April 24, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
03:02:47
3269 Death by Maternal Instinct - Call In Show - April 22nd, 2016
Question 1: [2:05] - “I would like to challenge your contention that the majority of Atheists stand on the Left. I would wager that among those with high IQ, that there is a large portion of individuals that have to stand on the Right of most issues - as I do. Further, by removing the paradigm of religion, and the immunity to rational discourse it provides, it will allow us to properly diagnose certain religions as being barbaric. Can you provide a rational argument of a societal archetype that would concurrently support the continued existence of religion and the much needed condemnation of belief systems antithetical to any rational person?”Question 2: [1:18:04] - “Australia I not yet as bad as Europe due to the problems caused during the Migrant Crisis - but the country is already becoming unrecognizable due to leftist ideology. Short of a situation in which these issues are removed through state violence - what can possibly be done? Facts and evidence are being viciously cast aside, and the corpses piling up do nothing to lead us to a clear solution.”Question 3: [1:58:50] - “As massive immigration is becoming more globalized, and society is degrading into a mixed multi-culture, there will be no doubt be an epidemic of young people growing up without a concrete tradition to follow. What will become of these cultures, if globalism succeeds on destroying true cultural diversity?”Cognitive ability and party identity in the United Stateshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
So, we had a show wherein I had somebody calling up to criticize me about the video and podcast that I put out, why I was wrong about atheism.
How could I be so wrong about atheism and so confused?
And so bewitched, bothered, and bewildered by my own confusion.
Well, I think that I cleared things up quite a little bit and came up with one of my top five greatest analogies ever.
And I hope that you'll enjoy that conversation.
And again, looking forward to more feedback anywhere I can prove things I'm happy to hear about.
And then an Australian called in to talk about the mindset of himself, his friends and other people he've talked to about the migrants, some of whom of course are actually finding their way down to Australia.
And we had a good chat about that and I learned a lot about what's going on with a lot of people in Australia and I think you'll find it very helpful as well.
And the third caller Was interested, and it's a great question, I've seen this showing up a lot in the comments, which was, or is, given that there's a lot of globalists around, people who just want some sort of global hegemony, dare I say a new world order, how does that square with cultural diversity, and what is the relationship between philosophy and And culture.
Well, I can tell you that's been on my mind enormously over the last couple of months, so I also came up with some great arguments and perspectives with regards to that, and I strongly recommend making it to the end.
Of that conversation.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
To help us out, fdrurl.com slash amazon.
You know, you can just put it as a bookmark on your homepage.
And please like, subscribe, and share these podcasts.
I don't know if you knew this, but fdrpodcast.com.
You can, in fact, just share individual podcasts and give you a nice link.
And hopefully you will send this to friends and family and everyone else who you think might benefit from some rational arguments.
Alright, well, up for today is Ted.
Ted wrote in after we published the Why I Was Wrong About Atheism video, which was universally agreed upon by everyone in the atheist community.
100%.
Wait, uh, what was the feedback on that thing?
You can read the YouTube comments after the show, Steph.
Oh, you know, I have to put the atheist love sunscreen on before I go and read the comments on that video, because otherwise, you know, it's too much heat and love.
It's so warm and cuddly.
But Ted wrote in and said, I would like to challenge your contention that the majority of atheists stand on the left.
I would wager that among those with high IQ that there is a large portion of individuals that have to stand on the right of most issues, as I do.
Further, by removing the paradigm of religion and the immunity to rational discourse it provides, it would allow us to properly diagnose certain religions as being barbaric.
Can you provide a rational argument of a societal archetype that would concurrently support Well, hey, Ted, how are you doing tonight?
Doing great.
Not lying, Ted, but hopefully we'll get past that.
Busted.
Well, thanks a lot for calling in.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position because either I was unclear or people are a bit emotionally reactive.
I'm not putting you in that category, but I'm glad that you called in.
Really, the first part of my question I think I'd like to clarify.
I'd really more like to talk about, I understand that numbers, meaning that the majority of people, meaning the majority of people that have been Going towards the atheism movement has increased over time, of course.
But those with higher IQ would slide more towards the right.
Not that most people won't be, most atheists won't be leftists.
Does that sort of make sense?
Well, there are just two data points to toss in there.
The first is that atheists, like all groups, like to think that they're the smartest, and that's why.
And they also then will say, well, then it must be very intelligent to be a leftist.
But the reality is that at least according to one study that I've read, and we'll put the sources to this below, people on the right score higher on general intelligence tests than people on the left.
And, you know, we can sort of understand that to some degree.
The people on the right are more into the free market, and you would expect the smartest people to be the most in the free market because they would have the most to gain.
So there's that aspect.
I also dug up some more information, which is that in one survey, you know, I had 70% of people who are atheists or unbelievers moving to the left.
But in one survey, it was 70 times more people were into leftist ideologies than conservative ideologies.
This is on a sort of group of atheists.
So it's very high, and the IQ thing is not the easiest thing to wriggle out of.
But go ahead.
So really the second part of the question is really what I want to establish.
And my main question, which is basically...
I would probably on the scale of atheism to theism, with agnostic being in the center, I probably my needle sort of transfixes between atheism and agnostic.
So if there was no religion that was violent, that tried to oppose other views, that tried to do things like rape little boys and deemed it okay to do so, I would probably be agnostic, but there are those religions in the world.
So I think that basically, because religion creates a shield to any rational discourse about anything that's wrong, I would just rather be done with it altogether, just remove it altogether.
So that's why I'm sort of, my needle tends to push always towards atheistic views rather than agnostic views.
Right.
Now, is there something you wanted to add to that?
I don't want to sort of hijack the conversation for my responses if there's more you want to add.
No, just that I'm just trying to think up, and maybe you've had it in one of your 3200 podcasts, but maybe you've discussed something where is there any sort of rational archetype or societal argument that could be made to say, okay, religion still exists, but we can still get rid of these other religions.
Or they're not good, or they need to be altered, or they need to be changed.
Well, it's a big topic, and I'm not going to do long speeches here because I want to make sure that we're marching together to hopefully a valuable common destination.
But the first thing, of course, is without a doubt, religions or the religious approach to truth, religions are incompatible with each other and with rationality.
Because religions are, you know, at the very nicest way of putting it, they're Platonic-style revelations, and revelations cannot be objectively communicated.
It requires the vision, you know, that sort of Plato's out of the cave, you come back, you try and tell anyone, and they hit on the head with a hammer.
So religions, because they're not based on reason and evidence, are incompatible with each other.
You either believe or you don't, but there's not a lot of, but you can't really do a lot of rational Convincing of other people.
Science, of course, is compatible with science.
Different scientific theories are compatible over the long run as more evidence pours in.
But religions are incompatible with each other and are incompatible with philosophy because they're faith-based, not reason and evidence-based.
Faith is a subjective experience.
Reason and evidence are objective experiences, which means other people can share in them without already believing them.
You know, you might not believe in the apple, but it's still going to fall on your head and give you a bruise or some Newtonian inspiration.
So that's, I think that to me is indisputable.
And of course, the degree to which we are more, reason and evidence base is the degree to which we can get along and use objective facts to resolve our disputes.
But I'm just trying to be, like, is there any sort of paradigm that you can even put forward or discuss or hash out that we could allow religion, but then condemn others?
Meaning, I'm also a libertarian, so I don't think I should...
Hang on, sorry, what do you mean by allow religion?
So, basically...
There's some large amount of the population in this world that are religious or faith-based or theistic, right?
Oh, I think the significant majority, you know, I mean, in America, it's what, 13% of people.
And listen, the 13% of people who are not religious, they're not all philosophers.
I've heard tell that a lot of the people who leave mainstream religion...
They can end up in astrology belief systems.
They can end up in really odd belief systems.
So it's not like if you let go of religion, you immediately land in the happy playpen of reason and evidence.
I completely agree with what you're saying, but I'm just trying to find some way to discuss this or develop some sort of solution.
I don't think there is one, but at least some idea as to what can we do to get around the shield.
I understand reason and evidence.
Sorry, which shield?
The religious one.
Let me ask you this question, and it's a very brief question, so don't get too comfortable.
So let me ask you this question, Ted.
If you had the choice, and I hate these sort of false dichotomy.
This is not supposed to be any kind of lifeboat scenario.
This is, I think, a very real choice.
If you had the choice...
To have a state without religion or religious plurality without a state, which would you choose?
A state without religion?
But you know what?
Both have their benefits.
I don't know.
It's which religion would you be replacing or uprooting?
Well, I said religious plurality.
Because without a state, religions tend to fragment, which is why religions tend to want to control Sharia-style the state so that they can impose their religious views on everyone else.
But when you're referring to the state—
So I'm talking about religious plurality because in the absence of a state, there's no mechanism by which religious edicts can be violently imposed on other people.
So that's why I said religious plurality with no state or a state with no religion.
So it would be the latter.
So it would be the religious plurality with no state.
But wouldn't religion also try to occupy and try to force themselves into power at some point?
Alright, so let's say that we're in a voluntary society, a stateless society, an anarchic society, and there are religions around.
How would they go about, what, creating a state and taking over?
How would they do that?
Well, it would just be like...
There would be situations where I think it's just human nature where groups of people try or people just in general try to influence and bring people together to accomplish some form of No, no, come on.
You know you're going totally abstract.
Yeah, okay, okay.
So give me specific steps.
Let's say you're, you know, evil 101 and you want to take over a stateless society where everybody has weapons, everybody has their defense agencies, their DROs, and people don't want a government.
Specifically, you know, because the way I'm hoping it's peaceful parenting that's going to produce a state, but I'm more and more growing to the idea or to the accepting the potential inevitability that the separation of state and economics is going to be as bloody a journey as the separation but I'm more and more growing to the idea or to the accepting the
In other words, 30 to 200 years of bloody civil war and people just get exhausted, right, because they won't listen to reason, so they just have to wait until the bodies are piled so high they can't see anything other than a tiny sliver of an incoming bomb.
So they don't – like if a state has been achieved, a stateless society has been achieved because of ungodly, unholy, endless civil war, suffering, murder, slaughter, starvation, disease, famine, want, you name it.
Then people really, really don't want to state.
And then it would be kind of like you wanting to reinstitute slavery at the moment, like nobody would, right?
So people really don't want to state.
People have weapons, if they want.
They have defense agencies designed to make sure that They're not subjected to random criminality and also that there will be no state because they'll sign this thing saying, you guys are going to make sure there's not going to be a state coming up here, right?
Because I'm going to go with the people who make sure there's not going to be a state coming back because those last 200 years were god awful and we don't want to go back there.
So in that situation, what do you do?
I think it would be extremely difficult to try to get anything under the circumstances you painted.
At the same time, we both know that we don't live in that world.
No, no, no.
Hang on.
You can't go from a theoretical exercise to current pragmatics, right?
Okay.
If we had a spaceship, where would you go?
We don't have a spaceship.
It's like, well, no, but it's you, right?
So, basically, in that environment where everybody understood things like the free market and they took the state and they basically just threw it out and they said, okay, well, we're going to provide humanitarian aid ourselves through foundations and other things defined by the private sector, then we'd be living, in my mind, close to a utopia.
But...
Right now, to answer your question, it would be extremely difficult to basically say to the rest of the populace, well, you've got to follow me, I'm the crazy person, and they'll just look at me and realize I'm a crazy person.
Yeah, and you won't be able to accumulate as big an army, enough weapons.
I mean, the moment you start accumulating weapons in a free society, over and above what you'd need for sort of personal self-defense, or as a sort of dispute resolution protection agency, as soon as you started accumulating weapons beyond what was necessary to fulfill your personal or business obligations for security, people would immediately stop doing business with you.
They would ostracize you.
I mean, it wouldn't happen.
I completely agree.
So you would rather have a society with no state and a plurality of religion, and plurality of religion, of course, is just basically plurality of thought, which would include non-religion, rather than a society where there was a state but no religion.
Because no religion doesn't mean no irrationality.
I mean, on the left, they tend more towards atheism, and they're, you know, they're...
Nutty as a bag of peanuts, right?
Correct.
Correct.
No, I agree with your interpretation.
And you're basically turning it into a, okay, well, rather than providing a rational argument to support the continued existence of religion, you're just saying, if there was no state, that religion would have a hard time influencing the populace past the people that they've already indoctrinated.
They could make movies.
They could create virtual reality, explore your God's intestines movies if they wanted.
They could skywrite, I guess.
I mean, they could do a whole bunch, but they just couldn't use the power of the state.
And the reason, of course, I'm sure you understand this, but just for everyone else, the reason why this is so particularly important is that if atheists wish to reduce the power of religion in society, they must reduce the power of the state.
And by reducing the size and power of the state, they are reducing the size and power of religion.
But a lot of atheists seem to have a tough time understanding that.
That's a good analogy that you put forward, because I think a lot of people think that because a lot of people that are atheists believe that because they believe that religion is wrong, that then they replace that with a structure of the state.
And I agree with you on that point.
And I agree with you that the majority of atheists do stand on the left, and that's why I wanted to qualify my statement.
But at the same time...
I got a lot of comments on that video.
Maybe from you.
I got a lot of comments from that video.
People saying, hey man, atheism, all it is is a rejection of supernatural belief in a deity.
That's it.
That's all.
It has absolutely no political ramifications whatsoever.
It's like, okay, well then you explain the discrepancy, why atheism clusters on the left.
If it has absolutely no, like hair color, to my knowledge, has no effect on political beliefs.
But if, you know, 89% of redheads were all Marxists, Well, somebody would need to find a way to explain that.
But they say there's no...
It only has to do with disbelief in a deity.
And that's so naive, I can't believe anybody believes that.
I mean, religion is a form of social organization in which the attempt is made to internalize moral rules within the population, which is efficient.
Certainly, if people obey their conscience...
That is much more efficient in terms of getting people to obey social rules than if they say, well, the odds of me getting caught by the agents of the state are relatively low, so from a cost-benefit standpoint, I'm gonna steal this car, right?
You want people to believe that stealing is wrong, that stealing is bad, that theft is bad, that murder is bad, that rape is bad, that assault is bad.
Lying, that lying is bad.
Thou shall not bear false witness.
If you can get people to internalize these moral rules, Then the total cost of ownership for running that society goes down like 95%, right?
Because an ounce of prevention, as the old saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.
And when you take away God, you take away the myth that feeds the conscience.
And the idea that you can just have people no longer believe in God...
And it has absolutely no effect on social organization or commonly shared virtues or the internalized ethics or the effects of the conscience on decision making and so on.
I don't even know what to say about that.
I'm not saying this is your argument.
But it's so unbelievably naive.
Religion is a system of, you could say social control, and certainly in its more extreme forms it is.
But when I was growing up, it was not a lot of philosophical arguments about the existence of God.
What it was is, don't do bad things.
God's always watching.
Go to heaven.
Don't go to hell.
And, you know, I get from a philosophical standpoint, that's rank superstition.
However, the idea that getting rid of a deity is only an ontological or metaphysical proposition and has absolutely no effects on virtues, ethics, conformity, the internalization of moral rules on the conscience and so on.
I don't even know what to say to that.
It just seems like a painfully naive view to the point where it just seems so willfully self-blind that it's self-serving.
Agreed.
I think that really what I think we've discussed this sort of throughout this call, but let's say somebody comes up to me and they say, well, that person is Islamic and that person has these views.
But how do I... How do I basically ask that person or challenge that person, that fundamental Islamist, has views that are differing from our society and living in the West, and that are really, if you removed religion from the argument, would be viewed as actually wrong, evil things to do, at least in Western culture.
Right.
Now let's take a made-up religion.
Stephanism.
So let's say that Stephanism has tenets in it that are objectionable to the majority of people on some island, right?
And there's no state.
And a whole bunch of Stephanists come hydroplaning up and they want to start living in this society.
But what the Stephanists believe Is really horrible.
I mean, we don't even have to...
Whatever is the most horrible, like your Winston Smith, rats in a cage, room 101, moral violation, this is what they believe.
Maybe it's like, it's feminist island, and they're skeptical of the wage gap, like whatever it is, that is just unbelievably horrifying.
You know, maybe you're a radical egalitarian, and they point out ethnic differences in biology, whatever it is, right?
