free one of the other sons as well.
	This continued as I ran from room to room and won every battle to free all of the sons from having to go off to war.
	Then I woke up.
	I was mentally and physically exhausted from all of that fighting and that sheer tension.
	I woke up at 5.
	5am with my heart pounding and adrenaline rushing through my veins.
	This was such an intense dream that I was not able to get back to sleep.
	And this dream was doubly impactful because I had a similar, you know, intense dream just the night before.
	So that's how it ended.
	I just woke up in this, you know, sweating and my heart pounding.
	That's a beautiful dream, Andrew.
	Like a passionate, powerful, and obviously heroic dream.
	And that's beautiful.
	That's beautiful.
	Now, you have actual sons?
	Yes, I do.
	And, you know, the reason I called is I wanted you to interpret it.
	Of course, I've got some of my own feelings, obviously.
	I have two sons, and the younger one had recently become a teenager.
	And I think, you know, in looking through this and what I'd written to you, that, you know, they're not kids anymore.
	They're really young adults.
	And some of my answers, you know, I have to step up my game here is I don't have good answers anymore.
	We spent a lot of time, you know, my kids had read about Michael Brown and we had talked about it and read some articles and discussed it.
	And my son went into school and his teacher, you know, liberal government school teacher...
	Spurted out the party line, and my son went right back at her saying, no, this is not what happened.
	And he explained it, and he had all his details.
	And so, you know, just kind of got to the point where my younger son was asking me, you know, do laws really matter?
	We've got illegal immigrants.
	We've got Lois Lerner on the IRS. We've got Michael Brown.
	So it's kind of a, you know, these teenage years are really fun.
	Oh, you have answers.
	You have answers.
	You just may not want to give them, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, listening to this show, you'll have answers.
	I did a video a couple of years ago called Shape the Hell Up World about how embarrassing it is to introduce the world to your kids.
	Yeah, that's exactly spot on.
	I do have the answers, but maybe it's a better way to say it is that it's so painful to see them.
	Not thinking for themselves, but getting the answers.
	It's like, oh wow, this is a rough life, rough world out there.
	I think that's where part of it came from.
	Have you been listening at all to any of the male disposability stuff?
	Yes.
	You know, a video I did, how a man's heart is murdered and stuff like that.
	Around the degree to which men are sort of disposable drones that society uses as livestock.
	You know, men pay the vast majority of the taxes.
	Men do the fighting.
	Men do the dangerous work.
	Men do the dirty work.
	Men do the apprehension of criminals and the guarding of criminals and the transporting of radioactive materials and the shoveling of crap in the sewers.
	And, you know, men are just these, like, big worker drones That are continually berated and put down so that they never ever think, what the hell's in all this for me, right?
	Right, right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so that's because I don't know where you are in your sort of listening because there are so many shows.
	Yes, there are.
	But it would be, I assume you've gone through some of that stuff, right?
	Some of it, yes, but I did take a note and I will go back.
	I don't think I heard the one you mentioned.
	Oh yeah, no, that's just sort of one of the examples as a whole.
	So let's run through the dream and I'll give you some thoughts and we'll see if it fits with what's going on in your life.
	So you're on a ship sailing out at sea with a bunch of guys.
	We're sailing along, then we were heading towards another similar ship.
	Both the ships were alike.
	Big sailing ships with white masks like you see in pirate movies.
	Long buccaneer swords, they want to board and take over your ship.
	They throw the planks across, right?
	Then they charge across.
	Exactly, exactly.
	It's in the Tintin movie and stuff, right?
	We try to get our ship to go back the other way, away from them.
	So then you have to fight, right?
	We have to fight, right.
	So Andy, isn't this sort of like you're at the place as a father where you can't shield your sons from the world anymore?
	That's correct.
	Can't shield them from the fight.
	Right.
	Because, I mean, you know, as fathers, we want to create this big, fierce, masculine moat around our family, right?
	That's a very primal and powerful impulse that it apparently has taken three generations to breed out of European men, but we wish to create this masculine moat around our family, and your sons now are At the point where they're being propagandized and the world is coming in.
	It's seeping in through the cracks.
	It's coming in like the smoke under the door.
	You can't keep the world away from your kids anymore.
	That's exactly right.
	That was partly the case when they were younger, but now that they're older, they're getting out and going online themselves and interacting more with society.
	Yeah, I can't stop it, so nothing to do but fight back.
	Right, so the other shipper guys is far superior.
	Now, why are they...
	Sorry, why are they...
	I'm yelling at you, sorry.
	Why are they superior?
	Is it that there are more of them?
	Do they have better weapons?
	They have better weapons, for sure.
	They have better weapons?
	Yeah.
	We were just a bunch of guys, and they were sort of, you know, this is what they do for a living.
	They go and attack other ships.
	When did this dream happen?
	When did it happen?
	Mid-February.
	And have you been following any of the US politics at all?
	Oh yes, yeah.
	Okay.
	Were you listening to any of my Trump stuff?
	Some of it, yes.
	Okay, okay.
	Alright, we'll come back to that.
	So, you all got to go back to the hospital where you've got baby boys.
	Right.
	And this is a lot about men, but it's also a lot about women.
	And there was something that really struck me, which we'll get to in a second.
	So, you know, the attackers went with us to the hospital so that they could take our sons away from us and conscript them into the army.
	Right.
	So, the question is, why...
	Was this teacher, the teacher talking to your sons about Michael Brown, a male or female teacher?
	A female.
	Yeah, as if I have to ask.
	So why is this woman...
	Why is she telling this...
	I assume Michael Brown, like St.
	Michael of the holiness who was gunned down execution style while begging for his life by an evil white racist cop.
	It may not have been that far, but I assume it was something like that.
	So why is she...
	Why would she do that?
	What's her goal?
	What's her incentive?
	Well, we're just in an area where there are lots of liberals, and that's kind of the party line you hear around town.
	Yeah, but why?
	Why is it the party line?
	I think this specific case was anti-cops and the cops attacking defensive black people.
	Well, okay.
	I mean, that's sort of the narrative, but why?
	Why is that the narrative?
	Liberals are not that anti-cop.
	Whenever they have problems, they call the cops.
	It's the same thing with blacks.
	Some blacks are anti-cops, but that's mostly the black criminals, just as the white criminals and the Asian criminal.
	The criminals are anti-cop, but when the blacks get attacked, they call the cops.
	So the question is why?
	That's a good question.
	What I remember most about is the fact that my son did actually go back and argue with her.
	So that was...
	No, I get that.
	But the question is why is that narrative being put forward?
	And I think your dream is trying to crack that nut.
	Right.
	I don't know.
	Well, I would argue that it's not so much pro-black as it is anti-white.
	Right?
	The stories on the left, they always have a moral.
	And the moral is white and male is bad.
	Right.
	Right?
	I mean, I saw this video.
	You know, everyone's jumping all over Donald Trump for being attacked.
	Like, his rally was shut down in Chicago by this bunch of thugs, right?
	Right.
	And everyone's blaming Donald Trump.
	And then an interviewer asked Bernie Sanders, well, a lot of your followers were instrumental in shutting these things down.
	Do you take any responsibility for that?
	And Bernie Sanders is like, well, millions of people vote for me.
	You know, if I was responsible for everything, every one of them would be a very difficult life.
	It's exactly the same conversation.
	And it's this like pivot.
	Right.
	That is insane, right?
	Yeah, it is insane.
	I'm going to assume your kids are white, right?
	Yes.
	Right.
	Okay.
	I'm going to guess that you are...
	Yes, I am.
	And there's also the case last week or so when the police chief in Texas, they had a rally for Black Lives Matter at the local middle school and they had a bunch of signs that were anti-police, one including hands up, don't shoot, and other things like that.
	And this sort of jogged my memory again about this incident.
	And it really is amazing because the whole, as you know, the whole story is false.
	It is.
	I mean...
	The whole story is false.
	It's like, you know, false flag organization.
	Anyway, so the question is why, and I think the answer is that white males are the tax livestock of the modern world.
	Before, they were the war livestock of the Western world, and now they're the tax livestock.
	Of the Western world.
	Males, particularly white males and Asian males as well.
	I mean, they pay massive amounts of taxes.
	I mean, I don't know exactly what it is in the U.S., but in the U.K., women pay 60% less taxes.
	And in America, like 70% of the population gets more out of the government than they put in.
	And these are, you know, minorities are overrepresented in that.
	And, you know, people are like, well, why are there so many white males at Donald Trump rallies?
	Well, that's like asking why there are so many cancer patients getting chemotherapy.
	It's because they're the ones who it applies to, right?
	I mean, Donald Trump's offering to lower taxes, and so, of course, the taxpayers, the people who pay the most taxes, are the ones who are going to be the most interested in that.
	It's like, why aren't there a lot of single moms out there Marching for Donald Trump because single bombs are on the receiving end of all the tax money.
	So anybody who threatens to cut taxes is threatened to cut off their gravy train.
	So it's got nothing to do with race.
	It's got everything to do with being on the paying side or on the receiving side of the tax equation.
	And so when you want to exploit any particular group, you must make them feel like crap.
	I mean, this is the sort of predatory Catholic Church telling everyone that they're evil for breathing, but they can pay a priest and get forgiveness for a short amount of time, make people feel like crap, and then you can charge them for alleviating The curse, right?
	So white people must be called racist, and then white people have to hand over a lot of resources and opportunities and jobs and money and preferential treatment to non-whites, and then white people for 35 seconds won't be called racist.
	And then when other groups want more out of white males, and it's not just white.
	I mean, the women yell about the men, and then the men feel bad, and then the men give resources to women, and As a white male, you're just getting nagged into oblivion.
	At some point, in order to have a healthy society, we're just going to have to say no.
	It's so unhealthy.
	For everyone.
	For everyone involved.
	I was sort of interested that...
	Did this dream come after the teacher was nagging at the kids about Mike Brown?
	Yes, he did.
	Right.
	So your kids are being set up to feel really, really bad about being white and being male.
	And so that then when people come and say, you owe us affirmative action, you owe us more money in taxes, you owe us, you owe us, you owe us, well, they'll be primed.
	They'll be ready, right?
	And then what'll happen is the leftists will come in and try and scoop up all the money and then hand it out to buy votes so that they don't actually have to reason with anyone for a living.
	And so, your kids are being set up with the original sin of being white and penis-enabled, and as a result, there's piracy, right?
	This piracy is going to occur for the rest of their lives, and I think your dream is really a fascinating exploration of that, right?
	Do you have a religious background at all?
	I was brought up Catholic.
	My parents were sort of Christmas Catholics, but no, not Which you brought up Catholic, because what's interesting is that it starts at birth.
	Right, right.
	Right?
	And this is Catholicism too, right?
	Original sin, you are born sinful.
	Right.
	Right, because it's kind of interesting to me that what's provoking this at the moment is your son's entering into manhood, biological manhood, right?
	And yet in the dream, it's not when they hit puberty, it's when they're born that it's happening, right?
	Right, right.
	That's interesting.
	So you go to the hospital, you see your newborn son.
	Now, is this a memory to your actual firstborn?
	No.
	Or is this some other kid?
	Oh, it's my son, yes.
	So I do see my son's face when I go to the hospital.
	And it is your actual son?
	Yes, yes.
	Right, okay.
	So, somehow a period of time had elapsed so that my son was now old enough to walk, and that was when the attackers actually started taking his sons away from us.
	When did your kids...
	Did they go to a daycare around a year of age or anything like that?
	Yes, they did.
	Oh, okay.
	So, this would be, I would assume this would be in reference to that, right?
	Yes.
	Interesting.
	All right.
	That's because the boys needed to be able to walk in order to be useful in the attacker's army.
	Huh.
	Interesting.
	And why did your kids end up in a daycare?
	Well, my wife worked part-time, so the kids went to daycare two to three days a week, and my wife worked two to three days a week.
	Was she a supermodel?
	Was she a supermodel?
	No.
	Did she lactate gold?
	No.
	She was a contractor at a company.
	Did she cover the costs of daycare and all of that?
	You know, working part-time, I mean, why not be home?
	Exactly, yeah.
	It did cover the cost.
	It was about even.
	So it didn't make them get loose.
	What?
	What the what?
	Why?
	Why?
	I mean, she was basically not making any money in order to not see her children.
	Right, right.
	So why?
	Well, had I known then what I do now, things probably...
	Oh, no, no.
	Listen, I know it sounds like I'm being a dick.
	Maybe I am.
	Well, she wanted to get out of the house.
	But my question is, what was the story that your wife was giving you or that you were giving yourself?
	Because economically, it makes no sense, right?
	Right.
	Economically, it makes no sense.
	So she wanted to get out of the house and continue working.
	She thought it would be too much to stay home seven days a week.
	What do you mean, too much?
	I don't understand.
	Too much stress.
	Too much stress?
	Right.
	Just staying.
	Like being kind of cooped up at home.
	So she wanted to get out of the house and work one or two days a week.
	That was the reasoning.
	Does she not have any family or friends around?
	I mean, this cooped up thing, you just get your kids and go to the park, right?
	Right, right.
	I know I didn't really have any family around at that time where we were living.
	And did you have friends or anyone else who had kids?
	Was there anyone else in the neighborhood?
	Because this is one of the problems that's happened, right?
	I mean, to...
	I found it the bus here because it's a drag, you know, because in the past, you know, I think about, you know, Phyllis Schlafly when she was having her six kids or whatever, right?
	I mean, everybody on the street, all the women were home and, you know, everyone came from the same cultural background.
	So everybody knew each other's values and could all like discipline each other's kids if necessary, or at least give them feedback or whatever.
	And so it was kind of fun, right?
	I mean, everybody, because it's a lot easier to raise kids when there are lots of other kids around.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, they weren't.
	Right?
	So you just go, oh, let's go over to so-and-so's.
	We'll have coffee and cake, and the kids will play with each other, and we can get caught up.
	But that's all.
	Gone now.
	I mean, now you've got...
	They're called bedroom communities, right?
	Where, like, everybody is gone during the day.
	The women are all off at work.
	And so if you're, like, the one person home on your street, you've got nothing and no one, right?
	That's exactly how it was.
	And kids in our neighborhood were all 10, 15 years older.
	So there weren't any kids' toddler age when we were there.
	Right.
	And this happens even in the summer, right?
