Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 6, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

03:18:20

3252 The Danger of Hope - Call In Show - April 5th, 2016

Question 1: [2:57] - “From our observations, Ted Cruz is receiving significant support from the Objectivist online community. Some say they support him because, while flawed, he's still the most principled pro-freedom candidate available. Others explicitly support him only because he's not Donald Trump. This is coming from a community that has historically identified religion as the gravest threat to the culture, to the point that key Objectivist intellectuals endorsed voting Democrat in 2004 and 2008. Yet now that the Republicans have a viable non-religious candidate, Trump has morphed into the new gravest threat to America.”“The mental gymnastics we've seen to justify this position have been truly astounding and suggest some visceral emotion is driving the anti-Trump/pro-Cruz response. As long-time Objectivists ourselves, it's disturbing to us to see this coming from a community with a professed commitment to reason. What do you think is the root of this response to Trump, and what does it mean for the hope of turning the culture toward true commitment to reason?”Question 2: [1:38:58] - “In a recent show, in context of the Migrant Crisis, you expressed that you were ‘on the fence’ about whether Europe ‘deserves to be saved.’ First, you should know that most Europeans that still have a spine have a distinct dislike for generalizations that involve all of Europe, since that covers everything from the lazy and corrupt Greece to the hard-working and innovative Switzerland – and arguably, a good chunk of Turkey and Russia.”“And while the U.S. government gives a decent helping of freedom to its own citizens, you could well argue that the people of Switzerland or Poland are in many ways more free. And said nations are not involved in whole-sale murder and suppression of freedom in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. So can you honestly say that the U.S. deserves to be saved, more than we do? Or that there's some other country out there that you think is more deserving? Or have you simply given up on the whole world?”Question 3: [2:08:38] - After the immigration crisis - what will be the future of dating in Europe? How it will it impact native European men and minorities when it comes to dating European women? Question 4: [2:51:17] - “My hometown and the city that I am currently living in: Hong Kong, is listed on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom as the world's freest economy. And as such, I have noticed that many libertarians seem to look up to the city as either someplace that they will want to move to or as an example that the west can emulate. However, in my honest, personal experience, the city is perhaps one of the most nonintellectual and anti-philosophical places that I have ever been in, especially when compared to the West (even with all the madness with political correctness and the like). What would your advice be to someone that lives in a society that is simultaneously the freest in the world economically, and yet is utterly philosophically empty at the same time?”Show Links: http://www.fdrurl.com/3252

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	Are you ready, my brothers and sisters, for the inaugural episode of the daytime drama of a Free Domain Radio call-in show more friendly to people outside of North America?
	Yes, it is 11 a.m.
	Eastern Standard Time, New York time.
	We are doing a call-in show on Tuesdays.
	Are we going to keep it up?
	Who knows?
	But, rightly or wrongly, good or bad, we just have such a backlog of people who want to chat that we listen as always.
	We are your slaves!
	But with, I guess, slightly fewer than seven veils for the dance routine.
	And so we're going to do a daytime call-in show on Tuesdays starting at 11 o'clock Eastern Standard Time.
	A little bit more friendly to those of us across the pond or those of you across the pond.
	So check it out.
	Hope you like it.
	I think it went very well.
	What a show we had today.
	So first was a lengthy chat with a fine young man and fine young woman who are objectivists and want to know why objectivists and libertarians and so on dislike Donald Trump so much.
	It was a long conversation, but it is a very big and deep topic.
	So we did that.
	Then we had a gentleman calling in from Europe saying, don't give up on us, bro.
	And wants to know if I've given up on Europe and its future, and if so, why?
	And if not, why not?
	We had a good chat about that.
	And ever wondered how to date white girls if you're non-white?
	Well, our third caller might be able to help you.
	He is a dating coach, a relationship expert, who wants to know how he can promote interracial dating.
	So we had...
	Well, we had an interaction on that topic, which I hope that you'll enjoy.
	I know I certainly found it enlightening.
	And number four, the fourth caller lives in Hong Kong, a free, economically free country, but he's noticing quite an absence of interest in philosophy and virtue and...
	Well, pretty much depth of any kind.
	And we explored some of the cultural reasons behind that, which I thought was just plain fascinating.
	FDRURL.com slash donate.
	FreedomMainRadio.com slash donate.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Do it.
	Help us out.
	You know you need to.
	You know you want to.
	You know there's nothing else like this.
	And without your support, it just can't keep going.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Sign up.
	20 bucks a month.
	It's less than a coffee every two days.
	You can do it.
	FDRURL.com slash Amazon to use our affiliate link, which is also very much appreciated.
	Please share around FDRpodcasts.com.
	Like, subscribe, share, get the word out.
	I can't do it alone.
	I need you.
	Tuesday during the day.
	Here we go.
	All right.
	Well, first, today we have Carter and Katrina.
	From our observations, Ted Cruz is receiving significant support from the Objectivist online community.
	Some say they support him because, while flawed, he's still the most principled pro-freedom candidate available.
	Others explicitly support him only because he's not Donald Trump.
	This is coming from a community that has historically identified religion as the gravest threat to the culture, to the point that key objectivist intellectuals endorsed voting Democrat in 2004 and 2008.
	Yet now, the Republicans have a viable non-religious candidate.
	Trump has morphed into the new gravest threat to America.
	The mental gymnastics we've seen to justify this position have been truly astounding and suggest some visceral emotion is driving the anti-Trump slash pro-Cruz response.
	As long-time objectivists ourselves, it's disturbing to us to see this coming from a community with a professed commitment to reason.
	What do you think is at the root of this response to Trump?
	And what does it mean for the hope of turning the culture war toward true commitment to reason?
	That's from Carter and Katrina.
	Well, hi guys.
	How are you doing today?
	Hey.
	Good morning.
	We're well.
	Happy to be here.
	You are the first callers on, I guess, the Desperate Housewives daytime show of Free Domain Radio.
	So, milestone.
	Milestone.
	Milestone.
	So can you tell me a little bit more?
	I'm having a little trouble understanding why, if the objectivists are anti-religious, why they'd have anything to do with Ted Cruz, who's quite the holy roller, and not with Donald Trump, who I think his favorite Bible verse was copyright zero on the Bible.
	But I don't know...
	I don't think Trump darkens the door of a church all too much.
	He's a sort of Ben Franklin-style religious person, which is like, oh fine, I guess I have to say it better.
	Whereas Ted Cruz, you know, his father said that he was anointed to rule the world and appointed by God and all kinds of crazy stuff when Ted Cruz was growing up.
	So help me understand how, is it the anti-religious elements are separate from the pro-Ted Cruz elements?
	Yeah.
	No.
	Well, to some extent.
	I mean, so we've been trying to sort this out ourselves, and what seems to be weird is they really don't seem to care about anything he's done, and they cherry-pick stuff that he says.
	And I just read an article recently by an objectivist all about how he was...
	The most constitutional...
	He was the protector of the Constitution because he talks about the Constitution more than Donald Trump does.
	So there's a faction of them that are very excited that he talks about the Constitution, but I don't...
	I'm not sure.
	I don't think that has anything to do with the hatred of Trump.
	I think that's just a justification for why they like Cruz.
	I suspect, I don't know, Katrina, I don't know what you think.
	I suspect that it's all actually just hatred of Trump and they just find reasons to support Cruz because he's not Trump.
	I think so.
	I mean, earlier in the primary, there was still a split, right?
	There was about half liked Rubio and half liked Cruz and everyone was sort of Taking their time, throwing their full weight behind any particular candidate, probably to wait and see who would still be viable.
	But, you know, as soon as Rubio was out, 100% of the pro-Rubio guys went over to Cruz.
	And it's people that I've seen historically Pick massive fights over abortion and over gay rights and say extremely strongly worded things toward religious people and you know if you're if you're against abortion then you view women literally as chattel and blah blah blah blah and then Now Cruz is okay.
	Yeah, not as long as he's okay.
	He's also like...
	If they're not even just saying he's okay, they're advocating Cruz explicitly.
	And it's so...
	We've been involved in the objectivist movement for quite some time, so we, like...
	We know a lot of the people who are names that people would know who write major articles and, you know, speak at conferences and stuff, and it's...
	It's these people who have become just almost irrationally...
	Well, yeah, I hesitate to use the word, but I'll use it.
	Like, irrationally anti-Trump to the point where we can't even have a conversation.
	We had someone over my house the other day who I hadn't seen in, I don't know, 10 years.
	He's a professor of philosophy.
	I really love the guy, but...
	We had a hard time having any kind of rational discussion because there was just a lot of emotion about how could you like Trump?
	He's a disgrace and he's violent.
	Before we even got to Carter's house, the guy was full on yelling at me, telling me that I am a thug because I think that Michelle Fields should grow a backbone.
	Oh no.
	They're not bringing up the Michelle Fields thing, are they?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Aha.
	Because, you know, non-initiation of force and all, except for, you know...
	Okay, just briefly, just hang on, hang on, just briefly for those who may be listening, who've been following this, or not following this, a couple of updates on the Michelle Fields thing.
	First of all, Michelle Fields' mom is an anti-Trump, pro-immigration advocate.
	That's her gig, that's her job, that's her thing.
	And that's sort of important.
	Number two, it doesn't appear that Michelle Fields was wearing her press credentials when she started grabbing at Donald Trump.
	Big no-no.
	I mean, it's a no-no either way, but if you don't even have your press credentials on...
	And number three, her boyfriend appears to have tried to use some family connections in order to get the police...
	To press charges against Corey Lewandowski.
	So this is an entirely manufactured, in my opinion, it's an entirely manufactured slander.
	And, you know, as Judge Napolitano has pointed out, the law is not supposed to concern itself with trifles like you were moved out of the way before.
	Of a presidential candidate when you invaded to space.
	And there is apparently audio now, as the videos are sort of pouring in, there's audio of the Secret Service ordering her to move back twice, and she's still in there grabbing away at Donald Trump.
	So I think that's becoming an increasingly tough narrative to sustain.
	But of course, the purpose, and this is what happens when people have a prejudice.
	People have an emotional reaction to Donald Trump, for reasons we can get into in a bit, but they have an emotional reaction, and then what they do is they seek and search around For empirical excuses to justify their anti-Trump emotions, right?
	And this is what the media is consistently doing.
	Hey, do you dislike Donald Trump?
	We're going to make up some negative shit which you can use to justify your dislike of Donald Trump.
	Now that, of course, is the opposite of philosophy.
	Philosophy is if you are pro-something, you should really challenge your perspectives on that.
	You should challenge your emotional bias.
	And, of course, emotions are not tools of cognition.
	Emotions are not tools of cognition.
	That's a foundational principle of objectivism.
	The fact that they bring up the Michelle Fields things means that they swallowed the bait that the mainstream media lowered into the water so that they could justify their negative emotions.
	What's truly ironic is And horrible about this, which I'm sure you guys are very aware of, is the spreading of negative disinformation about Donald Trump in order to justify people's negative reactions to him is exactly, exactly how Ayn Rand was excluded from the mainstream discourse in society.
	You just spread negative, horrible things about her, and then nobody has to take her seriously because they can just pin these negative things on her and...
	That way they never have to engage with her ideas because they can just justify their anti-objectivist bigotry with reference to, you know, the same old stupid stuff that floats around about Ayn Rand.
	You know, she was a fascist, she was a racist, she was this, she was that, she took social security, she, whatever, right?
	I mean, she referred to Native Americans this way and Palestinians this way and blah-de-blah-de-blah, like nobody else has ever done that or even made mistakes, right?
	So you have the standard of massive perfection and then you find any sunspots on the sun and say it's exactly the same as interstellar space.
	So it's just kind of ironic.
	That objectivists who rail against the mischaracterization and disinformation about Ayn Rand should then turn from exactly the same mainstream media that spreads that disinformation and assume that they're being completely honest about Donald Trump.
	I mean, that's so insane that it takes a real set of emotional problems to be able to sustain that dichotomy.
	Right.
	The gal man amnesia is something I've been struggling with the objectivist community for a long time.
	I'm sorry, the what?
	Gal man.
	Isn't that it?
	I don't know.
	You're using words that are beyond me, Katrina.
	The term that Michael Crichton coined for when people read something they're an expert about in the newspaper and recognize it as false and then read something they're not an expert about and accept it as true.
	Right, right.
	So, objectivists who know a lot about objectivism read mainstream media accounts of objectivism and they're like, it's nothing to do with that.
	It's not even close.
	In fact, it's a complete opposite of what it's supposed to be.
	And then, of course, they read Donald Trump and they're like, yeah, that's legit.
	That's got to be perfectly accurate.
	I don't know the term, but it's a great term.
	I've heard of it vaguely, but I don't know exactly what it is.
	Yeah.
	Well, and these aren't dumb people either, right?
	They're highly intelligent, but they, you know, you brought up racism.
	Literally, the conversation the other day, it almost started with, well, he's a racist.
	And all I did was say, you know, and just to clarify, we're not...
	We're not super Trump supporters.
	We just, kind of like you, we're both anarcho-capitalists.
	Just want the facts.
	I just want the facts, that's all.
	Yeah, so I said, well, really, what did he say that makes him racist?
	There was, you know, throwing some stuff out that, you know, which wasn't true, which we just, you know, explained wasn't true, and they looked up and tried to prove stuff, and it wasn't there, and it just, that, you know, that argument never went anywhere, but it was also never, I don't feel like it was emotionally dropped, right?
	It was like, oh, well, you know, I can't find an instance, but he's racist.
	Right.
	And if those same slurs had been used against Ayn Rand, they'd be very ferocious in the repudiation of it.
	And the racism thing, it's just become one of these non-arguments.
	The number of actual, genuine, bona fide racists in society, racism being defined as an irrational fear and hatred of other ethnicities, In other words, it may be, and, you know, I think it was the Reverend Jesse Jackson who said that he was really depressed after 20 years of advocating for the black community when he hears footsteps behind him in an alley and he turns around and sees white people, he's relieved, right?
	Because the black crime statistics in the U.S. are off the charts.
	And so it's an irrational fear and hatred of other ethnicities.
	How many people are out there who say, I hate, I don't know, I hate Estonians.
	Well, because confirmation bias is very strong.
	Like, even if you do have such an irrational fear and hatred of other ethnicities, chances are you're going to go and try and find some facts to back up your assertion, right?
	In the same way that people who have an irrational fear and hatred of Donald Trump will go and try and find some, quote, facts to back up their emotions.
	So the number of racists out there are very small.
	And the idea that...
	Keeping out illegal immigration from third world countries is racist is absolutely, completely and totally false.
	First of all, you can't be racist and a real estate developer.
	Because the idea you're going to do this kind of work, that you're going to run hotels without hiring Hispanics?
	I mean, come on.
	I mean, that's...
	I want a rap!
	I want a rap label, but I don't want any African Americans in it.
	In any way, it's only Icelandic rap.
	That's an only elderly Asian Icelandic rap.
	Because that's a niche market that I feel is viciously underexplored.
	And I really want to get an East Rahunak and a West Rahunak kind of rap battle going on between these elderly Asian Icelandic people.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	It is a Hispanic-centered industry in many ways.
	And he hires thousands of Hispanics and has great relationships with them.
	And according to all of the people that I've read who work for Trump, he apparently is a great boss, a little bit intolerant of silly mistakes.
	But who isn't?
	Who's got any kind of standards at all?
	So the idea that he's racist, this is a point I think that Ann Coulter brought up in a conversation she had with Milo Yiannopoulos, where when people say Trump is racist, well, first of all, you can, of course, just laugh.
	And she said, look, ask the maid if she'd like a raise.
	Right?
	Ask somebody who's Hispanic if, you know, he's out there picking fruit or what.
	Ask him if he'd like a raise.
	And, of course, he would like a raise.
	And if...
	An American citizen, Hispanic, or anybody who's working in lower paid occupations, less skilled occupations, of course they'd like a raise.
	And if you're going to give them a raise, then what you have to do is you have to prevent more and more flood immigration of third world immigrants.
	I mean, that's just the way it is.
	Because there's no question in a free market environment that an excess of supply is going to drive down prices.
	An excess of supply is going to drive down prices.
	And so illegal immigrants come in and undercut the wages of people who are already working.
	And, you know, I get that there's a free market argument.
	Well, what are you just, like, not having...
	But the problem is that their wages are heavily subsidized by welfare, by Obamacare, by free government schools, by the fact that taxes are paying for it.
	So it's one thing, like, wages in America are exactly part of the same corporate...
	I mean, if governments provide massive subsidies to one particular company and not another particular company, that's no longer the free market.
	And government is providing massive subsidies to illegal immigrants and immigrants as a whole who disproportionately accept government programs.
	And it seems semi-permanently, if not downright permanently.
	So if the idea that he's racist means that he, I don't know, has this irrational fear and hatred of, I don't know, Hispanics, but his policies will work to very much better the wages, negotiating power, and living conditions of tens of millions of Hispanics, legal Hispanics in America...
	So the idea that he's such a bad racist that he really, really wants to work hard.
	He wants to subject himself to death threats.
	He wants to subject himself to endless lies and slander about him.
	And he's so bad at being racist that the end result of all of this is going to vastly improve the wages, negotiating power, and living conditions of tens of millions of Hispanics.
	He's like the worst racist ever.
	See, but the reason he's doing all that is because he's a megalomaniac.
	Okay, so that argument is that anybody with high ambition must be doing so because they're insane.
	Like, they must be pursuing high ambition because they're insane.
	But that argument applies even more strongly to Ayn Rand than it does to Donald Trump.
	She had enormously high ambition.
	I mean, she wanted to rewrite the entire course of Western history.
	She wanted to rewrite and out Aristotle, Aristotle.
	She wanted to create a comprehensive...
	A system of philosophy going all the way from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, you name it.
	She had pretty much everything to say about everything, even stamp collecting and tiddlywink music.
	And so the idea that, well, if you have high ambitions, it must be because you're insane.
	How on earth would that not possibly apply to Ayn Rand, even more so than Donald Trump?
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, I think we're in agreement that there's some irrationality here, but I guess if it's okay, I really want to figure out...
	I'm really curious about why this is happening with objectivists.
	So, there's a personal reason for this.
	Partly it's, you know, introspection, like, you know, if it can happen to them, right?
	Why?
	What about me?
	And I guess the other concern is...
	I won't speak for Katrina, but for me, I used to be very involved in the objectivist movement, and I have a lot of acquaintances now who are objectivists, and I just haven't been very close with them, and I don't really pay attention very much.
	And I kind of had a sense of comfort that they're out there being rational, and I don't have to keep an eye on them, but they're out there fighting and being rational.
	And then I started to pay attention to my Facebook feed, which is always a mistake.
	Wait, that's the ticket tape of leftist programming referred to as the Facebook feed.
	Exactly.
	But in this case, it was also like objecto programming, because it was a lot of objectivists with whom I had been friends for a while.