So what happens when these people come to this island where people have a relatively uniform belief system, as would be the case in a rational society, and they want to start living in that society without a state?
What mechanisms would be in place or could be in place to prevent that from happening?
It would basically be the rationality of the people that are already there, right?
They would be rational beings and they would view it as being incorrect, evil.
Yeah, but rationality is not a magic force field, right?
What practical steps could be made to prevent the settling of the Stephanists in Rational Highland?
Obviously, there would be laws of the land that would conform the people to the views.
They can't just come in there and if they enjoyed murdering people, the Stephanists couldn't just go on doing it because it would be against the law.
But you'd want that to be, you'd want that to not occur, right?
You wouldn't want them to come and live there, start killing people and reactively then find that to, you'd want a way of preventing them from even settling, right?
Correct.
Correct.
So what would they do?
They would do what the US or what Israel has done, which is set up really strong borders, be very careful, be very careful in who they let in, those kinds of things.
Well, hang on.
Who's the they here?
Like each individual?
Yeah, you could definitely have...
A wall.
But, you know, some people who are on the sea, they might not want a big giant wall blocking their view of the shining, scintillating coral reefs that in a free society even flow up to the edge of Iceland.
But so there's not a they, right?
Because there's no state.
So what could an individual or group of individuals do to prevent this settling?
Well, it depends on how against their...
101.
Room 101.
The worst possible thing.
Do you want me to give you a hint?
Well, it'll be war, obviously.
No.
So the boat comes sailing up.
It's got to land somewhere, right?
Yep.
And there's no public land.
Because there's no state.
So every piece of the shoreline is owned, right?
Okay.
I'm following you.
Right?
So, you know, and so there'll be a dock, or a whole series of docks or whatever, right?
So the Stephanists in their hovercraft come sailing up, and they, you know, come up to the dock.
Nobody knows.
They don't have a big sign, a giant forehead with 666 on it or something.
They don't have...
So they come up, and whoever owns the dock comes down, sees that they're Stephanists, and what is he going to say?
Get off my property.
You can't stay here.
Turn right around.
This is my property.
If you set foot on this, you're trespassing.
Fair.
So, from that standpoint, it's going to be kind of tough to land.
Now, of course, you could say, well, they'll parachute into a remote area or they'll tunnel up from the center of the earth.
Okay, so let's say that there are, I don't know, a couple of hundred Stephanists who suddenly pop up in this society.
Well, let's assume just for the sake of argument that there's some way of identifying them.
And we'll get sort of into that in a sec.
But I wouldn't do business with them.
No, it's fair.
It's a fair argument you provide.
Yes, you don't sell them food.
You don't rent them a room.
You don't supply them with electricity, right?
You don't, you don't, you just, and of course, remember, just about everything's going to be privately owned.
So where are they going to, like the roads are privately owned, the sidewalks are privately owned, the hotels, of course, where are you going to go if people don't want you there?
And they have every right to evict you if you're there without permission.
Correct.
So it would be prevention in terms of you can't land here.
It would be economic ostracism, which generally produces self-deportations.
I mean, if you can't get any food or shelter and nobody wants you on their land, it's kind of tough to stay, right?
Yeah.
So if you have a rational island and, you know, we could call them the Clintonists or whatever, you know, nasty group of people...
That's maybe too nasty.
But the Clintonists, they, you know, they come by and they can't land.
And if they somehow infiltrate, nobody will deal with them.
And they, you know, people can aggress against them.
Like if somebody's on your property and they won't leave, you can use force against them.
And so there is a huge, sorry, there are a large number of steps to Of natural prevention wherein a free society can very easily prevent undesirable people from coming into the society.
Now, on the other hand, if these Clintonists or whoever this nasty group are, if there's a state and the state flies them over and kicks people out of their homes to put the Clintonists up and pays them, you know, a thousand or two or three thousand dollars a month, gives them free a thousand or two or three thousand dollars a month, gives them free cell phones, voting rights and free health care and Like then that's a big problem, right?
Whereas in a free society, it's very easy to keep out people that you don't like.
But in a state of society, if the, you know, the cuckish multicultural winds are blowing in a particular direction, I mean, they come flying over like flaming ballistas in a medieval siege.
Yeah.
I agree.
I think you've tied two arguments very well together, which is basically how the United States, for instance, how they've lost the aspirationalism, if that's a word, of their society.
So by bringing in all of these cultures and Although in some cases, it's not bad.
It's good for the tapestry of the nation.
But overall, they're losing the sight of the free market economy, the Western values, all of the things that they really espoused and they really put on, let's say, a projector screen to the rest of the world so that it was aspirational to go there.
Once they lose that, I don't know what's going to happen.
Well, I mean, this is all just a big civilization ending troll fest.
It's just a troll bait.
And the basic argument is very, very simple, which is everyone is equal.
So anyone you have a problem with, you must only have a problem with them because you're prejudiced.
Everyone is equal.
Men and women and Muslims and Icelandic people and Inuit and people from Germany and native-born people to Russia, white people, black, everyone is the same.
And therefore, if you have a problem with someone, it's bigotry, And also, it means that if there are any unequal outcomes in general, then that can only result from bigotry.
But the first premise that everyone is equal is the one that needs to be examined.
If you accept that everyone's equal, then sure, disparate outcomes must be due to some systemic problem or bigotry or some history of slavery or whatever it is, right?
But the first, this is why I've been hitting this point so hard in this show for years, that there is no biological evidence or behavioral evidence that everyone is equal or males and females or ethnic groups.
There's massive reams of counter evidence, right?
There are approximately 60 significant differences between just blacks and whites that have fairly significant impacts on behavior.
And a lot of these are rooted in biology.
And so that is the first issue.
But of course the idea that everyone is the same has become so embedded in the popular culture as a result of a specific anti-free market program that was put in place in the early 1920s by the Communist Party and from a migration standpoint or an immigration standpoint since 1965 by the Democrats.
This has become so foundational that even if you point out clear and obvious biological differences You're still called a racist.
Which is literally like saying, well, you know, black people have darker skin on average than white people.
That's racist.
I mean, it literally has any pointing out of any difference has become a racism, which is why you have this magical, magical construct of race as a social construct.
Race is just an agreed upon narrative.
Like males and females, it's just an agreed upon narrative.
Well, of course, except for gay people, transgender people.
That's totally biological, Capuchin.
Anyway, so yeah, it's just one of these foundational slurs against the free market and against freedom.
Because when you have unequal groups, and this doesn't mean better or worse.
Every group has adapted itself to its local conditions.
But when you have a free society...
And you have unequal outcomes.
The best way to slander a free society is to say everyone's equal and therefore the unequal outcomes that occur in a free society are the result of bigotry and evil racism and sexism and whatever, homophobia.
And it's a wonderful mechanism because you are fighting against basic biology, which is a program that can never ever end.
Fighting against basic biology.
And it's sort of like the Catholics saying, don't ever look at a woman outside your marriage with lustful thoughts.
It's like, sorry, I have a penis.
That's just going to happen once in a while and so on.
So whenever you can fight against basic biology, you end up with a government program or a religious program that never ends and can never be satisfied.
And it's a perfect recipe for the endless escalation of power.
Yeah.
I think we'd be, if we went down this vein, we'd be talking in an echo chamber here.
Good, good.
So when I say to people, you know, the state is on my left and the cross is on my right, what I'm saying basically, and I hate to explain it because I thought it was fairly evident, but what I'm saying is that if I have the choice between a godless state or stateless gods, it's a little easy to tip further to the right.
Because no matter how...
Strong the beliefs are of the religious people.
Without the state, they have no universal mechanism to inflict their moral preferences on me.
But if it's a state with no religion, then all of the people who want to inflict their moral vision on me have the mechanism of the state to inflict it upon me.
And that's far less free.
Yep.
Fully.
I eagerly await the atheist who jumped the gun on this to say, oh, that's what you meant.
I'm sorry.
I understand now.
I'm sorry I jumped off the gun a little bit.
Makes a lot more sense to me now.
Appreciate you clarifying it.
Sorry for calling you all of the endless series of vile verbal abuse that I spewed out before.
I will wait for that, but I'm not going to wait very long.
Do you think that there's a significant portion of people with high IQ who don't Who view themselves as atheists?
Like, is there a disproportionate amount, like, how it's disproportionate on the, let's say, the general population of, let's say, 70% of atheists are on the left.
If you subdivided and you took, let's say, the people with IQ over, say, 120, and then you took the same question to them, if you're atheist, where you stand on the right or left, do you think that there'd be more or less on the right with the high IQ? I don't know exactly because I would want to slice and dice that information a lot more because atheism is not a particularly vivid category because atheism includes small government objectivists,
voluntarists like myself.
I'm under the atheist category, of course.
It includes people who are Republicans.
It includes people in the center, on the left, all the way to fascism and Marxism.
So I would do more of a test Which was just an IQ test.
Now, you could probably find some associations and certainly the vast majority of scientists, particularly in physics and biology, at the top ends of their field tend to be irreligious.
I think that's fair to say.
But that doesn't mean that they're rational.
It just means that they have some consistency with reason and evidence with regards to a deity.
But when you bring up the state They'll go full fundamentalist on you.
And so, you know, when you say atheist, does that mean somebody who works from reason and evidence in all areas of their life, and God is, you know, those, I don't know if you've ever seen them, I don't know if you have kids, but my daughter used to like watching these videos of dominoes, right, going down.
And sometimes you'd have one line of domino that would kind of branch out into like five or ten different lines of dominoes.
You have some idea what I'm talking about?
Mm-hmm, yeah.
Okay, so...
Here's my question.
Is the first thing reason and evidence, right?
So philosophy is the first domino that goes down, right?
They go along.
And does it then spread out to other areas?
You know, one is the stage, one is male-female relationships, one is religion, one is society as a whole, one is science.
Like does reason and evidence start with one line that then branches out to various elements of human knowledge?
And if that's the case, then atheism is just one of the aspects of a reason and evidence-based philosophical life.
But that's not what happens with a lot of atheists.
What happens with a lot of atheists is it's one line that's gone down.
And I don't know if it's gone down at the beginning or gone.
They just want to knock over the God at the end and that's it.
And so what they do is this one line, one line has gone down or they just knocked over God, the last domino on one of the 20 lines.
And then they say, look, I'm perfectly consistent.
And then you say, well, wait a minute, what about these other areas?
And they're like, crazy, right?
So they've knocked over one line, but so what?
Religious people knocked down one line as well.
So, for instance, it is fair, particularly after 20 years of almost no global warming, it is fair to be skeptical of the global warming climate models.
And people who are Christians tend to be skeptical, to some degree, of global warming or climate change, whereas people on the left tend not to be.
Now, is it that the people who are Christians have knocked down the first, you know, all that?
No, of course.
There's one line there which they don't like, which is climate change.
And they knock that one over.
Or I have found in my experience that people on the left are very, very hostile towards the fact that there are brain and IQ differences among various ethnicities.
Because I guess on the left, they can redistribute money, but they cannot redistribute brain matter, at least not without a spoon and a strong stomach.
So on the left, they have these tails of dominoes, which they won't knock over.
They'll fiercely protect in the same way that the religious people fiercely protect the one that leads to God, whereas they're willing to knock over the ones that lead to other things.
The people on the right there, they'll fiercely protect the domino thread that leads to God, but they'll be fine knocking over the one with climate change, knocking over the one that's, you know, hostile to the free market.
And like, they'll do all of that.
Everyone's got their domino tail that they guard.
And usually, people just knock over one or two and then parade themselves around like they've knocked over all the dominoes in the known universe.
And that, to me, is what atheists don't see.
It's the degree to which you've got to start with reason and evidence and you grit your teeth and you follow that sumbitch wherever it goes.
You bring every conceivable idea, prejudice, notion, argument, hypothesis to the oracle of reason and evidence and submit.
Submit.
And you have to do it for all of them.
Because if you don't do it for all of them, that's prejudicial.
And so the fact that the left, which claims to be science-based, rejects the clear biological evidence of ethnic differences and swallows hook, line, and sink of the government program called global warming, whereas people on the right are a little bit more willing to accept racial differences.
Some of the race realists are alt-right people, but, you know, they'll strongly reject other stuff, maybe skepticism towards God, you know, that they'll reject that.
And so from, you know, my goal, you know, knock down that first and just all the tails, all the tails have got to be knocked down.
And I'm still in the process of doing it.
I'm new tails.
Hey, under the couch, there's a tail.
I didn't even know.
And so I'm on this process of knocking down all the tails.
And everyone's like cheering me on.
Yeah, knock down that God tail.
Yeah, knock down this, this, that, right?
Until I get to their tail, right?
And then suddenly, I'm a crazy, irrational lunatic.
Even though they were cheering on the exact same process I was doing with every other tale.
Now, right?
I mean, libertarians have done this with spanking with me.
Yeah, non-aggression principle.
You know, spanking violates the non-aggression principle.
You're crazy!
Right?
variety of areas that have gone on.
The atheists are like, yeah, we're with you with God, right?
And then I bring up the state.
They're like, oh, wait, that's my tail.
That's the one I like.
So you're crazy now.
It's the exact women.
You know?
Whatever.
I mean, there are always these things where I'll go in a particular direction using exactly the same methodology that people cheered me on with before, but then I come to their precious tail, the one that leads through their groin or whatever it is, and suddenly, like, I'm just a terrible guy.
I mean, that was not unexpected, the reaction when I point out some challenges with the atheist position, or at least its effects.
And, you know, Trump does this with people as well.
You know, I mean, it's pretty obvious who that's happened to in the mainstream media and what the effects have been.
Or another one is where I sort of follow the reason and evidence in police shootings.
You know, like I did Walter Scott and so on.
And I follow the reason and evidence that's there.
Or Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
And I follow the evidence that's there.
But for some libertarians who just like, they hate cops, and cops can never be in the right, and cops are always evil, so cops are just bad.
Right?
With Michael Brown and all that.
But when you follow the evidence, suddenly it's then their particular domino thread that they love and they protect and it has to stay up.
They're fundamentalists about that thread.
They're willing to knock over maybe all the other threads, but that thread.
And so, you know, a lot of people thought, well, Stef now loves the cops and loves the state and it's completely betrayed all of it.
Right?
You know, the usual crap that you see.
But that's the job of the philosopher.
I mean, the job of the philosopher is not to get people who cheer you on as you knock down their enemy's domino threads of irrationality.
That's called being a sophist, being a populist.
The point is to say, oh, you liked it when I did that.
How about you?
You liked it when I took down your enemy's dominoes.
How about your dominoes?
What happens if I flick this one?
And I think we can regularly see what happens.
And that's the gig.
That's the job.
Because you can't just claim to be rational when the superstitions of your enemies are dismantled.
You know, I hate where this show has led me sometimes.
I really, I hate it.
Or I hate where philosophy drags me, kicking and screaming.
I mean, the number of cherished notions that I've had to give up.
Because I dive on those dominoes to protect them from the endless falling gravestones of reason and evidence as well.
And the degree to which I have had to subject very treasured notions to this same process, I understand how difficult it is.
But it has to be done.
It has to be done.
We have to simply apply a universal methodology to answer questions.
We can't go back to universal religion.
That's You know, that house is gone.
That church is gone for the most part.
And we've got to keep pressing on.
But this question of universal morality, too, it is necessary for a society to function for people to agree on ethics.
It is necessary for a society to function for people to agree on ethics.
And religion did that to a large degree.
And philosophy tried to, but never quite got through to reasoning.
Evidence, universality, to a secular work on ethics, which is why I worked so hard on that.
But society without commonly accepted and internalized, not just accepted, but internalized and acted upon standards of good and evil, it can't function.
It can't function.
And so religion did that to a large degree.
And okay, so it was not a perfect house.
It was leaky.
You know, the wiring would send up sparks from time to time and the stairs were rickety and The banisters were wobbly.
But people could at least take shelter from the storm of the world in that church.
And the atheists, of course, came along and ripped down that whole damn church.
But where are people going to live now?
Where you just throw them out like King Lear into the storm?
And say, good luck!
You know, that house sucked.
It's like, well, it did give me some shelter.
I could start a fire.