	Because, of course, in the summer, a lot of the moms are still working.
	I mean, there are a couple of the golden goddesses of public schools or government schools who have, you know, they have the summers off, right?
	It's tough.
	Like, the whole community thing has been broken.
	And now, what's that?
	I mean, it's great for the government, right?
	And this is why I think, you know, this happens when the kids are It's great for the government, because your wife is off paying taxes.
	And you have to hire people to take care of your sons, and those people are usually hired by the government or licensed by the government.
	They themselves are paying taxes to the government.
	The government gets the property taxes from whatever building...
	The daycare is housed in.
	This goes on and on, right?
	I mean, it's really great for the government, for your wife, to hand over the kids to daycare operators.
	It's just probably not super great for your kids.
	How did they adjust to that?
	Yeah, it was tough.
	I mean, this reminds me of the Charles Murray book, Coming Apart, where you mentioned the other neighborhoods are not mingling, their communities are further apart, and We didn't go to church.
	We didn't take the kids to church.
	So that avenue was not open.
	So the social life was either we were able to go over some cousins a few times away or to daycare for the kids.
	And that's why you've got this weird thing called a play date.
	Like it's freaky.
	I mean, I don't know where you grew up.
	I think we're not that dissimilar in ages.
	But when I grew up, the concept of a play date was like unbelievable.
	Like, nobody would have any clue what you were talking about.
	Because basically, you went out and played with kids.
	Exactly.
	You just ran out in the neighborhood, and wherever was there, you played.
	I did this from the age of six or seven onwards.
	Just go off, go roaming the neighborhood, and go do your thing when the streetlights come off.
	My mom had a bell.
	She'd ring like, come back home, sheep.
	And my mom had a bell.
	She'd ring out the window when dinner was ready, and we would go home.
	And this idea that there was some sort of formal arrangement where you go over and Make awkward conversation with other parents while your kids get to play once every three weeks if you're lucky.
	I mean, it was not any part of my childhood.
	And there were so many kids around.
	And when I grew up, there were kids of different races around, but they all had the same culture.
	Mm-hmm.
	And, um, at least when I was growing up, nobody was sort of new off the boat.
	Actually, that happened just as I was leaving England.
	There was a big influx of people from Pakistani, from Pakistan, because I think that they were just closing down the window for being able to emigrate to.
	So, yeah, I grew up with, you know, the Indian kids and the black kids and Chinese kids and all that, but they were all British kids.
	And so we all, you know, the race didn't matter because we all have the same culture.
	And that, of course, is not really so much the case anymore.
	But, um...
	Yeah, so now you've got this weird thing where everything's got to be really formal.
	And that sort of glorious anarchy of just going out and negotiate, because all that stuff, as you know, it's about negotiation, right?
	Like, what are we going to do?
	Who are we going to do it with?
	Who's in?
	Who's out?
	Who's ostracized?
	Who's not?
	And I think this gave me a lot of the grounding for believing in sort of spontaneous self-organizing societies, because that's how I grew up.
	Yeah, your feedback, you mentioned you only have one child, but I have two, and you did mention, you know, if you did on a previous show, that if you did have two kids, you'd sit down and have them work it out, and that's been very helpful to me, and, you know, we sit down at the kitchen table, and we talk through everything, and they have to come to some kind of agreement, and that's definitely the way to do it.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so I think so far, right, you've got a newborn son, and then, boom, because this is about the enemies, right?
	Right.
	Right?
	This is about the enemies.
	And so when your kids, when your babies were home with your wife, then I think this is why you skip over that first year.
	I see.
	Right?
	Because there were no enemies there, right?
	Then you put them in daycare, which is for the attacker's army.
	Right.
	And let's see here.
	So each one of us had a single attacker assigned to go with us into the hospital room to hand over our son to them.
	So incredibly saddening, I saw the face of my youngest son.
	He was walking around the room, qualified to be taken away, conscripted into the bad guy's army.
	I think that's daycare.
	When I walked with my assigned guy into the room, I saw my mother there.
	Now this is really fascinating to me, Andrew.
	It's the degree to which your sorrow is much less important Than your mother's potential sorrow.
	Right.
	Yeah, and there's also no mention of my wife.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, she's vanished for a couple of scenes in here, right?
	Yeah.
	So that's fascinating.
	And this is the degree to which men are biologically hardwired to self-sacrifice for female interests.
	The whole patriarchy thing is complete nonsense.
	All that men do is put on mating displays in an attempt to get women to sleep with them.
	I mean, we're pussy beggars as the phrase goes, right?
	It's like, please throw me a kiss, you know what I mean?
	We focus on women's needs.
	And again, to me, there's nothing wrong with this as long as there's no giant matriarchy-serving state to take even more power and give it to women.
	Women have so much power when they're young, right?
	When they're at the sort of peak of their sexual market value and so on.
	Women have so much power.
	You combine them with the state.
	It's brutal, right?
	You're overwhelmed.
	And the only thing that limits...
	This sort of insane power that young women have.
	The only thing that limits that is the recognition that if they really throw in with the wrong guy, then the rest of their lives could be a real mess.
	But now that the government scoops in and takes care of them, then they have no limits on their power.
	And, you know, some women deal with this well, and a lot of them don't.
	You know, just like all power.
	Very few people can handle even a medium amount of power without becoming corrupted.
	And so what's fascinating to me is that When you imagine how sad your mother will be to not see her grandchildren, that's when it really hits you.
	Yes.
	You say, I couldn't bear to think of my mother seeing her grandson taken away.
	It's your son!
	Right.
	But your mother, oh, you know what I mean?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Wow, that's an incredible thing.
	Good point.
	Yeah, he obviously was...
	Why?
	They're your son!
	Oh, but my mother...
	And, you know, you should listen to How a Man's Heart is Murdered because I talk about the genesis of this and the degree to which, you know, when you were a kid, did your mother show a lot of interest in your feelings and did she show a lot of desire or significant desire to assuage any potential suffering?
	Did she...
	How did that go for you?
	No, not exactly.
	I think you described it well when you said, you know, the two main problems with kids are they're inconvenient or they're honest.
	And I think, you know, my parents were the old school where, you know, you can be seen but not heard type.
	So you're basically going to suck it up.
	Yeah, like if my mom couldn't see the TV, if I was in the way, she'd say, you're a pain, you're just not a window pain.
	It's, you know, can't see.
	Anyway.
	Yeah, my mother would say door.
	You're a better door than a window.
	Right, right, right.
	So you're...
	This is how, you know, women often will control men.
	It's the old you're hanging by a thread.
	Right.
	You know, it's the old thing, you know, Bill Cosby used to joke about back when Bill Cosby's jokes weren't sinister.
	Right.
	You can be replaced.
	I can make another one of you.
	Your position is tenuous.
	You're hanging by a threat.
	You can be abandoned.
	And again, I know it's kind of made as a joke, and obviously it wasn't that serious, but as kids, you don't usually want to take a lot of risk about that stuff.
	Exactly.
	Okay, so you focus on your mother's needs, and even though it's your children that are being taken away, It really hits you emotionally when you're thinking about your mom.
	I just think that's a very, very telling moment.
	I remember when I first read this, when Mike first sent it in, I was like, okay, spend a moment or two on that.
	Okay, so as you say, although I was resigned to the fact that I had to hand over my son to this terrible guy.
	Oh, sorry, and this is interesting because if you had known then what you know now, I imagine, Andrew, that you would have pushed back a lot against your wife's desire to Go to work, right?
	Yes, and I would have read more about the early childhood parenting, because I thought we were actually doing the right thing by socializing the kids in daycare sooner.
	So I really thought I was doing a good thing, just like you mentioned.
	A lot of people think that hitting their kids is a good thing.
	Right.
	Because, I mean, the speech basically to me is, okay, well, we'll find a way for you to have more of a community.
	But...
	We didn't get married to have affairs, and we didn't become parents for other people to raise our kids.
	But what's interesting is that I would imagine, I'm trying not to categorize you, but based on the dream, tell me if this makes sense, is that, well, it's what your wife wants, so your job is to provide it.
	Well, I would say, yeah, again, I thought we were doing, it was the right way to go.
	I mean, being brought up, it was kind of flying solo.
	You know, the parents were really hands-off and we kind of had to find our way ourselves.
	So I had read a couple of books on, you know, raising kids, but I didn't, none of them included daycare or wife working or any of that stuff.
	It was more like how to raise your kid to be a better man and things like that.
	So Would you say that in your relationship with your wife, though, that do you have this sort of feeling?
	A lot of men do, and you may be an exception to this, but do you have a feeling like, well, if that's what my wife wants, then it's kind of my job to figure out how to provide it to her?
	Yeah, it's kind of give and take, right?
	So it was more, I guess it was more working on the relationship between me and my wife as opposed to what's best with the kids.
	That's not really an answer to what I said.
	Sorry, can you repeat it?
	No problem.
	So, with your relationship with your wife, do you feel, as a lot of men do, but some men don't of course, do you feel like, oh, well, my wife really wants this, and therefore my job is not to question it, really, not to oppose it, not to criticize it, but if my wife really, really wants something, it's my job to Find out how to provide it to her.
	Yes.
	Like your wife really wanted to go back to work.
	She was, you know, stressed at being at home.
	And so your job was to facilitate that as...
	Because I think the dream is saying that you're motivated more by what women need than what you experience.
	Right, right.
	That was certainly the case in her going back to work and kids going to daycare, yes.
	Right.
	Even though I would imagine that your sons resisted that transition probably quite vocally.
	Yes, they did.
	Right.
	All right.
	So this is an important thing.
	It's not your wife's fault.
	It's not your fault.
	It's just, you know, it's like me being proud for my command of English.
	It's like, well, that's just what I grew up with, right?
	Right, right.
	And are raised to serve everyone but themselves.
	And naturally, like the most selfless people in the world, all they're called is selfish.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	If you ever want to be abused in this world, publicly display a virtue.
	It's true.
	It's true.
	Think of any group that has ever provided more to minorities than white males.
	And then think about who's called the most racist.
	Think about which culture has given the most to women and tried to forward the interests and rights of women the most.
	It is white, Christian, European culture by far.
	No, it's not even a close second.
	And which culture is called the most sexist?
	Which culture has the least rape?
	Which one is called the rape culture?
	If you ever want to be abused in this world, put out a public virtue and just wait for everyone to call you the exact opposite of what it is that you're doing.
	This is why people don't want to be good, because being good is putting a big giant mocker on your head saying, here's what I care about, here's where it hurts, and here's where The bullet can separate the bone.
	No good deed goes unpunished, right?
	No good deed goes unpunished.
	I think back to the 60s where they had the white flight.
	There's an expression in America where they say the blacks follow the Jews.
	So the blacks always moved into the areas where the Jewish people were living.
	And the Jewish charities gave a lot to help black people.
	And then when things got tough for the black people, they burned down all the temples and they were rolling the Torahs out in the middle of the streets and that.
	So...
	Thanks a lot for nothing.
	Oh, don't even get me started on Detroit.
	Bill Whittle actually just put out a video about Detroit that's just, it's heartbreaking.
	You know, he's got pictures of the library in Detroit from like the 1950s.
	It's beautiful.
	And then he had pictures of the library in Detroit before it was finally torn down.
	All of the copper wire had been pulled out, all the lead, like all the plumbing, all the fixtures, everything had been ripped out.
	But there was only one What was that?
	The books.
	No market for the books.
	Detroit was the wealthiest city in America in the 1950s.
	I went to the History Museum in Detroit, and it was interesting.
	Our tour guide was an African American guy, maybe 70, 75 years old.
	Very knowledgeable guy.
	Told us all sorts of interesting things about the history of Detroit.
	And then he talked about, you know, the black people who had left America and went over the border right there.
	It's right over the bridge to Canada.
	And he said, you know, we've had...
	We try to get...
	These groups going where, you know, the blacks in Detroit would go and partner up with the blacks who had moved to Canada and have these, you know, social gatherings.
	He said they wanted nothing to do with us.
	He said it was quite shocking that he would tell this to a group of white people, but he said, yes, the black people, it's like you talk about Mexicans leaving Mexico coming to the U.S. They got out of the U.S. They didn't want anything to do with black culture.
	They wanted to go to Canada, even though we can see there, you know, right over the border, they want nothing to do with us anymore.
	They're out of here.
	So that was quite a shock.
	Oh, I mean, this is the gruesome, repetitive spectacle.
	And, you know, when people understand race and IQ, it becomes much more comprehensible.
	But there's a thriving white community and then black people move in and crime goes up and disruptions goes up.
	And then in Detroit, of course, as there was in a bunch of other cities, there's a bunch of riots.
	And then the white people move out.
	And then the smart black people move out.
	And then who's left?
	Like, what is the average IQ of people left in Detroit now?
	70?
	75?
	Come on.
	And then what happens is the white people will move away and the blacks take over the city.
	And then what happens?
	Well, the city fails.
	And then the black people say, where are the white people at now?
	Let's go there.
	And now, like, there's all these rules in America.
	Now you have to start integrating minorities into white communities.
	It's, like, illegal to not.
	And it's like, I mean, it's so ridiculous, you know?
	It's like the white people have moved away.
	Now you don't have to deal with all that racism.
	Yeah, the library in downtown Detroit is in shambles, but they've got a new MGM Grand there, so if you want to go donate all your money to the casino, that's brand spanking new.
	But again, you just go right over the border to Windsor, Canada, and it's night and day.
	Yeah.
	No, and look, I mean...
	I strongly, strongly resist anybody who sort of says anything about black culture in America because, I mean, that's like saying white culture in Europe.
	I mean, so many different kinds, right?
	And usually when blacks succeed, the last place they want to live is in a black neighborhood.
	I mean, there's black flight as well.
	It's just basically higher IQ flight.
	And it's a brutal, brutal situation, and it will continue to get more brutal until people start accepting some basic facts.
	Anyway, okay, so let's move on to...
	So, you had resigned that you had to hand over your son to this terrible guy, but the sight of your mother has spurred me to ask him if he could at least tell me, right?
	So, you're now asking on behalf of your mother.
	In other words, your mother's emotional needs matter, and yours don't.
	At least not nearly as much.
	You're doing it for your mom, right?
	Right.
	What's the significance of New Jersey?
	I don't know.
	It's just ways away from where I live.