	And I don't know, there was a part of me that was very disappointed and shocked that I had this sense of comfort that they were out there fighting and being rational.
	And now I'm seeing, actually, that's not at all what they're doing.
	They're off being irrational and, you know, Oddly pro-Cruz and slandering Trump and not even able to have a rational discussion about it.
	And so I guess I'm particularly curious about what the psychological factors are there because, I don't know, I'm terrified that that's going to become me somehow without really understanding what happened.
	Right.
	To me, it's like, Did we ever even agree with these people in the first place?
	Did we really agree with them?
	Oh yeah, listen, Trump doesn't make people crazy.
	If you have a hole in your floor and you put a carpet over it, you haven't fixed the hole.
	All that Trump's doing is lifting the carpet and seeing the giant vat and hole of crazy underneath people.
	They're always that way.
	That's disappointing.
	Look, he's a litmus test as to one's capacity to be programmed.
	And listen, please understand, I'm not saying that everybody who's anti-Trump is programmed.
	I get that that's not an argument.
	That's just an ad hominem.
	This isn't about whether you're pro or anti-Trump.
	Trump is revealing the degree to which people allow their emotional biases to run away with any last shreds You know, Trump is a big wind that blows through a cave.
	Now, I don't know if you've ever been camping, in which case you probably shouldn't build a fire in a cave.
	Anyway, so let's move the cave out to the open field.
	Trump is a big giant wind, and a big giant wind is friendly to fires and hostile to candles.
	So if you have a decent fire and you get a big giant wind coming along, it's going to blow more oxygen into that fire and the fire is going to come roaring up.
	And if you're holding up a candle, it's just going to blow it out.
	It's that line from the old Peter Gabriel song.
	You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire.
	Feel the wind begin to rise, catch the wind, we'll blow it higher, something like that.
	As the wind begins to catch, well, anyway, something like that.
	So, and I know that's an analogy, which again, I know is not an argument, but Trump is bringing information to the public that goes counter to the programming of the last 30 or 40 years.
	Which is the leftist argument that all races, all cultures, all ethnicities, all regions, all historical momentums are all fundamentally identical.
	Now, leftists don't believe this at all.
	Because leftists, of course, if they don't believe in diversity, because like 99% of reporters, at least in the I think 90% donate to the Democrats, and like 99% of university professors in certain humanities donate to the Democrats.
	And they don't sit there and say, well, you know, we just don't have enough diversist voices in here.
	Let's go hire some Republicans.
	I don't believe in that at all.
	And they certainly don't believe, like, if they say, well, you know, you can bring...
	A Syrian refugee who's functionally illiterate in his own language, you can move him or you can move Somalis to Minnesota and they'll be just like Minnesotans in a generation or two or very, very quickly.
	They don't say that because otherwise they'd go out and hire the smartest Republicans and say, oh, we'll just turn them into Democrats very quickly and very easily, right?
	They don't just keep those people away because they know that there's an intransigence to people's beliefs.
	And so, yeah, Trump is just a big giant wind, and he's making some people stronger, and he's blowing out a whole lot of candles.
	And the pushback, you know, I'm happy to speak to people who are against Trump, and I'm sure you are as well, because I'm happy to speak to people who are against Ayn Rand.
	I'm happy to speak to people who are against me.
	Sure.
	The question is...
	What is their process of being against someone?
	And this kind of prejudice, you know, it's one of these things, just before we get into the deeper stuff, guys, I mean, it's one of these things that's really, really important to understand.
	I'm sure you guys get it because you have this question, but just out there to people as a whole.
	People, people, people.
	Reading diet books doesn't make you thin.
	Watching people run a marathon doesn't It doesn't make you fit.
	And there's this idea that, you know, well, I've read all of Ayn Rand's books, and I've read all of Murray Rothbard's books, or I've read Hans Hopper's books, I've read Friedman, I've read so many, you know, Peekhoff and all that.
	Peekhoff, I mean, his book on the rise of Nazism, Ominous Parallels.
	Great book.
	That's when he was still under the wing of Ayn Rand.
	I think it was better than the stuff he came up with later.
	But anyway...
	I've read Nathaniel Brandon, therefore I have self-knowledge.
	It doesn't matter what you read.
	It only matters what you do.
	Now, you know, knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for wisdom.
	Wisdom is when you take knowledge and instead of just watching the wheels go round in the air, you put them on the ground and get somewhere.
	So people who've been around objectivism but who have not had the challenge of putting objectivist ideals into action in their own lives, to me, have learned nothing.
	In fact, they've learned less than nothing.
	They have been reading, they have been talking, they have not been doing.
	Philosophy is a verb.
	It is an action word fundamentally to me.
	It is something that you do in the same way that you read diet books in order to change your diet.
	And, you know, it's like saying, well, I really, my doctor told me I better start improving my cardio, so I went out and bought a pair of sneakers and threw them in the closet.
	Well, you should have sneakers to run, but buying the sneakers isn't, right?
	And so this is the question fundamentally for objectivists or anyone who's against Donald Trump or for Donald Trump and so on.
	The question is, what is...
	Your process for being so.
	I had no opinion about Trump when I first heard that he was running because I didn't know much about Donald Trump.
	I've never watched The Apprentice.
	I hadn't read any of his books in the past.
	He'd just been one of these guys kind of floating around the periphery of my sort of vague media consumption over the decades.
	I didn't know anything about him.
	And I was surprised when he started talking about Mexicans and criminality on the border and so on.
	And I was like, well, I wonder why he's doing that.
	You know, and he's remarkably popular.
	Well, these two things, all they are is data points.
	All they are is data points.
	So I began to research and say, okay, okay, so...
	Okay, so illegal immigration, he's saying, is a big problem.
	Is it a big problem?
	And you start looking at the numbers and you can say, well, it's a big something, right?
	It's not small, even if you count the lowball estimate of 11 million and other people have calculated up to about 30 million based upon remittances and so on.
	So, okay, it's something that's big.
	It's something that's big.
	And we're talking about something that could be, you know, 5 to 10% of the entire U.S. population.
	Yeah.
	That's a problem.
	And then I started looking into other immigration.
	Okay, so America was founded on immigration from Europe.
	And so what's the immigration from Europe and what's the immigration from non-European countries these days?
	Oh my!
	So it's like 90-95% of immigration into America for the past 30 or 40 years has been from third world countries and from cultures or belief systems that go very much against immigration.
	The American tradition of limited government and Bill of Rights and, you know, all that kind of stuff.
	And then I started looking into criminality associated with illegal immigration.
	And this, of course, is the source of the 80% of the women crossing over from Central America into America are raped along the way.
	This is horrendous.
	And then I started looking into, well...
	If they're illegal, they sure as heck can't get welfare.
	Oh, wait, no, a lot of places they can, right, and send their kids to public.
	They're not illegal, right?
	They're just non-taxed in a lot of ways.
	And so all that happened, and then I thought, okay, well, Let's look at the demographics and the future and where everything's going, and let's look at the voting patterns of the immigrants, and clearly they just vote left vastly in general.
	Especially for Mexico and South and Central America, they vote for bigger and bigger government, and they also vote for lower and lower taxes, which is why Central and South America are such wonderful paradises of fiscal stability, because that just shows stupidity, right?
	It's just greedy, idiotic, low-rent retardateness.
	I want more government.
	I want lower taxes.
	Well, then you really should not be in a civilized society because, well, reasons I don't...
	You can't do math.
	You can't count.
	So...
	So for me, all that Trump was, I mean, I didn't care about the guy in particular.
	I was like, wow, he's made a big splash and there's a huge response to him.
	I wonder why.
	And so I just, it's just data points.
	That's all.
	And, you know, it's hard to argue with a lot of the data points.
	And that's how I try to approach information, which is, wow, that's really shocking.
	That's really surprising.
	That's really alarming.
	That's really unpleasant.
	That's really...
	And so I try to look at the data to understand what the phenomenon is.
	And if you look at the data, it's not hard to understand why Trump is popular among certain groups.
	And he's very popular, actually, I mean, relative to other Republicans among blacks and Hispanics.
	So it's not hard to figure out why Trump is popular, and it's not hard to figure out why he's saying what he's saying.
	And so that's the process.
	Now, if people go through all of that process, And then they can say, well, I think that I dislike Trump because of X, Y, and Z, but I understand why he's popular and I understand the information behind his arguments.
	Well, then they can say, well, you know, the crime rate, while much higher than the general population, I'm willing to live with, you know, X number of hundred people being murdered.
	I'm willing to live with X number of thousand people being assaulted.
	I'm willing to live with X number of thousand people being raped because I have this whatever open borders thing.
	I'm willing to accept the big pile of bodies and bleeding vaginas in order to pursue my moral agenda.
	I'm also willing to have the government initiate more and more force for illegal immigrants on behalf of illegal immigrants.
	I'm willing to have the government initiate more and more force for illegal immigrants.
	In order to fund this, because I like open borders, which means that the government has to initiate a lot more force on taxpayers, has to print a lot more money, it has to put in things like Obamacare to cover the medical costs of illegal immigrants to a large degree, and it has to borrow.
	And so I'm willing for more and more government, more and more bodies, more and more rapes, more and more assaults.
	Okay, I may have moral issues with all of that, but at least they know the facts and they're willing to make the sacrifices.
	But the people who are anti-Trump, without even doing any research into why he's popular or why this guy who's a total genius and one of the best negotiators history has ever produced, We're good to go.
	This guy who is immensely popular and has really challenged political correctness and that is his greatest gift.
	Challenging the media, challenging political correctness and showing them for the paper tigers that they are, in fact, that you can go and say things that people find shocking and they'll be shocked and they'll clutch at their pearls and they'll scream racist and bigot and women hater and so on.
	And it doesn't matter.
	You keep going and the people know the truth from the bullshit.
	shit.
	The people can see through the evil veils of the media and prejudice and see to the actual facts.
	The people are so desperate that they're out of Plato's cave.
	They're no longer looking at the shadows of people cast by the media.
	They're looking at the people themselves.
	And this medium of the internet, of course, really helps with that.
	So all that happens for most people is, I don't think that they're even having emotional prejudice against Trump.
	I think that basically what's happened is, and we'll get into the why in a second, but I think that basically what's happened is the media has made it unpopular to support Trump.
	And listen, by the media, I don't just mean sort of the mainstream media.
	There are lots of people who call themselves conservatives.
	There are lots of people who call themselves libertarians.
	There are lots of people who call themselves conservatives.
	Objectivists or free market people or just rational empirical thinkers to begin with who have made it Gosh!
	To support Trump.
	Oh, he's so terribly lowbrow.
	I can't imagine why anyone of any discernment and discretion and distinction would ever want to get behind such a ham-flavored buffoon as Donald Trump.
	Like, they've just made it kind of low-rent to sort of understand Trump's positions or be sympathetic to the issues that he's speaking to.
	And it is conspicuous to me.
	It is very conspicuous to me.
	That the vast majority of people who are anti-Trump are not themselves battling it out with illegal immigrants in what's left of the free market.
	They're not.
	Who's anti-Trump?
	A lot of academics.
	Hey, do you think that Juan from Mexico is going to be taking over your tenured position anytime soon?
	No.
	Oh, you're a reporter.
	Ah, okay.
	So fluency in English, left-leaning, well-educated, got the contacts, got the job.
	And are you going to be threatened by the guy who can't speak English who's coming across the border?
	No.
	Ah, well, you know, they've got this big giant cartel on the government.
	And so, a lot of the people who are opposing Trump are not themselves in the free market.
	Like, conservative publications in particular, and again, I take this point from Ann Coulter, They have usually a backer.
	Like, it's really hard to make money on the internet.
	It's really hard to make money.
	So usually, conservative publications have a backer.
	And they're not customer-facing in the same way that this show is, which relies entirely on donations.
	We have no backer.
	We have no one who writes us a check every month and we're just, you know, asking for donations to pay for Cheetos.
	I mean, this is all...
	So I have a responsibility to my customers, whereas a lot of conservative outlets and left-wing outlets, we know for sure, but conservative outlets, they have someone who's funding them.
	And they are fundamentally responsible to who's funding them.
	That is their ultimate goal.
	They don't have to speak to the people.
	So it's funny because Trump is saying that If you are taking donations from large concentrated economic entities, you're going to be corrupted.
	And the conservative media as a whole is a perfect illustration of that.
	How many of them are making money entirely off I'm not talking about, I don't know, someone who sends you anonymous bitcoins.
	I'm talking about...
	Somebody who's got a large donor with an agenda.
	You are then responsible for imprinting upon the minds of the masses the agenda of your donor.
	You are not responsible for figuring out how to appeal to the masses.
	You are fundamentally involved in trying to attach the puppet strings of donor money and donor opinions and donor perspectives to your audience to make them move the way that you want.
	And that's what's going on in the conservative media.
	It is really, really time for the conservative media as a whole to detach themselves from From the puppet masters of their donors and actually start doing what they say they like in the free market, which is appealing to customers.
	And you don't see this in other areas in life.
	You don't see Coca-Cola It gets very little money from selling coke, but gets a huge amount of money from a coalition of dentists who want to fix cavities.
	McDonald's isn't giantly subsidized by people who want to sell you diet books and exercise gear or blood thinners or whatever, right?
	I mean, they don't have big giant donors behind them, like these big shadowy sorons managing and controlling and coordinating everything.
	That's not how it works.
	They actually, McDonald's and Coca-Cola and so on, they get their money by appealing to the audience's preferences.
	This is not how think tanks in general, this is not how think tanks in general work.
	And I can think, I'm not going to name them, but I can think of at least a dozen, right off the top of my head, of conservative, libertarian organizations that get their money from a single donor.
	And that donor has a preference with regards to immigration.
	And that donor money they will not threaten.
	And if the donor money is about pro-immigration, and rich people like lots of immigration because it drives down the price of labor for which they hire, And so this show, are you guys going to be taking money from some big,
	giant, shadowy, moneybags, daddy warbucks, who's going to cut off your funding if you go pro-Trump, or if you even go sympathetic towards the arguments that Trump is putting forward?
	Yeah, I think actually it's...
	I think actually it's more subtle than that because I think they would argue, obviously we're not trying to push our donor's agenda, don't impugn us, and I actually believe that they're not trying to push consciously the agenda of their donors.
	No, no, no.
	I'm sorry to interrupt you and I'll just say this very, very quickly.
	I'm so sorry to interrupt you and I'll shut up in a sec because I know I had a long speech.
	So you can say, well, we're not trying to push the agenda of our donor, but then you can't be a free market person, because one of the foundational principles of any economics, and in particular free market economics, is that people respond to incentives.
	So if they're going to say, we are immune from responding to incentives, then what they're going to have to say is they don't believe in the free market.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Sure, and that may be true as well, but even if...
	I think there's something more subtle, and I think you touched on it, right?
	Even if they aren't consciously trying to push the agenda of their donor...
	And by the way, I'm saying this as someone, my career, I'm an entrepreneur and now I teach startups that run an accelerator.
	So I'm very familiar with like bootstrapping and trying to please the customer.
	And what happens is if you, you know, I'll use a startup analogy.
	If you overfund a startup and don't like give them any direction at all, They naturally lose track of their customer because they don't actually have to care about their customer.
	It's not that they're trying to push your agenda or do a particular thing.
	It's that the pressure that you would normally feel by having to go please your customer is relieved.
	And so you're kind of left to just whatever you feel like.
	And often what you feel like is conformity because that's easier.
	No, but they do have – you're trying to say that people who have a big funder don't have a customer.
	They lose track of the customer.
	No, they don't.
	The customer is the person funding them.
	Right.
	No, I get that that's technically true.
	But even the people who would argue that they – let's take an example of, oh, you're funded by the Koch brothers, therefore – and that's the kind of classical argument against a lot of conservative organizations, right?
	You're funded by the Koch brothers, therefore you're pushing their agenda.
	And I think even if people aren't consciously pushing the Koch brothers' agenda, they certainly don't have to go out and please their listeners or their readers because that's not – they're now disconnected from the free market in that way.
	So at the very least, they have freedom to just kind of wander off in this disconnected state and go wherever they really want to go, and they're going to end up going where there's the path of least resistance, which is probably pleasing their donors generally.
	But it's not necessarily even conscious, is my point.
	Well, the other thing, too, and I think that's – yeah, you're right.
	I mean, and the degree to which it's conscious or not is completely irrelevant to the equation.
	And I'm sorry that sounds rude.
	But because people say, well, how much – I don't get 50% conscious, 12%, 17%.
	It doesn't matter.
	People respond to incentives.
	So people who are on welfare who vote Democrat, I mean, are they conscious of – Who cares?
	They're just following their incentive.
	You know, like a lion, how conscious of his hunting strategy is he and how much of it is instinctual?
	The zebra doesn't care.
	Because the zebra has just got fangs going into its jugular and claws ripping out its intestines.
	It's like, how much of it is conscious?
	Don't care.
	I don't know.
	That's not a noise that the zebra makes.
	I don't know what the zebra makes, but it's not as funny as what goats make.
	But the other thing, too, is remember that there is a very strong, strong sociopathic warmongering neocon element within the objectivist movement.
	And the fact that Trump has been so anti-war, That is not insignificant.
	You know, so Trump wants a really hugely lower income tax.
	He wants to scale back a huge amount of regulation.
	He wants to have a non-interventionist foreign policy.
	He wants to think about charging NATO for all of the military protection that America provides, all of which are, you know, I think entirely in line with certain objectives and principles.
	But objectivism, to some degree, has been taken over by, let's just say, pro-Israel sympathizers, and the idea that America would have a non-interventionist foreign policy when Israel relies so heavily on America for funding and weaponry is not positive for some of the pro-Israeli thinkers.
	And so the idea, I mean, obviously, one of the greatest disasters of modern American history was the decision to invade the Middle East.
	And I put Afghanistan as much into this equation as Iraq, although Afghanistan is like the poor distant cousin of brutality that tends to be overshadowed by the disasters in Afghanistan.
	But one of the greatest, greatest disasters in, I would argue, all of American history, but certainly modern American history, was the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan and the destabilization of Libya was the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan and the destabilization of Libya
	Because that has ramifications not just to American lives, American interests, the American economy, but as we can see, it is having massive ramifications to European stability with the migrants all charging into Europe.
	It is one of the great disasters in world history, should the consequences that I expect to accrue to Europe actually accrue to Europe, which is the undermining and destruction of European civilization.
	It would be one of the great disastrous decisions in history.
	And the fact that Trump was against that decision, and the fact that, you know, okay, Bernie Sanders was nominally against it, but voted to fund it and all that.
	So, the fact that Trump was against one of the most destructive decisions ever made in human history...
	Oh, but he said something about Mexican immigrants.
	It's like, do your big picture, bro?
	Do your big picture at all?
	Yeah.
	Mike, you've got some information on how objectivists get their money.
	I was just going to bring that up.
	Thank you, Mike.
	Because, by the way, you're right, Stefan.