I could keep dry.
I could cook.
No!
It's like, okay, well, if you're going to tear down people's house, give them a new house, for God's sakes.
Or it's just cruel.
Sorry, Ted, go ahead.
No, and I completely agree with your reasoning because at the end of your video I remember that you said you're wobbling, right?
You're wobbling between being an atheist and then at the same time an understanding that there are some benefits that atheism have given society, a common set of values that were easily transcribed and Deciphered to the masses, a sense of community, these kinds of really good things that actually promote a lot of the good Western values that we have.
But I completely agree with your stance at the end of your video.
And that's sort of what I was referring to when I was saying, okay, well...
I'm on the atheism side.
My needle sort of wobbles between that and being an agnostic.
But just due to the fact that there are those religions out there that are not so good for society, that's sort of why I tend to move towards atheism.
Yeah, I haven't wobbled about being an atheist because that's a domino.
It's not up to me, right?
It's not a choice, like, I'm going to wobble and I'm no longer going to, because the conclusions, like, where the last domino falls should be, in a consistent philosophy, the result of the very first domino way back at the beginning of all these threads.
And it's not a question of, do I wobble about being an atheist?
I mean, Unless Superdude comes down and introduces himself to me personally in some reproducible or objective manner, it's not up to me.
Or if there's some logical argument that I've never figured out, it is simply in terms of What can keep the conversation going?
If I go with atheists, then I'm going to get a bigger state, in general, on average.
If I go with Christians, in terms of the companions to continue the conversation, well, I get a smaller state, and I, you know, I don't know if you read the comments under the video, but...
You could figure out who were the Christians and who weren't, right, just by looking at the torrents of venomous verbal abuse being poured on it, you know, because I sort of point out, well, you know, they're kind of verbally abusive, these leftists, and it's like, I'm not a leftist, you fucking, fucking, fucking, fuck!
Or it's like, I just wrote down one, a lot of cherry picking and a lot of overgeneralization.
I wonder what you are now labeling yourself because I was under the impression from your previous arguments that you were an atheist.
It's like, could you make an argument?
The words cherry picking, like pointing out logical fallacies is not the same as proving logical fallacies.
Otherwise, I could just buy a Maserati by pointing at it and screaming $1 over and over again.
It doesn't...
And I am an atheist, of course, but I'm also a survivalist.
And atheism is not doing a very good job of protecting Western culture at the moment.
Look what the fuck is happening in Europe.
It's a very secular society.
Very secular society.
Are they doing any good protecting the heritage that...
Millions of people fought and bled and died for over thousands of years to hand to them?
No.
So I am an atheist, but I'm also a survivalist.
Another quote.
This guy is using totally bogus logic.
I don't know what that...
I've never...
What does bogus logic mean?
Something is logical or it's not.
It's bogus numbers.
What are they?
The numbers or are they a piece of fish stick?
This guy is using totally bogus logic.
It's not so much about questioning authority as such.
It's questioning God claims.
Nothing more.
He's attempting to swerve the conversation onto the subject of the state.
That is a totally different matter altogether and absolutely nothing to do with gods as such.
It's like, okay, but then...
It's so funny because I said, look, here's this numerical bulge of atheists on the left.
And here's a hypothesis as to what might be going on.
And people were just screaming at me that there's no correlation.
And there is.
And they'd say, well, correlation is not causation.
And of course, of course correlation is not causation.
I get that.
But they completely ignored the fact that I actually did make an argument as to why there's a causation.
They just kept screaming at me, correlation is not causation, correlation, you know, click my heels three times and I'm out of ours.
And it's like, but I did make a hypothesis.
You can ignore the hypothesis, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that you're ignoring the hypothesis.
Again, they just don't seem to be...
And who do I share more values with?
Do I share more values with Christians or leftist atheists?
That's the big question for me.
And if leftist atheists get their way, as they generally did, I shouldn't say, but certainly more secular values began to take sway in Europe.
And what happened?
Well, Europe got a super state called the EU that promised to protect it and is now disemboweling it and selling it off for parts to Middle Eastern merchants.
But the one quote that I did really like, the one comment that I thought was pretty funny, was this one.
This video is the dumbest thing I've ever seen that didn't have ancient aliens in the title.
I mean, okay.
Not an argument, but still pretty funny.
And the other thing that atheists don't get is, well, why would you care about...
Atheists are so smart, why would you care about birth rates?
Atheists are way smarter than Mormons, why would you...
Okay, well, okay, so it basically runs something like this.
Overpopulation is a huge problem.
Well, the world is not overpopulated by really smart people.
Agreed.
Intelligence is 50-80% heritable.
I happen to think it's at the higher end, but that's just my particular perspective.
It's not an actual proven fact.
But intelligence is 50-80% heritable.
Smart people don't have kids because they worry about overpopulation.
Dumb people don't worry about overpopulation and have lots of kids.
You do the math.
I think you touched on a lot of things that ring true with me, especially with the Europe crisis.
Just to give you a little background, my heritage is Greek, my family is Greek, and I have a lot of stories from when the Ottomans occupied Greece of atrocities and things like that.
400 years.
Yeah.
400 years, they basically turned the native Greeks into rape slaves.
It was not the best time, and no one covers it, right?
But I think most every culture has had maybe not that amount of abuse subjected to it, but has had some form of abuse.
But at the same time, what's going on in Europe is completely atrocious.
I talked to family members that I have there and they are completely crazed with what's going on with the migrants and there's all the economic and government issues relating to the migrants now staying on the ports and they don't know what to do with them and the Greek government's threatening to send them some other place.
It's a mess.
It's a complete mess.
Yeah, because they got...
They surmounted nationalism and went for a socialist-slash-communist super-state with European Central Banking, and they got to spend a whole bunch of money.
They bribed a whole bunch of voters, which detached the voters from reality.
And they've just live almost...
Epigenetically engineered, a completely retarded, dissociated, unreal population.
And the smart people are all trying to get out, right?
And the smart people, if you're smart, you could leave.
Everybody knows what's happening.
I mean, 3% of Parisian millionaires just last year left Paris.
Yep.
Because they can see.
They're not millionaires because they're dumb.
Yeah, I was actually in Paris.
Here's my second favorite.
Sorry, go ahead.
I was in Paris actually a month or so right before the terrorist attack there and I noticed it was extremely, extremely dissident towards the ethnic populations that are there, like from the locals.
Because I speak French as well.
Are you dissident?
What do you mean?
They were really proud to be French and they were very, let's say, racist towards all of the other groups that were there.
And it was permeating a lot of the culture there.
I think a lot of the people that sort of put on this view that Paris and France and they're a tapestry and they love everyone that goes there, I think that's perpetrated by a lot of the younger, more energetic people in the media.
And not by the people who are middle-aged, who've had property, who've worked for a living, who basically have someone to take care of an obligation.
So I noticed that in, let's say, the age group of, let's say, most 30 to 50-year-olds that I saw there, they were completely dismissive of all the immigrants, if not rude to immigrants in general.
Right.
Diversity plus proximity plus government equals war almost every time.
And the other thing too, of course, is that Europe is our selected in general now, right?
I mean, raised by a lot of single moms with a highly feminized workforce in early education all the way up to puberty.
I've mentioned this before, just take a look at the picture of the EU's defense ministers versus those of Russia or China or the man who haunts my dreams, Poland, who basically has a laser-headed Mr.
Bond in the background screaming as giant sharks chew off his testicles.
And...
You have an R-selected welfare state.
This is all R-selection.
And R-selected people have no in-group preference.
They, in fact, have out-group preference.
And this is how it's playing out.
And it is not because of an excess of religion that Europe is having these problems.
In fact, if there was staunch, solid Christianity, they'd have something to defend.
And they would be pushing back So strongly.
And I would argue that if Christianity was still a core ethic within Europe, the situation would never have arisen in the first place.
I mean, there's so little in-group preference on the remnants of Christianity in Europe that Christians are being regularly slaughtered in the Middle East and it barely shows up in the media.
Yeah, didn't that just happen in Syria, I believe?
Every day?
Yeah.
Every day.
And it is one of the great mysteries, and I put out a little video about this, but it is one of the great mysteries why the cultures that treat their women the worst are the ones spreading and growing the most.
Yeah.
I mean, even the head of the Catholic Church is a puck.
And a pup is a combination of pope and cuck.
He's a total, total puck.
Yep.
I tried to find something that I could disagree with you on.
All right, here we go.
You ready for this last comment?
Okay, go ahead.
Fire away.
Stefan sells his soul and bends over to take it up the ass from the right wing again.
Can't believe I ever donated to your show.
You've become such an embarrassment.
Hope you feel at home with your new fan base of white nationalist statists.
You know, still, you know, incoherent rage is still not an argument.
And it's pretty funny.
And this is the biggest intellectual clusterfuck of a video I've ever seen outside of Flat Earther videos.
And I normally like your videos, but this is just pure rubbish.
And it's like, aren't you atheists supposed to be really good at debating?
But this is what happens when the domino falling that people have cheered when it's the lines they oppose, when that same thing comes on their own line, they're just shocked and appalled.
Domino Reap of my brain.
They completely object to it.
And just like you said with a few things, the climate change, some of the other things that you mentioned, they're just not able to look at it rationally.
And they claim themselves to be rational, but then they're not able to apply the same principles to something that they actually believe in.
So, I don't know.
It's sort of a...
It's, you know, Ouroboros, right?
It's just a never-ending circle.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, and the amount of self-praise.
The other thing, too, is that atheists, of course, spend a lot of time debating religious people, which is really not that hard.
Yes.
Right?
So they're like, wow, I can beat up a lot of girl guides.
I guess I'm Mike Tyson.
And then Mike Tyson actually steps into the ring and people, like, run.
Right?
So this is...
There's a lot of vanity that you can get when you have a very consistent position, such as atheism, and you debate with people who are religious.
It's very easy to feel that you've got all the answers because you're testing your wits against people who, even if they were very smart, could not match your consistency.
Yeah, correct.
Correct.
And so, someone commented that this whole video is based upon a correlation causation fallacy.
High IQ is correlated with atheism and with left-wing politics.
Now, whether high IQ is the causal factor behind left-wing politics is debatable, but it does seem likely that high IQ would be more likely to lead to atheism.
Well, a study found that Republicans scored better than Democrats on all four measures of intelligence.
The gap was largest when comparing strong Republicans to strong Democrats and weakest when comparing everyone to the right and everyone to the left of independent.
And appreciating the free market takes intelligence.
It takes intelligence.
To say we should have a welfare state and use the state to redistribute income to take care of the poor is retarded short-term idiot thinking.
Right?
It's just make this symptom go away.
I don't care what happens to the future.
The longer that people can defer gratification, the smarter they are.
The welfare state is saying, I don't want to wait for charity and voluntarism and job creation to solve the problems of poverty.
I want to solve it now!
Now!
I'm not going to therapy.
Give me some cocaine.
You know, I don't want to work out.
Just give me something that's going to electrocute my abs while I sleep.
And appreciating the values of the free market takes intelligence.
It takes empathy.
It takes a depth and breadth of perception.
And it takes a very high IQ to truly understand the value of a free market because things will get worse before they get better.
I mean, this is like people who bite the dentist for filling a cavity because it hurts.
The dentist assaulted me.
I mean, so the idea that people on the right are smarter than people on the left, you know, this is a study.
I haven't obviously researched it from here to eternity, but it's not a very good argument to say, well, you know, we're just too smart to believe in rightist principles.
If you were smart, you would believe in rightist principles.
It's contradictory to their whole statement.
Well, yeah, you'd at least know you have to define your terms.
You know, like the number of comments are like, well, we already have a free market.
How's that working?
It's like, you don't even know what a free market is.
Oh, that was my second question.
The free market for you is just a big giant vat of shit that you throw things in that you don't like and say, hey, they smell bad.
You know, I dragged this rose through shit and it smells bad, so I guess rose, like...
What free market?
Go try and set up a fucking lemonade stand in the front of your fucking house.
You know, just try that.
Just try that in a lot of places in America.
Try letting your kids walk down the street to the park when they're 10.
Try, try.
I got a good idea.
Why don't you set up your own currency to compete with the Federal Reserve?
Because, you know, we have such a great free market.
Why don't you just go do that?
That was my second question.
I don't know if you have time to discuss it, but you've nailed it right on the head.
Ted, is there something else you wanted to mention about people mistaking the crap we have now, the crap we have now for a true free market?
I think that if people...
And I put it in my email.
I don't know if...
I don't know if Michael's able to read the question, or if you'd like me to present it, or if you have time to handle it, but I think it would be pretty quick.
Let me know.
I don't have the question in front of me.
Ted, do you?
Yeah, yeah, I do.
I can read it.
Okay, while you gather it, here's the last one.
Stephen, your idol Ayn Rand is a fucking atheist.
She was at least honest to logic with what she got.
Atheism has nothing to do about more or less government.
Plus, you are a lying person.
So yeah, just so sad.
I was like, wow, I'm just bathing in the radiance of the arguments and the incomprehensibility of the grammar.
Okay, Ted, sorry, go ahead.
And just to confirm with you, correlation doesn't mean causation, but you can't discount correlation.
No, and look, if you make an argument for it, Then rebut the argument.
But if I say, atheism is associated with leftism, and here's why I think that's the case, then I'm making an argument that correlation is causation, or rather that causation produces correlation.
Correct.
But then people just screaming that these two things are completely unrelated...
When I've said, it's like going to your GPS and saying, how do I get to Huntsville?
And the GPS says, here's how you get to Huntsville.
And they say, well, there's just no way to get to Huntsville.
It's like, you can disagree with the GPS, but at least it said something.
But they need to look up the definition of these words, or at least understand the concepts.
These are very simple.
That was the funniest part, of course, of that whole nonsense, is that people are honestly telling me that you can be an atheist and And for smaller government.
And now, you know, of course these people don't know much, but I'm an anarchist atheist.
I'm aware those people exist because I'm in one of their heads.
Anyway, go ahead.
Go to my question.
I believe that having basic economic knowledge, like understanding supply and demand, would assist people in seeing through the racist, classist, sexist, and generally bigoted leftist policies.
Why is it that people do not pursue fact-based, rational arguments, especially when it comes to socioeconomic issues?
Is this strictly due to lower IQ, or can this be chalked up to generic laziness?
Most importantly, many of the most contentious social and economic issues of the West are inexorably intertwined.
Why is it that people do not seek to develop arguments that can bridge both sides?
Meaning, and just to give me a little more information on this, so I'm a smart guy.
I listen to Trump and I'm a Trump supporter because I see what he's trying to say.
And he presents it in a very simplistic way.
I think that simplistic way, he doesn't go far enough.
Peter Schiff, who you've had on the show before, has said, government can't create jobs.
And then he stopped his sentence there.
He should have also added to his sentence so that people that don't understand economies and macroeconomics, he should have said at the end of that sentence, basically, They don't create jobs, but they can influence an economic environment so that jobs are created.
That's what I'm just trying to say.
I'm not sure about the question.
So basically, there's a lot of issues of the West.
Why is it that people don't develop arguments that can bridge both sides?
Is it because basically one side is trying to beat the other, and...
Wait, are you asking why do people want government solutions to social problems or economic problems?
No, it's just as a political person, let's say someone who's running for president, running for Congress, running for Senate, yada, yada, yada.
Why don't they present an argument, if they're truly in it for the people, that will be understood by the people and will make sense as well.
Oh, so, okay.
Well, before we get into that, since you mentioned Trump, I just wanted to pat myself on the back.
In that last summer, I was saying that Trump was going to do really well with Hispanics.
Because his people, Mexicans, left Mexico because they didn't like Mexico.
They wanted America.
They don't want all of Mexico pouring in.
And as it turns out, Trump got about 50%.
50% of the Hispanic vote in New York, which is unprecedented for a Republican.
So I just wanted to point out that...
Well, of course, if I did all the shows on how right it was, would I have any time for anything else?
So, just wanted to point that out.
Look, Trump is communicating to people heavily propagandized, and politics is the art of the possible.
And I believe that Donald Trump is going as far as he can towards some things that I'm sure you and I would value, but not so far that he short-circuits people's brains and they react against him, right?