	So maybe it was the fact that my son's not going to be near me.
	It's going to be, you know, quite a few states away.
	So it would be a long journey to get there.
	Can I go out on a limb?
	Mm-hmm.
	It's crazy, right?
	Okay, let me go out on a limb.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	New Jersey...
	Jersey is a kind of what?
	Jersey is a kind of...
	Well, I think of Jersey in the UK, right?
	All right.
	It's a cow.
	Mm-hmm.
	It's a Jersey cow, as far as I understand it.
	I see.
	New Jersey is new livestock.
	New cow.
	This is your son.
	Right.
	And one starts with W, which is woman.
	Mm-hmm.
	And...
	That's a possibility.
	That's a reach.
	Just because I shoot something over a house doesn't mean I can't hit a target, but that's a possibility.
	He told me because he felt a bit bad about my mother not being able to ever see her grandson again.
	So here, this guy only cares about your mother's emotional needs.
	Right.
	So he's like me, even though he's taking your son away.
	And he's like, well, but I feel bad about your mom not being able to see her grandson.
	Like, even this bad guy is serving women!
	Right?
	Yes.
	It's like you often mention about World War I. Maybe if we didn't have to serve the women, then maybe the two ships wouldn't have been fighting.
	You've been following the US politics.
	Do you have any feelings about Chris Christie?
	Chris Christie?
	You said you had the dream in February, and Chris Christie endorsed Trump February 27th.
	I'm just wondering if you have any.
	And that's New Jersey, right?
	Right, he's from New Jersey.
	Yeah, I don't think too much about Chris Christie.
	He was kind of one of 15 or 16 or however many people that were there at the original debates from the Republican side.
	Okay, so you don't have any strong thoughts.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So maybe New Jersey could be new livestock, new cow, right?
	I've used the livestock metaphor I've used a lot, like my Biggest video, the story of your enslavement.
	I talk about tax livestock, and I've talked about that a lot.
	So, you've got a new son who's going to be used by bad people, and New Jersey, I don't know, just could be an interesting way of talking about the livestock.
	Okay.
	As the guy and I were walking out of the hospital, the policeman's standing guard at the exit.
	The policeman recognized the guy and said, Hey, aren't you from Woman'sville?
	Here's whatever it's going to be.
	Check down!
	And yes, and he's trying to kidnap my son.
	So that's interesting.
	So, yeah, this is interesting.
	And because you kind of have an alliance with this guy now, right?
	Oh, you know, he's being a little nice to you.
	He's going to tell you where they're going to put your son.
	And you're walking out together and so on, right?
	Right.
	So you kind of have an alliance, right?
	And then there's a policeman who's actually on your side, right?
	Right.
	Who's that?
	Did he have a slightly British accent?
	Well, he did not have a...
	I don't recall his accent.
	Was he chiseled, cut, ravishingly good-looking, slightly thinning on top?
	No, I'm kidding.
	Aren't you from this town in New Jersey?
	Now, when the policeman said, aren't you from...
	This town.
	Was he like, hey, aren't you from, or it's like, hey, aren't you from, like, how was his...
	It was, hey, I've seen you're on town.
	It was more, hey, I know you, how you doing, type thing.
	I think I know you.
	Yes, and he's trying to kidnap my son.
	This startled the policeman.
	I pushed the kidnapper towards the cop so he could arrest him, which he did.
	Right, so the policeman was, hey, how you doing?
	All of a sudden, whoa, this guy's doing something bad.
	So it kind of like flipped a switch in the policeman's face.
	And, you know, maybe there's another male ally you have out there.
	I'm going to put myself in the cop's shoes, which I don't often do, because they're statist and uncomfortable, but that's one possibility that someone is now on your side.
	Right, right.
	Is willing to listen to you.
	Mm-hmm.
	And, okay, so then you ran into the other hospital rooms and attacked the bad guys one-on-one.
	I punched one guy in the face, and he took out a large hook to stab me with it, but I was able to avoid the hook and then kill him.
	Right.
	Right.
	You mentioned the one thing with regards to the woman teacher in Mike Brown.
	Yes.
	Is there any other sort of fights that you've had with regards to your kids?
	I don't know.
	How long have you been listening to this show for?
	About two years.
	About two years.
	And what has it done to your relationships, out of curiosity?
	It's been helpful, you know, the honesty part.
	You know, I did take some philosophy courses back in college.
	I am roughly about your age.
	And I got really into libertarianism back in the day, but it really never got anywhere.
	So, you know, your stress really on practical philosophy, that's made a big difference.
	You know, just discussions with my kids as well as family members and friends.
	Yeah, it's certainly made a positive impact.
	On all of your relationships?
	It's been universally positive?
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	I think that's great.
	I'm just surprised.
	Well, it depends how you define positive.
	People who I'm able to weed out, that's also been spending a lot less time or no time with people I used to.
	I don't bother with them anymore.
	And how many of your relationships has that occurred with?
	It's three of them that were quote-unquote close before.
	And your mother?
	And my mother.
	How much time do we have on the show?
	Hey man, you're a donor.
	I can go till dawn.
	Well, my mother's still around.
	My father passed away a number of years ago, so my mother actually...
	This is a really positive thing, although it was quite, like you mentioned, you know, philosophy is, everyday philosophy, it's really hard once you realize, you know, you take the red pill, the blue pill.
	But my mother had, she's now, has Alzheimer's, so she can't handle herself anymore and the kids have to take care of her.
	But before she had...
	The kids, oh, you mean like you and your siblings?
	My siblings, right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'm sorry to hear that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So she had written a will and Had it all sorted out and designated two of my older siblings to take care of her.
	And long story short, they didn't.
	So this led to lots of fights and threats of police and lawyers, etc., etc.
	Oh, because of her property and people wanted it?
	Because they disagreed with each other as to the right course of action for her.
	The two people that she designated as her power of attorney.
	Oh, no, it's that, and obviously I don't want you to get into any really personal or legal details, but was it around how she should be taken care of as her ailment progressed?
	Exactly, yeah.
	Okay.
	So the net net is I had long discussions with both of my siblings, and they decided to They finally agreed.
	They didn't agree to disagree, they just disagreed.
	And I was able to come in and take over as the power of attorney and be able to finally right the ship and get her to a place where she could, you know, for Alzheimer's patients.
	Right.
	So that's, again, practical philosophy in that there was a long, you know, a lot of honesty.
	And one of the siblings, the relationship got a lot worse, but it was the right thing to do.
	And the other one, the other relationship got a lot better, so...
	Thanks to you.
	I really appreciate that.
	The two years, it's really paid off.
	And that's certainly one shining example.
	I'm thrilled.
	Yeah.
	You know, donate to a philosophy show and save a billion dollars on legal fees.
	That's not bad.
	Good.
	Well, I'm glad to hear that.
	So I'm trying to figure out the guy with the hook.
	I wonder if that could be a sibling.
	Or it could be anyone in society just trying to go after...
	Me or my children?
	Well, no, because the killing is pretty significant.
	Right, right.
	I mean, so to speak, you're sort of, not exactly, but you're taking the law under your own hands, right?
	Because you don't rely on the policeman, right?
	Right.
	The policeman's arresting the other guy.
	You're going to do it yourself, right?
	Right, right.
	So that's interesting, right?
	Because you're then taking a different approach.
	Because the first thing you do is you say, okay, I want to Get the cop, right?
	Now, why wouldn't you get the cop to come and help you with these other people?
	There's some reason why.
	Well, when I read it through a second, I don't have...
	Really an experience in interpreting dreams, but when I read, I would say this huge ship came at us, on our ship.
	It's kind of like the Fed or the IRS or problems that I can't solve.
	But when it came to one-on-one relationships, then I could actually do something.
	I was more of a position, you know, I can't do anything about, you know, in the short term about the Fed or the IRS, but I can in my one-on-one relationships.
	That's kind of how I interpreted it.
	Does that make sense?
	Um, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	You, of course, I can't for the life of me tell you what does or doesn't make sense to you.
	But what I will say is, I'm not quite sure, and I'll sort of tell you why, but I wanted to continue with the dream until I get to the big finish.
	I don't know the guy with the hook, and you kill him.
	You kill him.
	I've never killed anyone in a dream, so I don't know what that motivation is.
	Right.
	But that is obviously a kind of murderous rage, right?
	Yeah.
	So I would have to just basically ask, who have you felt the angriest at?
	Who have I felt the angriest at?
	Well, as I dig more into the philosophy, I get angry at my parents.
	Ah.
	Maybe it's a father.
	Maybe.
	Maybe you're in like a George Lucas movie where all the wasp dead have to die.
	Right, right.
	All right.
	But anyway, I don't know the answer to that, but that's just something to mull over, like, who are you the angriest at?
	Because that is a large hook to stab me with it.
	And it was like a boat hook, right?
	Yes, like a boat hook.
	Okay, all right.
	Well, so mull that one over.
	Yeah, it was definitely a weapon.
	I'm sorry?
	It was definitely a weapon.
	Yeah, it was definitely a weapon.
	But it wasn't like hook for hand, right?
	It wasn't like Captain Hook.
	No, I missed it before, yes.
	So I ran into the next room and fought the bad guy that was in there and was able to defeat him in there by free another son too.
	And how were you defeating these guys?
	Same method, just running into the room and just attacking them.
	So you were killing them?
	I believe so, yes.
	Otherwise, because these guys...
	I mean, you're basically like in a loop of a Jim Morrison song, right?
	Father, yes son, I want to kill you.
	So I was both mentally and physically exhausted from all that fighting.
	I then woke up, heart pounding, to free all of the sons.
	To free all of the sons.
	Have you been listening to any of my stuff or other people's comments about this European situation, this migrants in the...
	Oh, yes, yes.
	Germany and the craziness over there, yes, I've listened to a couple of those.
	And I have European colleagues as well.
	Do they talk about it at all?
	They're not as open.
	They don't like to really talk about that.
	I don't know.
	There's the power of this word racist.
	I mean, it literally is like people will, let's let 2,500 years of civilization die because of a two-syllable word.
	Anyway, okay.
	I don't want to get off on my own thing about this.
	Okay.
	So you are saving the sons.
	Right.
	You are saving the sons.
	Do you have relationships with other dads around?
	Yeah, my siblings.
	Kids and kids in the town, yes, for sure.
	And how is everything going with regards to that?
	And, you know, the stuff that you've learned and so on.
	Well, some of the, you know, some of the things are very disturbing, like kids playing football, young kids, you know, kids in the town getting concussions, you know, fifth graders, or, you know, kids 12, 11 years old.
	That's very disturbing.
	I mean, we live in a nice town, so we don't have the, you know, the abuse that kids my age, you know, in school or by their parents, you know, isn't as much of a corporal punishment as there was when I was there.
	But yeah, there's some of that when sports...
	And so you're spreading some good, I guess, values with the other dads, right?
	Right.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Then there really is only one last thing to talk about.
	Because what's tricky about dreams, Andrew, is not...
	In my opinion, it's not what's there.
	It's what's not there.
	And you've already mentioned this, right?
	Right.
	Which is, who's missing from the dream?
	My wife.
	Your wife is missing from the dream.
	Where is your wife with regards to your philosophical journey?
	What's her thoughts, perspective on it?
	Yeah, we've had a lot of good conversations, some painful, but certainly all revealing, all making progress.
	Again, I wish I had listened to your show 20 years ago instead of the libertarians that I spent so much time on that it wasn't really practical.
	But yeah, she's definitely open to discussing.
	But it's a long slog, for sure.
	Again, I think the hardest thing is that the kids are Now teenagers, it's like, okay, wow, how much could I make up for this lost time where I sort of didn't parent as well as I could have?
	Ignorance is no excuse, but I'm just trying to make up time, I guess.
	Right.
	Now, how are you going to work to prevent your sons from becoming slaves to women?
	To put it, you know, perhaps in an overdramatic, although not totally overdramatic, way.
	Right?
	Because your kids are going into puberty.
	Now, I will admit it's been a little while since puberty happened for me.
	Yeah.
	But I do remember having thoughts before puberty happened that didn't involve girls.
	And then what happens is puberty hits, and it's like, bam!
	Yeah.
	All women.
	All the time.
	All girls.
	Right?
	Your kids are going to be more case-selected than my childhood was.
	It won't be as bad or as good or whatever you want to call it.
	It won't be as intense for them.
	But they are certainly, I believe, they're going to be viewed as disposable utility bots by society as a whole and by women as a whole.
	Right?
	Right?
	So my question is...
	Society and civilization won't survive if men self-erase.
	No relationship can survive and flourish if one person abandons their preferences.
	Abandons their self-interest.
	If your wife had said to you, Andrew, I hate being with you, But I did make a vow, so I guess I'll stick around and be like, oh God, please don't do me any favors, right?
	Right, right.
	Right, you want the person to be with you for selfish, pleasurable reasons.
	And, you know, men made the world safe and then everyone forgot that the world was dangerous, which makes the world extra dangerous.
	And that's basically been the history of the post-second war period.
	Men made the world safe!
	Hey, look, we have nuclear weapons!
	And mutually assured destruction, so there won't be any more wars, really, at least not in Europe.
	And so, a generation later, well, people forget that the world is dangerous.
	And then you get relativism, subjectivism, cultural relativism.
	All cultures are the same.
	It's like, yeah, but that's because you've been surrounded by cultures that aren't toxic and hostile to your very existence.
	So, let's let all the North Africans in.
	Anyway, so...
	Well, I think the fact that he pushed back on his teacher regarding the Michael Brown lies, that made me very happy, and I think that's a very good first step.
	Not only that, but the fact that we discussed it and talked through these issues before the subject came up in school was certainly very positive.
	So more of the same, just more discussions and spend a lot of time as much as I can with the kids.
	What do you think is going to happen to them?
	What pushback is going to happen to them, do you think?
	Because, listen, look, I mean, I have underestimated this once or twice in my life, so I will be honest about what I sometimes get and what I sometimes don't get, but I have underestimated this.
	Society coalesces around particular principles, and a male disposability has, is one of the, society's always kind of had it, But in the past, male disposability was counterbalanced by respect for masculinity.
	Right.
	Right?
	So, yeah, okay, men pay a lot of taxes, and so only men voted.
	And men have to go to war, so men have more say in politics because they go to war, right?