	I happen to know that they do get a lot of conservative donations.
	I was just going to say, I mean, I can't give you tons of specifics right now, but it looks like lots of big hedge fund donations, as is the same with most think tanks in the conservative movement.
	Well, I'd push back a little against what Carter said, because even if they're not consciously, you know, conscious or not, you know, Carter, you have a direct line to certain people in the objectivist movement because of how much money you've given them, right?
	I mean...
	I'm sure you'd like to think it's because you're a great person and I love talking to you.
	No, no, that's true.
	That's true, right?
	And so, yeah.
	Wait, wait.
	Carter?
	Sorry, Carter.
	Carter, sorry to interrupt.
	Are you saying that you donated a lot of money to groups?
	In the past, I've donated a...
	Okay, then I totally agree with everything you say, and you're totally right, and anyone who disagrees with you is now my natural enemy.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	Go on, go on.
	Stop responding to incentives, Steph.
	I'm sorry, but I retain my objectivity.
	Carter, are your feet sore?
	Are your back sitting in a rub or anything like that?
	Can I get you anything?
	But no, I mean, you're right, Katrina.
	I mean...
	Yes, the reason that I get asked about my opinion is probably, and I haven't given them money in quite some time, but I did in the past, and I think the reason that they give a crap about my opinion is probably because of that.
	I would imagine that even if the objectivists are pro-immigration of hostile or opposing cultures to everything that objectivism stands for, they're probably not equally pro-immigration.
	Immigration of third world cultures into Israel, right?
	This is a big challenge.
	This is what makes people kind of suspicious, is that Western countries must accept everyone.
	And they say, well, look, Jews accepted a lot of different people in Israel.
	It's like, yep, and they were pretty much all Jewish.
	So that's kind of a...
	I don't think there's a huge amount of Lutherans from North Africa swarming into Germany these days.
	But, um...
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	Right.
	I mean, I'm sure with Israel, they would say it's this, you know, that...
	They all understand the emergency situation argument, so the debate is always over whether or not this is an emergency, right?
	Every time some issue comes up with Islam, it's the same thing.
	There's one side that thinks, yes, this is an emergency, therefore, you know, basic rights can be ignored temporarily.
	And then there's the side that thinks, no, it's not an emergency and, you know, you need to respect those rights because slippery slope, you know, massive government, all of that.
	And I think they would just look at Israel and say, Israel lives in a constant state of clear emergency.
	You know, rockets being launched at them all the time or something like that.
	And therefore, whatever Israel does is fine because it's, you know, the beacon of reason and freedom in the Middle East.
	I mean, I certainly agree it's not quite a consistent stance.
	Not quite a consistent stance.
	Look, Ayn Rand fled to America to escape communism.
	How would she feel about millions and millions of diehard communists coming into the United States with the ideological goal of overthrowing the U.S. government and instituting a totalitarian dictatorship under communism, which is exactly what she fled.
	So if Ayn Rand fled to America to escape communism, how would she have felt and argued Against a policy which imported specifically millions of communists every year.
	And subsidized them.
	And subsidized them.
	Right, but then they would say, you know, maybe the Ayn Rand is out there, right?
	If Ayn Rand came out of communist Russia and Steve Jobs came out of Syria or whatever, then, you know, who are we not getting because of this?
	Because we lose the borders.
	Oh yeah, but then all of these wonderful Muslims who could go to Israel, maybe one of them would come up with some wonderful defensive measure that would make Israel safe from all of its neighbors.
	So who are they to deny those people coming in?
	Right.
	I mean, it's all nonsense, right?
	It's got nothing to do with objective reason.
	Right, and it's again, it's that economic fallacy of only looking at the upside and not looking at the downside at all.
	Well, you know, yes, we could get a Steve Jobs, but what's the cost?
	Right.
	But wasn't Steve Jobs adopted?
	I actually don't know.
	I think Steve Jobs had a Syrian father, but I think he was an adoptee, if I remember right.
	It's been a while since I read his His biological father was a Syrian immigrant, not a refugee.
	The myth is that he was a refugee, but no, he was an immigrant.
	So his biological father was an immigrant, but his biological father did not raise him.
	Steve Jobs was raised by, in my opinion, an amazing man, one of the few men in the time of Steve Jobs raising, who reasoned with his children and did not hit them.
	And this, to me, was sort of an example of peaceful parenting.
	I mean, Steve Jobs has some questionable stuff in his, you know, his rejection of his own kid and all that, and Lisa, but nonetheless, I mean, I would ascribe that more to peaceful parenting, because if you're going to say, well, Steve Jobs, a Syrian is responsible, then you're saying that Steve Jobs' ability is genetically transmitted only, and with no environment, all genetics, in which case you're going back to race and IQ, and you're going to be on some pretty shaky ground.
	Yeah.
	In fact, Katrina brought this up last night, which I think is just funny.
	You're making me – you're reminding me of it.
	But, you know, people who are – out of one side of their mouth, they're saying that race doesn't exist.
	It's like it's not a genetic – a valid genetic concept.
	And the other side of the mouth, they call you racist, which is like – No, no, you can, no, no, hang on.
	No, you can defend that logically, and I'm sorry to interrupt you.
	I don't agree.
	You can, you can, because if race is a social construct, then anybody who judges another race is wrong, because race is a social construct.
	But they're judging a nothing.
	If it's a social construct, they're not really judging anything real, so how can you get upset at them?
	Well, because they're wrong.
	Because they're putting a criteria on people that is invalid and judging collectively by standards which aren't sensible.
	I see.
	Okay.
	Right?
	So if I say all red-haired people are thieves, then people could say I'm bigoted against red-haired people because...
	There's four red people who aren't thieves in the world.
	So if I'm judging people by an irrational collectivist standard, then clearly people can oppose me.
	If race is a social construct, then you can certainly oppose people.
	for being racist.
	But, of course, if race is a social construct, then leftists should be demanding for the dismantling of the NAACP and La Raza and all of the pro-Hispanic and pro-black groups that aim to advance the interests of Hispanic and black people.
	They should be arguing strongly and They should be carrying signs, they should be writing editorials, they should be demanding that the government stop funding any race-based institutions, which they don't do, right?
	So the idea that race is just a social construct, and therefore the only people, the only groups that should have pro- in-group racial advocacy groups are non-white groups, that's a complete contradiction, but of course that's never mentioned.
	Okay, that makes sense.
	I buy that argument.
	So...
	You know, I know the call is long.
	I don't want to like...
	No, no, this is good.
	Do you want to go even deeper?
	I do because, um, so I was thinking about this last night in terms of the why objectivists are behaving the way they are, and I did a little bit of introspection, and I have a theory, but I just kind of want to bounce it off you and see what you think about it.
	Um...
	So like a lot of objectivists, I was raised very Christian.
	And when I came to objectivism, there was some sort of sigh of relief that, you know, I'm not...
	So, you know, being very Christian, you can kind of find a safe haven in the right to some extent.
	But, you know, the leftists in the mainstream always hate you because you're always opposing whatever they're...
	You know, most of their core tenets.
	And so you never had cool points, which I think is a euphemism for sexual market value, but you never get cool points, right?
	And then when you become an objectivist, shortly after I became an objectivist, I moved to a rather liberal area of the country.
	So this was your Christian tradition of self-flagellation continuing, is that right?
	Exactly, yeah.
	But what happened was, I found myself suddenly being able to get cool points by agreeing with certain things that leftists said that I previously didn't agree with.
	Like, for example, gay rights and gay marriage was an issue that I changed my mind on when I became an atheist.
	Suddenly I had cool points and I could talk about that stuff.
	And it became a little bit addictive, immersed in this liberal culture, to just start talking about and paying attention to the things that got me praise.
	And I slowly kind of started to forget about all the stuff that I disagreed with these people about.
	Or maybe I just didn't bring it up.
	And so for myself, I realized that at some point I started to...
	Not have a backbone and be a little bit more cowardly than I think is appropriate.
	And when I realized that about myself, I started to reassert myself and realized I had to have uncomfortable conversations and it was okay that people didn't like me and kind of assert myself again.
	But there was a long period of time where that wasn't true.
	And I was kind of basking in this...
	Praise that I never got growing up because I was never part of the mainstream and suddenly I was getting this adulation from the mainstream for positions that I could talk about.
	And if you look at how a lot of objectivists behave, even just last night we were looking at an article where someone was arguing about the racism in the alt-right movement and I don't know if there's racism there or not.
	Probably not, mostly.
	But even if there is, if you're concerned about racism, that's probably the last place to go looking and writing articles about.
	There's a million other things that are more important than that.
	But all those other things will get you vilified and hated by the mainstream culture.
	So instead of talking about those, you talk about the one thing where you'll get mainstream people to kind of agree with you and you get some praise.
	And I think that there's just, frankly...
	A lack of balls in the objectivist movement.
	I'm sorry, it's not...
	I assume you don't mean biologically because it's a tad bit of a sausage fest as a whole.
	Present company accepted, of course.
	I mean metaphorically.
	And again, this is a raw thought, so I'm sorry it's not very laid out and rational, articulated very well.
	But this is kind of what my thinking is right now on this.
	I mean, objectivism has these seven virtues, right, that Ayn Rand articulated in The Virtue of Selfishness, and courage isn't one of them.
	And the older I get, the more I wish she had included that one.
	Well, but you're assuming, hang on, but you're assuming that...
	That if she'd just written it down, everything would be different.
	I don't know that that's the case, right?
	Fair.
	You know, she certainly wrote down reason and evidence, and people aren't pursuing that stuff with Trump.
	I mean, it helped me, right?
	I mean, it helped some people.
	And I would have liked to have had more emphasis myself on courage.
	And I think if she had written it, I would have paid more attention to it.
	Right.
	No, look, I mean, when I sort of think back on some of the stuff we did with regards to police interactions with young black men or even half-Hispanic interactions with young black men, it would have been very easy in the libertarian community to say, police bad, minority is good, right?
	I mean, that would have been the easiest thing in the world to do.
	I mean, I would have got nothing but praise for all of that, right?
	Yes.
	In the same way, if I had said immigration good, borders are the initiation of force, and blah-de-blah-de-blah, then I would have got nothing but praise for that too, right?
	Yep.
	Yep.
	So you can cherry-pick what you talk about in order to get praise if you want to.
	Or I could have just not dealt with the topics at all, right?
	I could have just said, I'm not going to talk about that, which would neither have gotten me praise, maybe a little bit of blame for avoiding or something like that, but there would have been many easier things to do than the course that I took.
	Or talking about, you know, I mean, I don't know if it's more true in libertarians.
	It certainly is more true among conservatives.
	Conservatives, white knight, like it's...
	Brush your teeth.
	Put on my uniform.
	Off I go to ride and save the eggs.
	And so, conservatives in particular, white knight like crazy.
	And so, the Michelle Fields stuff and other things where white knighting has come up.
	It's giving women responsibility for their role in the cycle of violence because women hit their children so much.
	You know, these are all difficult and unpopular and challenging.
	Positions to take.
	And they're not just positions like, I just love annoying people, you know?
	Hey, do people like me?
	I can fix that.
	Am I taking this approach?
	It's just that I'm sorry.
	I have engraved in my goddamn heart when Aristotle took on Plato's theory of the forms, which sounds all very abstract, but really isn't.
	Very concrete.
	He said, we love our friends, but we must love the truth more.
	And that has been one of the few founding credos of this conversation, of what it is that I'm doing.
	We love our friends, love objectivists, love the libertarians, but we must love the truth more.
	And when we sacrifice the truth to save our friendships, we are deeply insulting our friends.
	Whether we like it or not, whether we know it or not, it is deeply insulting to our friends to withhold the truth from them.
	Because we are already prejudging them as people who are going to irrationally, violently, immaturely, pathetically rail against facts with emotional abuse.
	And this is what you're facing.
	You're facing emotional abuse from your friends.
	The moment that somebody calls you a racist or a misogynist or, you know, whatever the white privilege or cisgendered scum or patriarchal or whatever, the moment that they use these terms against you, you are in a situation of being verbally abused.
	I mean, if they've got really good reasons for saying it, then it's a different matter, right?
	And so, when we withhold the truth from our friends, The friendship is over.
	It's over.
	Now, you can continue to hang around and conform if you want, but the friendship is over because you have now said, my friendship cannot handle honesty.
	I am going to be verbally abused for telling somebody my true thoughts and feelings.
	And the friendship is over.
	And not only is it incredibly disrespectful to your friends, it is incredibly disrespectful to yourself.
	Because when you lie to your friends by omission or commission, when you lie to your friends, what you're saying is, the best I can do is friends I have to lie to.
	That's the best I can do.
	That's all I'm worth.
	And that is simply an act of self-contempt that I could not ever bring myself to do.
	I cannot have a show about philosophy while simultaneously believing that the world cannot handle the truth.
	That's like being a doctor saying there's no such thing as health.
	We can't do it.
	We can't do it.
	I must tell the truth and I will find my true friends through that.
	But I must tell the truth because the alternative is an act of contempt against my relationships and myself that for me would make life viscerally unbearable.
	This is a completely emotional response.
	Like if I had to wake up in the morning, brush my teeth, look at myself in the mirror and say, get ready for a day of sycophantic lying to everyone you claim to love.
	I'd be like, oh...
	You know, like, I'd throw up in my mouth a little bit, and I'd go back to bed.
	I'd pull the covers off myself, and I wouldn't want to get up again.
	Yeah, and ironically, objectivists are particularly good at ostracism and tribalism with respect to, you know, if you talk about an idea that they don't want to talk about...
	You can get ostracized really, really easily rather than having kind of this.
	I mean, you've seen the schisms.
	I feel like every few years there's a new schism and objectivism where some people are ostracized for talking about something in a way that the other group didn't like.
	And instead of just having this agreement to continue rational discourse and have disagreements over it and talk about it openly, it becomes like you're excommunicated and you're not part of the tribe anymore.
	Right.
	In other words, Ayn Rand relies upon social metaphysics to promote a philosophy directly against social metaphysics.
	And look, this is natural.
	Like, I mean...
	Hang on.
	But certainly her followers do.
	Yes.
	Well, she...
	No, come on.
	She ostracized hideously as well.
	Oh, fair enough.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I guess recently, but obviously, yeah, yeah, fair enough.
	And that's because she didn't process her own ostracism.
	She had the impatience of the genius, which is to fail to recognize that it's always earlier than you think in the revolution.
	But that's a topic for another time.
	No, no.
	I mean, by the way, Nathaniel Brandon was my therapist at one point, and Obviously, before he died.
	Oh, man.
	Did you really, really need to...
	Okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	But he said to me once, you know, Ayn Rand told me that she knew nothing about psychology and I should have believed her.
	And he started...
	You know, he kind of described how he had gone down this path of...
	Trying to kind of look at psychology through her lens instead of his own judgment.
	But, yeah, so anyway, I don't know.
	No, he actually wrote a whole essay apologizing for his role in trying to help people suppress emotions as a result of objectivism, and it's worth looking up on the internet.
	It's a very courageous and honest essay.
	So, I'm sorry, I was gonna...
	Yeah, I mean, so to our credit, we don't do a lot of...
	Patting ourselves on the back, even though we are almost always right.
	But, you know, last August we called Donald Trump.
	It's going to be very significant, it's going to be very important, and it's going to create a huge schism in America.
	We got this honest conversation about Donald Trump that's in August of last year, and we called it early.
	So there's a lot of other things that are going on with Donald Trump, most notably that there has not been uncucked alpha males allowed in society for the past 50 years.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	You can be a, quote, alpha male as long as you're a giant gray-haired pussy like George Clooney or Brad Pitt.
	Like, you can be...
	You're allowed to be a sort of...
	Alpha male, as long as you are relentlessly leftist, or people are frightened of you, like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	He can be a little bit on the right, even though he's ineffectual on the right.
	He sacrificed his marriage and his family to do...
	Yeah, he sacrificed his...
	His life, his family, his relationship with his kids to do SFA. Sweet frack all in California.
	Hey, California's been saved!
	Nope, nope, just wasted your time and money and banged a housekeeper.
	Anyway, so Donald Trump is an alpha male who is not castrated by the left.
	Who is, I mean, who was the last one?
	You could argue maybe Reagan.
	Hmm.
	But you mentioned how conservatives are the ultimate white knights, and I don't think it matters whether you're castrated by the left or the right.
	I think the negative response that I'm seeing from the right, and certainly from the objectivists, is because he's not castrated by anyone.
	And it's a whole bunch of beta males, essentially, losing their minds.
	He implicitly reveals everyone as a fucking coward!
	Yeah.
	Look, he's gone up there, he's spoken his mind, and he's winning.
	And everyone's going to be like, oh, well, I can't say that, or I don't want to have a conformist, and people are going to get mad at me and say bad things.
	I will put myself in this category as well.
	Like, we can go up, we can speak the truth, we can shock the tits off people, and we win!
	Right.
	Right?
	We just passed 5 million video views in 28 days.
	Right.
	And there's about an equal number of podcast downloads.
	We're doing 10 million.
	And, you know, I mean, it's not because people haven't tried to be negative towards us, right?
	I mean, you go and you speak the damn truth, and you win!
	There's this giant, you know, there's something that Jeb Bush said once.
	He said, there's no constituency for the truth.
	There's no constituency for the truth.
	And this is why Jeb Bush has no energy, and this is why he's...
	A dishrag of a man, in my opinion.
	But Trump, by going out and speaking the truth, has revealed everyone to be either corrupt or a coward with regards to immigration and with regards to jobs.
	And in particular with regards to immigration, the fact that he's talking about harsh truths, you know, watch him read the poem The Snake.
	I mean, it's not hard to figure out what he's talking about.
	And so the fact that he's saying, look, there's significant indicators that Islam may not be wildly compatible with the West.
	You know, the fact that it takes this guy to state what Captain Obvious would consider beneath him, and he wins as a result, means that all of the negative consequentialism that people have been terrifying themselves with turns out to have just been a self-invented boogeyman hand puppet that it could have put down at any time and done the right thing and spoken the truth.
	Right, and that terrifies people because it'll inspire other people.
	Other people will realize that and start speaking more.
	Well, no, it's not...
	On the left, yes, but on the right, why didn't they do that?
	Right.
	There would be no...
	Sorry to interrupt.
	There would be no disaster in Europe right now.
	No demographic disaster in Europe right now if conservatives had got the hell behind Charles Murray and Dick Hornstein...
	After the bell curve in 94.
	22 years ago, if they had gotten behind this book and had continued to publish the information about race and IQ differences, A, maybe the problem could have been solved if it would have been solved, or B, if it can't have been solved, at least everyone would be aware of...
	The disaster of bringing low IQ people into a high IQ society.
	And even if we say it's all environmental and it's nothing genetic, okay, fine.
	So Syrians have an average IQ in the 80s, low 80s.
	So you've got low 80s parents raising kids.
	How's that going to work?
	So if conservatives had pushed back and said, look, look, you crazy lefties.