I mean, if you're a therapist, I'm not, but I mean, I can imagine, right?
If you're a therapist and some patient comes in who's nuts, you don't go and say, you're nuts, and consider your job done.
It may be accurate, but it's not particularly helpful, right?
What you have to do is lead that person to the point where they understand that, and that's a lengthy process.
Trump is by far the most effective communicator on the political scene that has occurred in In living memory.
I mean, we don't really have recordings of Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Cicero or the other sort of great orators, but he is an incredible orator.
Certainly, I think, vastly outstrips even Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was called the great communicator because he was so good at speaking the language of the people.
You tell me, any other politician in living memory, Or any memory, for that matter, who regularly gets, you know, 10 or 20,000 people to come out and hear him speak?
There's none.
And I think there's a great credit to him because he does make his...
If you look at some of the earlier interviews where he actually is able to...
Before he was filtered, not to say he's filtered, but he's selectively choosing words that are...
Oh, he's filtered.
Of course he's filtered.
Of course he's filtered.
I mean, who isn't?
You're filtered.
I'm filtered.
Of course.
Because, you know, we have to take things one step at a time.
We have to build our case slowly.
Well, there was a...
I remember back to my university days when there was a...
An essay that was actually written that was handed out as a task.
You have to basically read this essay, analyze it, look to see all the things that are going wrong or what you agree, give your opinion on this essay.
And the essay was called Tense Present.
And it started out with basically two pages of colloquialisms from the English language.
And then it got into the essay on basically what is going on with language.
What is the best time to use...
Language that is more refined, more elegant, and what's the best when to use language that isn't.
And it all comes down to the audience.
So I think Trump is doing a great job to address the audience that he wants to reach because in his early campaign, he made it very clear he was using big words, Yeah, he is...
You know, he is to political speech as Freddie Mercury is to rock singing.
I mean, I was just reading this article the other day about how a bunch of people who are experts in the field have examined Freddie Mercury's vocal recordings and found that he does something that only Tibetan throat singers can do, which is sing two notes at the same time.
Harmonize with himself, like even when he was singing lower, there are ghosts and wisps of the stratospheric falsetto that he was capable of occurring at the same time, which is why his voice has that beautiful silvery tone.
You know, just listen to Somebody to Love or something like that.
So, you know, I don't do a whole lot of Freddie Mercury should have sung it better kind of thing.
And with regards to, I mean, I do the odd speech or two, and the idea that this guy gets up without notes.
Without, no, speaking extemporaneously to tens of thousands of people in an environment where even the slightest slip-up is going to be pounced on.
Like, you know, a troop of fat, hungry fat kids on a Smarty, right?
The media is just looking for him to trip up.
And this guy is, you know, basically waltzing blindfolded across Niagara with no net on a tightrope because he is speaking extemporaneously.
No notes.
Everything's recorded and the media is just pouncing and waiting and desperate for him to make a flub that they can then exploit.
Man, that takes some balls.
Don't you think?
I think if he is able to get in and do 1% of what he has said that he has done, he was going to do.
And if you look at his tax policies, I'm in the financial sector.
So if you look at his tax policies, it would be a boon to the Western world like nobody has ever seen before.
Well, and of course, if he gets in and he is able to begin the process of turning around the U.S. economy by closing borders, by cutting regulation, by simplifying the tax code, that is going to be the boost that Europe...
Is going to need to begin to look at that.
Look at that as a potentially valuable program.
So, I mean, Trump may not just save America from its gradual slide into third world socialism, but the ripple effect across the pond may be to bring Trump lights to power in Europe.
It's more than just, are my taxes going up or down?
I mean, this is something that could potentially turn the stagnant declining tide of Western civilization around.
I know that sounds like a very big claim, but I think there's every evidence.
People just need to see something that works.
And if what he does works in terms of revitalizing the American economy and bringing back more jobs and all the stuff that he's talking about, that is going to have effects far outside America and even far outside the West. that is going to have effects far outside America and it.
Yeah, I would agree with your assessment.
If he's able to stay in power and be able to implement some of the things that he's talking about, it would be great, great, great, great.
It would make America great again.
He's talked about auditing the Fed.
Yeah, and the Fed, a lot of people don't realize that the Fed isn't actually a, it's a government-related entity, but it's not a government-operated entity, meaning that it's private.
Yeah.
Private profits and public protection.
It's fascism.
Fascism.
Private profits, public protection.
Exactly.
So this is what I'm trying to say, that basic economic knowledge, is that if people were to have this, they would be able to at least connect the reference point in their mind to say, okay, well, but this doesn't make sense with this concept that I understand.
Oh, no.
But, I mean, you're hoping, as I have for many years, and just because I don't hope for it anymore doesn't mean that you shouldn't.
I'm just telling you where I'm at.
But you're hoping that if people just have the right facts, they'll make better decisions.
In other words, is wrongness, whether you want to make that practical or moral, is wrongness Simply a result of a lack of information.
And this was...
Aristotle made this argument, right?
He said basically evil is just a lack of information.
You don't have the correct arguments, you don't have the correct perspective, and that's why you do wrong.
So if we give people more information and better information, then there'll be better people.
And I don't...
I don't believe that as much anymore.
I think that's true for some smart people, although having tried to convince some very smart people of something as simple as taxation is theft, you know, they're, you know, they'll throw their children in front of those dominoes to keep them from falling, knocking down that last one that it seems to be their entire personality.
And, you know, because the great mystery is how could anyone vote for someone like Hillary Clinton?
You know, married to a guy and protecting a guy, serially accused of rape and sexual assault and hiring private investigators to savage the reputations of women who are trying to get justice from what they've accused her husband of and then saying, well, all victims should, all victims of, all female victims of violence should be believed no matter what.
I mean, how anyone could vote for someone like that?
Well, you know, the argument is, well, you know, just tell them what kind of person she is and I'm sure that they won't, right?
But it doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
Because they just want the money.
They just want the money.
If you've got a winning lottery ticket, you don't care if the guy's a good or bad guy behind the counter.
Just give me my money.
Say, oh, well, that guy's...
You shouldn't take that money because, you know, that guy is really mean to his children.
Mom, sorry about that.
But I just want my money.
And there is an entire dependent class that is not going to go quietly into that good night.
And I think we should prepare ourselves for that.
And I think that's exactly what's going to happen.
You're actually seeing it at some of the Trump rallies.
Yeah, some of the people don't know what they're there for, but a lot of the people know that they're there to protect the gravy train for them, whatever that means.
Yeah, people want their free stuff.
And you'll see that, of course.
The dependents know a lot more about the system The takers know a lot more about the state than the makers.
Because the makers are just like, okay, I paid you off, go away.
But the people who are dependent on the state, they're very aware of the relationship.
And they're very aware of what might get in the way.
And certainly the black grievance industry is going to have a challenge, right?
Because there's a huge amount of support for Trump in the black community, as there is in the Hispanic community, as there is among women.
At least women who are married, because, you know, they want their husbands to pay less tax so they can afford to buy braces and education for their kids.
But that's going to happen over the summer.
The Trump rallies, you know, more and more people are going to show up and get violent.
And then everyone's going to blame Donald Trump.
I haven't gotten into that before.
But, and this is, you know, I get these comments all the time.
It's like, well, why were you, you know, Ron Paul?
And look, Ron Paul, great writer, good speech maker.
And there's so much that I agree with, with regards to Ron Paul, libertarianism and private currency gold standard.
I mean, there's so much that we overlap on.
It's ridiculous.
But Ron Paul was never, ever going to become President of the United States.
He was never anywhere close to, you know, he wasn't even close to Rand Paul, and Rand Paul was never close.
And also, you know, Ron Paul had been in the government for a long time, and regularly...
Took money and shoveled it off to his constituents and the usual gravy train thing.
And he would say, well, the money was already allocated and this and the other was going to get spent anyway.
It's like, yeah, well, but you could not take it and win even bigger and then make a case as to why other people shouldn't take it.
And this idea, well, everyone else is doing it.
I don't know.
Everyone else is stealing from this.
The money's going to get stolen anyway.
I might as well steal some for myself.
And it's like, not that he stole for himself, but for his, you know, what he calls stolen money, he scooped up for his constituents.
So, Donald Trump doesn't have a history of that.
He doesn't have a history of being in the corrupt machine.
And, you know, I don't know.
I wouldn't call Ron Paul corrupt.
He was playing the game.
And I also believe, genuinely believe, that he really lived his principles and really...
I mean, he was called Dr.
No, right?
He would say no to a whole bunch of stuff.
But he wasn't ever going to become president.
And this...
If Donald Trump gets what he wants, there's going to be a significant reconfiguration of the U.S. economy.
And like all these reconfigurations, there are winners and there are losers.
But the people who lose, lose pretty quickly, and the people who win, win down the road, right?
That's why it's so tough to make these changes.
Yeah.
All right, so we're going to move on to the next caller, but thanks, Ted.
It was a great pleasure.
You're welcome back, of course, anytime.
Perfect.
Thank you very much for the call.
I anticipate you'll be doing very well.
Thanks.
Thank you.
All right, so up next is Aaron.
Aaron wrote in and said, Australia is not as bad as Europe right now in regards to the problems caused by the Islamic invasion and the left's ideals, but I know it will be as a country is already becoming unrecognizable as we are mirroring their ideals.
So, short of a situation in which these issues are removed through violence, what else can possibly be done as nothing else is working and evidence and facts are viciously cast aside and the corpses are piling up and do nothing to lead us, in my eyes, to the obvious solution?
That's from Aaron.
Hey, Aaron, how you doing?
Hey, good, Steph.
Good.
Thanks for taking the call.
Not that good.
You know, that question would indicate not that good.
Personally good, but yeah, there are issues like that that bother me, yeah.
And what is the general mood of people in Australia about this?
Well, in my opinion, in my dealings, there's a few of us that look at what's happening in Europe and the rest of the world and we see it's an actual problem.
We see it could happen here.
I mean, it has.
I mean, you obviously know about the siege that happened in Martin Place in Sydney.
And I mean, everyone said that.
No, I don't.
Actually, if you could tell that story, that'd be great.
Yeah.
Around Christmas time 2014, a Muslim held up a cafe there, held up the ISIS flag, everything like that, said it was for ISIS. But of course, the media and everyone said it had nothing to do with Islam, the usual story.
And ASIO, which is basically Australia's SWAT, they had to...
It was a big siege.
It lasted all day, but by the end of it, someone in the Link Cafe tackled the guy with a shotgun.
He got killed, and then ASIO busted in and took him down.
But I think, yeah, several people died.
And that was pretty much the first Islamic terror attack we had on Australian soil.
But, I mean, anyone...
You know, that's following the issues and Europe can obviously see that as an inevitability with the amount we're bringing in as well.
But yeah, I mean, after that, I mean, there's a lot of people that, you know, are kind of waking up to it.
But I mean, to me, the consensus is people are still very naive to it.
They just don't want to face facts about it.
And if you take a walk around certain suburbs here, I mean, There's no way that there's only a 2% populist of them, in my opinion.
There's a lot more than that, I think.
But, I mean, we have a lot of people that want them in, and they're still viewing them as the poor refugee kind of thing, and it's just not the case, in my opinion, to be honest.
This is a comment.
I haven't verified it, but this is a comment that struck me.
That was left on one of my videos, and it goes like this.
When any non-Islamic country such as France, through dangerously naive immigration policies, attains approximately a 10% Muslim population, violence and civil war become a constant threat.
10% of a total national population translates into more than 50% of fighting age men in key urban districts due to the concentration of Muslims in Sharia zone ghettos, combined with aging European demographics.
France and Germany will not be exempt from the lessons of history that were hard taught in Beirut, Sarajevo and Damascus.
Thousands of the recent Muslim Mujahideen currently arriving in Europe were schooled in prolonged and savage religious and ethnic civil wars.
Today's Europeans, deliberately brainwashed with politically correct fairy tales about the benefits of multiculturalism, have utterly no idea what horrors await them.
Increasing European discomfort will not change the outcome one iota.
Just because the Europeans may tire of the irritating presence of Muslims, both new immigrants and native-born, the Muslims will never willingly leave Europe.
Nor will the Muslim immigrant invaders knuckle under and turn quiet and docile again.
Now again, that's just somebody else's perspective, but it just kind of struck me.
No, I 100% agree.
I've been studying this for a while and if you look throughout history, they only have one goal and that's conquest and they've been doing it for over 1600 years.
In comparison, To then and now, to me, it's the exact same thing and it's exactly what's happening in spirit.
But for some, I mean, the evidence is there.
I don't know why people won't see this.
And I mean, I really don't see what can happen to stop this other than, you know, A civil war or something to that extent, I really don't...
I mean, talking about it, you're not even allowed to have the discussion.
So I think it's gone past the point of discussion.
And, yeah, I mean, it's obvious to me, looking at what's going on in Europe right now, and I think it will come here because there's a notion here that we have this mentality, I don't know if you heard, that the, you know, oh, fuck off, we're full.
It's just, it's a myth.
It's not true.
Well, you know, you're a racist here as well if you don't believe in mass immigration.
And it seems, I mean, we've got people in Sydney Harbour in the boats over there holding up welcome refugees, let them stay.
They're taking over Bondi Beach.
I mean, there's one of the affluent suburbs in Sydney as well are now housing these migrants here and that's going to bring down the property values, not to mention the crime rate is going to go up like in Lakemba, but they keep doing it and it is causing tension, but there's nothing really being done about it.
I blame the left just as much because You know, to me, without the left side deals, you don't get this fantasy of multiculturalism and you don't get this influx of Islamic migrants and you don't have the terrorism you see.
So, short of removing them, I really don't know what else can be done at this stage to save Western civilization.
I walk around now and the thing that bothers me as well is I really don't care at this point what anyone thinks of me in my opinion.
I don't care if you label me racist or whatnot.
They don't work.
None of them work.
I just don't see the benefit in bringing these people in.
I really don't see it.
To me, I'm about borders, language, and culture.
If you're not going to have a border, you don't have a country.
And the leftists, everything that they apparently represent, the Islamic migrants are completely antithetical to everything that they stand for.
But that's what the left wants.
The leftists are selected, which means that they will side with outside invaders to destroy the K-selected people in their own country.
Yeah, and that's what I'm saying.
I really don't understand how the hell the West is going to get saved unless there is a violence.
What is to save?
What is to save?
What's left to save?
I mean, I don't know the answer, and I have not settled into any final thinking yet because it's still a situation in flux.
But part of me is like, well...
What's to save?
You know, if you're the doctor and you say to the guy, you say to your patient, you know, lose weight, stop drinking to excess, stop smoking, the guy just smokes more, drinks more.
It's like, at what point do you say, well, can't help you?
Well, I mean, I kind of think about that as well.
I mean, when someone brings up Europe, I tend to say it's dead.
It's finished.
No, no, don't be like that.
Well, I can't see anything, any glimmer of hope there.
I mean, you might say that the general feeling over there is that people are sick of it, but what are they actually doing about it?
To me, it doesn't seem like anything.
You can hold up some protest signs and say, you know, refugees not welcome or whatever.
But I mean, at the end of the day, it's not doing anything.
And to me, Europe's still dying.
I mean, it's on its deathbed, if not dead already.
Right.
And the question is whether the anti-European elements Of modern leftism are going to die or whether Europe itself is going to die.
I mean, the welfare state is antithetical to European traditions, at least post-Spenumland.
Like years ago, I did a Peter Schiff radio show where I talked about Spenumland and how redistribution had destroyed certain sections of England in the past.
But that was hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
The welfare state as a whole is a Marxist tumor in the free market, as are government schools, as are fiat currencies and so on.
These are all, you know, vile leftist plots exploited by the right and all that, right?
But they're just vile leftist Marxist tumors in the otherwise healthy body of European liberties.
And so the migrants are Almost without a doubt, going to be taking down the welfare state.
I mean, Europe is so horribly in debt.
The currency is so hyperextended.
It's got such an aging population.
And it can't afford its existing obligations, let alone taking all these new ones.
And so the migrants, at least the more radical migrants, have a very, very clear goal.
And the clear goal is to pile on the welfare state to destroy the The economies of the West.