	And please understand, I'm not a fan of voting, and this is just...
	In the past, you know, and this is a comment that somebody left on my video about the European crisis that just really, you know, there was, I've mentioned this before, but there was this woman who was saying, you know, men are going to step up and go and protect their women.
	They're going to step up and protect their women.
	And this guy was saying, okay, what special benefits do men get for taking on that risk in society?
	It's a great question.
	Now, that used to be the case that, yeah, okay, men got to go to war.
	Men do all the dirty jobs.
	You know, there's an old saying I think I got from Karen Strawn, which is that men invented labor-saving devices for women before they invented life-saving devices for men.
	In other words, the fridge and the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner were all invented before scrubbers that kept black lung dust particles out of male coal miners' bodies.
	And So in the past, there was a recognition that men have got to go and hunt, and there may be dangerous men around, and women are going to be disabled through childbearing, and so men get a respect in society because of the dangerous,
	dirty, ugly, vicious, nasty jobs that the men are willing to do, all the way from shoveling crap from the sidewalks to Going down to mines and all the dangerous work that men have always done.
	So there was some respect.
	And women got their respect as well as great bringers of life and homemakers and all that.
	And so there was sort of a mutual respect for these sort of separated spheres.
	And what's happened, of course, is that men now are being used as disposable...
	Look at the family courts and tax imbalances.
	So men are being used as disposable drones and they're not being paid for it with respect.
	So yeah, you're all going to have to go to war but at least when you come home I'll bring you a martini and your slippers.
	This is very oversimplified and not very nuanced but I think you get the general idea that male disposability Used to be paid for by respect for men.
	And now there's still all this male disposability.
	There's just no respect.
	And so society as it is currently constituted rests like an inverted pyramid on male disposability without the payment of respect.
	Right.
	And so if you're...
	Sons are gonna go out into the world, Andrew, and they are going to challenge male disposability.
	All the meteoric streaking fires from hell may well land on their head because it's like questioning slavery before there are machines, right?
	I'm working on this presentation on Aristotle, and one of the great mysteries is why in the ancient world there was no free market, there was no capitalism.
	Well, why were there no labor-saving devices, really?
	I mean, they knew about the steam engine, they knew about all this cool stuff.
	Well, it's because people who had money and political power had slaves, and when you've bought a whole bunch of slaves, you don't want to create labor-saving devices because that lowers the value of your slaves, right?
	Right.
	I mean, you don't buy a whole bunch of horses And then try and invent something that replaces horses, right?
	Makes no sense.
	Lower the value of what you've got.
	And so slavery could end when, for a variety of reasons that aren't really important to go into now, slavery could end when labor-saving devices could be invented and promulgated through the free market.
	And so...
	It's one thing to talk about ending slavery in the 19th century when the conditions were all ripe and it was actually advantageous to the ruling classes to end slavery at that time.
	Because you got more money out of free people plus machines or relatively free people plus machines than you did out of slaves.
	But talking about ending slavery in the ancient world, you'd have an exciting time.
	And so...
	The level of aggression that's in your dream I think is interesting relative to my son had a debate about Michael Brown.
	Right, right.
	What happens to...
	I'm going to give you this question.
	It's not just rhetorical.
	I'm going to answer it myself.
	What happens to current society if men no longer accept Being disposable without the payment of respect.
	Things will change, for sure.
	I think that's why you see a lot of support for Donald Trump.
	He doesn't apologize for being male or successful or white.
	I can see there's a huge base of people out there who, if you think 60 million people voted for Mitt Romney and they didn't get what they wanted, I mean, in the popular vote, you look the same with Al Gore, right?
	He won more of the popular vote.
	So there's always this huge percentage of the population out there in the U.S. who don't get what they want.
	It's a win-lose situation.
	So specifically for my boys, yeah, it's going to be a hard road ahead.
	But I think part of the anger is that I can't make it easier for them.
	I've just got to help them work through it.
	Well, let's just say that men, let's say taxes get cut significantly.
	Right?
	So, there's more money in the pockets of men and less money to hand out to others.
	What happens?
	Well, those people who were getting the goodies are now going to be up in arms that they don't get the goodies anymore and they're going to be angry.
	They're going to push back and maybe riot or some type of violence.
	Oh, they'll riot for sure.
	And the riots will be brutal.
	The riots will be brutal.
	I mean, why does the welfare state continue to exist?
	The reason why the welfare state continues, everybody knows that it doesn't work.
	Everybody knows that it's a disaster.
	But the reason the welfare state continues to exist is that nobody has stomach to put down the riots that will happen if it's interrupted or even reduced.
	I mean, they're just paying off a bunch of people who will riot if they don't, right?
	It's a shakedown.
	It has nothing to do with charity or helping business.
	That's all, right?
	It's all nonsense.
	Nothing to do with that.
	And if men go galt, which I think they are doing.
	I think they really, really are doing that.
	And if men decide to go Galt, and I, you know, we get a lot of messages from guys who are like, ah, you know, I'm just gonna make it enough to live on, but, you know, I'm gonna grow my own food as much as possible.
	I don't want to get married.
	I'm not into this anymore.
	We get a lot of messages from people like that.
	And...
	Nope, I think we hiccuped again.
	Okay, yeah, I can hear you.
	All right.
	So, yeah, we get a lot of messages from guys who are going Galt.
	They survey the landscape and they say, it's too dangerous.
	It's too dangerous to get married.
	The woman can just wake up one day and just decide to take half your stuff, destroy your life, charge you with God knows what.
	And I might never see my kids again.
	Right?
	I mean, it's too risky.
	It's too risky.
	And why, you know, I remember having a friend when I was younger.
	He got a raise, and he made less money.
	Ah, got in a higher tax bracket.
	Yeah.
	Now, they've worked to fix that to some degree now, but they're saying, why?
	Why?
	What's in it for me?
	And if men go galt, if they check out, society cannot sustain itself society cannot sustain itself in its current God-forsaken incarnation.
	You know, like there's a whole bunch of leftists who are threatening protests all this spring.
	Thousands of them are going to go out and disrupt all of the, I assume, Donald Trump rallies.
	I'm sure that's it.
	And they're talking about, you know, we don't want...
	There's too much money in politics.
	It's like, okay, then shouldn't you be a fan of Donald Trump who's not taking money from anyone?
	No!
	And they're going to go out and they're going to protest and they're planning it and they're organizing it.
	It's going to be the summer of protests.
	It's like, I'm so happy that you all aren't finding that this plan interferes with your gainful employment.
	It's like the Occupy Wall Street side.
	I know how to scatter these people job applications and library cards.
	It's like holy water.
	Jesus.
	Because the people who work for a living don't really have the time to do all this stuff.
	This is why the dependent classes it's 100% of their Focus, and it's like maybe 5 or 6% of people with a jobs focus, right?
	Right.
	This is why the government, 6 million, reason 6 million and 1, why the government can't work in the long run.
	But if you, like, because you could be the epicenter of something really powerful here.
	And, you know, I mean, I say this to every single one of my listeners, and I don't know how many listen, but you, like, your sons...
	Your son, by pushing back on this teacher's propaganda, people will remember that.
	Yes, they will.
	And once one person pushes back, then other people will stand up and do the same.
	Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two make four.
	If that is granted, all else follows.
	Right?
	It does not take much to wake up the world.
	All you need to see is one person pushing back.
	And seeing that the teacher was very self-confidently putting forward lies and that a child pushed back and got the teacher to back down speaks volumes.
	That has such a ripple effect on anybody with half a brain in that class that they're going to start Looking things up.
	Ferguson lies.
	They're going to start researching.
	They're going to start researching all this stuff.
	Questioning other things that teachers have told them or people in society have told them.
	That's the goal, to get them to be skeptics.
	And what's going to happen to them?
	As a result, people do not Everybody forgets the blowback, right?
	Right.
	I mean, and what they're doing is heroic and brave and courageous, and I salute them and I salute you.
	But the more integrity they have, the more targeted they're gonna be.
	And I wonder if part of this dream Is I don't know that you have helped your sons.
	And I don't know how to do this.
	Your kids are older than mine.
	And so I don't know how to do this.
	And if there are other people out there who've got experience in this, call in and let us know.
	But I don't know if your kids are prepared.
	I don't know if you want them to go to college.
	I don't know if they're interested in the arts or if they'd go pure STEM or whatever, but if they go into the arts, they're going to have some vicious, vicious battles.
	Yeah, they're not into the arts.
	They're more into the math and science.
	Well, that's helpful for sure.
	That's helpful for sure.
	But do they know that when you push back against a very profitable narrative for very ugly people that there's a price?
	Well, they were much into the Harry Potter and those type films a few years ago, and now we're starting to watch more adult-themed, like The Name of the Father, about the Guilford Four in England, and more real-life stuff like that.
	So I'm beginning to expose them to more adult-like themes where they understand that society's going to push back.
	I don't think they really understand yet that it's going to happen to them, but we'll get there.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And I don't have a very strong sense, Andrew, of the degree to which it may have negatively affected you.
	I'm trying to map that, but I feel like we go into these fog bags when I ask you about it.
	So what specifically is the question?
	That's a good question.
	Let me think.
	Let me think about a good way to put it.
	Do you think, because they're starting a lot earlier than you, you got your life well underway before taking the red pill, right?
	Right.
	Now, they're red-pilling not just themselves, but others in their early teens.
	Right.
	Right?
	Do you think that you are equipped or consciously aware of the fact that not only Are they pushing back in a more politically correct environment than you and I grew up in?
	Again, I assume you grew up somewhere in the States, but when I was growing up, the political correctness stuff was not around.
	Right.
	It was just starting up when I was in university.
	Same here.
	Sorry?
	Same here, when I was in university.
	Right, so the Marxist-inspired social justice warriors have slid into their seats of power like Jabba the Hutt in a giant toilet and they're squatting there and they hold the cards now in higher education.
	Right.
	The moment that the higher education started taking a lot of money from the state, and that's directly through loans and grants and all that, but also indirectly by the government paying for a lot of people to go to college.
	It means that you can't have libertarians in college that much anymore because the colleges have just become...
	They've become like baby birds waiting for the state to bring its big giant worm of taxpayer money and stuff it down their gullets, right?
	They've expanded, they've paid themselves.
	They're so far away from the market now that the idea that you'd have a market-driven faculty is maybe outside of a few places, economics departments here and there.
	So I guess the answer to your question...
	So what I'm saying, sorry, they're red-pilled way earlier than you are and they're in a much more hostile environment than we were.
	Right.
	So am I equipped to help them deal with that?
	I would say not yet, but I'm working on it.
	I think it's going to take some practice.
	I mean, I don't see any other way.
	Well, no, no.
	I'm not saying there is another way.
	I just think that you might want to mull over what your life would have been like if you got red-pilled at the age of your kids.
	I see.
	Okay.
	Right.
	I mean, I didn't get red-pilled really.
	I mean, I got objectivist in my teens.
	But you can kind of...
	Slither through as an objectivist, you know, the anarchist and the, you know, knowing some facts about race and IQ. I mean, like, oh my God, men's rights and peaceful parenting and the voluntary family.
	I mean, these weren't things that I had much thought or paid much attention to or really even crossed my mind when I was younger.
	And if I were sort of to go back in time and be starting...
	In my sort of early to mid-teens with the facts that I have now, I can't imagine.
	That would have been a big mind bend.
	I didn't have any of that either.
	Right.
	Like I mentioned, libertarianism, I got into that in university, but before that it was not a whole lot of PC up there.
	Yeah, and libertarianism is, at least in the States, is relatively respected insofar as you're not just plain evil.
	For even thinking about it.
	At least when I was a kid.
	Like I could be an objectivist and people would have big arguments against me and I'd get the, why don't you care about the poor?
	And you know, stuff like that.
	But it wasn't this rancid, bottomless, leftist hatred that is out there now.
	That is, oh my god.
	Like I understand, I can't imagine.
	When I was going to college, like I cannot imagine any group forcing the resignation of the chancellor.
	Or the dean.
	I can't imagine riots.
	I can't imagine violent protests.
	I can't even imagine sit-ins.
	I mean, maybe, you know, the 80s and 90s were, I guess they were a particularly calm period in academia for I don't even know what reasons, but I can't imagine the volatility of the environment now.
	Is quite something.
	And again, if they're into the sciences and so on, that'll be better.
	Noam Chomsky talked about how in the sciences at least there's some facts, not just all opinions, which does not speak much to the arts.
	But in terms of sexual market value, what do you think it's going to do?
	I know it's a weird thing to think about with your kids, but you've got sons entering into their Teenage years.
	What's it going to be like if they get red pills on male-female relations, male disposability, and so on?
	What's it going to be like for their sexual market value?
	Well, it's going to certainly be interesting.
	If they go to college, the percentage of women in college is 55%, 60%, depending on the college.
	So it's the opposite of when I was at school.
	It was 60% or more males.
	Yeah, it's still the same number of smart men and women, though.
	More of the others.
	Well, it's not only that.
	There's...
	People flaming you out on Facebook or Twitter or all this stuff.
	I didn't have any of that.
	There's this instant, you know, you make one mistake and everyone knows and you can't erase it.
	It's on the internet forever.
	It's a tougher environment.
	They've got to tread carefully.
	Yeah, it's funny how the internet has both brought our capacity for free speech and completely strangled our capacity for free speech at the same time.
	I mean, it's a real double-edged sword when it comes to human self-expression.
	Yeah.
	I think the people are underestimating how big a fight is coming.
	And I think part of the dream is I'm so angry that I'm not going to be able to have a society that's better for my kids when I had it.
	I think it's going to be worse.
	You like to see progression and leave the world in a little better place.
	Oh, no, it's worse.
	It's going in the wrong direction, so that's also...
	Yeah, I mean, the technology has made things better in a lot of ways, but as far as the debt goes, and, I mean, it's terrible.
	And the other thing, too, is that, you know, one of the reasons, right, that...
	Big topic, I'll just try and touch on it briefly, but, I mean, I read a lot about Ayn Rand's...
	She wrote a lot of articles about the student unrest and the riots and all that in the 60s.
	And, you know, she was pretty old-school law-and-order kind of person, and she was...
	And Ronald Reagan was in charge.
	He was governor of California when a lot of these riots were going on.
	He just called in the National Guard and put the riots down.