	You say every single morning you get up and you practice in the mirror the sentence, conservatives are anti-facts, conservatives are anti-science.
	Because what?
	We're skeptical about global warming?
	Okay.
	How about you guys deal with race and IQ? Because that's a fact.
	As sure as these facts can be developed, there's a hundred years, Lord knows how many tens of thousands of tests, and they all say the same thing, that there are differences between race and IQ. So how about you look in the mirror for your, oh, the big problem is us and evolution?
	I don't think so.
	You deny evolution by denying that wildly disparate environments could have any effect on human development.
	So they could have pushed back hard against the left on this, and instead they basically, it was like the Knight of the Long Knives, and all the conservatives came out to stab Charles Murray and the late Dick Hernstein in the back with regards to the bell curve.
	And if they had, had the courage of their convictions, the courage of the data, and the courage of the facts behind them, they could literally have done a huge service to the salvation of Western civilization, and I speak that not likely, and I speak that not in hyperbole, but as a basic fact.
	So Donald Trump is now, he's not talked about race and IQ, but he's talking about cultural compatibilities and incompatibilities, and he's winning because of it.
	And so these Benedict Arnolds of conservatives, and it wasn't going to come from the left, but it was going to come from the right.
	The Benedict Arnolds of conservatism and the conservatives.
	I'm just picking one example out of many, many, many different examples.
	The Benedict Arnolds of people who betrayed somebody who brought an essential piece of information to Western civilization and The ignorance of which is literally destroying Western civilization.
	The fact that Donald Trump is coming out and speaking 1% of these issues and winning reveals them to be spineless, self-betraying, self-loathing, vicious, civilization-destroying bastards.
	Yeah.
	I see that.
	I see that.
	He's the UV light that's shining on their hands and saying, look, there's blood.
	Like they...
	Brilliant.
	Brilliant, because I think he's got a fake tan too, so that analogy works on very many different levels.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	She seems to change multiple times per day as well.
	Yeah, I know.
	I've never seen someone so reactive to different types of lighting.
	Yeah.
	Oh, except me.
	I used to have a camera on auto setting, but basically I move towards the camera.
	I move back.
	The camera color changes.
	I'm like a chameleon.
	Anyway, it's neither here nor there.
	But so, yeah, there's a lot going on too, and of course, feminism's relationship to the alpha male is very complicated, and feminism has basically...
	Political correctness is just female hypersensitivity to offense.
	It's just the emotion-based thinking that characterizes a lot of women.
	Again, present company accepted.
	And so, women's style of thinking has dominated public discourse for at least two generations, probably three or four, and feminism's relationship to the alpha male...
	It's one of probably visceral hatred combined with sexual excitement.
	That's the only thing that I can possibly figure out about it.
	It is such a complicated mess.
	And so that aspect of the unapologetic America first nationalist alpha male crashing into the internationalist socialist communist feminist thought structure is another thing that is just absolutely glorious to behold.
	I don't care about...
	The shape of the wrecking ball that takes down the factory of evil.
	I don't care whether it's got funny hair.
	I don't care whether it's tall or short.
	I don't care.
	I care that there's impacts against existing thought structures that are killing the West.
	Right.
	Yeah, and that's the thing to like about Trump.
	If you're going to praise something about him, it's that.
	He's the Well, I think you called him the murder weapon against the RNC, but it's not just the RNC. It's against mainstream media and a whole bunch of other stuff.
	He is opening up a vague possibility of actual discourse about these issues.
	And he's also very much, as you guys are mourning and understanding, which I appreciate, he is also opening up very clearly and shining a light on Whether you can have a rational discussion with the people you think are your friends.
	Yep.
	And so think of the time.
	This is a free service that Donald Trump is saving you, which is years of pretending your friends are rational or sensible or even smart.
	Like, I mean, what a free service.
	You know, it's sort of like if someone could talk you out of a terrible breakup before you even dated the woman...
	Wouldn't that be great?
	Like, this is, you know, the woman you marry or the guy you marry in the US, probably more the woman because of the family court system, the woman you marry who sleeps around with you, who gives you herpes, who takes you to court, who shreds your finances, who keys your car, and some guy ahead of time says, oh, listen, she's crazy, man, and he convinces you not to date her?
	I mean, damn, wouldn't that guy be about the best friend you could possibly have?
	And if he did it for free?
	He saves you time, money, large portion of your life, obviously, yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, Trump will very quickly reveal if your friends are cowardly conformists.
	Or not?
	And again, it's not about being pro or anti-Trump, it's just having some damn thought behind your reaction.
	Trump reveals, do people have self-knowledge?
	Right?
	Like, there's lots of information I come across where I'm like, whoa, that is.
	Like, I was reading, I just interviewed Roger Stone yesterday, I'm reading some of his books, and this is information that...
	You know, part of me would like not to have.
	You know, frankly, it's shocking.
	But he makes very good cases and he's a very good researcher and is a good writer.
	And so, you know, when people start talking to me about JFK's assassination, hey, I've got more information.
	Does it accord with what I thought before?
	It does not.
	It does not at all.
	But it's a very good case and I can't just ignore it.
	Some of the stuff about the Clintons, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the Clintons to begin with.
	It's pretty shocking.
	So Donald Trump is this wonderful litmus test of are your friends only pretending to think or can they actually think?
	Can they actually come up with coherent information and arguments even in the face of strong emotional countercurrents?
	Whether those emotional countercurrents are coming from themselves or from those around them.
	Are they conformists?
	Are they lazy?
	Are they only pseudo-intellectuals?
	Are they only pretending to think?
	Are they just followers?
	Are they just, you know, hysterical, couch-fainting Jane Austen spinster aunts who manipulate everyone to get their way, right?
	Are they the dowager countess from Downton Abbey?
	Or can they actually think?
	And so Donald Trump is the service he's providing to anybody with the eyes to see is...
	Saving everyone from really bad, self-destructive, toxic relationships with people who only pretend to think, but are actually just deep, scared, conformists to nobodies.
	Right.
	I'm actually a little embarrassed it took Trump to show that to me because I'm involved on sort of the men's rights stuff and the strange love affair between objectivists and feminism.
	Certainly post-Ren's death, at least, since she was not a fan of feminism, has perplexed me.
	Or I say it perplexed me, but it didn't really, because I knew what was going on, but I didn't really want to know it.
	Because, you know, I mean, the only answer to that is that you're not actually thinking.
	And, you know, if you're female, it's to your benefit.
	And if you're a non-alpha male, then it's your in.
	You know, with the females, so...
	Well, yeah, because, I mean, the objectivists, maybe it's because Ayn Rand is such a powerful figure in the movement, but the objectivists feel that objectivism lowers their sexual market value, and so they try and prop it up with feminism.
	That's bullshit.
	I mean, you follow the truth, you follow reason, you follow evidence, and the ladies will follow you.
	You know, I mean, and this is true for women as well.
	I mean, you don't sit there and break your own back to attract a woman.
	You don't compromise your own ideals to attract a woman.
	It's like, ew.
	I mean, because the only women you're going to attract are women who want to dominate you and enjoy the sight of you with a broken spine.
	Oh, that's great.
	It might be good for eight to ten minutes for your penis, but it will be very bad for your heart, mind, and wallet down the road.
	I feel like you're describing one of my previous relationships early in my objectivist life, so...
	Yeah, well, I've been there too.
	And I say this because I've provided the very same service for 10 years.
	I've provided the very same service as Donald Trump, albeit in a slightly smaller sphere, for 10 years in that I make a lot of rational arguments.
	And I provide, you know, what, 3,400 podcasts and almost 2,000 videos, which people can share.
	And they can share, and that way people can get the response back.
	Oh, that guy is such a hat!
	Like, whatever crap term they use, right?
	It's like, hey, I have just saved you years of emotional pain, subjugation, cowardliness, self-loathing, and god-awfulness, you know?
	So maybe sign up for a donation or a subscription, because, you know, I just saved your damn life.
	Because people can share my videos with, you know, whatever group.
	They can share a video with the Bernie supporters where I'm critical of socialism.
	They can share a video where I'm critical of feminism with their feminist friends, the men's rights stuff, like, all of the stuff that I have done.
	And...
	And I'm like the litmus test.
	And again, it's not whether people agree or disagree, it's just can they disagree intelligently?
	Or do they just emotionally react and cough up verbal abuse like a cat hurling a furball on your tiny head?
	Well, okay, so I've provided this service for people, as have many other people.
	And people get mad at me, like, Steph, you broke my friendships.
	Nope.
	Nope.
	No, you thought there was a bridge that could hold your weight.
	And it was in fact made of papier-mâché and balsa wood.
	All I said was, okay, step on the bridge.
	Crack!
	Steph, you broke my bridge!
	Nope.
	No, I didn't.
	You did.
	I just said, test it.
	So, and as I've talked about before, Trump is a fantastic R-selected detector.
	Are selected.
	Are selected detector.
	People who don't have any particular in-group preferences are selected by definition, and I've gone through all of that in the Gene Wars presentations, which we can link to below.
	Trump has an in-group preference.
	He is actually saying How does this immigration benefit me?
	I get how it benefits the immigrants.
	I mean, it's a lot more fun to sit on welfare in Amsterdam than it is to toil away in the desert in Algiers or wherever.
	How does it benefit the domestic population?
	Now, the fact that Trump is saying, how on earth does immigration benefit Americans who are already here, that is like the introduction to the virtue of selfishness.
	What's in it for me?
	What's in it for me?
	For my taxes to go up, for my children to get worse education, for crime to go up, for debt to go up, to be called a racist every time I point out there are problems with particular ethnic communities, for me to be driven out of a community because the white flight, and it's not just white flight, it's just smart flight.
	It happens to blacks as well.
	They don't exactly hang out in Harlem if they're making $150,000 a year for the rest of their lives.
	So this idea that Trump is saying, what's in it for me, What's in it for us?
	How does it benefit us?
	The fact that America is giving all of this, quote, free armies and navies and military protection to everyone else and not charging them a goddamn penny is ridiculous.
	So the fact he's saying, okay, what's in it for us?
	For us to go around protecting Europe all the time.
	What the hell's in it for us?
	It costs us a huge amount of money.
	And Europe's deal with us like they're a French waiter, like they're peeing on you from a great height.
	Oh, these Americans, they're so...
	Right?
	So why the hell are we defending and spending blood, treasure, and lives to protect these cheese-easing surrender monkeys?
	Why don't we charge them for it?
	I mean, how is charging for services provided somehow anti-objectivist?
	I mean, come on!
	He's fighting against the altruism of sacrificing in-group preferences He's saying, why would we do that?
	How is that beneficial to us?
	Of course it's beneficial to other people.
	Yeah, it's beneficial for the mosquito to take your blood.
	How is it beneficial to you?
	Now you have Zika and an itchy pimple.
	So, damn, I mean, it's horrifying, but incredibly instructive to see people whose emotional reactions and desire for conformity and fear of verbal abuse causing them to completely shred all the foundations of their philosophy.
	I think that's all it is.
	I think it's fear of verbal abuse.
	Which I understand.
	You know, K-selected people are afraid of rejection.
	Our selected people aren't as much, because they can always find new people because there's nobody with any standards.
	Sorry?
	How can you get that far into something like...
	I mean, my entire...
	Maybe this is because I was always sort of right-leaning, but I was an atheist since I was five years old.
	So I just...
	I don't know.
	My whole life has been that type of verbal abuse, and I don't understand how you could even dabble in objectivism without being subjected to that.
	So wouldn't you get over it?
	Wouldn't you toughen up at some point?
	And why is the line drawn here instead of when people...
	Say you're evil because you don't want free healthcare for people and...
	I don't know.
	It's probably the...
	I mean, it's the alpha male thing, right?
	This is the first time that it's like actually there's been an alpha male challenging feminism and, you know, that's my...
	I don't know.
	Steph will have a better answer.
	Yeah, that's my cut through too.
	Mike, you wanted to mention something?
	Yeah, Katrina, it sounds an awful lot like you're mistaking the world for yourself.
	I can't believe other people are responding this way.
	I can't believe they're having this reaction.
	I, in this situation, would respond in this way.
	And trust me, I've done this myself many, many times.
	Like, this is so simple!
	How come you can't see these statistics on immigration and crime are skewed because of this, or they're leaving out this information, or they're obscuring the data to get what they want by doing this little simple trick?
	You know, it's like, how come people don't see this?
	It's right there.
	Here we'll do a presentation explaining how it's done, and then you'll still get the same stats thrown at you.
	How come people don't get this?
	Well, I'm mistaking the world for myself.
	Yeah, that's probably true.
	I was just going to say, in fairness, when I'm seeing other objectivists, they know that I'm an objectivist and so there's no cost to them speaking out about that stuff with me.
	I don't necessarily see them in their classrooms in college full of liberals or in casual social situations at parties or You know, anything like that.
	So I think I just sort of assume they behave the way that I do, and I don't actually have any direct evidence of that.
	Well, you have direct evidence to counter that.
	Well, now I do.
	Thanks to Trump.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, I can't think of anybody in recent memory who's had the amount of attacks directed against him as Donald Trump has.
	And if people want to be against Donald Trump, listen, I mean, this is not complicated.
	And by that, I mean it's hard to understand because it's so easy, which is generally the curse.
	Things are a lot easier than we think they are.
	It's just that we like to complicate them so we don't have to act.
	But let's say that you genuinely believe that Donald Trump Is Hitler, or whatever, right?
	Let's say you do, right?
	Well, the way that you talk someone out of being a Donald Trump supporter is to listen to their concerns and say how those concerns will be better addressed with someone else, right?
	I mean, look, we all know this, that when we say we want a free society or we don't want the welfare state, then people say, let's say that someone comes up to me and says, oh, so you're against the welfare state.
	How would the poor be taken care of in the free society, right?
	And if I say, racist!
	What the hell would that do?
	Right?
	I mean, I'm not listening to their concerns.
	I'm actually just reinforcing their perspective that I'm some weird-thinking asshole who has no capacity to empathize or doesn't care about...
	Like, it would confirm everything they suspect about objectivists or libertarians not caring about the poor.
	Right?
	Or if I just said, they said, well, how would you care for the poor?
	And I'm like, well, the poor are all leeches.
	Why should I care about them anyway?
	Freedom!
	Right?
	I mean, they would be like, eh, I don't know.
	There are some poor, a lot of poor people.
	It's not their fault.
	You know, the kids, some people who are disabled.
	Anyway, so if people were genuinely against Trump and were not being emotionally reactive idiots, then what they do is they go to a Trump supporter and say, okay, tell me Tell me how Trump works for you.
	What is it about what he's saying that really appeals to you?
	What is it that you want?
	What is it that in you that you're worried about or want that he speaks to?
	And people will say immigration and jobs, right?
	And if you want to change someone's mind, you have to do a lot of listening first.
	Because you have to figure out what their concerns are, and then you have to convince them, A, that the person they think will solve their problems will only make their problems worse, but there's another solution that will actually make their problems better.
	And the people who are anti-Trump are not doing that.
	They are not addressing people's concerns, which is driving the popularity of Trump.
	No, they're dismissing the concerns out of hand, basically, is what they're...
	No, they're not.
	They're not dismissing.
	They are attacking.
	Oh, fair.
	Even worse.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So, in other words, it is a verbally abusive relationship where somebody...
	Look, the American people have some pretty goddamn legitimate complaints at the moment.
	You know, a significant majority of Americans think that the country is going a very, very bad direction.
	The economy has never really recovered from 2008.
	The national debt is staggering.
	It took the length of America minus 8 years to get to 10 million and it only took 8 years to get to near 20 million.
	20 trillion, sorry, 20 trillion.
	And the amount of death, the amount of dysfunction, the amount of wounded, the amount of veterans, the terrible quality of education, crumbling infrastructure, no jobs, like tens and tens of millions of Americans just out of the workforce.
	When are they coming back?
	Who knows?
	Every day they don't.
	They're less employable.
	Everybody's terrified.
	Of what might happen if the government starts to run out of money, because there'll be riots in particular communities, of course.
	There'll be cars set on fire.
	I mean, America is just holding together by a thread of debt.
	People have legitimate concerns, and most people are not waking up in the morning and saying, my biggest concern in this country is that Wall Street speculators aren't taxed highly enough.
	They have very visceral, deep-seated, important concerns.
	And everybody who takes the delicacy of people's significant discontent with their entire system and just screams them down as racists and fascists and Hitler lovers and so on, they are driving the exact disaster that these people fear.
	If you think Trump is Hitler, listen, if you're really scared of Hitler, screaming at all the Hitler supporters that they're racist, evil people, maybe they are.
	But that's not going to solve the problem.
	All that does is that drives them further into the arms of Hitler because nobody else is listening to them.
	Trump is listening to the people.
	All the people screaming abuse at Trump are saying to the people, we are not going to listen to you.
	Shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, go away, and you're racist.
	Now Trump is listening to the concerns of the people, and the people who are against Trump are screaming abuse at the people.
	That is so not the way to change anyone's mind that they could not be doing a better service for Trump if they tried.
	They are driving more and more people towards the only man who seems to be listening to their actual concerns.
	And their actual concerns are not whose wife is prettier, or which reporter might have got a few finger bruises on her forearm.
	Their concerns are, I haven't had a job in two years.
	I'm drowning under student debt.
	The manufacturing plant just closed down, which means my last hope of getting a job seems to be gone.
	There are so many regulations in my way of starting my own business that I can't even be bothered to try.
	The system is rigged.
	The game is rigged.
	The rich get richer.
	I'm sliding down from the middle class into living in a cardboard box under a bridge.
	And the media is yawping about some fucking tweets from years ago about Rosie O'Donnell.
	Are you kidding me?
	The indifference to the needs and the hungers and the desires and the passions of the people is driving them further and further to Trump.
	This has nothing to do with changing anyone's mind.
	Trump threatens people.
	they're too immature to have any self-knowledge as to what's really going on.
	So they scream abuse at people, and that drives people further and further towards Trump, because you go to the person who's listening, not to the person who's screaming abuse at you.
	So people need to shut up, stop verbally abusing people, grow up, grow a sack, grow some uterus, whatever the female equivalent is, and they need to shut up and start listening to people's concerns.
	Now, if they can convince people or if Bernie Sanders has some better way of dealing with the legitimate issues that Americans have than Donald Trump, then listen, find out what those issues are, make your case.
	But basically, this is the situation.
	The media, the people, the people you're describing, they're like an abusive husband.
	Who screams that his wife is a slut, she's lazy, she's fat, she's a pig, she's a bitch, she's a see you next Tuesday.
	And then he's really, really shocked when she has an affair with the first guy in years who comes along, holds her hand, looks into her eyes, and listens.
	That was very well put.
	That was very powerful.
	And objectivists could learn a little bit of something from that too.
	And I don't do these call-in shows for shits and giggles.
	I mean, I enjoy them and I find them very important.
	But I get to listen.