Yeah, and it just seems we're letting it happen, and it just baffles me as to why.
Why what?
Why everyone's letting it happen.
Oh, because people in the West have been lied to for so long that they now have become hysterical any time truth goes off near them.
They've become what used to be called neurasthenic.
They've become like Blanche Dubois with soda water spilling over a glass.
They're just hysterical.
When was the last Western politician who just stood in front of a podium and said, can't pay?
Can't pay?
Can't pay?
You're just a little too greedy.
Cuphead is bare.
It's not fair on the kids that you all want to grab so much money from their futures.
We know this is unfair.
We know this is unjust.
And should it be the kids who pay the price?
No.
Do you have the right to sell off your European freedoms and the freedoms that everybody's ancestors died for?
Do you have the right to do that?
No.
You don't have that right.
You sold your soul for high pensions and days off or weeks off or months off.
You sold your souls for job security.
You sold your souls for moral posturing in the belief that you're helping the poor with the welfare state.
You made bad decisions.
There's no money.
There's no money for maternity leave.
There's no money for old age pensions.
There's no money for our infrastructure.
You all have completely raped the economy.
And the idea that we're going to now import a bunch of third-worlders who are just going to be so happy to pay taxes for your wrinkly old European butts is ridiculous.
No.
You made this mess.
You have to clean it up.
And I'm open to suggestions about how that's going to happen.
But Importing third world immigrants and further taxing the young, those are not answers because they're neither just, practical, rational, or moral.
And when was the last time that anyone put limits on the insatiable, bottomless, our selected greed of the Europeans and said, you people have made this bed of nails, you gotta lie in it.
Well, I mean, that's, it's what gets me so frustrated here.
I mean, And the benefits here as well.
I know you've talked about the birth rates in Europe, but you can see a similar thing happening here.
I mean, no one's having kids here either.
But, you know, I mean, basically, I have to deal with, I mean, anyone that works, you have to deal with these slimy leftists screaming at you, telling you that you need to pay more taxes, you need to pay more, pay more, pay more for everything.
And for what?
So you can basically just import these third worlders into breed, get them in a house, you know, and all they do is pop out kids and they don't do anything.
And basically, to me, it's just...
It's an invasion and it's insanity.
I don't know what will happen because it does seem to me that the left are the majority.
I mean, unless anyone with common sense is just a silent majority, which I guess you could kind of say in the US is Trump's gaining such ground and I'm a Trump supporter as well, even though You know, the American presidency doesn't have really anything to do with Australia, but I believe in that saying, you know, when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold.
And I think if he was to get in, he could possibly change some things here as well.
I mean, as it just trickles over.
But, yeah, I mean, no one's voting for anyone that can do anything about it.
I mean, we had Tony Abbott, and he actually was stopping the votes, but, I mean, all that's over now because he's gone.
And for Australia and the West in general, short of some kind of civil war or whatever, is anyone going to uprise and do anything?
And I think that'd start through civilians as well.
I mean, we're already seeing groups like Sons of Odin and all that start to rise in Europe.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with that.
Yeah, I've heard of those.
But of course, you know, anyone protecting young girls from being raped in public are now racists.
It's just insanity.
It is.
It is.
And because people have given up listening to reason and evidence, they're just going to have to suffer until the lesson sinks in.
You know, and I wish it wasn't that way, but, you know, nothing I can do to change reality.
All I can do is put out the best arguments, gather together the best information and the best experts to say what's going on and if people won't listen.
We just, I don't know, I hate to put it this way, but there's a theory.
Tell me what you think.
So there's a theory.
What are women designed for?
Women are designed for raising children.
Men are designed for gathering resources and women are designed for raising children.
Women's maternal instinct is a powerful, beautiful, fundamental force in the world.
It's why we're all here.
And there's an argument which says that because women in the West Listen to the lies of the Marxists and the lesbians and the radical feminists and the whatever, right?
That they're all like, well, I'm going to go get a job.
It's so much more fulfilling than creating life.
Answering this phone at the customer support center sure beats bringing a new brain and consciousness into existence.
And so women have few kids or no kids.
So they're much more susceptible to sentimentality.
Because they don't have their own children either to protect and defend or to lavish their maternal instincts on.
And so women in Europe are looking at these migrants like they're children that need a home.
Lost little waifs, running from bombs, and we must find a place for them.
If they had their own children, they wouldn't be so sentimental about this other stuff.
So their maternal instincts are wrapping into other cultures, even opposing cultures.
Because they don't have their own kids to protect, and the maternal hunger is now spilling over into the traditional enemies of their entire civilization.
And this is another reason why it's happening.
You know, can we just buy them some cats?
Yeah, no, I agree.
And the other thing is, I mean, yeah, like you said, they're force-fed this crap that, you know, they shouldn't be raising kids, they shouldn't be staying at home.
And it's just destroying everything that, you know, as you said in previous videos, everyone's fought and died for.
God, I mean, I can't imagine what the Crusaders would.
They'd be rolling in their graves of what's happening in Europe right now.
And it just seems to be...
No one wants to listen to evidence.
I mean...
Look, they'll just have to suffer and fight again.
I mean, I hate to sound blasé about it because it's a gruesome spectacle.
But if you look at Rome, it's the same damn thing.
Ancient Rome, right?
I mean, they got a giant welfare state.
They overextended themselves militarily.
They gave a huge amount of power, at least in divorce and so on, to women.
They ended up with a more childless society.
People fled taxes.
And then they were invaded by barbarians.
I mean, it's just like, it's ridiculous, you know, this is blind photocopy of history.
Different costumes, same outcome.
Well, yeah.
And that's it.
But that's what I guess gets, I mean, me and a few friends that speak about it so frustrated.
It's like, these people on the left claim to be so smart, but, I mean, to me, I've never met a bunch of more stupid people.
I mean, really, history...
Well, they're winning.
Yeah.
Well, that's what I mean.
Like, it's just...
You know, open a history book.
I mean, what would you do when an invading army came to your country?
You would defend it.
And now we welcome them with open arms and give them land in a house and a welfare check.
It's just...
Well, look, what's the option?
There was this fantasy that with the end of the Cold War, you don't need any military.
You know, Sweden, I was just looking this up the other day, Sweden's military over the past 15, 20 years has been eviscerated.
They've got nothing.
They say that in five years or so, they might be able to defend one portion, one tiny portion of Sweden's borders for one week.
If they start now and spend a lot of money in five years, they might just be able to defend a small portion of Sweden's borders for one week.
Yeah, well, I mean, and that's the thing.
I mean, wake up, people.
I mean, these people in your countries are better armed than, you know, now you're military now, I would say.
And it's not Europe anymore.
No, it's not.
Because any place where the police can't go is not your country.
No, exactly.
You know, police can't go to America.
Canadian police can't go to America and arrest someone.
No.
And European police can't go into these no-go zones.
Yeah, there's no-go zones that apparently...
Yeah, that's not Europe anymore.
It might as well have sand dunes.
Well, yeah.
I mean, and you try to point out to people, this is what's happening.
There's no go zones there.
And you're told, no, that's just lies.
It's right-wing lies.
That's not true.
It's just...
But there's video, like, videos right there.
Like the Australian 60 Minutes crew that tried to go into Little Somalia, right?
Yeah, exactly.
Guy got his foot droven over, another guy got punched out.
And it was the most ridiculous thing seeing this Australian cameraman saying, well, there's no reason to be upset.
There's no reason to get angry.
It's like, you're not speaking to the same kind of people.
Yeah, well, you show them a video, and then they say it's an isolated incident.
You show them 20 videos, and they say it's propaganda.
I mean, it's just, it's maddening, and I feel it's definitely going to happen here.
I mean, you just take a look at it.
Yeah, and when people are willing to avoid and escape a basic reality, how can they be expected to survive?
Well, you know, if I think that rot's Coconuts and coconuts are rocks and I try to eat rocks.
Yeah.
How long am I going to survive?
Paul Joseph Watson went into one of these no-go zones.
The guy from Infowars we've done a show with.
Attacked to flee.
Yeah.
No, well, they're getting emboldened to do that here as well.
And of course, you know, it's not happening.
It's not happening.
You know, they'll run new segments on it.
If there's anything that they've done here, a Muslim immigrant's done here, I mean, the guy Mon Morris that held up the Link Cafe here, he had 48 counts of sexual assault and him and his friend tried to kill his ex-wife.
This was eight years before he committed the act of terrorism and he was still allowed in the country.
And to bring that up is racist.
To want to deport someone like that is racist, yet we keep bringing him in droves.
Yeah, and racist has just become one of these words.
Racism is a term invented by Leon Trotsky in the 1920s as a way of slandering and shutting down opposing viewpoints.
Racist is just, shut up, you're making me uncomfortable.
And racist is just one of these words that's just going through its fever phase and it's just going to have to die out to the point where people can actually talk about ethnic differences that are fact and biology based without people getting all hysterical and fainting on a couch and demanding their smelling salts and getting vicious.
But it's just one of these pogroms that happens in language from time to time.
It used to happen in the Soviet Union, right?
I mean, the counter-revolutionary purges and the undesirables and, you know, there would just be these vicious attacks on people who were defined as against the mainstream narrative.
And you know, we're of course trying to bring as much facts and evidence to bear as possible on this situation.
But this word racism is in general a confession of intellectual impotence.
It is a confession that you have no facts and evidence behind you.
Verbal abuse used to be considered losing an argument.
You know, verbal abuse was the equivalent of tripping while getting into the boxing ring Banging your head on the pole and knocking yourself out.
Like the moment verbal abuse starts to show up in a debate, you've lost.
That's how it used to be.
But women's facility with verbal abuse, not all women of course, but some, women's facility for verbal abuse has just overtaken, right?
Women's sensitivity to disapproval and their hypersensitivity to offense and their capacity for verbal abuse has just dominated the public discourse.
And now it's, you know, it's a shriek-filled, stitch-and-bitch-fest with very little rationality.
And, you know, on this channel, the vast majority of people who listen and watch are men.
And that's not unimportant when it comes to who's dominating the social discourse.
It's not men.
It's not men.
Men are just going to have to go and fight when it fails.
Yeah, well, I mean, in your opinion, do you actually think that there's any – do you think there's any other outcome other than this getting to a point where fighting has to actually be done?
Because, I mean, I don't see it.
Oh, no, no.
We're already there.
I mean, this is one of the – like, we say, well, why?
Because the solution would have been 30 years ago.
Yeah, yeah.
Right?
Actually, you know, if you've been smoking two packs a day for 30 years, you can quit if you want, but it's probably not going to change the outcome a whole lot.
The solutions were a long time ago, like the peaceful solutions.
And I'm obviously hopeful, perhaps even against reason and evidence, that this can be resolved peacefully.
But the requirement for a tolerant society is people committed to tolerance.
And this is something that is just so basic that the fact that it's managed to escape a lot of people's view It just shows how incredibly effective propaganda and verbal abuse is.
In order for a multicultural society to function, everybody in it has to value multiculturalism.
And in order for diversity in a society to function, everybody has to value diversity.
And if you just look at Islamic philosophy, it is not A multicultural melting pot of an ideology.
It is a dominant, world-spanning, total control ideology.
This doesn't refer to every Muslim.
I care about every Muslim.
I care about the ideology.
No, exactly.
And that's part of the problem as well.
I mean, people say you can't generalize.
Well, you know, to me, I have trouble with that because if you follow that ideology, well, You know, doesn't that make you part of the problem?
I mean, you can say there's a moderate, but I mean Yeah, well, I don't care.
The people who say you can't generalize, I mean, as a white man, you and I have both been subjected to rampant racist, sexist generalization because, you know, white male patriarchy and white racism, we've been generalized so ridiculously that anybody who says, well, you can't generalize, it's like, well, where the hell have you been for the past 40 years while white males have been slandered repeatedly?
Did you ever say that to black activists?
No.
Did you ever say that to communists?
Did you ever say that to radical feminists?
No.
So this idea that now suddenly, oh, it's bad to generalize, it's like, yeah, a bit too fucking late for that.
Yeah, well, I mean, the evidence is there as well.
I mean, look at the percentage of them that agree with certain things in Islam.
I mean, to me, it makes no sense.
I mean, how can you...
I mean, every time there's a terrorist attack, for instance, the victims have to share the limelight with some bullshit fucking hashtag campaign.
I'll ride with you, you know, not in my name.
Well...
I mean, if you're a Muslim and you're going to sit there and say, not in my name, well, don't you worship Muhammad as the perfect example of man?
So if you're disagreeing with him, aren't you going against everything, you know, Islam teaches?
So wouldn't that make you not a Muslim?
But you claim to be.
And there's just so much of that I see.
I mean, to give you an example, I mean, this is the type of climate we live in here now.
I mean, after the Paris attacks, for example, At a workplace, it's a multinational company so there's obviously offices in Paris, France and they had a moment of silence there for the victims.
Now the whole office, the lunch space there is all catered.
They had a bit of a morning thing there.
And during the moment of silence, a group of Muslim employees come bursting and laughing and carrying on and talking over it and loudly announce that they're going to the mosque.
I mean, if that is not defiance and just complete disrespect, I mean, and you see this shit all the time, I don't understand how you can't generalize that and say that that's not a problem.
I mean, and you can't call them terrorists, can you?
They haven't blown anything up, they work, they pay taxes, but I mean, what is that saying?
For them and their religion that we're importing in when they would do something like that.
And it just makes me sick and I see it all the time.
And we keep bringing that mentality in.
And it's just completely at odds with everything that we apparently believe in and stand for.
And that's just one example I've seen.
There is an evolutionary strategy for females.
And the evolutionary strategy goes something like this.
Provoke the males to fight.
Have sex with the winner.
Yeah, well, it doesn't help.
Tell me it's way off base.
No, it's not.
But I mean, the problem is we don't have any men anymore, in my opinion.
I mean, they're all cuckold.
Well, that's why.
That's why the strategy would be, you know, like the women have said, we basically, a lot of women have said, we want men to be more like women, right?
Like Prince just died, like this minuscule...
Metrosexual, right?
Who, you know, for a whole generation of young men was like, well, if you're really pretty and have big eyelashes and, you know, a pompadour that makes little Richard look like me, then you get all the hot chicks, you know, just be basically like a woman.
And so women have said, well, we want men to be like women.
And I guess a lot of men listened because men tend to listen to what women say they want.
And then the women are like, ah, we're not attracted to you.
Yeah.
Well...
I don't know.
I mean, it's just depressing when you hear about it.
I mean, I've got a couple of friends in Germany who told me some things going on there.
Because I was asking, is there any citizens there doing anything about it, vigilante style?
I don't know, because you'd kind of be inclined to.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can't be livid over there just going mental.
But for what?
Sorry to interrupt, but...
So the people in Germany, you know, they can experience some very significant negative repercussions for speaking out, right?
I mean, they can get visits from the police, they can lose their job, they can, whatever, right?
That was exactly, yeah, that was exactly what I was going to say.
He said that, you know, if anyone takes it into their own hands because someone they know has been raped or assaulted by one of these migrants and they do anything about it, Suddenly, the cops are at their house very quickly, and they found them through, you know, I don't know, CCTV, anything like that.
But suddenly, when a migrant rapes or assaults someone, they can never be found.
And he's told me instances of police are actually, groups of police are actually following migrants around protecting them.
Well, of course, look, if you're a cop, if you're a cop, do you want to go into a no-go zone to arrest someone, or do you want to just go and hassle some white German?
Of course, I mean, just from a pure practical standpoint, you don't want to go in the no-go zone.
When they had to go and arrest one of the bombers who'd been hiding in the Brussels neighborhood, 200 youths were like throwing bottles and bricks.
They don't want to go do that.
It's much easier to just go and lecture some frightened German white person than it is to go into one of these no-go zones and try and arrest someone.
Good Lord.
I mean, why would they want to do that?
Yeah, well...
It's dangerous.
I don't know.
I mean, people may not agree with me, but I mean, at this stage, if you wanted to save it, I don't see why they're not doing, you know, mass deportations at gunpoint.
And, you know, if there's any refusal, well, you know, you broke the law.
But no, look, I'm not saying that it's, I'm not saying I recommend that.