	That's what you have to do.
	If there's a riot, you call in the National Guard, you put the riot down.
	And that's what stops it.
	There's no other way to stop it.
	But what happened was America in the 60s was fighting communism, and communism kept talking about how racist America was because that's what communists and socialists do, is they race bait to destroy the free market.
	And America is so painfully sensitive about its international reputation that the idea, like let's say that there are a bunch of minorities who are rioting, and they put the riots down, which...
	If you're simply interested in the calculus of saving lives, then you put the riots down.
	Again, I'm not talking about the morality of the situation.
	I'm simply talking about the practicality of the situation.
	That you go in hard and you shut the riots down right away, using whatever force necessary, and that way you save entire neighborhoods, you save entire lives, you save hundreds if not thousands of lives, and you save entire cities.
	I mean, if the riots in Detroit had been put down right away, Right away, in the 1960s, Detroit would not be a decaying crap heap populated by herds of dangerous wild dogs at the moment.
	Right?
	The sort of slow decay is something that people seem willing to accept.
	If they call in the National Guard and they put down the riot and maybe a couple of people get killed, Well, how many people have suffered and died as a result of the descent into godforsaken lawlessness and criminality that has happened to a lot of American inner cities after the taxpaying population left?
	Like, they have, for every life that they saved by not putting the riots down, they have spent a thousand more.
	As a result of that indecision.
	And again, I'm not talking about the ethics in terms of abstract non-aggression principle and freezes.
	I'm simply talking about the practical calculus of actually saving people's lives.
	Of actually helping people.
	If you don't put the riots down, the city dies.
	The city dies.
	Because the taxpayers all leave.
	And when the city dies, many more people suffer and die than ever could have suffered or died as a result of putting down the riots.
	And when you put down the riots, at least you're acting against people who are instigating the riots.
	Right?
	So it's the people at least who have some agency in the riots.
	You're acting against them.
	But when the city dies...
	I mean, four-year-olds get killed in drive-by shootings.
	They're not responsible.
	The people who are actually starting the riots, well, at least they have some agency in the matter.
	And so, the longer this is deferred, the worse it's going to be, and it's been deferred a long time.
	And Reagan, you know, basically was saying to the people who did not put down the riots, and the riots escalated, they didn't put down the riots, the riots escalated, And he said, well, you should have grabbed them by the scruff of their neck and thrown them off campus the moment they rioted.
	You march them off campus, you revoke their student membership, nope.
	We're not doing violence, we're not doing rock throwing, and this is not how a university, this is not how a civilization resolves its disputes.
	And he said, you should have just grabbed them by the scruff of their neck and thrown them off campus right away.
	He didn't talk about shooting people, right?
	But the longer this lawlessness continues, The worse it's going to be.
	And then, of course, America is terrified, you know, that around the world there'll be pictures of National Guard and shooting at people or trying to put down riots and, oh, it's going to be really bad PR and then you'll get whiny, nasally Neil Young whining about it forever and ever.
	And, again, I'm simply talking about the practical reality that when people start using violence In a free society, I'll tell you this, if people start throwing rocks at other people, they start throwing garbage cans through plate glass windows, I'm telling you, a free society would deal with that pretty damn quickly.
	And they would rather have Detroit die than put down a riot.
	That is so insane on so many levels.
	And the death of Detroit, and there are of course lots of other cities.
	Ferguson used to be a nice town.
	This is when massive amounts of resources have been pumped in in the forms of welfare and government employment and subsidies and all of that and Obamacare and so on.
	When that all runs out, well, the amount of suffering and death that will occur will be beyond imagination.
	If it's not treated decisively, it literally will become a civil war.
	And we don't want that.
	No, we don't.
	So, I don't know.
	Your dream is, I think, saying that it's not going to be as peaceful as you might want it to be.
	That's for damn sure.
	Now, I will say that your sons will be protected.
	Your sons will be protected because as Case-selected, rational red-pilled people, they will be shunned by the most dangerous elements in society, and women as well, right?
	And knowing the dangers of female sexuality plus the current witch hunt for testicles going on, in particular, on campuses, that is going to be very helpful for them to know, I think.
	And...
	So they are protected, but at the same time...
	Okay, last sort of little thing I'll mention, which is this.
	The choice to be a parasite, and, you know, I'm not just talking about the poor, the rich military-industrial complex and all that, subsidies and all that.
	I mean, the rich do it too, but...
	If you choose to be a parasite and you die before your host does, you've made a great decision.
	Because you've had a relatively easy life.
	You've got a lot of resources without having to work hard for them.
	And, you know, particularly for lower IQ people, it's a pretty sweet gig.
	Now, if, on the other hand, you decide to be a parasite, or maybe you're raised that way or whatever, right?
	But There's enough information out there on the internet that people know what the alternatives are now.
	But let's say you are a parasite and you don't outlive your host.
	Well, that is a very, very bad situation to be in.
	If you bet your house double or nothing, you either end up with two houses or no house at all.
	The gamble that the dependent classes make on the continuation of government cheddar is a very risky one.
	And if they, you know, if they roll double sixes and, you know, they get, you know, the government prints more money and they threaten riots and the whatever right, and, well, then, and they continue to get it and then they die of old age, it's like, yeah, good call.
	From a sort of amoral practical standpoint.
	On the other hand, if, you know, they're sort of 40 or 50 years old and they don't really have any job skills or job experience and then the government runs out of money, it's like, oh dear.
	Oh, you know, you did not make a good decision there, my friend.
	And, um, I think we're close to that.
	I really do.
	I think we're close.
	And, um, I think certainly if Hillary gets in, I think Bernie Sanders is a field of burnout.
	I think he's done.
	But if you get a real leftist coming in, they're going to run out of money.
	Now, the argument could be made that you need leftists to put down riots.
	And they will.
	But they'll do it much more brutally than the people on the right will do.
	But I really do think that the government is close to running out of money.
	Thank you.
	Can't go on forever.
	I mean, I appreciate all the time you spend here, Steph, and going through the stream with me.
	I think, you know, the NetNet and the Libyan is, you know, again, thanks very much for all of your...
	You know, putting together the show.
	I mean, 10 years in the making, as you mentioned, this is a huge impact and I appreciate it.
	And, you know, I've got to carry this on to my sons and the listeners out there as well to their children because the next generation we've got to, I mean, we're in that age now where we've got another 10, 15 years where we can make our impact and then it's on to them.
	All right.
	Well, thanks, man.
	A great dream.
	Appreciate it.
	And I look forward to chatting again.
	Thank you very much.
	Appreciate it.
	All right.
	Take care.
	Okay.
	Alright, well up next is Blake.
	He wrote in and asked, Is the existence of government moral?
	If so, is it necessary?
	That's from Blake.
	Hey Blake, how you doing?
	Hey Stefan.
	It's good to finally talk to you.
	Nice to chat with you too.
	Okay, awesome.
	Yeah, I've been watching your show for a while.
	I'm a big fan.
	So, yeah, that's my question there.
	Well, I mean, I could sort of give you an answer, but my big, I guess, better thing to do is to give you a methodology to answer these and other questions in the same vein, if that makes sense.
	Oh, yes.
	So, let's break apart the sort of moral versus necessary question at the beginning and just ask around morality.
	So, if we have a definition of morality, then we don't have to worry about government in particular, if that makes sense.
	Okay.
	So, what is a moral principle that you would accept as, you know, decent and universally acceptable?
	Well, you're familiar with the objectivist moral principles.
	I pretty much go by the book on those.
	Right.
	And I have a few challenges with the...
	Objectivist moral principles.
	Objectivism has a lot to do with that which is good for sort of man's survival or man's life and that kind of stuff.
	And, you know, that which serves man, that which is good for man is kind of the objectivist approach.
	I have some issues with it because for less competent men, they can gain many more resources by violating moral principles than...
	Not violating them, at least in the short run.
	And I've got podcasts out there about that, so I don't really want to get into a big discussion of that.
	But certainly, Ayn Rand's sort of fundamental dictum, I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never ask, and I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for my sake, is the non-aggression principle.
	And, you know, I think that's as sort of near as we need to get as far as that goes with this principle.
	So the non-aggression principle, do not initiate the use of force against others, I think is a fairly decent place to start when it comes to ethics.
	And most people would agree with that in an abstract way, would you?
	Yeah, yeah, definitely the initiation of physical force is the source of all vice.
	All right.
	So then we have to turn to the question of government.
	So what is government?
	Well, I suppose that all of our current examples of government are governments that exist solely through involuntary taxation.
	So I'd say there's no question of whether or not all of the current forms and past forms of government that have existed are Unquestionably immoral.
	Okay, okay.
	I wonder if a government could exist based on voluntary taxation.
	Okay, so then we have the challenge of defining what taxation is.
	And we don't want to make the definitions include their opposites, if that makes sense.
	So we don't want to say, well, there's such a thing as voluntary rape or charitable theft or whatever it is.
	Then it just becomes we're bending the concepts beyond all value.
	Like if a concept includes its opposite...
	You know, like if mammals are both warm-blooded and cold-blooded, then I don't really know what a mammal is at that point.
	So we can't have a concept include its opposite.
	And so when you say voluntary taxation, since taxation is defined as the legal initiation of the use of force on behalf of a particular collective of individuals, like called the state, since taxation is Involuntary.
	If we say voluntary taxation, we're saying voluntary, involuntary.
	And that's a contradiction in terms, so we have to find a different word for it.
	Okay, so government as a paid servant of the people, voluntarily paid, not through taxation, but through, like you'd pay for any private business, I suppose, any private service, I mean.
	Right.
	Okay, and that's a great step forward.
	So we're looking at government providing services that people will pay for in a voluntary free market situation, right?
	Yes, but the whole free market aspect of it, because my understanding is government being the sole...
	The existence of the government being that we grant it the sole discretionary use of force, like a monopoly on force, in order to protect others against the initiation of force, so that it seems to me like a privatized government could lead to some problems there.
	Well, hang on.
	No, no.
	You see, now we're jumping out of ethics into consequences, and we can't do that yet.
	Yeah, okay, okay.
	So then the question becomes, if the government is providing a service that you can choose to partake of or not, you can choose to pay for or not, then the next question is...
	Is another group of individuals allowed to provide a competing service, the same service?
	In other words, let's say it's roads, right?
	So the government is just one potential road provider amongst any other group of people who might provide roads, right?
	And so if the government cannot prevent you from...
	Paying other people to provide whatever service the government is providing for, then the government becomes indistinguishable from any other group of people who are providing a service in a voluntary way, right?
	So it's sort of like saying, okay, so a Soviet restaurant, you have to pay to go.
	Whether you eat there or not, they get paid either way, whether you like the meal or not, and no other competition along those city streets is allowed for that sort of Soviet restaurant or whatever.
	You say, okay, well, can we have a Soviet restaurant where you don't have to eat there, you don't pay if you don't eat there, you can get your money back if you don't like the meal, and they can't prevent any other competition?
	Well, then doesn't it just become another free market entity, like a corporation, whatever that would look like in a free market, not like the sort of statist incarnation?
	But wouldn't it just be then another group of individuals who are providing a service that you can or cannot participate in as you see fit?
	I suppose it would depend on the type of services.
	All services, like road building or whether you're selling candy or mowing a lawn or whatever, You're providing a value to those people.
	I suppose even alarm companies would be protecting the values of people, but providing a service to protect those values that anybody can offer.
	There's no real conflict of rational interest if you go to somebody else for that.
	But if the government is only used for its Like, if the only purposes of government that could be morally justified are, say, the military, the police, and the legal system, then I'd say there'd be a conflict of rational interest.
	No, no, hang on, hang on.
	Again, now you've got the consequences, right?
	So, look, either we're going to go on principles or we're going to go on consequences, right?
	In other words, we have an argument from abstract moral ideals, or we have a sort of what we think would be better for people as a whole.
	Pragmatic.
	In other words, there's pragmatism or idealism, right?
	Yes.
	Now, if we are going to go – yeah, so if we're going to go down the route and we're going to say the initiation of force is immoral, well, clearly, if the government is offering a service and somebody else wants to come and offer a different service or the same service but in a different way, that is clearly not the initiation of force.
	In other words, if there are five people who can wire your house up with internet, then clearly those five people all offering you different services and pricing tiers and speeds or options or whatever, whether it's wired or wireless or whatever, those companies are not initiating the use of force against each other, right?
	By offering you these various things, right?
	Right.
	Okay, so if the government is offering a service and other people wish to offer the same service or a variation on the service or a different way of dealing with the issue or the problem, then that group that is offering a complementary or competing service to the government is not initiating force against you, right?
	No.
	Or is not initiating force against the government.
	Any more than if I open up a restaurant next to yours, I'm not initiating force against you, right?
	Right.
	Now, if the government prevents other people from offering services, then the government is, by definition, is violating the non-aggression principle.
	In the same way that if you come to me and say, if you open up a restaurant right next to mine, Steph, I'm going to burn down your house, well, then you are initiating force against me and you are violating a sort of foundational or fundamental moral principle, right?
	I suppose so, yes.
	Well, tell me, see, we can't build the house on sand, right?
	I mean, so if that's not correct, you've got to tell me how, because I don't want to keep moving forward if this is like a coin toss for you.
	Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around the nature of the business, because...
	But that, again, the principle, according to principles, it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter if it's a restaurant or a sporting goods store or a place that sells guns or a daycare or a place that sells guns and is a daycare.
	It's a mixed-up business model.
	It doesn't matter what the content is.
	That's the whole point of idealism.
	It's like saying, okay, gravity is a universal concept.
	And you say, okay, well, what is the shape of the thing that has mass?
	It's like, well, no, that...
	There's not like a triangle and a square are going to be different from that standpoint, right?
	And it's like saying, well, here's the equation for a circle or whatever.
	It's like, well, how big is the circle?
	It doesn't matter, right?
	That's the whole point of a principle.
	The concept of length, it doesn't matter how long something is, right?
	Because length goes from like...
	An atom, I guess, to infinity.
	And so, it doesn't matter what the service is that's being provided.
	The non-aggression principle, as a universal principle, cannot differentiate between opening a restaurant or providing military security.
	Now, we can abandon that if you want, and we can go to sort of practical consequences, but we have to make that.
	We don't want to mix the two together.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Now, Ayn Rand's argument was that, sure, the government violates the non-aggression principle, but it's impractical for there to be two police forces.