	Who else out there, at least in this sphere of media, who else out there gets as much feedback from people about what matters to them as I do?
	Yeah.
	We just added this third show because it's months to get on this show and people have urgent issues.
	So now I might be doing 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 hours of call-in shows a week because I want to know what's important to people.
	And I don't know.
	I mean, you sit there behind a desk staring at a camera, not talking to average people.
	You get your celebrities to come on or your talking head robots, your think tank unthinkers.
	But I actually talk to people and Donald Trump is listening to the people.
	And that's why the people, and that's why 15,000 people show up to see Donald Trump.
	You know, four to Rubio, of whom three are delivering water bottles, and a couple of hundred for Cruz, because those people are not listening.
	They're just lecturing.
	Right.
	Right.
	And most radio shows will have a two-minute conversation, right?
	What are we talking for?
	Hour?
	40?
	It's like an hour and 45 minutes.
	Hour 42.
	I thought this was going to be a short call.
	Yeah, I was like, oh, he's going to, you know, it'll be quick.
	He'll just answer and we'll move on.
	And I don't think we've had a wasted...
	Yeah.
	I don't think we've had a wasted syllable in this call.
	No, it's been delightful.
	It's been a great conversation.
	And very helpful.
	Yeah.
	And, I mean, from your side, I mean, it just...
	It makes a lot of sense because you are learning, you know, you're understanding your customers, basically, and figuring out how best to affect the change that you want, that we all want you to affect.
	So...
	Yeah, I can tell the truth about just about anything, but I want to tell the truth about what's important to the listeners.
	And it's a balance.
	You know, I need to figure out...
	What I need to talk about that's going to help them in the future, which can be annoying to people who just want to talk about issues in the now, and I also have to talk about history, the degree to which it shapes perceptions in the present and direction of the future, and I also have to talk about immediate concerns that people have, and it's quite a balancing act of which, you know, we're constantly stumbling back and forth, but it is a very delicate topic.
	Process to go through.
	And, you know, we put out stuff I know for sure it's going to upset people.
	You know, the GMO stuff we put out, 9-11 stuff that we put out.
	And definitely the parenting spanking stuff is very disconcerting to a lot of people because it's saying, take the wheel off the air and put it on the ground and enact the non-aggression principle in the only sphere you have control over, which is your own direct life.
	And saying to people, listen, you need to live for your values.
	And being around people who directly oppose your virtues is not a recipe for integrity.
	And it's really challenging for people because it's a lot easier to listen and talk and make speeches and read books and not do anything foundationally to change your life.
	But if philosophy is not lived, it is a lie.
	So anyway, I got to move on to the next caller.
	Thank you guys so much for bringing this topic up.
	And I really appreciate the conversation.
	We loved it.
	Thank you so much, Stefan.
	And count us in for people who want to hear more peaceful parenting, even though it's not as popular when you talk about it.
	But great stuff.
	Thank you.
	Thanks.
	Hey, sometimes you harvest and sometimes you plant.
	And the peaceful parenting is the planting side.
	All right.
	All right.
	Well, up next is Fred.
	Fred wrote in and said, on a recent show in the context of the migrant crisis, you expressed that you were on the fence about whether Europe, quote unquote, deserves to be saved.
	First, you should know that most Europeans that still have a spine have a distinct dislike for the generalizations that involve all of Europe, since that covers everything from the lazy and the corrupt Greece to the hard-working and innovative Switzerland, and arguably a good chunk of Turkey and Russia.
	And while the U.S. government gives a decent helping of freedom to its own citizens, you could well argue that the people of Switzerland or Poland are in many ways more free.
	And said nations are not involved in the wholesale murder and suppression of freedom in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
	So can you honestly say that the U.S. deserves to be saved more than we do?
	Or that there's some other country out there that you think is more deserving?
	Or have you simply given up on the whole world?
	That's from Fred.
	hey Fred I don't know if this sounds like a really important topic or not.
	I'm just kidding.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	I'm throwing down the gauntlet there a little bit.
	No, that's fine.
	That's fine.
	But the first thing that struck me is that you seem to be concerned about me judging collectively, and then you talk about lazy and corrupt Greece.
	Help me unravel that conflict, if you don't mind.
	Well, yeah, I guess that's a bit of a problem.
	But okay, let's limit it to the Greek government.
	Oh no, I mean, I think if the Greeks didn't want free stuff, they wouldn't be in the disaster that they're in, right?
	Yeah, but can you truly say that all of Europe is one collective in the same way that Greece is as a nation and a people?
	Well, I don't know that I've ever said all of Europe is one collective.
	I certainly refer to Europe as...
	As an institution, in the same way that I refer to North America as an institution, and Europe as an institution, given that there is the EU with, what, like 28 member states who basically have given up border controls, if Europe is starting to define itself collectively, common currency and common immigration and border control, or lack of border controls, it's not that unrealistic.
	And to contrast Europe to some place like North Africa, which is not that far from From Greece and from Italy is important, right?
	Like, if you talk about North America, you're talking about a European, largely Protestant-based civilization.
	And if you're talking about South or Central America, you're talking about a mestizo, largely Catholic, and other religion-style of a civilization.
	So, yeah, you can make some generalizations as a whole, but certainly I wouldn't want to say that all European countries are the same.
	I mean, I get that.
	But...
	The degree to which Europe has surrendered to a collective is the degree to which it's not completely unjust to refer to them in collective terms.
	Well, but have they?
	You know, you see...
	I think maybe if you only read the headline news, I can see the perspective.
	But if you...
	You know, there's growing movements in all sorts of countries with huge EU skepticism.
	Many countries haven't had a...
	Even a 50% majority that were pro-EU in decades.
	So I think it's, you know, in many ways we are taking hostage by this big political system rather than, you know, it's not like the will of the people kind of thing.
	Even if there was such a thing.
	Yeah, no, I get it.
	I think that voters have some influence over where their governments go, but certainly it's more a reactionary influence.
	But I'm not sure what it would take for me to think that Europe was beginning to wake up and save itself.
	I don't know what it would look like, but do you have any thoughts on what to you would be clear indication that you'd bet your money, your life savings on Europe's long-term survival and growth?
	Well, at least I'm, you know, looking positively at the trends from like Austria, for example, where the immigrant-skeptic, Euro-skeptic party has like 34% of the vote, or in Denmark with 25%, or even Sweden with 18%.
	You know, it's certainly not a majority, but it's getting to the point where the politicians are finding it harder and harder to ignore.
	And of course, that won't change things tomorrow, but I at least have a hope that it might change things, you know, over a year or two.
	Okay, so...
	When...
	I don't know all of the details of the laws about this, and my understanding is that if you are...
	The EU is starting to talk about drawing up a list of countries that they will not accept refugees from because they're relatively stable countries, and therefore, right?
	But I mean, people would just get fake papers or no papers and claim that they're from whatever war-torn country we're getting them entry.
	So I don't know, you know, and Greece recently began to deport some migrants to Turkey in the last couple of days, but...
	It's like 500, and they're paying Turkey an enormous amount of money that Greece doesn't have in order to take these migrants.
	So it's just a gesture.
	It doesn't change the real facts on the ground.
	So I don't know what it would look like for Europe to say what they're going to do, but it would have to do with preventing further migrants, right?
	As I talked about recently, and I've heard estimates from between 1 and 4 million people People are gathering in the north of Africa looking to make it across to Europe.
	Oh, yeah.
	As soon as the weather warms up.
	And here's the problem.
	And I put this out as a prediction, which, as always, I hope desperately, though I don't believe I will, I hope desperately to be wrong about this.
	But let's say that Europe decides to use force to prevent the migrants from entering the country.
	Mm-hmm.
	You know what's going to happen then.
	Simultaneous to that is you will face uprisings from the African ghettos within Europe.
	And so you will be facing a two-front conflict, to put it mildly.
	There will be domestic rebellions at the same time as you will need force on the borders of Europe.
	Now, I don't know the degree to which Europeans are aware of that or the degree to which Europeans would accept that?
	Or are they just hoping to buy five more minutes apiece every day?
	Yeah, that's certainly a great question.
	I don't know.
	I haven't thought that far.
	But I think...
	Yeah.
	It's very difficult to affect change in Europe the way it is right now because the EU is this huge bureaucratic break on everything.
	So for years, for example, in Denmark, the right-wing parties have been trying to restrict immigration but have been struck – have had laws struck down by the EU, have had threats of lawsuits from the EU court system and all sorts of things.
	I remember a few years ago, they tried having just simple border control, like checking that the car wasn't full of human smugglers or anything, but even that was met with staunch resistance from the EU machine.
	So, yeah, I think there's just some...
	There's some hurdles to overcome before anything will happen.
	But it will only take until the first country basically has the guts to say no to Brazil and saying, fuck you guys.
	You're running us into the ground.
	We'll have to take matters into our own hands.
	And I think when that happens, most of the countries of Europe will say, yeah, let's do that.
	Fuck those guys in Brussels.
	All respect for...
	And then what?
	Okay, so let's say that...
	Are you talking about exiting...
	That countries will exit the EU? Not necessarily, but...
	Step out of the Schengen, so close the borders basically, require immigration papers.
	And just that would force other countries to start doing the same unless they want to have all the immigrants...
	So, say Denmark closes its border to Germany, then Germany has to figure out, do we just want to keep all the immigrants who are coming here who want to go to Denmark, or will we start closing our borders to the Czech Republic and Austria?
	But why not just, I mean, closing the borders is one solution, but why not just deny welfare state benefits to people who've never paid into the system?
	I mean, wouldn't that be easier?
	I mean, that's a whole lot less government, whereas the borders and the walls and the checkpoints, that's just more government.
	I mean, isn't more government been the problem already?
	I mean, you had national governments, and then you had the EU. And it wasn't like the EU got rid of the national governments.
	You just put another layer of government on, which caused all these problems.
	And now you're going to stay in the EU, but put more layers of government in for border controls.
	I mean, why not just...
	Sorry, if you've never paid into the system...
	You can't get welfare.
	We don't give welfare to immigrants or to migrants and certainly not to illegal migrants or immigrants.
	Then you don't need the borders because basically you're applying the same standards to people who want to go and work and travel through Europe, who have incomes and professions and speak languages that are valuable in Europe and so on.
	And you're saying, well, because there are Economic migrants, we now have to institute all these border controls to control all the Europeans, whereas that's just more government.
	And it's not like more government has solved any problems so far, so why not have just a little less government and just say, nope.
	I mean, the welfare state's a bad idea as a whole, but it's a particularly bad idea and economically completely unsustainable for people who've never paid into the system.
	I mean, that's like me going to an insurance company and saying, hey, my house just burned down.
	I need you to buy me a new house.
	They say, well, did you buy insurance?
	Nope.
	Well, can't help you, right?
	I agree from a rational perspective that would be a much more sane option.
	Although I think that's somewhat less likely for the socialist governments of Europe to do.
	But that's what I mean!
	So the solutions are going to be for Europeans to run to more and more government.
	That's what I mean when I say that this is what Europeans are going to do.
	And that's why it's doomed!
	Well, yes, but isn't this situation very analogous to what's happening in the US at the moment, where their solution is also to build a wall and not to deny Mexicans' entry to the US? No, it's different in America, because in America, there's such a population of non-Europeans that this is the last chance Americans have to have an election.
	Where smaller government parties, at least nominally smaller party governments, can get into power.
	So the demographics in America have changed to the point where it's impossible for Europeans to win an election.
	That's not happened in Europe as yet.
	Europe, the immigrants or migrants are still a very small percentage of the population.
	In America, which is like Europe in a generation or so, it has swung so far towards appeasing illegal and legal immigrants from third world countries that America is in danger of losing all of its European traditions, its small government preferences and so on.
	This is again the urgency behind what's going on with Donald Trump.
	So, for instance, I mean, Reagan was only elected, what, 20, 36 years ago in 1980.
	The demographics in America have changed that if the election were held again, Reagan would have lost significantly.
	Right.
	And so it is very close to the tipping point.
	In America, where third-world migrants who overwhelmingly vote for lower taxes and higher government spending and more government benefits, that they are overwhelming the entire political system in America.
	So it is not close to that in Europe.
	And I just also wanted to mention, too, and you need to police yourself, if I can put it that way, significantly.
	And I use these terms, too, but I was just thinking today, what does it mean to be a far-right citizen?
	Party in Europe.
	Are the far-right parties interested in dismantling the welfare state?
	I don't think they are.
	Are they interested in dismantling government schools?
	Are they interested in having a private banking system?
	In other words, not a central bank, not a government-controlled banking cartel.
	Are they interested in truly free markets?
	Are they interested in stripping away regulations and bureaucracy and licensing for people to get jobs?
	No.
	They're basically the exact same as socialist parties, but with border controls.
	That's what's called the far right.
	So apparently it's far right now to be a complete socialist with a customs agent.
	That's what far right has become, and it's completely ridiculous.
	But that's not your fault.
	I just sort of wanted to point that out.
	No, I agree.
	Certainly.
	Yeah, I don't know what to say.
	So if Europe goes for more government...
	Maybe it's a short-term solution.
	I don't know.
	In America, maybe the wall is a short-term solution.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I certainly know that if nothing is done, America is done.
	If nothing changes, America changes for the worst forever.
	And so in Europe, if the argument is...
	Sorry, let me rephrase this.
	If America can stem illegal immigration...
	And keep third world migrants out of America, then you can still have a political debate in America.
	Because the deck won't be overwhelmingly stacked in favor of the socialists or the democrats.
	So in America, the desperation is around, is it possible to even have Any kind of political debate in America?
	Or have the socialists simply won by importing people who are going to vote for them?
	Low information.
	It's funny.
	People call Trump supporters low information voters, but apparently illegal immigrants who can't even speak English who vote for the left.
	They're apparently totally high information voters.
	But anyway.
	But in Europe, you can still have some sort of discussion.
	Now, of course, the problem in Europe, as you pointed out, is that people can face...
	Significantly negative repercussions for speaking out against the migrants.
	Oh, yes.
	And that is a big problem.
	In which case, there's no Europe in particular to defend anymore because there's no freedom of speech.
	Like, what are we working to defend?
	I mean, Europe is dead and has been for some time.
	You know, maybe the hair is still growing, maybe the fingernails are still growing, but I can't detect a pulse if people are saying, well, there could be negative repercussions To speaking out and therefore I won't do it even anonymously, even among my friends, even among my family.
	Then the European ideal of robust debate, of public debate is done and the Europe has been silenced and all is over by throwing some dirt on the coffin and having a short eulogy in Arabic and walking away.
	Yeah, but again, I don't see that as very much different from what you have in the US. I don't know Canada that much, but where, you know, any discussion of race or immigration is, you know, shouted down with, ah, racists!
	No, no, no, I get that.
	I get that.
	But I'm talking about, I don't know about the laws in Europe.
	Like, I don't know if it's illegal to say negative things about migrants.
	I mean, if it's just social disapproval, like if Europe is like, well, I might receive social disapproval for trying to save my civilization, so I'm just going to let it burn, well, then the civilization is dead.
	Like if people would rather have third world migrants bringing down, potentially bringing down their entire civilization, and I say that That's a possibility.
	And there's some arguments.
	You look at the demographics.
	Like in Germany, the white native Germans are going to be a minority, sort of 20 to 34-year-olds.
	They're going to be a minority by the year 2020.
	That's four years away.
	That's four years away, for God's sakes.
	London is now majority non-white in England.
	That's the city I grew up in.
	And so if Europe is like, well, it's uncomfortable for me to talk about these things, and I don't like being called any bad names, so I'm just going to surrender the entire cathedral of Western liberties and economic freedoms that have been built for the last 2,500 years, and I'm going to take a slow liquid dump on the skull of Socrates because I'm nervous about being called names, well, then Europe is already dead.
	There's nothing to protect.
	I just see there's a growing movement of people who are not taking it anymore and are actually speaking out.
	Good.
	Good.
	Well, then that's admirable and I get that that's difficult and I get that that's dangerous and so on.
	But this is, you know, I don't know if people have lost the ability to see the dangers that are coming.
	So it's like people, well, it's uncomfortable to talk about this stuff.
	It's like, well, you know, it's also uncomfortable for high levels of criminality and rape in your society.
	That's kind of uncomfortable too.
	Or the fact that your taxes need to be raised to the point where the native-born population can't even afford to have kids because all the money's flowing to third-world migrants who have birth rates of three, four, five, or six kids per woman.
	What the hell is that going to do to the country over the long run?
	So people are like, well, it's uncomfortable.
	It's like, you know, it's a lot more uncomfortable down the road if you have insurrections or you have people trying to take over your government and so on, right?
	I mean, if someone, Bob, goes to some country and says, I want to come into your country, I want to take money for free, and I also would really like to overthrow your government, do you think he's going to be let in?
	No.
	Well, I mean, does Sharia law recognize non-Islamic governments as legitimate, or should they be replaced with Islamic governments and Sharia law?
	Well, yeah, I think we agree here.
	I'm not going to defend the left-wing perspective here.
	Oh, no, I'm not talking about the left-wing perspective.
	I'm talking about the people who don't speak up.
	This is not to you.
	This is just other Europeans who are listening.
	You know, it's not going to get easier from here.
	Every five minutes you don't speak up is five minutes more disaster for Europe.
	It's not going to be easier tomorrow, it's not going to be easier next month, and it sure as hell is not going to be easier in the summer.
	When you've got millions of people paddling across the Mediterranean trying to get into Europe.
	Now is the time to speak.
	Not five minutes from now.
	Not tomorrow.
	Not later.
	Get a dinner party.
	Get people over.
	Bore them with facts.
	Show them graphs.
	Give them information.
	For God's sakes, it's not going to be any easier later on.
	This idea that, oh, you know, I'll quit smoking when I'm 90.
	You won't be alive when you're 90 if you keep smoking.
	It's not going to get easier.
	It has to be done now.
	And it's not happening yet.
	And it's not happening in the kind of size and speed and power and integrity and energy which is necessary.
	And by the time it shows up in people's faces, it will be too late.
	And this is the urgency that the Europeans don't get at the moment.
	This is the urgency, at least, that Americans are getting, which is, again, why Donald Trump.
	But this is not the urgency that Europeans are feeling.
	And they need to.
	Yeah, you know, I think...
	Well, I think you're overstating it a little bit there.
	If there's, like, as many as 34% of the vote in Austria who are supporting...
	A party who wants to do something serious about this.
	You know, that is similar numbers to what Trump is getting on the polls.
	But on the whole, yes, I agree.
	You know, we need to, you know, 34% isn't enough.
	Oh, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I really apologize for interrupting, but this is such an important point.
	And again, maybe you get it, but I got to get it out to the other people.
	So I'm sorry about that, Fred.
	Voting?
	Let's say that in Austria, tomorrow, A party is voted in that wants to close the borders.
	That is only the beginning of solving the problem.
	And the problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
	Oh, yeah.