But from a practical standpoint, from a practical standpoint, let's say that Sweden wanted to do that.
Let's say tomorrow, and let's say this is all legal.
I don't know the laws, but let's just construct some scenario.
Let's say that there was peace in the Middle East tomorrow, and therefore all the refugees could go home.
And let's say that Sweden said, okay, show up here, and we're going to send you home, and people didn't show up, well, then you've got to go and get them, right?
Yeah.
Okay, does Sweden have the manpower to do that?
No, not from what you just told me earlier, no.
Absolutely.
I don't think they do.
So then what?
Well, therein lies the problem, doesn't it?
They've all created a situation where that's almost impossible.
I don't know whether Germany could do it, but I don't know, I guess.
Yeah, Germany with its general pendulum swing, I'd rather they hire other people to do it.
But anyway, so these are the basic realities.
Now, there are some positive signs.
I don't like hope because hope is paralysis.
Hope is crossing your fingers.
I hope I get better.
No, go see a doctor.
There are some positive signs.
Gawker and a bunch of other left-wing sites are not doing well financially.
A lot of the mainstream media is not doing well financially.
Trust in the mainstream media in America is down to 6%.
So at least people are sort of backing away from the cocaine drip of propaganda to some degree.
Now, maybe they're finding equivalent propaganda on the web.
I don't know.
But, you know, there's an outlet for something like this with 160 million downloads and views and counting to at least get some basic facts out, some counter-narrative.
So there is hope.
But, you know, in the 1930s, you could speak about the dangers of Hitler without being arrested.
Yeah, exactly.
To me, I mean, this just seems like the exact same thing.
Just, you know, now it's Islam.
And just some of the things being done about it.
No, sorry, it's not the same thing.
Sorry to interrupt, but it's not the same thing.
Because Germany was outside the country.
Yeah, yeah.
I guess I mean in terms of ideology, I suppose.
No, but see, National Socialism was a nationalist movement.
Hitler had no ambitions to conquer the whole world.
He didn't even want to invade England.
I mean, he had huge respect for the British Empire.
Communism and Islam are world-dominating ideologies.
Yeah, yeah.
Whereas National Socialism was not.
And so it's a different kettle of fish.
Okay.
Yeah, I understand.
Please understand, I'm not saying sympathy for National Socialism, but from a factual standpoint...
No, no, no, no, no.
Yeah, no, I understand.
No, I just want to, you know, because people always make this, oh my God, he said...
Yeah.
It's just, well, I don't know, like the choices of these people seem, like Holland in France, I mean...
After the Bataclan attacks, he closes the border, you know, too late, obviously.
But then, I mean, the response a week later, he opens the border, says life must go on, invites 30,000 more in, and then he bombs Syria.
I mean, to me, that is just absolutely retarded.
I mean, the problem's in your backyard.
Well, you got Obama out there lecturing England to stay in the EU, whereas Obama and his Secretary of State were directly responsible, Obama and Clinton were directly responsible for destabilizing many of the countries in the Middle East from the pullout in Iraq, which created the power vacuum populated by ISIS, to destabilizing Syria, to destabilizing Libya.
To shooting down Gaddafi when Gaddafi said, hey, if I'm gone from power, the migrants are all going to – I'm the wall between the Africans and Europe.
You take me out and they're all going to flood into Europe.
So they even had the clear warning.
And so England is sort of like thinking about leaving the EU in the same way that you want to start inching towards the lifeboats in the first 20 minutes of the movie Titanic.
And so Obama, who's one of the main reasons why the goddamn migrants are flooding into Europe from Africa and from the Middle East, he's going out there and saying, well, you can't leave EU because, you know, because my ears are juggy.
Yeah, I know.
It's insanity.
I mean, I just see it every day.
I just want to put my fist through the TV screen.
I mean, I try not to watch anything going on right now, but I mean...
You've got to measure your dosage.
Yeah, you do.
I mean, I really do see it happening here and it slowly is.
I mean, honestly, I think we're about, you know, Depending on who gets in here the next election, I think we're about five or ten years behind Europe, honestly.
Well, you do have a bigger ocean.
Yeah, true.
Like I was saying before, they did actually stop.
No one actually got in while the Abbott government was in power, but of course the left hated him for reasons they can't actually give you other than he doesn't let poor refugees in.
Not to mention while the Labour government was in, Yeah, the women can't satisfy their empty wombs with ersatz babies, but go on.
Yeah, well...
I don't know, it's just...
Yeah, at that point now, even for Australia, we don't have any guns here, obviously.
You can still get them, obviously, but our gun laws prevent you from getting one legally without jumping through a lot of hoops, and even then you can't use it for self-defense.
So, if there was anything like that happening here, and it has happened here, I don't know if you heard, but one of them walked into a police station and shot a cop at his desk in Sydney earlier this year, I think, or was it late last year?
And so much for not being able to get guns, but the general populace don't have guns here really.
The criminal element do, but what are you supposed to do if it starts getting out of hand here?
Well, if you look, I mean, there are things that you can do.
I mean, obviously, you can speak up and speak out.
And that doesn't guarantee anything other than your conscience is going to be clear, right?
Because you either want to save people or not mourn their passing.
And so if you've worked your fingers to the bone trying to bring information, evidence, and good arguments to people, If they constantly sneer and attack and spit at you, because it's not like they ignore you.
They actively attack you.
Racist, bigot, you know, whatever nonsense that goes on, right?
So at least then you can leave them behind to suffer their fate without huge amounts of regret.
So that's important.
And the other thing I would say is that if you believe that Donald Trump's pro-Western nationalism is something that...
Europe and Australia and the colonies as a whole kind of needs.
If you believe that that is the case, I can see how people could make a case for that.
Then what you can do is you can put information out that might positively affect the US elections in Trump's favor.
Right?
I mean, you can't get a Trump elected in Australia, but if you feel or if you believe or accept the arguments that Trump could have a positive effect in allowing the conversation to continue in the West about freedoms, Then you can put out, you know, gather information, put out information that you feel might positively affect Trump's possibilities in the US presidential election.
And then if it does turn out that Trump does positive things for America, you have an empirical piece of evidence to take to people in your own country to say, maybe we need something like that here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's something.
Yeah.
I mean, I try to do that now.
I mean, a few close friends try to do that now.
But I mean, it just really seems that we're the minority.
I mean, everything here with Trump as well.
I mean, everyone's a Bernie supporter here in Australia.
Oh, yeah.
You can't speak to these people.
I mean, they're still hanging on to the fact that, oh, Trump was bankrupt.
You point out, no, he wasn't.
Four of his businesses, you know, you give them the facts and, you know, he's racist again.
So it is quite hard.
And I mean, I have no sympathy for people like that anymore.
I mean, I really couldn't care what happened to them.
I mean, to me, they're part of the problem.
I mean, it might sound cold, but Well, they're not part of the problem.
They are the problem.
Yeah, well, I mean, you did mention in one of your, what pisses me off about the Brussels attacks, you said, like, look down, the blood is on your hands.
And I 100% agree it is.
I mean, without, I mean, none of this mess would have happened without them, in my opinion.
And they keep towing this line, and it keeps getting worse and worse.
So...
All right, listen, man, I got to move on to the next caller, but I really appreciate your time.
I hope that you'll keep us apprised of how things are going.
Yeah, no problem.
And, you know, don't give up hope.
I mean, where there's life, there's hope.
And we do have the internet, and that is the most powerful tool for spreading, let's just say, alternative explanations for current events that has ever existed.
So let's...
You know, where there's life, there's hope.
And where there's hope, there can be action.
And so, you know, keep soldiering on.
It's too late to give up.
And it's so early that it's still very exciting.
All right.
Thanks for the taking the call, Steph.
Thank you.
Alright, up next is Andreas.
He wrote in and said, as massive immigration is becoming more globalized and society is degrading into a mixed multicultural, there will no doubt be an epidemic of young people growing up without a concrete tradition to follow.
What will become of these cultures if globalism succeeds on destroying true cultural diversity?
That's from Andreas.
Well, how you doing?
Very good, Stefan.
How are you?
I'm well, thank you.
So, is there anything that you wanted to add to your question or comment?
Yes, sir.
I was born in the United States.
My father is American.
My mom is from Colombia.
So, I was kind of raised in a multicultural home, I suppose.
And naturally, my mother being Colombian, 100%, that I was raised with a lot of Colombian cultural values.
But as I got older, I've realized that my values are actually much more Western than my mother's.
Because I've lived in Colombia for a year at one time.
Even though I look Colombian to most Americans, while I was in Colombia, I looked American.
And for whatever reason, I've never really been able to integrate 100% fully in either cultures, if that makes sense.
Yeah, no, it does make sense.
And that is a significant challenge, right?
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I'm getting to that age where As I'm becoming a man, more or less, I need to understand what set of values I am supposed to uphold.
There's no doubt there's a part of me that's Colombian, but I'm thinking, what am I going to teach my children in the future?
Am I going to give them this pseudo-mix of American and Colombian values?
Oh, no, no.
I mean, hopefully philosophy, right?
Absolutely.
That's the plan.
But, I mean, assuming that they're not going to be out there violating the non-aggression principle every time they brush their teeth, you need to give them more than just the non-aggression principle.
That's not a rich enough set of thinking to, I think, really deepen and broaden one's life.
What do you mean by the non-aggression principle exactly?
Oh, the non-initiation of force.
Oh, so...
My daughter needs more to guide her than don't strangle cats, right?
I mean, of course she's not going to do any of that, so that is the other question.
So culture, you know, I've sort of evolved on culture, and I've sort of not regretfully but empirically recognized that People are not as hungry for philosophy as I had first hoped.
And I am tempted now by what Plato called the noble lie as a sort of transitional object to help people get from now to a future where there's more Acceptance of and pursuit of philosophy.
We'll get into that in a second.
But so because you have two cultural backgrounds, at least, right?
I mean, it is a challenge to figure out where you sit and what to transmit.
Yes.
And I obviously can't sort of sort that out.
But when people lose their culture, do they gain philosophy?
It does not seem to be the case.
If I look at, I mean, one of the big examples is Native Canadians and Native Americans who had a culture of living off the land and had a culture of nomadic pursuits and hunting and all of that, which, you know, kind of a bit of hunt the groundhog day for, I don't know, 50,000 years or however long it was, 10 or 20,000, I can't remember exactly, but when the land bridge was up.
Their culture was subsumed, but they were isolated, right?
In a sense, the no-go zones have become the reservations in Canada.
And these are people who don't have a culture, in that they no longer, they have not been absorbed into the dominant culture, and yet their existing culture no longer moves them.
Yeah.
They didn't sort of say, well, now we're free of the restrictions of culture.
We can really pursue philosophy, right?
The reaction was, let's drink a lot of photocopy of fluid and die.
For a lot of them, or let's just get drunk from here to eternity.
Part of that is genetic susceptibility to alcohol and so on.
Hey, look, we gave them alcohol.
They gave us cigarettes.
A terrible, horrible deal for both parties.
But when people lose their culture, they don't gain philosophy.
They become inert.
They become...
An attack upon the culture is an attack upon the backbone of the community.
And when people are taught to hate their culture, because it's not even like the West has lost its culture.
The West has been taught to hate its culture.
Like, I've been wanting to do this, and I finally have recorded it, though it hasn't come out yet, this introduction to Aristotle.
And I was like, part of me was thinking to myself, like, why am I focusing on Aristotle now of all times, of all places, with all these world emergencies?
And why am I focusing on Aristotle?
It doesn't make any sense.
So I recorded it and I had a great time recording it.
And I realized afterwards why I wanted to do it at this time.
I was like, oh, I need a break from all of this world disaster end time stuff that's going on on the planet.
And I'm going to take a break and, you know, tootle back 2,400 odd years.
But I realized that...
The reason why I wanted to do it and the reason why it was important to do it now was because when we talk about Aristotle, we're talking about one of the greatest glories and riches of Western civilization.
You know, he has been called the smartest man who ever lived.
And the scope of his inquiries and the rigor of his thought were astonishing and astounding and amazing.
And For people to see this is what Western culture has embedded within it, this glory of a mind, that is something to take some pride in.
Not that I've done it or you've done it, but it's part of who we are and it's part of what has informed our society for over 2000 years.
And to have pride in one's own culture is not to say that I'm a better person because of my of the history of others.
But it is to say that my capacity to be good has been protected and defended by other people.
The liberty for me to achieve virtue has been protected and defended by other people.
And if virtue is to exist, Then it must be surrounded by choice.
Because without choice there can be no virtue.
Whatever you are forced to do is neither good nor bad.
It is simply compliance.
And so wherever there is reason, wherever there is free speech, wherever there is room to debate, their virtue is.
And where there is compulsion, where there is control, where there is theocracy, their philosophy is not.
And philosophy is the natural enemy.
Of compulsion.
Because where there's compulsion, there's no need for philosophy.
And where there's philosophy, there's no need for compulsion.
So they exist in a predator-prey relationship throughout history.
Always have.
Hopefully won't.
Always in the future.
But we must, in the West, Preserve the conversation.
That's really all that comes down to.
This is where I have landed after battling culture.
As Nietzsche said, every philosopher battles Socrates in his mind, and I have battled culture in my mind.
And where I have landed is that If it is not philosophy that guards the conversation of mankind, that guards the capacity for us to have this kind of conversation without fear of whippings, lashings, beatings, stonings, beheadings, imprisonings, whatever allows the conversation to continue is essential for philosophy.
And if we could only be pen pals as philosophers, why then we would use The government mail system, if that's all there was.
The government mail system would be required for pen-palling in philosophy.
If the government had invented the quill, and that's the only way we could write down our thoughts, then we would use it.
And anything which allows the conversation to continue in the species, in the West, I will now defend and support.
And an error that I have made...
Which is not insignificant, but for which I am patient with myself.
The error that I have made is thinking that if I remove culture, people will find philosophy.
But when you remove culture, it's too wide a chasm for most people to get over, to get to philosophy.
And you've taken away their ground, they can't jump to the Elysium fields of reason.
And they fall into what seems like a bottomless chasm of nihilism, of hedonism, of hypersexuality and conformity and an addiction to status and cool and approval and sexual conquests and The gruesome self-erasure of self-medication through drugs,
alcohol, materialism, shallow conquests of inconsequential things.
I'm really good at Rubik's Cube.
Look at my boxing skills.
And that has been a rude awakening.
And I also thought we had more time.
You know, I thought we had more time.
I did not anticipate this migrant crisis.
I thought we had more time.
And we don't.
And so, given that we don't have...
If you have reasonable walls, but you think you need better walls, and you've got 10 years till an invasion comes, sure, rip down the walls and put up your better walls.
But if you have only reasonable walls and the invasion is here, you cannot rip down the walls to build better ones.
You have to go to town with the walls you got.
And that's where things are for me at the moment.
Yeah, well, I'm currently studying here in Germany, so it seems like even the most, the people who have the motivation to kind of combat this multi-culture, even they kind of hold this libertarian...
Well, there's a problem with me, with libertarians, and it's...
With libertarians is that they're willing to play ball with...
With cultural Marxism, in some sense, for them to kind of negotiate with them in a sense that, oh, well, we allow you to have the sexual revolution.
If you're in return, just let us have this little corner of free thought and whatnot.
But if...
But in my opinion, I think we just need a more nationalistic uprising and having emphasis on in-group preferences.
Well, no, and I think there's much to be said about that.
The libertarian fantasy that you can ally with the left and achieve freedom goes back at least to Murray Rothbard, if not before, who tried that very same program.
But what I've learned from the attackers of the West...
Imagine this.
So you're in a walled city and there's one particular spot that the people attacking your city keep aiming their big rocks at.
The catapult is hurling the big rocks.
And there's one spot that they keep attacking and keep attacking and keep attacking.
Or, you know, to take a more modern...
There's that scene from the first Star Wars where one of the guys goes up to, I don't know, Moff Tarkin and says, we have analyzed their attacks, sir, and there is a danger.
Right?
They're trying to get that one photon cannon or photon torpedo down through there.
It's only ray shielded, so you'll have to, right?
So if you want to know What is holding up the walls of your city?
You have to look at where the rocks are landing.
And the left attacks Western culture.