	Because she would say, okay, well, what happens if someone from neighborhood A goes and steals something from neighborhood B, and then neighborhood A's police force doesn't want to arrest them?
	You have to have sort of one universal police force in order for it to...
	To work.
	And so she would then say, okay, I'm willing to violate the non-aggression principle because of practical consequences.
	And people say, like, the free rider problem and so on.
	Like, let's say that we need national defense or some geographical defense.
	I decide to pay for it and you don't pay for it.
	Then you'll get this free rider problem.
	Or what if we have competing ones and they're tripping over each other or whatever?
	And so there are these sort of consequence-based arguments by which people attempt to bypass or wriggle out of universal principles like the non-aggression principle.
	But I would understand the establishment of a state as such based on those objective laws.
	I'm sorry, which objective laws?
	Like the objective approach to the non-aggression principle that, you know, a state that protects the rights of individuals and so on and so forth.
	Not necessarily as...
	Having a monopoly on force might not necessarily mean that it uses force to prevent others from taking that, from offering the same service, so much as in people who form that state explicitly state that within this geographical area that the use of force shall be monopolized by this figure
	according to this constitution and so forth.
	I don't know if that would necessarily violate the non-aggression principle Oh, no, it does.
	Because if the state is funded by taxation, that's a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	And if the state prevents competition, that's a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	Now, if it does neither of those things, in other words, if you have to voluntarily pay it and it cannot prevent competition, Then it is an entity just like every other business entity in the environment and should not be called a state anymore.
	The state, by its definition, is a monopoly on the legal capacity to initiate the use of force in a given geographical region.
	Yeah, that's how I mean it.
	So I would think that it could exist without taxation, but because the people within that geographical location have, like it's a I know there's no collective mind so much as a collective effort, say.
	Sort of like shares in a company, almost.
	That every person within the state kind of owns their own right to be governed by the state.
	Okay, well, let me ask you this.
	So in any state situation, let's just talk about national defense, which, you know, a lot of people have a lot of trouble with, to put it mildly, right?
	So let's say that there's a country, Libertopia, and there's 10 million people in that country.
	Okay.
	And...
	Half of the people pay taxes, right?
	Because, you know, there's kids, there's old people, there's stay-at-home moms, stay-at-home dads, whatever, right?
	So let's say half of people pay taxes, right?
	So you have 5 million people paying taxes for this particular issue.
	Good, right?
	Now, clearly, if people don't want to pay taxes, it's going to be pretty hard for the state to collect it.
	So you have half the population who supports the existence of a monopoly of national defense, right?
	The Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, whatever, right?
	So we're okay.
	That's sort of the scenario so far, right?
	Yeah.
	That's how it works in a government society, right?
	The majority, at least in a democracy, the majority of people have to want the government to do national defense and at least be somewhat willing to pay for it.
	Yes.
	Well, not necessarily the majority.
	I would argue that the richer a person is, the more it is in their self-interest to have an existing legal structure to defend their goods because they have more to lose.
	So, we have a situation where a lot of people are willing and able to pay for a particular...
	And we also have to say that it's the most practical way of doing it.
	Because if a free market in national defense is the most practical, then we have an alignment between the moral and the practical.
	In other words, if we say, well, we can't have a government because it violates the non-aggression principle, And so we can't have a monopoly on national defense because it violates the non-aggression principle.
	And it also turns out that that's the most efficient and productive way to provide national defense.
	Then we don't have a contradiction between our ideals and the practical consequences of those ideals.
	Would we agree with that?
	You sort of lost me there when you said...
	Well, okay.
	So let me try it again.
	So let's say...
	That a completely free market provides national defense.
	There's competing agencies, and, you know, I've gone through a whole bunch of this stuff in the book, Practical Anarchy, which people can get at freedomainradio.com slash free.
	But there's no government, so we don't have a violation of the non-aggression principle, and the...
	National defense that is produced by the free market is fantastic, is great.
	Then we have conformity to principle.
	We're not creating an agency that can violate the non-aggression principle through taxation or preventing competition.
	So we are consistent in our principles and we have a good and positive outcome.
	It's in conformity with the non-aggression principle and what it produces is great as well.
	Then there's no reason to oppose it, right?
	It's the best national defense you could get, and it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.
	Then there'd be no reason to oppose it, right?
	Yeah, given those circumstances, no, I can't see why not.
	Okay.
	Now, I will tell you this, my friend.
	I do not know the best way to provide national defense.
	I do not know the best way to provide geographical defense.
	You don't either.
	Neither of us do.
	And even if someone does in the moment, who knows how that's going to change in 6 months or 12 months or 24 months.
	Some new weapon gets developed, some new possibility, some new shield, whatever, right?
	Yeah.
	So no individual or group of individuals knows beyond a shadow of a doubt how to provide the best national defense.
	And so the problem is that even if we bypass the non-aggression principle, we run into the people are never that smart principle.
	In other words, if you give the military, there's an old saying about the military that they're always fighting the last war.
	They don't take into account new circumstances, new situations, which is why America hasn't won an air war since the Second World War, but they have a giant air force.
	When was the last time the U.S. Navy engaged in a giant sea battle a la the Battle of Jutland and so on?
	They're always fighting the last war.
	Now the big challenge is terrorism and insurgents and people who don't put on uniforms and obey a command structure and so on, and America regularly loses to these I mean, there's no way that you can say that America won the war in Iraq in that they lost all their territory and now even crazier people are in and so on.
	And so I don't believe that anybody, any individual should have the right or the power to take money by force from other people to provide national defense because that's saying one individual outside of the free market is the best person to produce or one group of individuals is the very best person to produce We're good to
	go.
	Lawn mowing, okay, fine.
	Snow shoveling or whatever.
	But things like roads and national defense and courts and prisons and so on, we say, well, these things are really complicated.
	So we better put a tiny, violent minority in control of them rather than having these really complicated and challenging problems exposed to the free market.
	But I would argue that the less able we are to think of how it should work, the more it needs to be in the free market.
	Because if we can't figure out how it could work, like, you know, if we say, well, all lawn mowing should be run by the state.
	Well, we could kind of figure out how that could work.
	But for some reason we say, well, we can figure out how the state might be able to do it.
	So let's put it in the free market.
	But when people say, well, what about educating and educating the poor?
	And what about roads?
	What about national defense and the courts and police?
	It's like nobody knows the answer.
	And so suddenly then people say, well, let's just have the state do it.
	And it's like, to me, because we don't know the answer, it means it's a really, really tough and complicated problem.
	And because it is a really, really tough and complicated problem, we need the very smartest people with the very greatest incentives.
	In the most fluid and fluent situation to be working on this problem.
	The less we are able to conceive of how a free market could provide services, the more the free market should provide those services because we're not alone in not knowing how that should work.
	How should geographical defense work?
	How should the law courts work?
	How should the police work?
	How should...
	Roads work?
	I don't know.
	And I'm a smart guy.
	You're a smart guy.
	You don't know.
	Nobody knows.
	That's exactly why these really complicated problems should be put to the free market, should be left to the free market.
	And it is weird because it is humbling and it is a fundamental hallmark of humility to say, I don't know the answer and I don't believe anybody else knows the answer.
	And so what we need is the free market to continually work at solving the problem, reducing costs, making things more efficient, working to prevent the problem rather than cure the symptoms or whatever it is.
	All the things that the free market does really well.
	Like if you go in 1950 and you say to someone, how should computers work and interact in 50 years?
	Anybody who said they knew would be lying to you.
	And so we kind of need the free market to handle all of what you go to somebody in 1980 and say, what kind of phones do people want in 50 years or 40 years?
	Nobody's going to know.
	This is why we need things in the free market.
	So the more complicated the problem, our temptation is to, say, invent the government as a pseudo-solution.
	And it's exactly the same as what people do when it comes to physics, biology, and God.
	So...
	I don't know how the universe was created, therefore God did.
	Where did the universe come from?
	Well, at the moment, nobody knows.
	But inventing a God, what it does is it stops people from asking the questions.
	It's the end of knowledge, not the beginning of wisdom.
	And how did abiogenesis, how did life originate?
	And I think that there's been some lab experiments.
	I don't know if anybody knows for sure.
	They've got some primordial soup plus electricity plus time, and they've got some stuff up and running, but nobody knows exactly for sure, I don't think, at the moment.
	But we don't then turn around and say, well, God did it, because there's not an answer.
	And so if we've got a big complicated question, The idea that we say, well, let's just have the government do it, that's exactly the same as saying, well, God did it for some big problem in physics or biology or even ethics.
	Why should we be good?
	What is goodness?
	I don't know, let's just follow these 10 stone tablets the bearded guy has.
	And, oh, by the way, you'll go to hell if you don't.
	I mean, those aren't answers.
	And when we say, well, I don't know how roads could work or national defense, we say, well, let's just hand it over to the government.
	I mean, that's the exact opposite.
	The more incomprehensible the solution is, the more you need the smartest people with the greatest incentives working in real time, involuntary, in a voluntary manner, in a voluntary interaction.
	And so it is one of these weird things where we have to say, I don't know the answer, you don't know the answer, nobody knows the answer, and even if somebody knows the answer right now, they're not going to know the answer six months from now.
	And so we need people competing, we need smart people with lots of incentives continually working to solve this problem of whatever it is, the organization that occurs now.
	And that's the humility that we need.
	And there is this great temptation to reach for this big giant bag called the state and put the problems that individuals can't solve into that bag.
	Oh, I don't know how it should be provided, but roads are complicated.
	Let's have the state do it.
	It's like, that's not...
	That's not an answer.
	It doesn't solve any problem whatsoever.
	And it breaks principle because now you've got a giant entity that will violate the non-aggression principle.
	And even if the military should be handled by the state, it's like, okay, well, then the state will start handing out military contracts to its favored people who are then going to donate for politicians, who are then going to give you going to get a military industrial complex.
	Oh, the state should handle prisons.
	Okay, then the state now has an incentive to put more and more people in prison because that way they make more.
	They can justify raising taxes or the government should run.
	Like the inevitability of corruption that always grows in the shadow of coercion.
	Corruption always grows in the shadow of monopoly and coercion.
	There's no way to solve any of those issues.
	The only thing that keeps people from getting too corrupt is voluntarism, is people detaching from the economic inefficiencies of corruption.
	And the moment that people are forced to pay for something, corruption is going to grow, imbalance is going to grow, and you're going to get cronyism, and you're going to get inefficiency.
	And that we know for sure.
	I saw the free market table.
	Okay, sorry, that's the end of my thing.
	Go ahead.
	So I don't disagree that involuntary taxation is completely immoral.
	I would be inclined to agree with you 100% as far as pretty much everything being a part of the free market, as the free market offers the best solutions.
	Disagree that preventing others to use force in order to, like, to exercise the right to use force as according to what a state does is necessarily immoral, like, by preventing competition.
	So if a state manages to be funded, By voluntary measures, whether it be a state lottery or just the richest people in the country decide, hey, let's pay for all these things.
	That state preventing another entity that claims the right to use force to solve problems, I wouldn't say is a violation of the non-aggression principle because it's Simply the country understanding that when it comes to force, there's no room for subjectivism, which people can always, you know, fall into it.
	Okay, sorry, I'm getting a little lost here.
	So let's say that the government wants to fund something through a lottery.
	Sure, yeah.
	Okay.
	They cannot compete with a free market entity because the free market entity is going to run the lottery without the overhead of funding whatever the government is using the lottery to fund.
	Like, let's say the government's going to use the lottery to fund roads.
	Okay, then I introduce some lottery that doesn't have to fund roads and I can immediately pay out more to the people who buy my tickets, right?
	Because I don't have to pay for the roads.
	So there's no way that if the government is going to use some methodology to fund something that it's ever going to be able to compete with With a free market entity that is providing the same goods and services without the additional overhead of having to fund whatever the government is using that good or service to fund.
	So that's why the government is going to have to use force to prevent other people from running a lottery.
	And that's, of course, what the government does now.
	A lot of governments in the West, they run lotteries.
	And they then use force to prevent other people from running competing lotteries.
	And it is the initiation of force to prevent someone from competing with you.
	Like, if I'm going to go up and ask a girl out, and I see you walking up to ask the same girl out, and then I elbow you in the face, then I'm preventing you from competing with me, but I'm initiating the use of force to do so.
	But if we're going to have objectivity in regards to law, and so say a criminal commits a crime, you know, rape somebody or kill somebody or whatever, and people want to punish him for his crime, what is the objective basis of law?
	Say in the free market we have court A and court B and court C and the criminal says I want to get tried by court C because they said that rape is a it was my genes taking control and I had no control of it or whatever, right?
	I think that in matters involving force Okay, I get it.
	So you're saying that there can be bad outcomes if there's competing definitions of rape, right?
	No, let's just stay with rape.
	Now, I don't know if you've followed any sort of mainstream media coverage and hysteria with regards to the supposed rape crisis on American campuses.
	I don't know if it's happening in Europe.
	They've got other rape crises that are a little bit more immediate.
	So we have a huge problem with a woman who has sex, who later regrets it, can charge a man with raping her, even if there's absolutely no physical evidence of coercion.
	Even if there's messages where she says, I had a great time, I'd like to do it again, P.S. would you be my boyfriend?
	So, the idea that we have solved or somehow made objective the definition of rape by putting governments in charge of the law is false.
	You're invoking this magical objective entity That can somehow define rape objectively and never swerve from it and never be influenced by third-wave feminists and anti-male patriarchy hysteria and all that kind of crap, right?
	That there is no magic thing that you can invoke to make things objective.
	There will be people who will always try and take over the definition of rape and use it for their own crazy political ends, and the only way those people are going to be restrained It's because people are going to say, your definition of rape has gone mental.
	I don't want to do business with you anymore.
	And then you can detach from the entity that has way too broadly defined rape to be like, I was a little tipsy, or I was drunk, or I regret it, or whatever.
	Like all the stuff where there's no physical evidence of coercion and he said, she said, which can never logically go beyond reasonable doubt.
	So if people start casting the net too widely and prosecuting too widely...
	People will stop doing business with them, but you don't have that choice with the government as it stands.
	Now let's say that people say, well, the only thing that is rape is if somebody actually has a gun to your head.