	Right?
	So, it's not just, well, I... You know, if I can convince people in these voting...
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Because...
	If people want to close the borders, they're going to face a huge amount of abuse, they're going to face a huge amount of internal insurrections, right?
	All the European countries, as far as I know, and with some exceptions, of course, have significant black or Islamic or North African ghettos.
	And those people are waiting for their friends and family and their reinforcements to arrive.
	Right.
	They went there with the goal that millions more Muslims were going to go there.
	Now, if that's cut off, then there's not that much reason for them to be there.
	I mean, obviously they're going to stay and they're going to enjoy the welfare state, but, you know, life gets kind of boring when you don't have a job and you can't get married, right?
	I mean, it's not great.
	And so let's say you cut off the borders.
	That doesn't solve the problem.
	First of all, these people are still having babies way outside the rates of the domestic population.
	And there may very well be insurrections or rebellions or riots.
	And what's going to happen then?
	So the idea, well, I'll convince people to vote for this party that's going to close the border.
	Let's say that's just the beginning of trying to solve the problem.
	And so people need to have the information that they need in order to be able to stomach what comes next.
	Yeah, that's certainly true.
	And I also – I didn't mean it to imply that these 34% or 50% voters who closed the borders would solve the problem.
	But it just – at least to me, it serves as an indicator that there are at least some people who are willing to question the – The party line that, ah, immigration is good and multiculturalism is great.
	And, you know, people are starting to have serious doubts about whether the politicians are telling them the truth about this.
	Right.
	And all that needs to happen is people's doubts need to accelerate as much as the migration is accelerating.
	Because the leaders don't care if you have doubts.
	I mean, if they want to destroy your country, and I don't want to get into the whole reasons as to why did this...
	But having doubts is fine as long as they can get enough people in to destroy the country.
	You know, then it's like having doubts later, who cares, right?
	I mean, it's too late.
	Right.
	So this is why, you know, I've been strongly urging for people, if you've got the truth, you need to put your relationships to the test.
	You need to push people despite their discomfort, despite, you know, there's a phenomenon called an intervention, which you've Probably heard of, which is if you have somebody who is addicted to sex or drugs or alcohol or something, some self-destructive, right?
	Or a terrible relationship, an abusive relationship.
	If this person is spiraling into self-destruction, they're going to drag you down with them.
	And so what you need to do is you need to get everyone together.
	You need to get them around in a circle.
	And you need to tell them what they're doing, how it's hurting you, What they need to do to change, and you need to get them help, and you need to get them to commit to change.
	And the flip side of that is if they don't, you're cutting them off.
	Right.
	Now, this leftist multicultural suicidal fantasy is far more dangerous than one individual's drug addiction.
	Sure it is.
	And so people in Europe need to start staging interventions with these deluded leftists and they need to say, what you're doing is destroying the entire culture and the futures of my children.
	An individual drug addict can't take down the entirety of Western civilization, so to speak.
	And so people need to start having these interventions and having these facts and saying, look, You are with the truth and you are with the facts or you are against all that I hold dear in civilization.
	And I am cutting you off if you continue to work to promote an agenda that will destroy everything I hold dear.
	Right.
	And I've been saying this for years and people are like, oh, that's terrible.
	You do threatening relationships.
	It's like, no, trying to save things because the relationships aren't going to do too well in the future.
	Under an entirely different kind of government system than exists right now.
	Yeah, that's certainly true.
	And I think we agree on this mostly.
	I may just be slightly more hopeful about Europe's future, but I'm certainly not saying this is certain.
	I do see the danger and I'm not saying this will happen automatically, but I'm hoping that me and others who push for people to accept reality will be successful in time for it to matter.
	But I, Fred, I have no hope, which is why I have so much energy in what I'm doing.
	But hope, I'm not saying this is about you, I'm just saying this is my thoughts about it in general.
	Hope in general is a way of anesthetizing yourself to the danger and what needs to be done.
	Because if you have hope, it's like, well, events are in motion, things are happening, people are waking up.
	And hope is a very dangerous thing.
	Optimism is a very dangerous thing because it's saying there are things occurring in society that are going to get me what I want.
	And I don't believe that's ever the case.
	Society changes because strong-minded, willful people Act in a short-termly, suicidally irrational fashion to promote facts and reality to deluded people.
	Society progresses because people take completely insane stands called the truth and bend society to their will through persistence and volume and repetition.
	And they do that because they have no hope.
	They have only will and action.
	Hope is a way of saying, well, the current is with me, so I don't need to swim that hard.
	But the reality is that the current is against you, and you have no hope of achieving it unless you cast aside hope and substitute will, work, effort, strength, courage.
	Because hope is a way of saying you need less than your maximum effort to get something done.
	And I don't believe in it.
	I don't believe in it.
	I think that the world is going to go where strong-willed people want it to go.
	And so far 60-odd countries have gone to Islam because they really want it so.
	They didn't hope that Islam was going to spread.
	They made it spread.
	They didn't have hope.
	They had action.
	Yeah, that's a really good point.
	That's very much against, like, the Protestants, oh, let's, you know, God will help us, but there's no...
	Yeah, if he's going to...
	Well, we shouldn't probably put our too much hope in that because he didn't help all the other 48 countries, however many you said it was.
	Yeah, right.
	So, I do not have optimism, I do not have hope, but...
	I will certainly do everything I can to continue to get the truth out.
	And after that, it's up to every individual European to make a choice about how they spend the next 10 minutes.
	And that will determine the future of their civilization.
	Your civilization.
	My civilization.
	That's where my roots are.
	Yeah, definitely.
	All right.
	Well, thanks, Fred.
	Great call.
	I'm going to move on to the next caller, but I really appreciate the chat.
	All right.
	Thanks.
	Thank you.
	Alright, well up next is Deepak.
	Deepak wrote in and said, After the immigration crisis in Europe, what do you think will be the future of dating within the continent?
	How will it affect native European males?
	And how will it impact minorities when it comes to dating European women?
	After the rise in the sexual assault incidents from a few bad migrants, do European women's attitudes towards migrants change, or do they just not care?
	Are they happy with a lot of the options they will have in the long run?
	That is from Deepak.
	Well, hello.
	Nice to chat with you.
	Hello.
	I'm a fan of yours.
	I'm following you since September.
	I'm German but I'm an immigrant from India actually.
	So I came here in 2006.
	I worked in IT as an IT consultant and since two years I'm working as a dating coach.
	A dating coach?
	Yeah.
	I have a YouTube channel also.
	Do you want to mention what it is?
	It is Wayne Dating Lifestyle.
	And it's a bit controversial channel, but we show real-life seduction.
	And on the basis of when the people see, they book me for my services.
	And I'm selling this all over the world.
	Since I'm also an immigrant, last year, it started in September.
	This immigration, Angela Merkel said that they are importing the immigrants.
	I was a bit...
	What I can say, like, I am for immigrants, because I'm immigrant, but it was too much.
	There was a German form, actually.
	And I wrote the consequences that can happen.
	So...
	They actually banned me.
	Like, this was German form on Facebook.
	They banned me because I was telling that this might can happen in future.
	And I already predicted that something like that happened.
	And it all...
	It happened.
	So, like, this rapes and all this...
	Because it was like...
	Assimilation of like a totally different culture in European culture.
	So these days when I have a lot of clients who are minorities and who want to improve their dating life in Europe And they wrote me that it is getting harder and harder to, if they want to meet a European girl, then they are seeing a bit different, you can say, with different eyes compared to like two years ago.
	And it's getting, I can see the difference, like when I go out, I can see the difference compared to like last year.
	The way people see.
	I don't know what you mean.
	You mean that the European women are skeptical of the sexual market value of the migrants?
	Yeah, like what we teach is like meeting a woman, like a complete strange woman on the street and like starting the conversation and taking her number or like after that meeting her and on a date and then having a relationship.
	So this thing what we teach.
	And these are my clients that they want to learn.
	So they try this thing on the street in Europe, in Germany, and they see it is getting harder and harder for minorities.
	Yeah.
	At the same time, I have like fans from Denmark, from Germany, from Sweden.
	They're like white, native whites.
	They also wrote me this problem.
	They said like it is getting harder for them also.
	Because it's too much of options they are seeing right now.
	The women are seeing too much of options.
	And it is getting tougher for the whites also to get the women.
	It's getting tougher for white men to date white women?
	Is that right?
	Yeah.
	There was a guy from Sweden and some people and they told me that...
	It is not easy to date a Swedish woman because...
	Wait, a white Swedish guy is going to an Indian guy to figure out how to date white women?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay.
	That may be one of his problems, but neither here nor there.
	Actually, I have clients like...
	The thing is, I have clients like white clients also and minorities also.
	And I do deal with them in a different way, like...
	White clients, I'm dealing with this R selection and K selection, I learned from your channel.
	So when I was seeing this R selection, and I'm very much interested in dating, so these white clients, when they come to me, they have very much K-selected behavior.
	So, I teach them, like, I give them some R-selected behavior, so they have, like, you know, the combination of both.
	Okay, well, I don't want to get into the advice that you give, because that may draw us into significant conflict.
	So, I'm not sure.
	Is your question that if there's a culture that is very sexually aggressive, particularly to people not part of its own culture?
	That that may lower the sexual market value for women not in that culture?
	Is that your question?
	Like, let's say that Islam is more concerned with the protection of the virtue of Islamic women than non-Islamic women.
	Are you saying that that will have a negative impact on the sexual market value of Muslim men to non-Muslim women?
	Something like that.
	Minorities.
	If there are too much of migrants here in Europe and women are a bit defensive and you can say sexual market value will decrease or what can be done to Sorry, I mean, decrease from what?
	Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but let's just say that there's a guy named Ahmed.
	Yeah.
	And he's from Somalia.
	Yeah.
	And he doesn't speak German.
	And he doesn't have a job.
	Yeah.
	What possible sexual market value would he have for a white German woman?
	Again, maybe I'm missing something obvious here, and maybe you're the expert in this, but I don't know.
	I mean, they don't speak the same language.
	He doesn't have a job.
	They don't have any shared values.
	They don't have any common cultural history.
	They have different religions or opposing religions.
	I mean, what possible sexual market value could he have?
	Yeah, that's a different thing.
	He has no sexual market value.
	But for example, if a migrant who is integrated into the system, for example, for three years he's having a job and he wants to date a European woman, Or for example, he's who is in Europe for like five years.
	So if a guy who minority who is for who is in Europe for five years or and a minority who is who just came here immigrant, so they both look like same.
	I look like a minority, for example.
	I'm here for I'm German.
	I'm here for 10 years.
	So so like If I'm talking to a European on the street, then it is getting tougher compared to one year ago when there was not a migrant crisis.
	Alright, so hang on a sec.
	Now, this is from a site called jihadwatch.org.
	I've not verified this and I'm not even sure how I could.
	But this is an article by a fellow named Robert Spencer that was published January 17, 2016.
	And according to a female al-Azhar prof, Allah allows Muslims to rape non-Muslim women.
	The seizure of infidel girls and their use of sex slaves is sanctioned in the Quran.
	According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take captives of the right hand.
	The Quran says, O prophet, lo, we have made lawful unto thee.
	And it extends this privilege to Muslim men in general.
	The Quran says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls.
	And we'll put a link to this below.
	And I... That's not the European tradition, to put it mildly, right?
	And so I don't know if the more Muslims...
	You know, I certainly feel sympathetic towards you in that maybe you're mistaken for some of these people.
	But the more of this...
	And of course, in North Africa, a third of the men have admitted to raping a woman.
	A third of the men have admitted to raping a woman.
	And so if you have an ideology that allows for this behavior and you have it practiced, shockingly, in an area that believes in this ideology, then, of course, that's going to make it not high sexual market value to a woman who doesn't want that behavior, to put it mildly.
	So the question is, like, will it, in the long run, like, but at the same time, women is having much more options, like in Europe, like, because if we see, like, from this last year, over one million migrants, there are a lot of young male.
	So gender ratio is changing.
	No, no, no, no, you're not listening to what I'm saying, man.
	Sorry, Dubek.
	They don't have sexual market value to European women.
	So when you say, I mean, to put it coarsely, it's like you have a bunch of ripe fruit and you have a bunch of rotten fruit and you're saying, well, you have more choice in your fruit.
	No, I don't.
	Because I don't want the rotten fruit.
	So the fact that there are more men there that the European women generally don't want to date, you know, exceptions here and there, whatever, right?
	But in general, the fact that Ahmed is coming from North Africa and, you know, 30% chance he's raped a woman and he has an ideology that allows him to do that, to be sexually aggressive, to put it mildly, towards women.
	And he's probably got a lower IQ by far than the European women and he doesn't speak their language.
	Like, this is just fruit I don't want.
	So this is not expanding women's choices of who to date.
	Okay.
	I mean, I'm happy to, you know, hear where I'm incorrect.
	This is just my thoughts on the issue.
	Now, the media, of course, is promoting interracial, like you can't turn on a show that comes out of Hollywood without interracial couples being promoted left, right, and center.
	But they don't generally work.
	Like even in America, when you have interracial couples, like black-white couples in particular, which is the most studied, they tend to not last as long.
	They tend to be more subjected to things like domestic violence charges.
	They tend to get divorced more.
	They tend to be more dysfunctional.
	And these are cultures that have, you know, these are racial groups that have grown up side by side for hundreds and hundreds of years.
	And they all speak the same language.
	And the blacks are Christians.
	And a lot of the whites are Christians.
	So they have...
	Huge amount more in common and the relationships are still hugely problematic relative to other kinds of relationships.
	I don't see how it fits.
	The thing is, I have clients.
	I get people, minorities who want to date European women.
	So, what is your own thought on that?
	Like, raising sexual market value?
	I mean, the clients I get, they are not like refugees, but they are still minorities.
	So, for example, an Indian guy like me...
	Sorry, why do they want to date European women?
	Because they feel attracted towards European women.
	That's why.
	It's their sexual preference.
	They're not attracted to women of their own race and culture?
	No.
	So they have a negative view of the women they grew up with.
	They have a negative view of the women who raised them.
	And they are not attracted, at least to the same degree, to the women who raised them and who they grew up with.
	It's not a negative view.
	For example...
	I'm Indian, but I prefer European women.
	Why?
	Because I feel attracted towards European women.
	I know that.
	That's the same way.
	Of course, I know you feel attracted.
	The question is why?
	I don't know.
	What's wrong with an Indian woman?
	I don't feel attracted towards Indian women.
	I know that.
	Why?
	You grew up with them.
	You understand them.
	They raised you.
	I assume your mom raised you and so on.
	You had aunts and grandmothers and so on.
	So what is negative about Indian women for you that you don't want to date or marry them?
	I cannot answer that because, for example, it's the same like some women attracted towards an Asian guy.
	It's very rare, but some European women attracted towards a black guy.
	Wait, so you want to talk about how to date people, but you don't even know why you're attracted to who you're attracted to?
	Do you find, like if you were to think of going on a date with an Indian woman, I don't necessarily mean from India, but maybe one who'd come across to Germany.
	Yeah.
	If somebody offered you a date with an Indian woman, why wouldn't you want to go?
	I assume it's not just physical attraction, because that's very shallow, right?
	I mean, it's got to be something more than just, you don't like brown skin, right?
	That you're racist against Indians.
	It can't just be, you like blonde hair.
	Because, you know, blonde hair turns gray and gets...
	If you want a lifelong relationship with someone, you understand it can't just be based upon...
	She's got big tits.
	It can't be based upon shallow things.
	It has to be based upon her character, on her personality.
	Because you're talking about long-term dating prospects here.
	And so if there's something wrong with Indian women for you that you don't want to date them, Then I kind of want to know what it is for you.
	Like, what is negative about India?
	There's nothing wrong for an Indian woman, but it is something that...
	I prefer.
	I don't even prefer German women.
	I prefer more East European.
	So even I don't prefer a particular white.
	I don't prefer American or English or German.
	So it has nothing to do with the woman's personality at all.
	It is merely the physical characteristics.
	It is the personality that...
	Okay, good, good.
	So now we're talking about character and personality.
	And so you find that Eastern European women have better personalities or are nicer.
	No, I never feel attracted towards Indian women.
	You drive me crazy here.
	You say, Eastern Europeans, the women are nicer or better.
	It's not just a look.
	It's something to do with their personality.
	If you prefer one kind of personality...
	I only date extroverts, right?
	I only date really outgoing women.
	I don't like the shy wallflowers who, you know, sit and turn into question marks reading their Kindle on a soft couch or beanbag.
	And they say, well, I don't like introverts because then I would give you a list of things that I don't like about introverts.
	You know, they tend to be kind of boring.
	They tend to not want to go, I like to mingle with people.
	I like the nightlife.
	I got to boogie and they just want to stay home.
	Like there's incompatibilities or something.
	Now, this is not to say that introverts are bad.
	It just means that they're not suitable for me based upon personality characteristics.
	So if you're talking about mere physical characteristics, like she could be Satan but with blonde hair and I'd still want to bang her, that's one thing.
	But if you're talking about personality characteristics, like Eastern European women are whatever, like a lot of Western women like Eastern European women because they've not been poisoned by generations of feminism.
	So there would be particular characteristics around Eastern women.
	But so then my question would be, if you like Eastern women for their personality, then there must be something that you don't like as much about the personality of Indian women, and that's what I want to know about.
	I should find her physically attractive and what kind of character I'm looking for.
	I have dated a lot of German women, I have dated a lot of Eastern women What I have seen, like, right now I'm talking about, like, with Eastern women, they are good-looking.
	At the same time, they are not having this feminism.
	So they are more feminine.
	So that's why they listen to me, what I'm saying and all.
	And it is very easy for me to have a relationship with them.
	And when I'm talking about, like, Indian women, so I don't find, for me, I don't find them, Attractive.
	First, if the physical attractiveness is there, then we talk about character.
	So we're not reaching the character with Indian women.
	They must be having good character, but if I'm not finding them, if I'm preferring physically attractive the European women, then I will first go for them and then look for the woman who is having the Okay, so what is it that you find unattractive about Indian women?
	Is it the brown skin?
	Is it the brown eyes?
	Is it the black hair?
	What is it that you find unattractive about Indian women?
	I don't find them...
	I don't find them like, for me, there are a lot of people who find them attractive, but I don't find them that physically attractive, for me.
	Okay, I'm sorry man, if you keep repeating yourself.
	If you don't want to answer the question, just tell me you don't want to answer the question.
	But not answering the question while pretending to is getting kind of annoying.
	There's something you find unattractive about Indian women, and since Indian women are differentiated from European women by particular physical characteristics, Color of skin, color of eyes, texture of hair, certain body types and so on.
	If you don't want to say why you're physically unattracted to Indian women, I guess that's okay.
	I think it's not particularly honest of you since you want to talk about sexual market value.
	But don't just keep repeating that you're not attracted to them because you've established that about 20 minutes ago.
	You've got to tell me what it is that you don't like about them.