And so if you want to know what is holding your walls up, you look at where the rocks are landing.
And if you want to know what is sustaining your culture, look at where the abuse is concentrating.
And the abuse is concentrating on Western culture.
And that was something I missed a little bit or was hoping to fire back some shots.
But there's no time at the moment.
We have to defend ourselves with the walls we have, not with the walls we could have in the future.
And culture, you know, there's something in philosophy called The noble lie.
And it probably was around before Plato, but Plato talks about it in the Republic.
In religion it's called, not the noble lie, but a pious fiction.
And it is a way of having people conform to a particular thing that's good for them, but through storytelling rather than through philosophy.
Through rigorous philosophy.
And Socrates speaks of this society that is stratified.
Like socially it's stratified.
And there are three social classes in the Republic that Plato talks about.
And the question is...
Why would people be content with these social classes?
Why would they stay within these social classes?
Why would they resign themselves to where they were born into?
And this is an example of what Socrates says that you were going to tell them a Phoenician tale, a noble lie.
We're going to tell them this noble lie and this is how they will accept what is good for them.
So Socrates says...
The earth, as being their mother, delivered them, and now, as if their land were their mother and their nurse, they ought to take thought for her and defend her against any attack and regard the other citizens as their brothers and children of the selfsame earth.
While all of you in the city are brothers, we will say in our tale, Yet God, in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule, mingled gold in their generation, for which reason they are the most precious.
But in the helpers, silver and iron and brass, in the farmers and other craftsmen.
And as you are all akin, though for the most part you will breed after your kinds, it may sometimes happen that a golden father will beget a silver son, and that a golden offspring would come from a silver sire.
And that the rest would in like manner be born of one another.
So that the first and chief injunction that the God lays upon the rulers is that of nothing else they are to be such careful guardians and so intently observant As of the intermixture of these metals in the souls of their offspring.
And if sons are born to them with an infusion of brass or iron, they shall by no means give way to pity in their treatment of them, but shall assign each to the status due to his nature, and thrust them out among the artisans or the farmers.
And again, if from these there is born a son with unexpected gold or silver in his composition, they shall honor such and bid them go higher.
Some to the office of guardian, some to the assistantship, alleging that there is an oracle that the city shall then be overthrown when the man of iron or brass is its guardian, right?
So he had these sort of three classes, gold, silver, and iron, or gold, silver, and brass.
And the gold people were in charge, and the silver people were the artisans and the farmers, and all the way down to the bottom, manual laborers or slaves or whatever.
And They wanted the philosopher kings to be gold, and they, you know, some social mobility based on qualities of the person.
But if people believe that in their soul is mixed various metals, and that's where they should be in society, that's a noble lie.
Now, this, of course, is what happens when you don't have a free market, but you need to keep dumb people out of being in charge.
You have to create this noble lie.
And other people have written about this, Karl Popper, Leo Strauss, other people...
And so this noble lie, this is what I was sort of trying to get at with the first caller in my atheism video, which is that religion creates a self-inflicted and self-managed conscience for obeying social rules.
And if you take away religion, when you take away God, it turns out that everything is permitted and nothing...
Really matters and there's nothing to defend.
And so this noble lie of religion, how long does it take to transition to philosophy?
Well, I said it was a multi-generational process and I thought we had some time.
I was wrong.
And so I... Very happy to be throwing my intellectual weight back behind Western culture and Western civilization.
Not because I think it's the endpoint, but it is necessary for the walls that we have to shelter us and allow us to continue the conversation that can get us to the freedoms we need.
Yes.
One thing I've noticed is...
That it seems like the ones that are really pushing both for and against this multiculturalism are overwhelmingly atheists.
And one thing I don't understand from atheism is that they seem to believe that religion can be replaced by Kantian ethics.
And And it seems like both sides, in a way, believe that.
In your opinion, exactly what is this libertarian, or more or less your movement, I mean, what are they seeking to do with atheism?
Is it just a lack of belief overall, or is it just because it seems like the atheism that you guys kind of indulge in, in a way, in itself, is a culture.
I'm not sure I can fully extract a question out of that.
I was just trying to understand what...
What atheism is ultimately trying to do when they try to remove religion as an institution.
Because, like I said, they seem to believe that Kantian ethics or reason can overwhelm and replace religion as a cultural focal point.
I've not heard a lot of the arguments regarding Kantian ethics.
Is that what atheists believe?
Because Kant's specific purpose was to save religion from reason, so it seems a bit odd to me that atheists would found their approach on his ethics.
Well, at least what I've read from Kant is that you don't need religion to basically have all these...
These beliefs, the beliefs of I won't treat someone the way I wouldn't want to be treated.
And that...
Well, yeah, the argument is act as if the principle of your action became a general rule for everyone to follow.
Right?
So if you wouldn't steal, if everyone ended up stealing, then don't steal.
If you wouldn't hit people, if everyone had to hit people, you wouldn't hit people and so on.
Yeah, but I believe that...
I believe that cannot...
That could replace something religion has instilled, such as divine punishment.
Meaning that, you know, ultimately whatever you do, you will not get away with it.
There are three ways that behavior is managed.
You manage it yourself according to values that you subscribe to and are willing to submit your impulses to, which is the philosophical approach or the self-knowledge approach.
Number two, you are threatened...
Through some abstract agency, right?
Heaven or hell or whatever, some abstract non-corporeal entity.
I guess four, right?
So you manage yourself, you're threatened by heaven and hell, you're threatened by jail and rewarded by freedom or ostracism.
Right?
This is like, people who manage themselves and do good things don't need to be threatened with punishment because we strive after virtue because we want to be virtuous and We no more want to do ill than we want to hack off our own nutsack with a rusty blade.
And so the people who are philosophers who grow towards virtue as a plant grows towards sunlight, you don't need to scream at your roses to come forth and bud and pollinate and feed the bees and grow towards something.
That's what it does on its own, right?
So if you are...
Have self-knowledge, a commitment to virtue, and you have clear values and virtues that are achievable, attainable, and so on.
Then you don't need external threats.
However, that's not everyone.
Certainly not at the moment.
And so, given that very, very few people in the world have that level of self-actualization and that level of a commitment to virtue, how do you get people to not do bad shit if they have no inner commitment to virtue?
No inward conscience commitment to virtue.
This is the great challenge of organizing society.
Well, if you just have a whole bunch of people threatening to go and chop their arms off if they do something bad, well, that's one way of doing it, for sure, and that's a way that happens a lot in the world, in a lot of different places.
Or you can have internalized punishment, right?
Super Ego combats id with, you know, high Pokemon cards called Heaven and Hell.
And so that's another way you could do it.
Or the other way, which is, of course, the way that I suggest, is through ostracism, which we were talking about earlier with the bad people coming to the Island of Freedom.
And so that's pretty much it.
Now, of course, the goal of philosophy and of educators is to get people to be in the first category.
But very few people are in the first category.
So the question is, how are you going to make people good in the absence?
And these are basically two poles, right?
So the first is, well, I want to be good because I value virtue and I don't want to do evil and I want to retain the capacity to love and be loved and all these kinds of things, right?
That's the first one.
And that's like eating well because you want to be healthy.
Now the second one is for some external reward or goal.
That's sort of like, I'm going to do sit-ups not because I want to be healthy, but because I want abs, which will get me laid.
And so the first two are internal states.
One is internally motivated by a desire for virtue.
The second is an internal state, which is I don't want to go to...
Hell and I want to get into heaven.
It's still an internal state, but it's fear and greed based compliance rather than an internalization of values that you pursue because you want to be good and all that.
Now the second two, external threats of heaven, sorry, external threats of jail or freedom, threats and rewards of jail and freedom, or ostracism.
Well, these are external threats.
Threats that do not require you to internalize anything other than fear and desire.
And so atheists have not figured out category number one.
They have not got secular ethics.
Kantian ethics do not suffice.
I've gone into Kantian ethics before, and there's a reason why I wrote universally preferable behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics.
And that is because that is something that is missing from the atheist canon.
And without that, you don't get that, right?
So atheists have not figured out the internalized virtue philosophy paradigm.
So that's off the table.
Ah, number two is off the table, because if there's no God, there's no heaven and there's no hell.
And so you can't threaten people with supernatural punishments if they aren't good.
So the two internalized mechanisms of compliance with the good, atheism has not supplied the first and has detonated the second.
So what are they left with?
Well, Ostracism and attack, which you can see as you scroll through the comments on my video why I was wrong about atheism.
Ostracism, scorn, verbal abuse, and attack.
That's number one.
And number two, the state.
Why would people conform to goodness?
Well, you haven't given them a rational case for secular ethics.
You've gotten rid of heaven and hell, so the internal states don't suffice.
Say, oh, well, you know, Being good will make you happy.
Well, no.
Being bad makes people happy a whole lot.
Otherwise, you know, evil is the chocolate.
Right?
That tastes good.
Does you harm in the long run?
Tastes good in the moment.
And there are sadists and there are masochists and there are people who get the dopamine hit of power.
You can't say people, well, you know, people are just going to want to be good and equal and peaceful because it just makes us feel so good when there's monkey study after monkey study that shows as you climb higher in the social hierarchy, you get additional bursts of dopamine.
Power over others is a drug that makes people feel fabulous.
Fantastic.
Power is literally the cocaine of the brain.
So this idea that people are just going to be good because it makes them feel good.
No, that's just so anti-biological, anti-evolutionary, and anti-all studies on primates that I've ever heard of.
Anyway, so this is why atheism tends towards the verbal abuse of the social justice warrior phenomenon, which is ostracism.
Well, we can't put you in jail, but we can try and shit on your reputation, destroy your source of income, get you fired.
And that's why you get this peer attacks.
And the second is...
Increasing state regulation, because you have disconnected people from their internal sources of compliance with the good.
And so you have ostracism, which is the leftist verbal abuse, and you have the state, which is why you want endless regulations of people who are disagreeing with you about, I don't know, say global warming.
And so this is one of the reasons why Atheism tends towards these things.
Now, if they had worked as hard on creating a rational proof of secular ethics as they had on dismantling religion, we'd be in a whole different place.
But they didn't.
And so, if you want a bigger state in the modern semi-Christian West, if you want a bigger state, you have to attack religion.
Now, are atheists attacking religion because they're so dedicated to rationality?
And again, it's not, I don't know, we've got a couple hundred thousand people who've watched the atheism video at the moment, and I've been scrolling, I haven't read them all, but I've been scrolling through them here and there, and there are almost no rational arguments opposing what it is that I've said.
There's a lot of arrogant, contemptuous verbal abuse and so on, and a lot of straw men and a lot of people quoting logical fallacies like that prove something.
And of course, I pointed out, just go to an atheist and ask them, taxation equals force?
And the arguments that come back from atheists when they hear taxation equals force, it's exactly what you hear from religious people when you talk about atheism.
They say, well, every society hitherto has had a state, so we have to have a state.
Whereas Christians could say, every society hitherto has had religion, so we have to have religion.
Or people say, atheists say, well, without a state, there'd just be social chaos, a war of all against all.
And Christians say, well, without God, human beings will fall into a Mad Max parody savagery of attack upon everyone.
I mean, I could go on and on, but the arguments are all exactly the same.
Or atheists say, well, you have beneficial outcomes from the state.
And religious people can easily say there are many beneficial outcomes to religion.
It lowers stress, gives you community, longevity and health are associated with it.
No matter which way you cut it, it's exactly the same set of arguments.
You just have replaced God with the state.
And so it can't be that And again, this is just one...
This is not the only conversation I've ever had with atheists.
I've put out lots of videos before.
But this one was particularly instructive.
And I've actually recorded a rebuttal, but I've been holding off on it because I want to gather more information.
This is kind of an interesting study.
And so, are atheists atheists because they're relentlessly dedicated to reason?
No.
No.
I get better arguments from religious people than atheists in these videos.
But...
So what is it that they're focused on?
Well, if you want to expand the state, the cross is in the way.
If you want a bigger government, you have to take down the church.
Because the church is a competing methodology for conformity to social norms, in that it internalizes.
Either you love God and want to be good because it makes you happy, or you fear God and want to be good because you don't want to go to hell.
Both of those are internalized states, which do not require big governments, and there's a reason why.
The people who founded the smallest governments in the world were religious.
And they were post the religious war, so they knew they couldn't combine church and state.
And they said very openly, the founding fathers said very openly, that America can only survive as a Christian nation.
And I think I've gone into some reasons as to why that might be the case.
Now, does that mean that all societies to be virtuous must be Christian nations?
Again, we're talking down the road in the future.
I'd love for everyone to be a philosopher.
Right now, we just need to not have anti-philosophical, tyrannical third world migrants pouring into the last vestiges of free societies where the conversation about reason and virtue can continue.
So, down the road, of course, we would love to replace religion with philosophy.
But I think atheism in general, in general, lots of exceptions, but atheism in general views the state as a competitor.
Sorry, atheism in general views religion as a competitor.
And they remove religion not because they're so dedicated to reason and evidence, but they remove religion in the same way that you drain a swamp.
Because you want to build there.
And what you want to build is a bigger state on the smoking foundations of the church.
Yeah.
So, yeah, I've always seen atheism not as a belief, per se, but more as a counterculture.
At least that's the impression I get from it mostly.
I mean, obviously there's people who just have a hard time believing.
I mean, even I do sometimes.
But I think no serious Christian can be Christian without some sort of disbelief.
Well, and the other thing too is that Christianity, and I'm not speaking of course of all the flavors of Christianity, but Christianity As a whole views man in a fallen state.
That man is highly corruptible.
Man has been infected by original sin or by the domination of Satan over this material world.
And because Christians are very skeptical about the possibility of consistent human virtue, They fully accept how corruptible human beings are, and therefore the state is always going to be dangerous.
Whereas atheists somehow have this fantasy that their particular worldview is going to render them immune to the corruptions of power.
Now, I think that the way that the Christian belief system evolved was recognizing, without the science, recognizing the degree to which Political power is an addictive drug that corrupts human beings.
As Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt.
Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
And so saying that human beings are fallible and power corrupts them because of Satan is kind of a way, before you know about dopamine and can measure its effects on the brain, of saying people can't be trusted with power because they go crazy and become evil.
Now, it's funny that atheists who believe in evolution...
And who understand our physiology is similar to apes, won't look at those ape studies that say apes that climb up in the social hierarchy and end up dominant over other apes become drug addicts to power, and that's not good.
It's an incentive, right?
It's an incentive to climb up the hierarchical ladder because that's going to give you access to more breeding and so on.
But atheists, even more than religious people, because atheists have the science behind it, Should be fully aware that power corrupts.
And should be even more in the forefront of wanting a smaller state than Christians do.
Because Christians say that power corrupts because they believe in Satan and the fall and the Adam and Eve and the apple and the Garden of Eden and all that.
That's their noble lie, so to speak.
But atheists actually have the science to see exactly how and why physiologically, biologically, biochemically power corrupts.
And do they say, do the atheists say, wow, you know, based on all of these studies, wow, based on all of these studies, power totally corrupts human beings.
We no more want to give power to people than we want to give cocaine to children.
Because it's going to mess them up.
So we better start dismantling the state because it's a giant dopamine factory of corruption.
They got all the science.
Do they say that?
No.
Because science is largely owned by the state.
Science is largely paid by the state.
And can we go to priests to get an objective view of religion?
We cannot.
Can we go to scientists, paid for, protected by the state, for a clear and unbiased view of the state?
We cannot.
Got a PhD?
You're in a state cartel.
Can you be objective about the institution called the state that protects you from competition and raises your market value enormously by requiring a licensing?
You can't.
What if you get government grants from the state?
So, do you think Christianity, as I do, has given a...
Has made some cultures that are superior kind of morally than others, like for example...
No, no, sorry, sorry to interrupt, but just to be really clear, and I'll keep this brief, and I apologize for interrupting, but that's before the thought, you know, they're all like trains rushing past the tunnel of my brain.
But Christianity is not Christianity.
Christianity is Christianity plus Greek or Roman culture.
No, seriously.
This is really, really important.
Because Greek or Roman culture, philosophy, Roman law, the whole...
And it's not like they didn't...
Like what ISIS is doing, just going through and nuking and burning everything.