	Well, that's too narrow.
	It's not too broad.
	That's too narrow a definition of rape, and people will say, well, I don't feel protected.
	We need a balance.
	Somewhere between I regret it and someone had a gun to my head, there's still going to be rape.
	I don't know where the line is, and it's going to be complicated, and it's going to be challenging.
	So we need entities where voluntarism is going to help keep them in something that is efficient, that is not overcharging, and at the same time is not undercharging where people feel unsafe.
	Now there's no way a government monopoly will ever consistently walk that fine line.
	It's going to be taken over by hysterics, by neurasthenics, by Neurotics by crazy people, by people with irrational hatreds for whatever gender or whatever group or whatever class or whatever.
	So there's no way to guarantee any kind of efficiency or sensitivity to changing market forces when you have a government in charge.
	So this idea that we'll make something objective by giving it to the government is false.
	Also this idea that the government we have now is what the government really is or ought to be.
	Is also false.
	I mean, in a hypothetical scenario, it's 1776 and they're putting together the Constitution of the United States and say they wrote it all how it is, except they explicitly state that government shall not have the right ever to interfere in economics.
	So there's no welfare, there's no...
	No government-sponsored labor unions or government-sponsored monopolies and other economic projects and all these things.
	And also, at the same time, rights are explicitly defined.
	So, I mean, if you take an example of the Human Rights Code of Canada, I saw it posted somewhere the other day.
	It was on a wall in a government building.
	And it was saying, you know, things like rights from freedom from harassment and things that there's just no real conception of rights.
	For any objective definition of rights, you know, philosophy is completely necessary.
	And so I think a government, any government that's founded on any sort of philosophical ideas that are, you know, illogical or based on any false premises at any point, you know, necessarily is going to fail.
	And that's what we have as an example all over the place.
	But if you had to say...
	Okay, but do you understand what I'm saying?
	Let's say that the government...
	Change is the definition of rape to be something that is too broad.
	And can't be proven and so on, right?
	What is your option as a private citizen in that situation?
	Now, if you're engaged with someone who's protecting you from rape by some private agency, if they do something you don't like, you can switch.
	But if the government does something you don't like, you have no choice.
	You leave your country or leave your entire environment or whatever it is, but you don't have any choice.
	And therefore, they can kind of do what they want, and they're going to end up Following the preferences of the big bullies or the most insane people with the most crazy fetish OCD axe to grind or whatever.
	And so in the free market, you'll have the chance to disengage from those people.
	And in the government, you won't.
	So I just really want to point out this idea that you've got this magic entity called the government, which is going to be principled and objective and rational and somehow restrain itself over time.
	You know, you say, well, what if you started off the government when there was no welfare?
	Well, there was no welfare at the beginning of the United States, and now there is.
	So I'm going to move on to the next caller, but I really appreciate you bringing these topics up.
	I mean, it's very, very important stuff to talk about.
	And I'm very much...
	My perspective, which I've argued for a number of times before, is I don't care what the consequences are of doing the right thing.
	I don't care what the consequences are of consistently following the non-aggression principle.
	Because it would be insanely arrogant of me to imagine that I knew what the consequences were of obeying the non-aggression principle.
	You know, I've used the example before.
	What are the consequences of ending slavery?
	Nobody knew.
	Nobody could possibly know what the consequences were of ending slavery.
	What are the consequences of having a stateless society?
	I don't know.
	I don't care.
	It doesn't matter.
	Because people can invent whatever negative consequences they want.
	The future is a fantasy.
	And people can people that future, that fantasy, with any demons that they want.
	The future is to politics as hell is to religion.
	Or heaven.
	And so politicians will say, well, give me power and I'll turn this world into heaven.
	And if you give my opponent power, he will turn it into hell.
	And when you talk about following principles, people will populate, if they like your principles, they'll populate the future with angels and it will be heaven.
	And if they really don't like your principles or your principles threaten their immediate economic self-interest, then they will populate the Your future or the future that you propose with demons, with devils.
	It will be terrible.
	It will be bad.
	And they'll create these all-wise institutions called governments that will follow the rules that they like.
	But if you want to create a government that follows the rules that you like, well, then it will be a really bad, corrupt, evil, nasty institution.
	So ignore the future.
	When it comes to principles, ignore the future when it comes to principles.
	Principles have nothing to do with the future.
	Any more than mathematics is going to change the day after tomorrow.
	Any more than physics is going to fundamentally alter itself the day after tomorrow.
	Physics is independent of time.
	Mathematics is independent of time.
	Biology, in terms of its principles, is independent of time.
	Philosophy is independent of time.
	And the future is a trap wherein people project what...
	Their positive or negative imagined consequences are going to be by populating the future with angels or devils in an attempt to sway you into either being afraid of principles they don't like or loving principles that they do like.
	Forget about the future.
	Let's get on with the past.
	Alright, let's get on with the next caller, but thanks very much for your comment.
	Alright, well up next is John.
	John wrote in and said, I'm a big Trump supporter.
	How come every time I try and have an honest conversation or debate with somebody who doesn't like Trump, usually a liberal, I'm met with non-arguments?
	All they can say is Trump is a racist, Trump is Hitler, Trump is a xenophobe, Trump is stupid, Trump is only rich because of his dad, etc., etc.
	I also see news, news is in quotes, articles daily on the Huffington Post, MSNBC, Yahoo, etc.
	saying all the same things about Trump.
	All they can do is call names and use emotions over facts.
	What do you think causes such behavior?
	That is from John.
	Hi, John.
	How are you doing?
	Good.
	Can you hear me?
	I can.
	Actually, I used to think it was more of a principle.
	It's actually just one guy that causes this behavior.
	Who's that?
	Just one guy.
	I'm looking for him.
	I'm all over the place looking for him.
	His first name is Stu.
	Do you know what his last name is?
	No.
	Well, his first name is Stu, my friend, and his last name is Piddity.
	Yeah.
	No, that's all it is.
	They're just dumb people who are afraid that they're not going to get things for free.
	It's really not that complicated.
	I mean, if, oh, Trump is bad, Trump is this, oh, Trump is...
	Okay, so you don't like Donald Trump, and why don't you?
	They should just be honest.
	I hate Donald Trump.
	I hate him.
	Now, people have a tough time saying they hate someone, so they have to usually invent some negative label to stick to that person to pretend that their hate is rational.
	I'm an objective moral agent.
	I have just evaluated Donald Trump completely independent of my political or economic self-interest.
	And I have evaluated him objectively to have characteristics such as Hitler-y.
	And, you know, xenophobic and Islamophobic.
	So there's no objective process by which people go through when they have these kinds of criticisms at all.
	And all that happens is that Trump threatens some people's self-interest.
	And that self-interest could be emotional.
	That self-interest could be political.
	In other words, they want political power.
	That self-interest could be the audience base that they have built up.
	And, you know, if you talk about, you know, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Yahoo, and so on, well, who goes to those sites?
	Liberals and women, but to a large degree, I repeat myself.
	And so they have an audience, and they're playing to those audiences' preferences.
	So why do people dislike Donald Trump?
	They have deep emotional reasons for doing so.
	And those emotional reasons are sometimes more practical in that, wait, he's going to reduce taxes?
	Wait, I live on tax revenues.
	I am a government worker.
	I am on welfare.
	I get a lot of contracts from the military.
	And so when he talks about lowering taxes, people don't like it because they get money from taxes and that's lowering their potential source of income.
	If he's talking about limiting taxes, Immigrants from the Third World coming into America, well, those people vote for the Democrats.
	And so the Democrats want to bring those people in so that they'll vote Democrat.
	And the Republicans want to keep those people out because they vote Democrat.
	I have no idea why it's bad for the Republicans to want to keep them out because they vote Democrat, but it's totally fine for the Democrats to want them in because they vote Democrat.
	It's exactly the same motivation for both groups.
	And so it's just there's immediate political or economic...
	Self-interest.
	And in particular, women seem to be fairly polarized with regards to Trump.
	Trump is an unabashed alpha male.
	Trump is knowledgeable of his sexual market value.
	He's knowledgeable of his economic value.
	He's confident.
	He repeatedly calls himself a success.
	He doesn't have on this false modesty.
	Like, you know, you see Kasich, this like...
	I can't believe my wife married me and stayed married to me.
	I think the Obama Supreme Court nominee just did the same thing.
	I can't if she's put up with me for so many years.
	Can you imagine Trump saying that?
	I can't believe this hot woman from Eastern Europe is married to me.
	He's like, yeah.
	I'm the best thing that there is.
	So she was wise to marry me.
	She made a good decision.
	I made a good decision.
	I respect her.
	She respects me.
	And yeah, I've earned that tasty slice of saved from the Muslims hot flesh.
	So, I mean, he's a very confident guy.
	And of course, I think a lot of people are kind of alarmed that men might look at Trump and say, wait a minute, he's confident and popular.
	He's confident and successful.
	He's not bowing down to everyone and everything in society and hoping to scrape out another five minutes of peace and quiet by appeasing everyone around them.
	And he's pretty successful.
	And there is, I think, some concern that his sort of alpha male confidence is going to transfer to other men.
	And other men are going to start to feel confident.
	And if men start to feel confident again, the current self-destructive course in society is going to be interrupted to the dismay of a lot of parasites and hangers-on.
	So, yeah, it's just they're very good at sensing what is positive for their immediate self-interest.
	And if someone comes along who threatens that, then there's a big problem.
	And the last thing I mentioned, too, is that There's, you know, an old pretty funny line from Monty Python, like, come and see the violence inherent in the system, right?
	And the violence inherent in the system is, you know, being taxed at source rather than someone taking money from you in an alley, right?
	Like the people, hey, I just had another kid to an unstable guy, so I've got to go and get more child tax credit rather than go and shake down the restaurant owner next door.
	I'm There is a lot of violence in society that is being bought off at the moment.
	And I talked about this in the first call, so I'll just touch on it briefly here.
	But people are afraid of the violence in the system becoming more explicit.
	And that is bad for the dependent classes, right?
	For the people who are being preyed upon, for the taxpayers, for the contributors, having the violence in the system become explicit is very good for them.
	But for the people who are on the receiving end of all of this government drip-drip, right, all of this bloody milk of state redistribution, they don't want the violence inherent in the system to be made explicit because that is going to make them look bad and it's going to make them feel bad.
	And, um...
	So, you know, like, here's an example, right?
	So, people are, you know, I get these messages because I've spoken out about some of the challenges of the European migrant crisis.
	Where's your compassion, man?
	Where's your compassion for these people?
	Oh, the illegal immigrants, where's your compassion for them?
	It's like, I don't know, where's their compassion for the taxpayers?
	You know, when people coming over and they're 60, 70, 80, 90% of them on welfare, in a system they've never paid into, Where's their compassion?
	For the European taxpayer?
	For the American taxpayer?
	For the Canadian taxpayer?
	Where's their compassion for me?
	So they come over and they've never paid into the system and they get thousands and thousands of dollars a month that come out of my bank account.
	Where's their compassion for me?
	I don't think I could actually go to some other country and just start feeding off their government money never having paid into the system.
	I'd feel bad about that.
	And so I don't, it's never a good idea to have more compassion for others than they have compassion for you.
	That's just a great way to get taken to the cleaners and exploited until your gene pool expires.
	And so people say, oh, well, where's your compassion for the illegal immigrants?
	It's like, well, where's their compassion for me?
	Where's their compassion for, you know, if my kids were in public school, for the fact that my kids are now getting a worse education, my tax bill is going up, and I get to be called racist for speaking at, well, where's their compassion for me?
	I had this conversation in the last show with a guy from the Middle East who had never even considered the fact that all these people are coming piling onto the European welfare state system, having never paid into that system, and are just taking money from the taxpayers.
	Where's their compassion for the taxpayers?
	And so, this idea that we pay off a bunch of people, and that way they won't riot.
	Well, that's kicking the can down the road.
	That's, you know, stuffing a whole bunch of bloody rags into the mouth of the volcano or the hot springs eruption, the geister, whatever you want to call it.
	And everybody knows that there are certain segments within American society that if the government welfare is interrupted, what are they going to do?
	We're gonna riot.
	They're gonna riot!
	Of course they are!
	Of course they are!
	And then, who's going to, like, what's gonna happen?
	Well, I mean, if you're in Ferguson, they're going to be given space to riots and no one's ever going to get prosecuted and they can live in this consequence-free lifestyle and so on.
	But if someone like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump is in power and there are riots...
	Well, we know what happened with Donald...
	Sorry, we know what happened with Ronald Reagan is that he brought out the National Guard and put down the riots.
	What do you think is going to happen if Donald Trump is in power and there are riots?
	We'll probably say he's Hitler if he does that.
	No, no.
	What's he gonna do?
	He'll probably put it down.
	Yeah, he'll put it down.
	And in so doing, he will save the city, right?
	They didn't put down the riots in Detroit in the 1960s and in other places.
	And Detroit is a dead city now, populated by zombies.
	And packs of wild feral dogs.
	I mean, it's insane.
	We used to be the richest city in America, and now it's dead.
	Dead.
	And so people are scared of the dependency that has been fostered among the poor over the past 50 or 60 years.
	And they're scared of it.
	And, you know, it's like the old thing that Jefferson said about slavery, that he said, we've got a wolf by the ears.
	And we can neither kill him nor let him go.
	And there's been this terrible, horrible, horrifying social experiment of the welfare state.
	And, I mean, I talk about the military-industrial complex as well, but nobody imagines that the shareholders in Boeing are going to riot and set fire to things and whatever, right?
	Yeah.
	But there's a particular dependent underclass that is going to riot.
	And nobody's into the welfare state because they think it's a good idea anymore.
	Nobody looks at its wonderful success and how it's brought so many people out of poverty and everybody's pretty much in the middle class now and it's, you know, eliminated the poor.
	I mean, everybody knows it's been a complete disaster.
	It's just that everybody knows that if you try and reform the welfare state, there's a great danger of riots.
	And if you have someone from the left in, then they won't Do what is practical and deal with the riots and put the riots down and save the city.
	But if Trump is in, Trump will be, I can't speak for the guy, but my guess is that he would be willing to put down the riots.
	And people don't want to see the violence inherent in the system.
	They don't want to see it.
	Women in particular, but you know, some men do.
	They don't want to see it.