	Okay, I've already told you that I cannot answer it.
	Okay.
	Okay, so what you're saying, but what you're saying is there are physical characteristics that you find physically unattractive.
	Sorry to repeat myself.
	There are characteristics about Indian women, Deepak, that you find physically unattractive that you share.
	Right, so let's say you say, I don't like brown skin.
	Well, you have brown skin because you're Indian, right?
	If you say, well, I don't like black hair or dark hair, well, you have dark hair because you're Indian.
	I don't like brown eyes.
	Well, you have brown eyes.
	So whatever you say you don't like about Indian women, you're also saying you don't like about yourself.
	Is that not fair to say?
	So the thing is like, I will not say I don't like something in them.
	I just don't find...
	I prefer like, I have to repeat it, I prefer the European woman.
	No, I get that.
	Okay, so I don't want to repeat the same thing.
	My sister is also Indian.
	My sister, my mother, my parents are all Indian.
	I know how biology works.
	I get that they're all Indian.
	Yeah.
	So, okay, so even if you say, well, I'm not attracted to that, then you're saying that there are things that are not attractive about you.
	I mean, again, this is universalization.
	Also, I'm a little confused that if you say that you like Eastern European...
	Women, because they're not tainted by, you know, man-hating feminism or whatever.
	Yeah.
	Do you find that a lot of Indian women are tainted by this man-hating feminism?
	Uh...
	I have no contact with India and Indian dating scene since many years, so I have no idea.
	Sorry to interrupt, but you're in Germany.
	There are other Indian people in Germany, right?
	I talked to one recently.
	Yeah.
	But I have not too much contact with Indian women in Germany.
	I have Indian clients, but male clients...
	So then what you're telling me is it's not about personality, it's just about looks.
	Because you say, well, I like Eastern European women because they're more feminine, but...
	And you say, I like them more than Indian women because, what, they're more feminine than Indian women, but then you say, well, I don't really have any contact with Indian women, so you don't know the degree to which Indian women in Germany may have been feminine.
	I live in India since, like, for my 26 years, so I do have, I do know Indian women, so for 26 years I live there, so I'm here since 10 years.
	I do have contact with Indian women.
	So the Indian women in India, are they more or less feminine than Eastern European women?
	At that time, I was very...
	I have no idea.
	At that time, I was more focused on career and I was not very good with this...
	I was not able to get a date to attract any women at that time in India.
	I had no contact with women in India.
	I was seeing them, but I was not able to get them to date me.
	I was not really good with women in India.
	Okay, no, I get that.
	Well, maybe then you can answer me this.
	I mean, what about your mother and your sister, or your aunts, or your cousins, who are female?
	Do you have any sense as to whether they are more or less feminine than Eastern European women?
	They are respecting the...
	The relation, but I will say like in the femininity, it's the same.
	It's the same, but they are like, I will say it's the same.
	Okay, so then Eastern European women and Indian women are the same in terms of the femininity that you like, you just don't like the way that Indian women look.
	Yeah, you can say.
	I will not say I don't like them.
	I will just say I prefer East Europe.
	No, you said you're not attracted to them.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, that's a negative, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So just for all of the ladies out there in Europe, if Deepak wants to date you, he's only wanting to date you for your physical characteristics, not to do with your personality.
	Because even though Eastern European women and Indian women are exactly the same or pretty much the same in terms of what he values the most, he won't date Indian women because of the way they look.
	But he wants to date white women because of the way that they look.
	So not only is that a little bit on the racist side, which is fine, but it is also very, very shallow, right?
	I mean, you're just saying, well, you want to find women with physical characteristics, everything else being the same.
	You want to not date women, but you only want to date women with the physical characteristics that you like.
	And you want to not date women with physical characteristics you find unappealing, like brown skin and dark hair and brown eyes, which you yourself share.
	So, you know, that's just a bit confusing already.
	Yeah, but this is what you're saying.
	Like, what I'm saying is that I have a friend, like, I have a friend who is German, my business partner, who is a blonde, and he don't prefer East European women, and he's from...
	He's born in Latvia, and he prefers Brazilian women, like a black brunette or from Brazil.
	And I would have exactly the same conversation with him.
	So what you're saying is that you prefer European women merely for reasons of the way they look.
	Nothing to do with who they are, but just the way they look.
	And I would imagine if that's the case, then wouldn't European women have particular preferences just based on the way that somebody looks?
	And either you're going to conform to that or you're not.
	I hope that things go a little bit deeper than that all around.
	But the idea that you can...
	Raise your sexual market value for intelligent.
	Look, there are people who have fetishes, right?
	And then the fetish can include a particular race or ethnicity.
	You know, I remember Tom Wolfe talking about Italian girls in one of his novels that they were anti-intellectual and unbearably sexy.
	I just remember, I can't remember which novel he was talking about it.
	And so you can have a particular fetish.
	For, you know, a body part or a skin color or a hair texture or whatever it is, right?
	For whatever reason that developed in your life, usually it's due to early sexual imprinting, which I've talked about before.
	And so people can have particular fetishes for a particular physical characteristic.
	That is a terrible basis for a relationship.
	I mean, if you want to have a fling or just a short-term sexual Horribly ending affair usually that's one thing but in terms of a stable basis For how to raise children and how to like what would be the value again all other things being equal what would be the value of What do you have religion?
	What's your religion?
	I'm Hindu.
	You're Hindu.
	Okay, so let's say that some some German Christian woman is Who wants to date you?
	And let's say there's a German guy who's...
	Actually, the thing is...
	Same language.
	Let me finish.
	Same language, same background, same history, same culture, same religion, and so on.
	You have to add a lot more to the deal to be able to close that deal, right?
	Because those are the challenges.
	How is she going to integrate into Hinduism?
	And how is she going to integrate into your family?
	And does your family even speak German?
	Maybe there won't even be communication issues.
	And how is it going to be for her?
	If she marries some European or German boy down the street, then...
	She marries into his family, right?
	Marriage is about the unity of two bloodlines.
	It's about the unity of two entire family sets.
	And if your family's over in India, and let's say she has three kids and wants to stay home and raise them, she's not going to get help from your parents because they're in India.
	And even if they do come over, they're going to have very different language and culture and history and religion and so on, so there's going to be a value clash.
	And it all gets very complicated and very messy.
	Very quickly, right?
	There's a show called The Mindy Project where this Indian girl meets and marries.
	I don't think she's even married, but she's shacking up and has a kid with this Italian guy.
	And her family doesn't exist.
	I mean, they're all over in India.
	There's no clashes about religion.
	It's just complete fantasy that there's no cultural clashes, no language barriers, no problems.
	Her parents don't even exist.
	Like, this is the fantasy that people have.
	But when you marry, if a European woman marries you, Deepak, she's marrying into your entire family.
	I can talk about myself.
	I will say about what happened in my past.
	When I came, I had a relationship with a German woman, a German girl, and then we had a kid and she told me that I'm liberal with the religion thing and all.
	I'm not really conservative with the religion.
	She told me that it is better to have the child raised as a As a Christian and so that he will be having no problem in the school and as a Christian name.
	So I was agree with that and he's raised as a Christian.
	He's not raised as a Hindu.
	I'm not really.
	And he was also with me in India.
	And we didn't have any problem because she speaks German, I speak German, and she speaks also English, and my parents speak English, and we didn't have any problem.
	But they're not going to move to Germany to help raise kids, right?
	Like, yeah, like, she's raising kids, yeah.
	No, I mean, sorry, if you got married to a woman, look, raising kids takes a lot of resources.
	And if the mother-in-law is, or the father-in-law for that matter, are not around, it's a challenge.
	It's just a negative.
	I mean, these are just basic sort of practical facts about the whole point of dating and sex, which is to have kids, right?
	But it can also happen in the same, if she would be marrying, like having a German, and they are living somewhere in another country, or they are living in some other state where they have not access to their...
	Oh, I get that.
	I get that.
	But it's more like...
	That the family, like you have an accent, right?
	So you came to Germany and it's more, I mean, just talking about from a woman's point of view.
	And so if she's going to be talking to you automatically in her unconscious, she's going to be processing that your family is probably not going to be available to help her raise the kids.
	I'm just telling you the facts of sexual market value, right?
	Which means that this is sort of a negative for the resources who are going to be available.
	A woman's sexuality is all designed to calculate the resources that the man can bring to bear on the problem of raising kids, right?
	I mean, that's the huge giant sucking sound of resources going into kids.
	That is what women are unconsciously calculating, which is why they like sexuality.
	Tall guys and handsome guys and rich guys because height is a measure of economic success and physical health.
	And handsome is a mark of even features and good gene set which means less chance of developmentally problematic kids.
	And rich means that there's resources.
	But of course a wealthy man is going to be working a lot and therefore is less available for her to help, to help her raise the kids, usually.
	The most successful hunter is out there doing a lot of hunting because the whole tribe relies on him.
	And so she's going to look beyond the man to look at the in-laws that she's marrying into and seeing if they're available if the man is going to be less available because he's making lots of money.
	And if the in-laws are not available, then that's a negative just in terms of her being able to access resources.
	Now, if she gets along with the in-laws and she loves them and they love her and they want to help raise the kids, that's very important because it can be a lonely business, particularly in the modern world, raising children.
	Yeah, but in German culture, the people are not living.
	In Indian culture, we are like...
	Living with altogether.
	But in German culture, they are not living.
	It may or may not happen that in-laws help them.
	Well, there's a difference between helping and living with.
	And I'm sure you understand that, right?
	So there's also, again, I don't know if this happens at an unconscious level.
	It probably does.
	But we'll put a link to this below.
	Health and behavior risks of adolescence with mixed race identity.
	So let's say, Deepak, that you find your blonde goddess and you have...
	A half Caucasian and half Indian kid, you know, could be great.
	You know, could be fantastic.
	What is it they say on some...
	Biracial is God's Photoshop, you know.
	But anyway.
	So there was a study that was done in 2003.
	And a study compared the health and risk status of adolescents who identify with one race with those identifying with more than one race.
	Mixed-race adolescents showed higher risk when compared with single-race adolescents on general health questions, school experience, smoking and drinking, and other risk variables.
	Adolescents who self-identify as more than one race are at a higher health and behavior risks.
	The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.
	Like, we're tribal, right?
	I mean, to a large degree.
	And there's a reason why you're not as tribal, right?
	Like why you want Caucasian women rather than Indian women, which we'll get into in a second.
	But we're tribal, and if we grow up without a particular tribe around us, for a lot of people, not for everyone, but for a lot of people, that causes problems.
	It causes some mental health problems, some addiction problems, and so on.
	So it's an elevated situation of risk, right?
	And Mike, you got a little more here?
	Yeah, this was put out a little while ago.
	It's something from OkCupid, which is a dating website, and they pretty much used the data from all the responses back and forth, mixed and matched with gender and race, to see who responded to who and what the ratios were.
	And it's kind of interesting.
	I'll put a link in the show notes.
	But one of the questions is, would you strongly prefer to date someone of your own skin color slash racial background?
	I just noticed Indian females, they answer to that question 23% yes, 77% no, Indian males 17% yes, 83% no.
	And it's got it broken down by specific ethnicities.
	And it's interesting, if you look at females, just females, across all racial lines, 46% are yes as far as prefer to date someone of your own skin color slash racial background, and 54% are no.
	Whereas with males, 34% are yes, and 66% say no.
	So, the males seem to be more willing to go outside the lines, so to speak.
	And if you break it down by whites and non-whites, 45% of whites say yes to would you strongly prefer to date someone outside of your own skin color or racial background compared to 55% no.
	And non-whites, it's 20% for yes versus 80% for no.
	So I'll put this in the show notes, but it's an interesting look at sexual market value as a whole, and it has lots of detail on response rates, and it breaks it down, and it's really fascinating to look at.
	Yes.
	Okay, so there's just sort of one more thing that I wanted to mention about this, and then I've got to move on to the last caller.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Is there something you wanted to add?
	Yeah, the thing is like...
	Okay, so the question is...
	Okay, we were talking about myself.
	So the thing is like...
	For minorities, like who want to date?
	Because they ask what they want to date, European women.
	They come to me.
	So that's what I want to discuss.
	Like my first minority and second is for white European male.
	Because I am concerned with both.
	They also want to date in Europe.
	And what will be the future?
	Because I have seen like...
	In my question, I... I write that the European male are not that masculine compared to the Middle Eastern male.
	So it will happen that the women prefer a masculine male and The weaker male will be not able to get to date here, and they will not able to get children on how it will go in the future, and with all this immigrant crisis.
	And what they can do also, what European male should do to avoid the situation.
	Well, I don't know about all of that.
	But I will say that in general, you know, the average IQ measured in India is around 80 to 85.
	Now, obviously, you're much smarter than that, which is great.
	But that is the average IQ in Germany, for instance, I think is 102, 103.
	And among concasions, may even be higher, right?
	So if you have, again, assuming there's some genetics involved in this, and IQ does appear to be, you know, depending on who you ask, 50 to 70 to 80%.
	Hereditary.
	So one of the reasons it's possible why that you want to date the highest IQ group that you can find.
	And this is one of the reasons like why I saw this video.
	Everybody loves Asian girls.
	It's like, well, yeah, Asian girls are wicked smart, right?
	I mean, Asians, East Asians have, I mean, sort of Orientals have high IQs, 105, 106, and so on.
	And I guess maybe people want to date Jewish girls who have even higher IQs, but Judaism has this Don't marry outside the faith.
	Although, of course, I know that a lot of Jewish girls do.
	So, if you sort of look at the genetics and so on, that your best...
	If genetics are involved, right, Deepak, then your best chance to have smarter children is to have children with the highest IQ demographic that you can access.
	Do you see what I'm saying?
	Okay.
	So, like, okay.
	And so, this is one of the reasons why...
	You know, the Chinese and the Japanese women are popular because, you know, for a lot of people they may be the highest IQ And people that are grouped that they could have children with.
	On the other hand, but sorry, but they also have very strong in-group preferences as a whole.
	Whereas the Caucasian girls have for many decades been told to have no in-group preferences, which is one of the reasons why there are lots of problems.
	One of the many reasons.
	And so for you, I can completely understand from a sort of try and have kids with the smartest...
	Group you can find that that would make sense.
	And, you know, if you had to put money on it, the odds are that you would have a more intelligent child if you had, say, an East Asian woman to be the mother of your children than if you had, say, I don't know, a Somali woman or, you know, I think the lowest IQs are like the Pygmies or the natives in Australia and so on.
	And so this is just, you know, if you want a tall kid, then you try and find the tallest group around and You know, have them part of your gene pool and so on.
	And it's the same thing with intelligence.
	This has been specifically, you know, denied and excluded from Western thought for a couple of generations, although that hasn't changed the basic facts of the situation as far as can be ascertained.
	So, you know, because I was kind of asking you, why, why, why?
	And you didn't know.
	And then one of the...
	One of the answers may be that genetically you are looking to try and find the most success for your child, which would be to have a kid with the smartest group that you can find, and that's one possibility.
	And I don't know the degree to which that can be changed, but if I were to give advice to the migrants, I would say, okay.
	Yeah.
	Get as much of education as you can, get as much of a job as you can, commit to peaceful parenting, reject irrational ideologies, whatever you're subjected to, learn about European history, speak the language fluently, and these would be the best things.
	Now, of course, there is still the regression to the mean as far as intelligence goes, which people can look up if they want.
	I've talked about it before.
	But that would be my advice.
	But I don't know the degree to which these basic biological facts can be overcome or not.
	So anyway, appreciate the call.
	It was very interesting.
	Thank you very much for bringing the subject up.
	I always find it fascinating to talk about sexual market value.
	And we'll talk again, maybe.
	Okay, no problem.
	And it was good to talk to you.
	Thank you.
	Finally.
	Okay.
	Appreciate it.
	Okay, then.
	Bye.
	Alright, well up next is Thomas.
	Thomas wrote in and said, My hometown in the city that I am currently living in, Hong Kong, is listed on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom as the world's freest economy.
	And as such, I have noticed many libertarians seem to look up to the city as either someplace that they will want to move or an example that the West can emulate.
	However, in my honest personal experience, this city is perhaps one of the most non-intellectual and anti-philosophical places that I've ever been in, especially when compared to the West, even with all the madness with political correctness and the like.
	What will your advice be to someone who lives in a society that is simultaneously the freest in the world economically, and yet is utterly philosophically empty at the same time?
	That's from Thomas.
	Hi, Steph.
	Hey, Thomas.
	How are you doing?
	I'm fine.
	I'm fine.
	Thank you.
	Well, maybe not.
	I have to ask that question, so I'll just be honest.
	Not too well.
	I'll just explain myself for a bit.
	I'm from Hong Kong.
	I'm a native.
	However, I have been away from a city for a while.
	I have been studying in Beijing for four years in the most unfree part of China, perhaps, the center of the communist government.
	Then I moved to the UK for university for four years.
	Now I've just graduated and it's back in town.
	And I'm doing my first job right now, first long-term job, which requires an interactive Hong Kong people on a daily basis.
	And one of the things I noticed about Libertarians or the people in general, Western people in general, they're really critical of the West.
	They're saying, oh, the West is doomed, we're a suicidal culture, blah, blah, blah.
	Oh, you guys have been so much better over in Hong Kong, or at least just saying, yeah, it's like, oh yeah, China is the future and stuff.
	But for me, actually being someone on the ground, I have the unique advantage of both being a Chinese person and I spend a significant amount of time overseas because when I was in Beijing, I was in an international school.
	It was actually more Western than China.
	So when I come back and I speak the language, I know the culture, and I just see a lot of stuff that if you're a Westerner, you just don't see.
	For example, I tried to organize libertarian meetup groups and FDR meetup groups in Hong Kong.
	I never got more than one person to show up, one person besides myself.
	Oh dear.
	That's why I'm no longer in a group because I'm ashamed.
	I am not a media organizer if I can get one person to show up.
	There are always expats, Americans.
	They're in the city for maybe a year or a few months for work.
	I cannot get a local person to sign up.
	And yeah, so when I try to talk to people about it, it's literally like I'm saying to them, because they just don't know what you're talking about.
	Like, oh, limited government?
	Oh, so you hate the poor?
	No, they don't even say that.
	It's like they literally cannot comprehend what I'm saying.
	It's like, yeah.
	There's a government.
	There's a state.
	We need to do this stuff.
	We're talking about it.
	I'm saying how to eat your own head or something like that.
	I have an easier time talking to Western leftists because at least they understand what I'm saying, even if they think you're a bad person.
	Here, people either don't think about it or they cannot comprehend what I'm saying.
	I just feel really lonely.
	I just spend my days So this conversation better not suck for you because it's kind of an oasis, right?
	Yeah, that's why I wrote it on one of my donations.
	I go, thank you, because this is an oasis for me.
	Seriously.
	Yeah.
	Well, look, first of all, I really appreciate your support.