That's not what Christianity did.
Christianity looked backward and had massive debates about whether Socrates got into heaven or not.
Yeah.
That's an incredible thing to think about.
Christianity is not Christianity.
Christianity is Christianity plus...
Greco-Roman philosophy, law, art, rhetoric, science, math, the whole deal.
And because they could not match those achievements, they inherited and built upon them.
At least early on, right?
The Dark Ages and so on.
So this is really, really important.
There's no such thing about just Christianity.
Christianity plus Greco-Roman philosophy and culture and civilization, which was a lot more secular than the Dark Ages in many ways.
So the combination of the two, it's Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman, you know, plus a bunch of other flavors, and some of which, of course, comes from the noble classicism of the Islamic world.
I mean, without the Islamic world, we don't have any Aristotle.
And the Islamic theologians were studying the Greeks and the Romans back in the day, which was incredible and fantastic.
And, you know, again, they got stuck in medieval nonsense just like the West did for a long time.
But it's not Christianity alone.
You cannot look at Christianity alone because it has, for all of its history, wrestled with The Greeks and the Romans in particular, and in particular the Greeks.
So the Romans were more pragmatic and the Greeks were more theoretical to take a very wide swath.
But the reconciliation between Christianity and non- or anti-Christian Greek theorizing and non- or anti-Christian, at least until later in the empire, Roman pragmatism and competence, that has been the great melting pot that has produced The amazing capacities of Western civilization.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, Christianity is the reason why We were able to protect these Roman and Greek ideas from Islamic invasion.
So that's why I kind of said that, more or less.
Well, you know, technically, well, sorry, technically, they were lost to the West and preserved in the Islamic world and then returned.
It was the Islamic world that taught Christians about Aristotle.
Later in the Dark Ages, and really the end of the Dark Ages could arguably be considered to have coincided with the resurgence of the Greeks and the Romans.
In particular, Roman law was huge.
You know, once you started to get some rigorous agricultural improvements, I've gone into these before, I won't bore everyone with them again, then you began to get excess crops.
Excess crops means you can have A class of intellectuals, you can have cities, and they didn't base Western law on theology, they based Western law on Roman law.
If you want to look at the foundation of Western law, it's Roman law.
Yeah, but what happened to Turkey and Armenia?
I mean, Armenia, you never hear about Armenian terrorist attacks.
And I think it's largely because they're Orthodox Christian over Turkish being Islamic.
And if Islam is...
Well, I'm sure...
I've heard that too, that Islam did protect a lot of...
Greek and Roman law and ethic.
But, I mean, if they actually assimilated it into their culture, like the Christians did.
That's also before several hundred years of cousin marriages, right?
No, seriously.
I mean, it's 10 to 18 points of IQ right off the genetic base because of consanguineous cousin marriage.
Yeah.
So this is back when they were not undermined by this particular practice.
Yeah, but then, yeah, I'd still hold Christianity as a contributive factor to advanced civilization because I... I agree.
No, listen, I agree.
I completely agree.
And the one thing that Christianity shields from materialism is free will.
And because Christians value free will so much, there are strong arguments against compulsion in the realm of religion.
Because you have to choose God.
You cannot be forcefully converted.
You have to choose God or the choice is meaningless.
The adherence to God without choice is not valid.
Because God can see if you're doing it based on compulsion or whatever.
He can see whether you truly love God or whether you're merely complying.
And I know that in Islam it says there is no compulsion in matters of religion, but nonetheless, there does seem to be quite a lot in terms of how Sharia law is implemented.
And so the idea of forcing people to convert is not something that can be easily sustained in Christian theology, which is why Christianity has developed such Cunning linguists, right?
Such amazing orators and writers and so on, because in many ways, and again, there's lots of exceptions, but there's a stronger argument in Christian theology that you need to spread the faith by the word, not the sword, than there is in other religions.
Mm-hmm.
So could this breakdown of Christian culture, this is what I think, could this breakdown of Christian culture be contributing to this kind of, I guess, wanting to bring down could this breakdown of Christian culture be contributing to this kind of, I guess, wanting to bring Yeah, I think there's a strong case to be made for that.
And given that I want the conversation To continue, the philosophical conversation to continue.
My question is, do I side with the atheists in the protection of Western culture, or do I side with the Christians in the protection of the Western culture?
And that's where I'm wumbling.
I do not see the atheists of having a strong enough commitment to continuing the conversation to allow it to continue.
And atheism has far more to fear from Islam than it has to fear from Christianity.
The enemy of atheism is true, aggressive, theocratic fundamentalism.
You don't get that in Christianity.
Christianity allows you to leave the church and it's fine.
You try and leave the church.
Islam and its apostasy is punishable by death according to certain of the laws.
So atheists have far more to fear from Muslims than they do from Christians.
So why would they not ally themselves with Christians in defense of Western culture against the atheism that will subjugate the Christians and kill the atheists?
I mean, again, according to some historical precedents and according to some aspects of Sharia law.
Why?
Why are the atheists continuing to attack the Christians, even though attacking the Christians opens up the gateways to more aggressive theocracies, which will hunt down and kill atheists?
Why?
Well, that's an interesting question.
I think I've worked to answer it sometime.
And, you know, we say, oh, well, you know, Islam needs to go through its reformation.
Well, okay, what's the evidence?
Based on what?
Well, with cousin marriage, you're not going to get a whole lot of philosophy coming out.
They're not wrestling as the Christians did with the Greco-Roman tradition.
And it's, you know, it's a tyrannical, violent, top-down, brutal, theocratic hierarchy in a lot of Islamic countries.
Where the hell is this reformation to come from?
I mean, somebody even questions the value of certain aspects of Islamic teachings, and they can be brutally punished.
There's no reformation coming out of that, that I can see.
Yeah, I mean...
Whenever I have these conversations with my colleagues in the university, I'm always fighting two fronts in the sense that I try to argue against this mass immigration, but then usually the people that agree with me Always attack me for having Christian beliefs and saying like, oh, well, how can you...
It is inherently Christian beliefs that allowed these welcoming of migrants and whatnot.
And...
Well, and they would quote the Pope, right?
Who's washing the feet of migrants and invited them into his house and all that, right?
Yeah, they would quote that.
that and it would also say like well once we get rid of uh islam like let's say we even side with the christians then we'll have you to deal with basically this is what it yeah well okay i mean I mean, I'm not frightened of Christians.
I mean, your Christianity is not frightening to me.
In fact, I'm always surprising myself in how warmly I feel towards Christians.
And, you know, maybe this is my origin as a Christian, or maybe it's just my general slow acceptance of the basic brutal facts that reality keeps pounding into my brain.
But...
The Catholic Church as well, it's important to remember that so much of Western culture has been highly feminized.
The Catholic Church has been highly feminized.
And because it's turned so much towards, you know, basically a Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan movie, a lot of the men have become much less interested and involved in the church.
And again, we're back to this.
Women have sympathy, particularly childless women or women who don't have a lot of kids have massive amounts of, quote, sympathy for people who are being hard done by because all their maternal instincts are kind of squeezed through one little narrow aperture and lose all sense, proportion, and perspective.
So the fact that this increasingly feminized Catholic church is all cucked up with regards to immigration is pretty...
It's pretty understandable.
I mean, it's sort of one of the reasons why higher education has become this estrogen festival, right?
Where it's almost close to two-thirds of undergraduate students are women.
Okay, well, that's going to have a huge amount of impact.
And one of those impacts is that people are going to need safe spaces and get really hysterical when their beliefs are challenged.
You know, I don't mean to be overly stereotypical, but that's not unknown behavior among women.
I'm used to rigorous and robust and aggressive debates.
I see.
Well, man, there was something I wanted to add, but I can't exactly remember.
I think...
Oh, yeah, I remember now.
I think...
Well, we all know what a Christian utopian ideals are kind of...
I mean, we all know what a Christian utopia would look like if it would ever exist.
I've always wondered what...
An atheist.
Like, if Christianity were to kind of, like, sideswept in the cultural realm, like, how would atheism replace it?
And I think you talked about earlier that there's, like, absolutely no way that it can or not, but, I mean, I think what I'm trying to ask is, what is Even though it's impossible, what is it that they're really striving for?
What atheists are really striving for?
Yeah, well, as in how to replace Christianity in culture.
Well, they're not.
I mean, I would argue that they are replacing Christianity with the state.
Because Christianity is about subjecting yourself to moral ideals, whereas the state is about controlling people through force.
And so, for people who are hungering for power and who can't accept religious tenets, the state is a good place to go.
I mean, everybody wants their dopamine who doesn't have self-knowledge.
So, I guess Marxism would probably be more or less the atheist utopia.
Well, again, it's hard to put atheists in one category, right?
I mean, there are the objectivist atheists who are small government.
There are people like myself who are the anarchist atheists, and there are, you know...
So it's a big...
Well, I heard...
But I would say...
And Ayn Rand did attempt to work on secular ethics, and I think she did some good work, and I hate to sound all kinds of...
Self-aggrandizing, but I think I closed off a few loopholes that previous secular philosophers have missed, let's say.
But atheists who aren't working on providing an emotionally compelling substitute for religious ideals are consciously or unconsciously fueling the growth of the state, because if you can't internalize, then they need to be externalized through ostracism and through Coercion, and that's social justice warriors in the state.
All right.
I guess my final question for you would be then, how do we work together on this, honestly?
At least for the ones that, in protecting Western civilization, I mean, there's a common ground that we all hold, and it's It's simple.
You be a hero or pick a hero.
People are going to have to tower above history.
They're going to have to become huge.
Like a colossus he bestrides the world, as somebody said about Julius Caesar in Shakespeare.
You have to either be a hero or pick a hero.
And if you don't feel like being a hero, pick a hero and get...
Really behind that person.
If that person's me, get behind me.
Share, like, subscribe, bother people.
Be the gadfly.
Send them information.
Get them involved in the conversation.
Get them to call in.
Get them to consume my material.
If it's someone else, get them to do that.
If you want to be the hero, be the hero.
But either, you know, there's the old thing which says, lead, follow, or get out the way.
And that's where we are.
If you want to be a leader, if you want to be a hero, step up.
There's plenty of room and God knows you're needed.
And if you want to be a follower, fine.
Be a follower.
Get behind the person and promote what it is they're doing.
Or get out the way.
Lead or follow or get out the way.
Pick a hero or be a hero.
That is what...
Because heroism is going to be necessary either way.
And we'd rather have the heroism of words than the heroism of war.
And when the heroism of words fails, the next step is the bloody heroism of war.
Yeah.
I mean...
Looking at how things are in Europe now, I think there's no saving it.
I've come to the conclusion where it's either going to dissipate into this multi-culture or we're going to have a war.
And I hate to say it, but I really do hope we go down the warpath.
I just don't see much life worth living if you just kind of live in this mesh of, I don't know, like, multicultural.
I don't know how to explain it.
You'd rather die on your feet than live on your knees.
In other words, yes.
I mean, if anyone has ever gone to a major European city, it's very depressing to see.
I mean, but...
I was going to go.
I was going to go.
I'm not going.
I can't look.
I can't watch.
It's too horrible.
It's awful.
That's like a heartbreak I can't even talk about.
I usually avoid large cities.
I go to the little towns and stuff because they hold some substance.
But if you go to a major town, there's this gloominess of Of self-hatred.
You talk to people on the streets and this glassy-eyed expression whenever you're asking them about anything that's remotely cultural.
It's kind of...
Yeah.
I kind of regret coming here, but I think I needed to see it before it's gone kind of thing.
Well, yeah.
Maybe you've got a stronger stomach that I can't see.
But just some facts because I was talking about Catholicism.
Yeah.
In 1987, women were almost 50% more likely to attend weekly mass.
The 52% of women went to church, only 35% of men.
In 1987, 58% of women compared to 39% of men said the Catholic Church was among the most important parts of their life.
By 1993, the percentage dropped to 49% for women and 37% for men.
And the numbers have sort of continued to fall and they're getting more even between the genders.
But this is the environment that the Pope grew up in, the current Pope.
He grew up in a matriarchal church, strangely enough.
Again, you know, he's a patriarch and all that.
But he is basically somebody who's gotten to power during a time of female domination of the Catholic Church.
And as a result, it's all sentimentality and there's no strength and no rigor and no, you know, I mean, it's just got cucked up entirely.
No, I'd always make the argument that giving the vote to women was kind of a bad idea.
After that...
Well, you know, they should have just taken the vote away from everyone and gotten rid of the state, but that wasn't about to happen during a time of massive wars.
It's interesting, you know, like Wyoming.
You know, we don't talk enough about Wyoming in this show.
Let me tell you something interesting.
Wyoming was the first state to give women the vote.
Do you have any idea why Wyoming gave women the vote and started off this floodgate?
Not enough people living there?
Well, it's true there were only about 8,000 men living in Wyoming.
How many women do you think there were?
No idea.
About a thousand.
So you had 8 to 1, 8 to 1 penises to vaginas, right?
So the men were like, man, I want to get laid.
And Wyoming, you know, kind of dry.
So what are we going to do?
I know.
Let's attract women to the state by giving them the vote.
And so basically it's because Wyoming guys wanted to get laid that this sort of opening up to women getting the vote started.
And again, I don't want women to have any different rights than men do.
I just don't want anyone to have the right to vote.
But as I've talked about before, when women got the vote, they got so without property requirements because generally they had less of their own personal property than men.
And they got the vote without the requirement of being drafted.
So again, basically, young, dumb and full of cum were the men in Wyoming.
And that's one of the first dominoes that got us to where we are.
It's actually very funny you say that.
I notice a lot of my colleagues, the ones with higher libidos, they sympathize more with the feminists than I do.
I hardly have a libido.
Because they want to get laid, and women are the gatekeepers of sex, and that's the power they use to To get what they want.
And, you know, women's sex drive is only about a third of the male sex drive.
And if you do other measurements compared to like how often lesbians have sex versus gay men having sex.
Gay men having sex is like many times a week.
Lesbians like once or twice a month.
Lesbian bed death, it's called.
And so because, you know, women have lower sex drives than men, so men are not in much of a position to negotiate, which is why women are the gatekeepers.
Whoever wants the deal less is the one who dictates the terms.
That's how nature has designed the whole system to work.
I don't know if you, I mean, you're a young guy, right?
So you probably remember even more clearly than I do what it was like before puberty when...
Girls were just, you know, kind of annoying or, you know, why would I want to play those stupid games and, you know, when you can actually concentrate and shit, right?
I guess less for you if your sex drive is lower.
But women have so much power in sexual or romantic negotiations because their sex drive is so much lower than men's.
Women have so much power.
You combine women's power plus the state.
I mean, forget it.
It's funny how women could really catch into that, though.
They know when they could manipulate someone through their sexuality and whatnot.
I don't know if this is more of a subconscious or evolutionary thing.
Well, I mean, all animals are designed to know when to exploit available resources, right?
Yeah.
So that's not too shocking to me.
It'd be kind of shocking if it wasn't that way.
All right, I'm going to end here.
And I have, my daughter had a bit of a cold.
I think I'm fighting it.
I know, I think I've had it before, so I'm sure I'll survive and it won't get quite as froggy and bleh as it was before.
But I think I will close down the show now.
And thanks everyone, of course, so much.
For sticking me with the conversation that is still evolving for me.
I didn't have everything assembled perfectly when I started this conversation.
And I appreciate people's patience as I continue to work through these issues.
I said at the very beginning that I was always going to bow down to evidence.
And that was the foundation of philosophy and the foundation of a rational life.
And as evidence keeps changing, I have to keep adapting and evolving what it is that I'm talking about.
And I appreciate...
That people are willing to sort of follow me and help guide me as I help guide others, I hope, on this journey.
It's a great privilege to be part of this collective conversation.
And I really appreciate people's support if you do want to help out.
With the support of this show, freedomaderadio.com slash donate and fdrurl.com slash amazon to help us out if you're going shopping, fdrpodcast.com.
You see this video?
Like, subscribe, share.
Give me your comments below and have me enjoy the macro-studded keyboard with not an argument.
But oh, actually don't have me enjoy that.
Give me a real argument.
Call in, of course, if you disagree with what I'm saying.