	They want to imagine that Welfare is something to do, it's not with buying votes, and it's not with screw the underclass, let's just remove every sane cause and effect from their environments.
	People think it's about helping people and taking care of the poor victim by a single model.
	It's not.
	It's just a violent, ugly, brutal, city-destroying, consecutive and concussive wave of vote buying.
	That's all it is.
	I want political power to hell with your future.
	And the fact that it is so brutal and it is so destructive to the poor and it is so destructive to children and it is so destructive to neighborhoods and it is so destructive to cities and it is so destructive to civilization, community, culture, everything that you can imagine.
	The fact that it is so destructive can be covered up as long as people are willing to bribe the recipients into not rioting.
	And so if the government starts to run out of money, and I think it's getting close, then The people who want to be appeased because they're willing to riot don't want Donald Trump in power because Donald Trump probably won't appease them and will save the city by putting down the riots.
	And they don't want that.
	They want someone who they're bullying is going to break and have them, they want someone in who's going to Chamberlain them, not who's going to Churchill them.
	And it's weird, do you think All this funny, calling him names and making fun of him, is that because he's successful?
	No, no.
	I mean, look, if people were afraid of, if people were all just angry at rich people, They really hate Hillary Clinton.
	Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton in particular, you know, like, younger people don't really know this, but Bill Clinton was like the first guy to get out of the White House and immediately start going on, like, very expensive speaking tours.
	I mean, presidents didn't used to do that.
	They had some dignity, some pride.
	But, I mean, Hillary Clinton has made millions, tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars through some pretty corrupt, at least allegedly pretty corrupt, You know, like through the Clinton Foundation, which is, I think, at the moment being investigated by the FBI and so on.
	So if they really didn't like rich people, then they'd have a big problem with the Clintons who are hugely rich and have, I don't know, have they provided a lot of free market value to the world?
	No, I think they provided a lot of political access.
	I think they provided a lot of favorable rulings from the State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge of these things.
	But, no, it's not because he's rich.
	It's because he's not afraid.
	I shouldn't say that, because, again, I can't read his mind.
	He says you have to be tough to run for president.
	Of course you do, right?
	Unless you're on the left, in which case you can just do whatever you want, right?
	Because you know that the media will always be the human shield between you and reality.
	But he is undaunted.
	By verbal abuse.
	Now, what does the left have?
	The left has verbal abuse.
	It's all they have.
	And that's what you see.
	They're just people verbally abusing.
	He's racist, Hitler, xenophobic, stupid.
	And so it's verbal abuse.
	Now, if somebody not only survives but flourishes as A result of, or independent of, the verbal abuse heaped on him, then the verbal abusers lose a lot of power.
	They lose a lot of power.
	It's like a priest, if you no longer believe in God, his verbal threats of hell land on nothing in you.
	You know, I mean, the number of times a week I'm told I'm going to hell because of what I think, oh well, no God, no hell.
	You're threatening me with being attacked by a unicorn.
	I think I'll survive.
	And so they have to escalate their verbal abuse until someone complies.
	And if somebody is undaunted by their verbal abuse and flourishes despite or even because of the verbal abuse, that's horrifying to people.
	To the people who have lived on their verbal abuse, who have gotten huge amounts, huge numbers of resources, because they're willing to use the most horrifying terms of verbal abuse.
	You know, like the Republican Party trotted out aging underwear model Mitt Romney.
	And his...
	Firehose vat of gel.
	And Mitt Romney trashed Donald Trump, right?
	And what happened?
	People were like, wow, if Mitt Romney doesn't like Donald Trump, I'm voting for Donald Trump.
	Like, his popularity went up after he was verbally abused.
	And you think of, you know, some...
	Think of some bitchy woman who's just nagging the shit out of her husband.
	Constantly putting him down, calling him a loser, calling him worthless, calling him shit and crap.
	Right?
	And...
	This guy's like...
	Shuffling along, staring at the sidewalk.
	A broken man.
	Hero of a Paul Young song.
	And...
	Let's say that this guy then starts becoming friends with a guy who's like, she treats you like hell.
	Why is she yelling at you?
	You're out there working money.
	She's sitting at home, bonbons and soap operas, and she's yelling at you and calling you a loser?
	What the hell has she done with her life?
	You've got to have some pride, man.
	You've got to have some spine.
	Don't put up with this stuff.
	This is terrible.
	I hate to see you being treated this way.
	And this is not only bad for you, but you've got a son who's looking at your marriage and...
	This is gonna imprint on him, right?
	How is the wife, the bitchy, nagging, domineering, ball-breaking wife gonna view the friend of her husband who's encouraging him to stand up for himself?
	Not too well, not gonna like him.
	Nope, not too well.
	And that's the story.
	The Trump supporters, in general, are the broken-down husbands.
	The media is the bitchy, nagging, verbally abusive wife who's broken their spine.
	And Trump is coming along and saying, sit up straight.
	Shake it off.
	Reach between your legs.
	Feel those castanets?
	They can help you right about now.
	Don't care if you're male or female.
	They can help you right about now.
	Stop putting up with this shit.
	Sticks and stones can break your bones.
	Words can never hurt you.
	And look, they yell terrible terms at me.
	I get stronger and more powerful and have greater effect.
	So take a page from my example.
	All they have are words, and you can survive words.
	What are you, girls?
	And so the media...
	He senses that Donald Trump is going, as I've talked about the makers and the takers, the media is sensing that Donald Trump is going to put some spine in the makers so that the verbal abuse of the takers is going to have less effect.
	And listen, I mean, whatever you think of the guy, you've got to get and you've got to give him props.
	He is a magnificent example of flourishing in the face of bottomless verbal abuse.
	Oh, but when he dishes it out, it's so bad.
	Oh, yeah, the cry bullies, right?
	They cry out in pain as they beat you up.
	Yeah, so what happens if verbal abuse no longer works in society?
	What happens if people are no longer afraid of being called racists or Islamophobes or xenophobic or sexist or part of the war on women?
	What happens?
	What the hell happens in society if we have a dialogue free of verbal abuse?
	What happens if verbal abusers have to shut the living fuck up and let people Intelligent people with reason and evidence have an adult conversation.
	What happens if the verbal abusers are revealed as petty, nasty, vicious, ugly, little trolls?
	And people actually have an intelligent decision based on reason and evidence, based on facts, based on biology.
	Actually have reasonable and intelligent discussions free of the fascist tyranny of verbal abuse.
	Free of...
	Imagine if people could have a conversation about immigration with no fear of being called racist, with no fear of being called Islamophobic, with no fear of being called whatever, right?
	Or imagine if men and women could have discussion about male and female issues without misogyny and patriarchy and cisgender scum or whatever it is.
	Imagine if people could have conversations about gays and straights without...
	The sword of Damocles of verbal abuse hanging over their heads.
	And Donald Trump is striding like a colossus into a society that has had two or three generations of vicious verbal abuse defining almost all public discourse.
	He is striding in and the arrows don't The death rays make him stronger, make his hairline lower and more to the right, right?
	And that is terrifying.
	It is absolutely terrifying for the verbal abusers that their verbal abuse might not work.
	What happens if your gun just goes click, click, click?
	Well...
	You are out of power.
	And the power in the world is not guns, but language.
	At the moment.
	And I'm not saying it should be guns.
	I'm just saying right now, the real power in the world is language.
	The real conformity, the real fascism, the real brutality, the real carved channels of power follow syllables, not fists.
	And people are throwing verbal abuse at Donald Trump Because that's all they've got is verbal abuse.
	And verbal abuse is one of these things like when you just wake up and shake it off, it's like, oh, it's just vicious idiots making noise.
	And the fact that there's this ever escalation of verbal abuse and the most illuminating thing, I think the thing that's going to drive his campaign to real fruition is Was not just the shutdown of his event in Chicago, but everyone seeing how the media and how Rubio and Cruz and all that handled it.
	I mean, there's a lot of reasons why Cruz lost, sorry, why Rubio lost Florida so badly, but one of them was because he blamed Donald Trump for the violence and threats of violence of the leftist agitators.
	And it's going to kill Cruz's campaign too, and it's killing the media.
	Because it's such a vicious double standard.
	And I just did an essay on this, so I won't know what pisses me off about the Donald Trump protest, so you can check that out.
	It's such a vicious double standard that a man who ever hits a woman, there's no amount of verbal abuse that can ever justify hitting a woman.
	She can call him every name in the book.
	He can't lift a finger against her.
	Oh, but Donald Trump apparently uses some mildly divisive language, so yeah, people should be able to shut down his events.
	Like, it's such a ridiculous double standard, and it's so in your face, that the hypocrisy, manipulation, and bullying, and verbal abuse of the mainstream media towards anybody, even remotely to the right of Lenin, has become so obvious now.
	And verbal abuse works until it doesn't.
	And Donald Trump has come along and is succeeding with everyone from left and right and in between screaming bottomless vats of verbal abuse at him, with people busting up friendships, breaking up long-term relationships based upon one person's support for Donald Trump versus the others.
	And he is going from victory to victory.
	Despite every single piece of artillery that the left and the right, the Republican establishment and the Democrats have, and the libertarians, a lot of libertarians are very hostile towards Donald Trump.
	And the fact that he is going from success to success is going to embolden an entire generation with the eyes to see that these bullets, these arrows, they only exist...
	In your mind.
	You know, people can throw all the knives they want at you, but you're the one who has to grab them and push them into your own rib.
	You know, people can shoot all the arrows that they want at you, they just land at your feet.
	You're the one who has to pick them up and stick them into your own side.
	And people are seeing the remarkable spectacle of a confident alpha male Marching forward towards his objective, with all of these shrill, golem-like, twisted screams of hatred from everyone around him, he doesn't self-attack, he punches back sometimes, and he moves on to his objective.
	And if that is not enough to put balls in a spine back into the majority of thinking Americans, there is no hope for the country.
	Was that a relatively reasonable answer?
	Yeah, it was perfect.
	Thanks.
	All right.
	Thanks, man.
	Oh, and by the way, everyone, please don't tell me I lost friends because I supported Donald Trump.
	No.
	No, no, no, no.
	No, no, no, no.
	I lost cockroaches because I turned the light on.
	It's like, not your friends.
	If people aren't curious as to why you are sympathetic to or favorable to or, I mean, whatever, right?
	I don't count myself a Donald Trump supporter, but he's a fascinating sociological phenomenon with some positive aspects in society.
	But if people just hate you because you have a particular preference for someone and don't ask you questions and so on, please don't tell me you've lost a friend because of your perspective.
	That's just nonsense.
	They never were your friends at all and you've just saved some time.
	Thanks everyone so much for your calls and your conversations.
	As always, I humbly bow towards your honesty and openness and curiosity.
	You know, I gotta tell you, the fact that I can open up a little hole in the time-space continuum and see the dream of someone in another country from months ago is a really amazing, amazing thing.
	You know, that dream, if the guy had never talked about it, it would have...
	Died with him and it would have gone and nobody would ever have known about it.
	The fact that we've opened up this little hole in the time-space continuum, we've pulled this dream out of this man's unconscious and we have now displayed it to the world forever.
	People have watched this in a thousand years, in five thousand years.
	Why not?
	People still read Aristotle.
	Let's keep up the tradition.
	That is a beautiful and wonderful thing.
	You know, I was reading...
	Books that I read as a kid to my daughter are called The Famous Five by Enid Blyton, this woman.
	I thought it was a dude for the longest time when I was a kid, but I thought it was Eric or something, the squiggly signature.
	Anyway, and in one of them, one of the kids, they're in a castle, and there's this gallery going around this room, and they don't know what it was for.
	What was there a gallery for?
	What was going on down there?
	Nobody knows.
	And the...
	The boy says to himself, he says, I wish I could turn back the years and know what was happening down in that room and what this gallery was for.
	I wish I could turn back the years so that I could see all the people in this area and know what it was used for.
	And the people who call in, the people who are part of this conversation, we are opening up people's minds and sharing them With everyone forever.
	You call into the show, your thoughts, my thoughts, our conversation is frozen in time, projected forward for everyone forever.
	You have now contributed to the philosophical growth of the species and it's a great honor that people do this with me.
	It moves me more than I can say and I'm incredibly grateful that people do You know, for a lot of people, this kind of conversation in a public forum is a challenge and I appreciate that people screw their courage to the sticking place and call in and have these conversations so that people in the future will see what we thought about, what we spoke about, what mattered to us.
	We are laying down these tracks for everyone in the future to see and to hear with great vividity.
	You know, when I go to museums, I love museums, and I go to museums and you see these, here's a piece of pottery from 6,000 years ago with a tax bill, and you know, I see the fingers writing, and I, what was the breath that was on it?
	What were the thought processes?
	What was it like to live in a world that you thought was flat sitting on a turtle?
	It's amazing.
	People talk about back in ancient Greece, they say, oh, it was such an unimaginably long time ago, people were so different, they don't think the same anymore, and so on.
	I want to always, this is why I wrote so many historical novels, I always want to get into other people's thoughts, people's in-the-past thoughts.
	And it's really tough, you know, as people write autobiographies and they're usually kind of self-serving and they usually, you know, create a particular portrait or a particular picture that is designed to kind of have an effect and usually it has to do with vanity and so on.
	But there's not a huge amount of vanity, I think, in the calls that we have.
	I think this is very honest, mutual self-expression.
	And we have created now I don't know.
	I mean, how many call-in shows have we done?
	Hundreds, if not over a thousand, maybe.
	But we've done hundreds and hundreds of call-in shows, and this is a record forever of what two people in this time slice found the most meaningful to talk about in the short time that they had together.
	It's a great gift for everyone.
	It's a great library that we are creating today.
	For the world to peruse and consume forever.
	And I just massively appreciate everybody's willingness to call in, to fund what it is that we're doing, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help us out, to help us continue to build this library of influence and effects.
	And also wanted to thank everyone who is liking and sharing the videos.
	You know, we're doing like, I think almost 4 million Video views a month for over 350,000 subscribers and about an equivalent number of podcast downloads.
	You know, 8 million views and downloads a month.
	That is wonderful.
	It will be more and better as we go forward and, you know, like and share and subscribe and all those kinds of things to help us out.
	So thank you.
	Thank you everyone so, so much for this wonderful opportunity for The greatest conversations in the world.
	And have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week.

▲