	And secondly, I mean, I've had two days to think about this, so I'm afraid I have a lot of thoughts, but I don't want to interrupt what it is that you want to say on this topic.
	Just one last thing, I guess.
	It's like, you know, a lot of my Western friends, regardless of their political views, they always say, oh, Why don't you move to the West?
	Why don't you move to America?
	For me, it's like, well, Hong Kong is the freest economy in the world.
	So zero percent, zero affinity tax, so things are much cheaper.
	It's the easiest place to start the business, as people might have seen on YouTube, when it comes to John Stossel's show.
	For me, in my own experience as a fresh grad, I have a degree in the humanities, liberal arts, so I could get a job.
	I could get a job easily.
	Not easily, but compared to the West, in which most of my fellow students that went to university with me, They couldn't find a job because it's so hard to hire.
	In Hong Kong, my first job was a Western server.
	It's literally, oh, you want to work?
	Sign here?
	Sign here?
	Done.
	I'm coming next week.
	Oh, you want to quit?
	Sign here?
	Done.
	You can't do that in the West.
	In Europe, you cannot do that.
	So for me, it's like, wow, it's like intellectually default.
	It's like, hey, I am making good money.
	Well, yeah, for a fresh grad anyway.
	So...
	And Thomas, what do people that you talk to what I think of what Europe is doing at the moment?
	Well, that's a disturbing thing.
	It's like when you read like, you know, a lot of like people, like they look at Europe and I can see them like they're saying, yeah, look at Britain.
	They have the National Health Service.
	Like, oh, this is so good.
	We should have it.
	We should be more like Sweden.
	Yeah.
	Like, you know, it's like for me, it's like this is like disturbing.
	And the sad thing is one of the reasons why Hong Kong is the freest economy is because like first the British They want us.
	You are a colony.
	You are tax cattle.
	You guys work much more efficiently.
	If you don't have all this nonsense, they'll keep working.
	And now, the quote-unquote communist government, people want free stuff.
	And so they say, yeah, we should have free kindergarten.
	Yeah, we should have free stuff.
	And the government just say, shut up.
	Go back to work.
	Don't care.
	We're not elected anyway.
	We're appointed by Beijing.
	So yeah, go back.
	Yeah, so...
	That's one of the things that is really disturbing and sad for me.
	It's like, yeah, we are the freest economy because of authoritarianism.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, of course, Hong Kong is a little island of historically left behind classical liberalism in that the British were in charge and the socialists were busy screwing up England, not Hong Kong.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so when Hong Kong gained its independence, what was it, 99%?
	It's sort of a little example of classical liberalism that was not generated by the East Asians, but was generated by British economic philosophy and classical liberalism.
	But the socialists all went And screwed up England rather than destroying, so you got a little bit left over.
	So anyway.
	No, and it's a very, very big question.
	It's a very big question.
	Let me ask you this, and maybe it's a fair question, maybe it's not, but I'll ask it anyway and you can tell me.
	What do you think is the level of empathy in the people in Hong Kong?
	I'll just be honest.
	It's really low.
	For me, I could literally feel I'm becoming a less empathetic person since I moved back.
	And it's less than a year because it's the only way for you to stay sane.
	For me, right now, I'm working a job in front desk at a private school, private education center.
	I have to turn my brain off, turn my empathy off if I don't want to go insane because near exam time, You can hear like parents hitting their kids.
	You can hear like, you know, just like, oh, it's like parents come in and say, oh, my son is not doing well.
	I want him to sign up for like, I'll punish him by signing up for like free courses so that, you know, he doesn't have free time.
	And it's really densely packed.
	So in my apartment, again, during exam time, if I open like my windows, I could hear parents hitting their kids on two floors below.
	And, you know, this is normal.
	So this is like, again, this is normal.
	So I just have to turn my brain off.
	I have to shut it off and just put on my earphones because this is how it's like.
	And the thing is, when you talk to Westerners, a lot of them are saying, oh, Hong Kong, yeah, that's good.
	But the thing is, the way I tell my friends, if you're an outsider that comes into Hong Kong and Chinese society in general, you belong to a different social caste.
	You don't see a lot of the things that, you know, a guy like me, like, you know, can see.
	And even if you do, you don't speak a language.
	You don't hear what they're saying behind your back or even in front of you, even around you.
	So, yeah, it's not empathetic.
	Right.
	And this, you know, according to, you know, I've got the book, um, The boy, Lloyd DeMoss, the book on child abuse and war, which is available at freedomainradio.com slash free.
	And the brutality of a lot of the East Asian child raising practices.
	Yeah, I did a video years ago on the tiger mom, right?
	Right, the woman who was just screaming at her kid and hitting her for not doing the piano right.
	And now, I was just reading recently that, you know, the kids are doing fine because one of them has joined the military, is gonna spend the rest of her life investigating sexual abuse and rape in the military.
	Yeah, I guess that's called doing fine these days.
	But anyway, so there's a lot of brutality in child raising in the East Asian cultures.
	And that, of course, produces what is famously this sort of emotionless, impassive, inscrutable, conformist...
	You know, slave to the boss and tyrant to the employee kind of hierarchy that goes on in some aspects of East Asian cultures.
	And so I would assume that it is a lack of empathy that comes about maybe as a result of certain biological reasons, which I don't even imagine anybody knows about, but most directly as a result of abusive and violent child abuse practices, particularly in the realm of verbal abuse.
	And that, as a result, means that there's not as much empathy.
	Now, if you don't have empathy in your character, you don't have much use for universals.
	Because universals are what are the moral rules for everyone?
	Which means you have to have a surrender of in-group preferences.
	You have to have empathy for rules that apply to other people.
	You can see as more traumatized people flow into the American educational system, particularly the college system, there's a massive fascist style intolerance where people are like freaking out because somebody wrote Trump 2016 on some steps in chalk.
	Naturally, of course, all of the trolls then come out with the chalkening where they want to write this everywhere and Trump gets even more free advertising.
	But as more traumatized people come in, they lack empathy because they've been traumatized and free speech requires significant amounts of empathy because you have to protect the speech of people you significantly disagree with.
	That requires a certain amount of empathy for your future self in that you don't want repressive weapons used against you and empathy even for people you disagree with.
	That's a uniquely Western phenomenon that comes about because starting at the 18th and moving into the 19th century, Western children began to be raised more gently, more peacefully without the amount of rape and abuse and brutality that occurs so often in other cultures.
	When I talk about third world cultures, I'm not even particularly talking geography, although it's associated with that.
	I'm basically talking about child-brutalizing cultures.
	Incredibly child-brutalizing cultures cannot coexist in the West because the West in its modern incarnation is founded upon Empathy.
	And I know a lot of people, oh, there was imperialism and so on.
	Yeah, but it wasn't the same imperialism.
	When the Japanese went into China, that was not the same as Western imperialism.
	Western imperialism was trying to bring the gifts of Western civilization through the white man's burden to the world as a whole.
	And it went badly sometimes, and it went well sometimes.
	But in general, it was a benevolent dictatorship, more along the Roman model.
	At least the early Roman model than the later one.
	And they brought technology and science and medicine and railways and the rule of law and so on.
	And now the best predictor of a third world country's economic success is whether it was at one time ruled by the British.
	So there was a lot of empathy going on in Western culture, Western civilization.
	It's gone a little too far now where Westerners are now demanded to empathize with people who have no empathy for them, which is not particularly beneficial to put it mildly.
	So, as far as, you know, the economic freedoms are inherited from the British, and as you can say, people are all digging up the, grubbing around the roots of political power looking to dig up their free nuts and berries, but until the quality of parenting and the empathy of parenting improves or increases, There will be no particular drive towards universalization.
	Universalization is driven by empathy.
	Empathy is created by benevolent child raising.
	And if you're not interested in universals, what use is philosophy to you?
	It's no use at all because philosophy is all about the definition of universals.
	Universal standards, universal rules, universal morals, universal principles.
	And if you don't have empathy, universalization doesn't strike you as even remotely important, doesn't cross your mind, and therefore philosophy seems completely useless.
	Yeah, I have this example I once brought up in an FDR online meetup group.
	There's this restaurant near where I live.
	The owner has an open kitchen.
	He likes to chat with the customers.
	And one day, the radio was on.
	It was talking about protesters who wanted universal suffrage for Hong Kong.
	The owner, he was joking.
	He said, you know, I don't care who is in charge as long as he gives me free stuff.
	He literally said that.
	I'm translating this from Cantonese into English.
	I couldn't help myself.
	The government doesn't own anything.
	Where does the money come from?
	You're a business owner.
	You pay taxes.
	After talking for five minutes, he eventually ran into it and said, yeah, you're completely right.
	Exhibition is tough.
	They're just stealing money from someone else to give it to other people.
	As soon as they're stealing it from someone else and they're giving it to me, why should that be an issue?
	Originally, I literally thought I'm finally getting somewhere.
	The first person in Hong Kong I've ever convinced that these things are like, this is fast, this is not right.
	And he said, yeah, you're right.
	But why should I care if they're stealing it from someone else?
	You're a business owner.
	You're a small business owner.
	They're going to tax you.
	You complain about big corporations all the time.
	Who do you think you're going to side with?
	And he just said, yeah.
	No, but you're asking them to apply moral rules to a government when they were never able to apply moral rules to their parent.
	Yeah, I guess.
	Yeah, definitely.
	No, listen, I was at a restaurant the other day with my daughter.
	And we're doing a lot of, you know, limiting sugar for sort of obvious reasons.
	And my daughter wanted a little, a bowl of applesauce at the restaurant.
	And I said, well, you know, We did have a little bit of ice cream today, so whatever, right?
	And she turned to me and she said, well, is there any sugar added to the fruit?
	And I said, no, I think it's just applesauce.
	And she said, okay.
	Would I be allowed to have a piece of fruit when I got home?
	And I said, well, sure.
	And I said, well, since fruit doesn't have sugar added, other than the sugar that's in it, and since the applesauce doesn't have sugar in it, what is the difference between me having applesauce here and me having a piece of fruit at home?
	The texture's different?
	The taste different?
	No, no, but in terms of the sugar content.
	Well, if it's the same apple, then it should be the same.
	I said, you know what?
	You make a great case.
	I cannot think of a counter-argument.
	Let's go get you your applesauce.
	Right?
	So she is able to affect her will with rational arguments to somebody who's, quote, in authority, right?
	And so when she grows up, She's going to be able to think, okay, well, I should have some effect on things in authority because I have good arguments.
	Whereas if you're brutalized and controlled and beaten and screamed at by your parents, the idea that you're going to be able to impose moral rules on anyone in authority, which is basically the essence of libertarianism or voluntarism, is incomprehensible to you.
	It's literally like asking someone to speak Mandarin if they've never even heard the language.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah, I guess in my own case, I was introduced to libertarianism literally because first I went to a local school in which things went very, very badly to the point that when I was in grade two, my parents decided, no, you cannot go to a local school.
	Then they just spend the money to put me in a private school.
	Things got slightly better, but I mostly avoid the bullies and stuff by just hiding out in the library.
	And guess what?
	I found the library, a book about classical liberalism, when I was in grade five.
	And I just read it and said, yeah.
	Yeah, this is great.
	That's how it started.
	I don't want to sound like something, but I guess I'm somewhat of a mutant compared to everyone else, because that's how I genuinely feel.
	At work, I work at this private school place.
	I talk to the expat teachers.
	I have more in common with them, even if a lot of them are leftists, compared to my fellow Chinese coworkers, We have, like, nothing to talk about, even though we speak the same language and everything.
	It's like...
	Oh, yeah.
	No, listen.
	I worked with a Japanese woman.
	I lived and worked with her when I was gold panning and prospecting up north.
	And, you know, we would be sitting there gold panning.
	Sometimes we would do it in the bush, but in the winters, of course, we'd go into a warehouse.
	We'd be sitting there gold panning.
	And I remember asking her questions.
	You know, because I was as philosophical then as I am now when I was 18 or 19.
	And she had no interest in it whatsoever.
	It wasn't hostile.
	It wasn't like, oh, we can't talk about that.
	She just, meh.
	No, it didn't land for her in any way that interested her at all.
	And, you know, obviously that's not a representative sample or anything like that.
	But in my experience...
	It's just like on this sort of East Asian mindset.
	It's just not what is exciting or interesting or motivating or doesn't juice them, so to speak.
	Yeah, and one of the things that really annoys me is that I have some friends, they're from overseas, they're Westerners.
	When I tell them about this or chat about this, the polite ones might go, well, does that make you consider a fake situation in Hong Kong?
	Is your free market system working?
	Maybe you should reconsider your views to some outright boasting.
	Where's Milton Friedman now?
	We do have some of the higher standards, maybe not because of the real estate prices, but we do have a good standard of living.
	I am getting a decent job considering the economic climate, but sometimes when you get this, where's your Milton Friedman now?
	Is it working?
	Have you considered your position?
	Are people so rude because they're being trained in this dog-eat-dog system?
	Things like that.
	Right.
	No, and I get that.
	And look, this is why...
	First of all, nobody knows why, even though East Asians have a higher IQ, they tended throughout history to be less innovative than Europeans, particularly in sort of the last five or six hundred years.
	As you know, I'm not trying to lump everyone together, of course, but there was a significant amount of stasis in East Asian societies for literally thousands of years.
	I mean, the ancient Chinese had Incredible knowledge.
	They had, you know, obviously hugely complicated mathematical practices.
	They knew the movement of the planets and the moon and they could predict eclipses and they had gunpowder and they had fiat currency and they had entrance exams for their bureaucrats thousands of years ago.
	But they never had the breakthrough that Europeans had.
	Sort of 18th to 19th to 20th centuries.
	And the question as to why, I mean, nobody knows.
	East Asians do have less testosterone than people of Caucasian descent, as people from Caucasian descent have less testosterone than blacks.
	So maybe there's a sweet spot where you have enough testosterone to be innovative, but not so much testosterone that there seem to be other dysfunctions in general.
	But nobody knows for sure.
	But this, of course, is an interesting question, which is it can't just be IQ. It's IQ plus X, you know.
	And I think that the most important part of that X is good parenting.
	But that, of course, is a very tough thing to move or to change in society.
	So I don't know how to...
	I don't think there's any magic key, but it also shows to me that Of course, if most Europeans came to North America, they'd probably vote socialist.
	And it sounds like a lot of people from Hong Kong, if they came to North America, they'd vote socialist too.
	So maybe we're back to Jeb Bush that right now, or at least for the last while, there's no constituency for the truth.
	And of course, I'm aiming to change that because I have no hope or optimism, which means I have to rely on brute effort and willpower and courage.
	And eloquence and all that.
	So I don't know.
	I mean, there may be good reasons.
	I think maybe some biological factors, but I would put a lot of it down to the brutality of the parenting around you has probably stripped a lot of individuality and individuation out of the people.
	It has stripped a lot of the empathy out of people.
	And so they're very intelligent, but they're not interested in universals.
	Because if you don't have empathy...
	You don't get universals which means that philosophy, as I said, is useless.
	Yeah, I guess like in their case, it's like I'm about like calling socialists.
	It's like I just have that people that tell me it's like, you know, you should go.
	Yeah, you're into the freedom stuff.
	You know, you should go to the US. You should go to Europe.
	And well, this is like just for me.
	I don't know because again, like I mentioned earlier in Hong Kong, we're not getting those kind of things that I'm not.
	Okay, but so start.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	I get that.
	So start talking about parenting and childhood with people and call back to this show.
	Ask them what their childhoods were like, how they were disciplined.
	How they were punished.
	And ask them what they think of it.
	And then call us back if you'd like to be our mole in the Hong Kong multiverse of childhoods.
	I'd love to know.
	I guess I can use the example of my own father.
	He's, as you would say, a complete R. He grew up in this really property-stricken environment.
	My grandfather, he told me, he's the most uneducated libertarian person.
	He's illiterate.
	He taught himself English and stuff.
	For him, he was working class, but he said that he actually did something that no one else did because poor environment did.
	He spends time with my dad and takes him hiking and makes sure he goes through his education and stuff.
	My father, he's a really high-performing, really successful person.
	And yeah, so I guess like, yeah, it does make a difference.
	Like, you know, just like spending time with kids.
	I was going to ask you about that, but I think that we have an insight as to why you are able to deal with universals because you were treated more gently than most of your peers, which means you were treated with empathy.
	You learned empathy, which means universals are a value to you and you empathize with yourself in the future, which is the necessary precondition for fighting for freedom.
	And so, if you can promote the kind of child-rearing that you experience, that'll do a lot more than these futile intellectual arguments to people who don't even speak the language you're speaking of emotionally.
	Yeah, so I guess I just approach people and say that, you know, treat your kids better.
	You know, make sure they don't hit them.
	Like, don't do this, sir.
	Like, yeah.
	Just, yeah, just small things.
	Just, you know, just be kind to people.
	And I guess, like, that does, like, one of, like, the things I guess I fantasize about is, like, just small acts of kindness.
	In Hong Kong, like, they're, like, rare.
	It's like just holding a door open for someone.
	Sometimes I do that.
	People look at me like saying, huh?
	What?
	You're holding a door open?
	Just help people pick up stuff.
	They think you're stealing their stuff until you hand it to them.
	But I think just small things like this, if there's a kid nearby, they see it and say, yeah, there's good people.
	There's good people in this society.
	So I guess, well, maybe I'm just thinking that's No, no, just...
	I'm sorry, and I've got to go mind the show down because I've got to eat.
	This blew right through my lunchtime.
	It's been three and a half hours.
	So, yeah, but if you would do us a favor, go talk to some people and make some notes of the conversation.
	Give us a call back and give us a sense of what childhood is like for people in Hong Kong.
	I'd be quite fascinated to hear about that.
	The name of the book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse.
	It escaped me before, but it's back now.
	And Mike had a point that the counter-argument to Apple Source...
	We had Robert Lustig on the show years ago that juice and crushed fruit spike insulin a lot more.
	Like a big vat of juice spikes your insulin a lot more than eating an orange because the pulp slows down the intake of sugar.
	That is a very good point.
	I actually thought of that at the time.
	The problem is I haven't gone through all the science of that for her yet.
	And so I can't introduce that during...
	I have to always do things beforehand.
	I try not to bring in new information while we're in the middle of a conflict when she has old information because that just sounds like new information is a way of winning the debate.
	So with the information and knowledge that she was working from, she was completely right.
	And I do have a note in my brain to bring up some of the stuff.
	But I need some diagrams and draw it out and all that kind of stuff.
	So that's a very good point.
	Thanks, of course, everyone, so much for listening.
	Always a great pleasure to chat with you.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Donate.
	To help us out, please do it right now.
	Don't wait.
	Okay.
	I'm assuming you're back.
	I'm doing that now.
	FDRURL.com slash Amazon to help us out.
	Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful day.
	And it was great to have our inaugural daytime show.
	Yes, you're welcome, Europe.
	And have yourself a great, great week.

▲